Baha`i:Islam::Christianity:Judaism

[bananabrain]

*bump*

[lunamoth]

bump (not seeing page 3)

[Popeyesays]

"i agree with this too. nonetheless, there was a point at which jesus' followers denied fundamental tenets of judaism broke the link, thus causing it to be a different religion. you have to understand, popeyesays, that we don't consider revelation to be a universal continuum. it is of course not only possible but probable that G!D has chosen other ways to convey Divine messages to the nations of the world, but the mechanism of covenantal relationship that judaism has with G!D is fundamentally different."

The reason Jesus denies the "fundamental tenets" is that He DOES maintain that revelation is a continuum. That you don't like that claim is immaterial to His making it and to others accepting it as truth. That you claim strict adherence to the truth of tradition does not mean that tradition is founded in fact. Blind adherence to tradition may or may not be good. It is as good as the accuracy of the tradition. To use 'tradition' as logical proof is pointless. Are Hassids Jews? Of course they are, though they are not as picky about the same traditions that other Jewish sects might be.

Offense is either taken or not taken. You can be as offended as you please by what I believe and it has no effect on my belief. That you choose to be offended by what I might say is your choice and not mine. Your whole argument boils down to this is false because I SAY it is false. I consider that empty of reason.

AND

"it is inconceivable for us that this is even arguable. that's what i mean by denying fundamental tenets of judaism. if the messiah had come it would be inconceivable that the messianic prophecies should not be fulfilled. are we all living in israel? is every jew religious? is there universal peace (and probably vegetarianism)? the problem with this should really be self-evident."

Heck, just because you find it inconceivable doesn't mean others don't find it incontrovertible. Are you all physically living in Israel? No. Are you all symbolically living in Israel? That's arguable. Is every Jew religious? I know several Jews who are deeply religious as Baha`i's. Do you expect the lion and the lamb to lie down physically together? Should you? Again symbology is truth too.

If I can't speak my mind without you screaming at me to "SHUT UP!" then it is not me who is abandoning logic for violence.

Regards,
Scott

[dauer]

Are Hassids Jews? Of course they are, though they are not as picky about the same traditions that other Jewish sects might be.

Just a note. The hasidim made some initial changes from established practice (e.g. using a different type of knife to shecht, davenning shacharit later in the day) that were justifiable within the bounds of halachah, and not outside of it, but now almost all of them could be considered ultra-orthodox anyway. So as far as pickiness, they're some of the pickiest usually.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

Blind adherence to tradition may or may not be good. It is as good as the accuracy of the tradition. To use 'tradition' as logical proof is pointless. Are Hassids Jews? Of course they are, though they are not as picky about the same traditions that other Jewish sects might be.[/COLOR]

But how does one determine where revelation leaves off and tradition starts? The Bible is tradition. What makes the words of Abdul Baha and Shoghi Effendi any less tradition and more authoritative than the Torah, the Epistles of Paul, or the Hadith? If Jews, Christians and Muslim can't trust our traditions to point us to the Messiah, why should we be able to trust the traditions of the Baha'i Faith?

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

But how does one determine where revelation leaves off and tradition starts? The Bible is tradition. What makes the words of Abdul Baha and Shoghi Effendi any less tradition and more authoritative than the Torah, the Epistles of Paul, or the Hadith? If Jews, Christians and Muslim can't trust our traditions to point us to the Messiah, why should we be able to trust the traditions of the Baha'i Faith?

Hi Luna,

How does one tell, one takes responsibility for deciding and allows others the same right. One does not scream "Shut Up!!" and expect it to be persuasive.

As to tradition in the Baha`i Faith, offer a tradition in the Baha`i Faith for example.

But one should ask oneself, is that within the purview ofthis particular topic? Is it obvious that the Baha`i Faith is a product of Islam as Christianity is a product of Judaism and answer THAT question before taking off on a tangent, or -- God forbid, a 'wild-goose'?

Regards,
Scott

Regards,
Scott

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

Hi Luna,

How does one tell, one takes responsibility for deciding and allows others the same right. One does not scream "Shut Up!!" and expect it to be persuasive.

I have not seen anyone screaming 'Shut up!" I've seen a heated discussion on how the concept of Progressive Revelation can be found insulting and non-conducive to interfaith discussion, especially when presented in an insensitive manner that implies that the adherants of the other Abrahamic faiths are somehow non-thinking blind followers of 'man-made doctrine.' Some members here have a rather in-you-face style that not only belittles and condescends, but has the air of a threat as well (as in you are obligated to investigate the Baha'i Faith or suffer the spiritual consequences).

As to tradition in the Baha`i Faith, offer a tradition in the Baha`i Faith for example.

All of the writings of Abdul Baha and Shoghi Effendi are tradition, and it's not possible to with 100% certainty sort out the authentic writings of the Bab and Baha'u'llah.

But one should ask oneself, is that within the purview ofthis particular topic? Is it obvious that the Baha`i Faith is a product of Islam as Christianity is a product of Judaism and answer THAT question before taking off on a tangent, or -- God forbid, a 'wild-goose'?

Well, you brought up the idea about tradition so I was following your lead. But yes, Christianity arose from the backdrop of Judaism and the Baha'i Faith arose from the backdrop of Islam.

What's to discuss?

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

I have not seen anyone screaming 'Shut up!" I've seen a heated discussion on how the concept of Progressive Revelation can be found insulting and non-conducive to interfaith discussion, especially when presented in an insensitive manner that implies that the adherants of the other Abrahamic faiths are somehow non-thinking blind followers of 'man-made doctrine.' Some members here have a rather in-you-face style that not only belittles and condescends, but has the air of a threat as well (as in you are obligated to investigate the Baha'i Faith or suffer the spiritual consequences).

All of the writings of Abdul Baha and Shoghi Effendi are tradition, and it's not possible to with 100% certainty sort out the authentic writings of the Bab and Baha'u'llah.



Well, you brought up the idea about tradition so I was following your lead. But yes, Christianity arose from the backdrop of Judaism and the Baha'i Faith arose from the backdrop of Islam.

What's to discuss?

Well, effectively I was told to "shut up":

"in other words:

baha'i supersedes islam, like islam supersedes christianity, like christianity supersedes judaism. which basically translates as:

MY RELIGION'S BETTER THAN YOURS.

you idiots. you absolute nincompoops. until you can get past this nonsense - and it is nonsense - you can't actually have *dialogue*. what part of this don't you understand? nobody, and i mean nobody, is going to enjoy somebody else coming along and saying "oh, by the way, my prophet fulfilled your religion and although all religions are of course brothers and we are all on the road to G!D, basically since our prophet/holy texts is better/more recent/fulfils your prophecies you might as well accept that your religion is past its sell-by-date and you ought really to join ours if you want the most recent revelation from G!D." and that's basically what i hear from baha'is all the time and muslims and christians as well more often than not. it's an intellectually dishonest argument and is nothing more than triumphalism wearing a moustache.

jews have been on the receiving end of all this stupidity for more than 2000 years and we're not about to accept it now any more than muslims are about to take it from baha'is or christians are about to take it from muslims. what are you going to do when the spaghetti monsterists or whoever come to the baha'is and make the same argument? are you going to accept it? i think not."

All this in the role of a moderator?

I think the existence of primary documents in the archive building in Haifa pretty much demolish the "tradition" point of view. One can examine the originals, at least photostats of the originals which are kept in inert atmospheres at constant temprature and humidity.

But all this sturm und drang can be avoided by simply sticking to the topic.

I didn't bring up the issue, Bananabrain did.

Regards,
Scott

[lunamoth]

Hi Scott, Thank you for the reply.

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

Well, effectively I was told to "shut up":

"in other words:

baha'i supersedes islam, like islam supersedes christianity, like christianity supersedes judaism. which basically translates as:

MY RELIGION'S BETTER THAN YOURS.

you idiots. you absolute nincompoops. until you can get past this nonsense - and it is nonsense - you can't actually have *dialogue*. what part of this don't you understand?[nobody, and i mean nobody, is going to enjoy somebody else coming along and saying "oh, by the way, my prophet fulfilled your religion and although all religions are of course brothers and we are all on the road to G!D, basically since our prophet/holy texts is better/more recent/fulfils your prophecies you might as well accept that your religion is past its sell-by-date and you ought really to join ours if you want the most recent revelation from G!D." and that's basically what i hear from baha'is all the time and muslims and christians as well more often than not. ]it's an intellectually dishonest argumen and is nothing more than triumphalism wearing a moustache.

jews have been on the receiving end of all this stupidity for more than 2000 years and we're not about to accept it now any more than muslims are about to take it from baha'is or christians are about to take it from muslims. what are you going to do when the spaghetti monsterists or whoever come to the baha'is and make the same argument? are you going to accept it? i think not."

As I said, I don't see where anyone was told to shut up and I see an honest reaction to the doctrine of Progressive Revelation/Triumphalism. BB's right, it's the same thing any literally interpreted Triumphalistic religion teaches and it is inherently aggressive toward the precedent religion.

All this in the role of a moderator?

I believe BB was speaking as a member here, which he is entitled to do. When we are acting as moderators we try to make that clear in our posts to keep them disctinctive from our own opinions.

I think the existence of primary documents in the archive building in Haifa pretty much demolish the "tradition" point of view. One can examine the originals, at least photostats of the originals which are kept in inert atmospheres at constant temprature and humidity.

That very well may be good for establishing the words of Baha'u'llah and the Bab, but the problems of forgery and tampering with the original works has already been brought up in the Baha'i forum. Your faith in the accuracy of these documents is part of your tradition.

Regardless, my main point is that anything at all written by Abdul Baha or Shoghi Effendi or the UHJ is Baha'i Tradition. The Lights of Guidance is a prime example of Baha'i Tradition.

But all this sturm und drang can be avoided by simply sticking to the topic.

I didn't bring up the issue, Bananabrain did.

Regards,
Scott

Fair enough. I don't see anyone yet contesting the point of your OP.

Yours,
luna

[Popeyesays]

Thank you for recognizing that I did not bring up the theme of triumphalism with my original post. I was bothered by the fact that someone might declare I DID and succeed in derailing the intent of the post by erecting a strawman.

As to triumphalism, every revelation is triumphalist in nature, including that of Moses. The whole setting of Moses' Revelation is the triumph of God's word over Pharoah. But perhaps that should be taken up in another thread. I welcome anyone to do so, I cringe from doing it myself because I don't really want to cause someone else to scream insults at me.

Regards,
Scott

[bananabrain]

popeyesays - actually, this has turned into quite an interesting discussion and you particularly are clearly engaging in it, so as far as you yourself are concerned, i am sorry for the vehemence of my tone. it is the result not of this discussion alone but of a gradual buildup of annoyance with what comes across to me (and clearly to others) as a general evasive smugness i have come to associate with baha'i approaches to interfaith dialogue as well as a long-exhausted patience with supercessionists. my comments should be taken as aimed at the *attitude* and not personally at the people - and for that position i am not in the least sorry. as an aside, i may be a moderator, but i also speak on my own behalf. i generally preface moderator comments with a little <mod>tag</mod> so it's obvious - and it is not my practice to sanction damfool comments but to address them directly. nothing on this thread has so far required that.

furthermore, i am not saying "shut up", exactly. what i am saying is that the attitude i have a problem with is not conducive to interfaith dialogue, which is why i have a problem with it. it is about as welcome as someone coming to the board and trying to prove to me that jesus was the messiah and that i am going to hell. i'm never going to be that patient with people who either ought to know better, or are just choosing to ignore what in dialogue is common courtesy. now, i accept totally that baha'is may not realise just what it is about their discourse that gets up people's noses, but the fact is that it does. i'm doing you a favour by pointing it out so we can address it and find some common ground. i appreciate, of course, that going in "all guns blazing", as it were, we start off on quite adversarial terms, but it seemed to me that this was the only way to get your collective attention. clearly the people without the wherewithal to conduct a well-informed discussion have been stymied and those left can now get on with the real business.

now, to continue:

The reason Jesus denies the "fundamental tenets" is that He DOES maintain that revelation is a continuum. That you don't like that claim is immaterial to His making it and to others accepting it as truth.

firstly, i am not aware that jesus actually ever made claims of specific revelation to himself - i thought that was what the point of his statement "i've not come to add another jot or tittle to the Law"; feel free to correct me via the relevant sources. similarly, i am not aware that the new testament is deemed to be revealed (with the exception, i expect, of the book of revelations) which makes it a very different kettle of fish from the "old". i would argue that the theological position of revelatory continuum is just that - theology. of course, theology is a matter of opinion too. in short, i don't see jesus making this claim at all - i see it as something that is made by later opinion in order to square the circle of breaking with traditional judaism.

That you claim strict adherence to the truth of tradition does not mean that tradition is founded in fact.

of course not. but in order for it to be challenged it must be proved that tradition is *not* founded in fact and, even so, trying to disprove a deeply-held tradition is surely a fairly aggressive act, i'd say. i also
think you're considering "tradition" as something fairly simplistic. a tradition to, say, give presents on hannukah is very different from an accurate transgenerational transmission of an enormous legal system, which, of course, we have done successfully for at least 2500 years. it can certainly be established as incontrovertible fact that today's jewish observance is for all intents and purposes the same as that which was described in the mishnah, which was redacted in the C1st-2nd. so that's 2000 years of truth for a start.

Blind adherence to tradition may or may not be good.

*blind* adherence isn't. but who is saying that my adherence is necessarily blind? give me a for-instance.

It is as good as the accuracy of the tradition.

even discounting, for a moment, the transmission of our legal traditions, you must concede that a culture that was capable of transmitting the masoretic text for even the last 1500 years (which i don't think anyone disagrees with) doesn't have a problem with accuracy.

You can be as offended as you please by what I believe and it has no effect on my belief. That you choose to be offended by what I might say is your choice and not mine.

of course - and you are, of course, free to believe as you wish. actually, i am not even offended by it. that would be a waste of my time. however, it should not surprise you that introducing such a point of view as a suitable subject for interfaith dialogue should result in a frank examination of its own merits.

Your whole argument boils down to this is false because I SAY it is false.

not at all. my argument is that you are saying that baha'i and judaism are part of one continuous chain of revelation. i am saying that whereas, from the point of view of baha'i, i can see why you would think that, from the point of view of judaism, it cannot be substantiated. blithely assuming that it is self-evident and, furthermore, refusing to acknowledge the devaluing of the perceived earlier traditions implicit in this point of view, is tantamount to refusing to acknowledge judaism's right to define itself without reference to later belief systems. you are correct to point out that we do so in the case of *earlier* belief systems (e.g. pharaoh-worship or "seven nations" idolatry) and, i dare say, i ought to concede that this gives you some right to do so yourself. however, we are defining ourselves in terms of what we're *not*, not requiring these other systems to agree that we have a particular relationship with them and, i believe, there is a significant difference.

just because you find it inconceivable doesn't mean others don't find it incontrovertible. Are you all physically living in Israel? No. Are you all symbolically living in Israel? That's arguable. Is every Jew religious? I know several Jews who are deeply religious as Baha`i's. Do you expect the lion and the lamb to lie down physically together? Should you?

that's my entire point - these proofs of messiahship have *not* been fulfilled. lions are not vegetarian, as it were. which means that the messiah hasn't come yet, so it couldn't have been jesus. i believe that's a QED.

Is it obvious that the Baha`i Faith is a product of Islam as Christianity is a product of Judaism and answer THAT question before taking off on a tangent, or -- God forbid, a 'wild-goose'?

precisely. but a "product of" something is not necessarily a logical development of it, as the "azurite order of melchizedek" or whatever it's called and its loony new age fellow travellers ought to demonstrate.

I think the existence of primary documents in the archive building in Haifa pretty much demolish the "tradition" point of view. One can examine the originals, at least photostats of the originals which are kept in inert atmospheres at constant temprature and humidity.

i don't understand what this refers to. would you mind clarifying it?

I was bothered by the fact that someone might declare I DID and succeed in derailing the intent of the post by erecting a strawman.

fair enough - i hope you agree that i am now definitely proceeding ad argumentum (or whatever the phrase is) rather than ad hominem.

As to triumphalism, every revelation is triumphalist in nature, including that of Moses. The whole setting of Moses' Revelation is the triumph of God's word over Pharoah.

you are quite right to point this out. however, this is precisely the point. pharaoh's religion was based on falsehood, wickedness and immorality and it is those over which G!D's Will triumphed. we are not pointing at an identifiable contemporary group and saying that we are telling them who they are and that they are mistaken and we know better than they themselves do. also, we were not trumping an earlier revelation. we were liberating ourselves from oppression and injustice. christians can hardly fairly claim that they were required to liberate themselves from the oppression and injustice of judaism with the benefit of hindsight and accurate information, although this was certainly the position of many of them at least until modern times.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

popeyesays - actually, this has turned into quite an interesting discussion and you particularly are clearly engaging in it, so as far as you yourself are concerned, i am sorry for the vehemence of my tone. it is the result not of this discussion alone but of a gradual buildup of annoyance with what comes across to me (and clearly to others) as a general evasive smugness i have come to associate with baha'i approaches to interfaith dialogue as well as a long-exhausted patience with supercessionists. my comments should be taken as aimed at the *attitude* and not personally at the people - and for that position i am not in the least sorry. as an aside, i may be a moderator, but i also speak on my own behalf. i generally preface moderator comments with a little <mod>tag</mod> so it's obvious - and it is not my practice to sanction damfool comments but to address them directly. nothing on this thread has so far required that.

furthermore, i am not saying "shut up", exactly. what i am saying is that the attitude i have a problem with is not conducive to interfaith dialogue, which is why i have a problem with it. it is about as welcome as someone coming to the board and trying to prove to me that jesus was the messiah and that i am going to hell. i'm never going to be that patient with people who either ought to know better, or are just choosing to ignore what in dialogue is common courtesy. now, i accept totally that baha'is may not realise just what it is about their discourse that gets up people's noses, but the fact is that it does. i'm doing you a favour by pointing it out so we can address it and find some common ground. i appreciate, of course, that going in "all guns blazing", as it were, we start off on quite adversarial terms, but it seemed to me that this was the only way to get your collective attention. clearly the people without the wherewithal to conduct a well-informed discussion have been stymied and those left can now get on with the real business.

now, to continue:


firstly, i am not aware that jesus actually ever made claims of specific revelation to himself - i thought that was what the point of his statement "i've not come to add another jot or tittle to the Law"; feel free to correct me via the relevant sources. similarly, i am not aware that the new testament is deemed to be revealed (with the exception, i expect, of the book of revelations) which makes it a very different kettle of fish from the "old". i would argue that the theological position of revelatory continuum is just that - theology. of course, theology is a matter of opinion too. in short, i don't see jesus making this claim at all - i see it as something that is made by later opinion in order to square the circle of breaking with traditional judaism.


of course not. but in order for it to be challenged it must be proved that tradition is *not* founded in fact and, even so, trying to disprove a deeply-held tradition is surely a fairly aggressive act, i'd say. i also
think you're considering "tradition" as something fairly simplistic. a tradition to, say, give presents on hannukah is very different from an accurate transgenerational transmission of an enormous legal system, which, of course, we have done successfully for at least 2500 years. it can certainly be established as incontrovertible fact that today's jewish observance is for all intents and purposes the same as that which was described in the mishnah, which was redacted in the C1st-2nd. so that's 2000 years of truth for a start.


*blind* adherence isn't. but who is saying that my adherence is necessarily blind? give me a for-instance.


even discounting, for a moment, the transmission of our legal traditions, you must concede that a culture that was capable of transmitting the masoretic text for even the last 1500 years (which i don't think anyone disagrees with) doesn't have a problem with accuracy.


of course - and you are, of course, free to believe as you wish. actually, i am not even offended by it. that would be a waste of my time. however, it should not surprise you that introducing such a point of view as a suitable subject for interfaith dialogue should result in a frank examination of its own merits.


not at all. my argument is that you are saying that baha'i and judaism are part of one continuous chain of revelation. i am saying that whereas, from the point of view of baha'i, i can see why you would think that, from the point of view of judaism, it cannot be substantiated. blithely assuming that it is self-evident and, furthermore, refusing to acknowledge the devaluing of the perceived earlier traditions implicit in this point of view, is tantamount to refusing to acknowledge judaism's right to define itself without reference to later belief systems. you are correct to point out that we do so in the case of *earlier* belief systems (e.g. pharaoh-worship or "seven nations" idolatry) and, i dare say, i ought to concede that this gives you some right to do so yourself. however, we are defining ourselves in terms of what we're *not*, not requiring these other systems to agree that we have a particular relationship with them and, i believe, there is a significant difference.


that's my entire point - these proofs of messiahship have *not* been fulfilled. lions are not vegetarian, as it were. which means that the messiah hasn't come yet, so it couldn't have been jesus. i believe that's a QED.


precisely. but a "product of" something is not necessarily a logical development of it, as the "azurite order of melchizedek" or whatever it's called and its loony new age fellow travellers ought to demonstrate.


i don't understand what this refers to. would you mind clarifying it?


fair enough - i hope you agree that i am now definitely proceeding ad argumentum (or whatever the phrase is) rather than ad hominem.


you are quite right to point this out. however, this is precisely the point. pharaoh's religion was based on falsehood, wickedness and immorality and it is those over which G!D's Will triumphed. we are not pointing at an identifiable contemporary group and saying that we are telling them who they are and that they are mistaken and we know better than they themselves do. also, we were not trumping an earlier revelation. we were liberating ourselves from oppression and injustice. christians can hardly fairly claim that they were required to liberate themselves from the oppression and injustice of judaism with the benefit of hindsight and accurate information, although this was certainly the position of many of them at least until modern times.

b'shalom

bananabrain

I think the Baha`i understanding of "Dialogue" is well expressed here:
"
Interreligious Dialogue and the Bahá'í Faith:
Some Preliminary Observations

Seena Fazel

published in Jack McLean, ed., Revisioning the Sacred: New Perspectives on a Bahá'í Theology. Studies in the Bábí and Bahá'í Religions vol. 8 (Los Angeles: Kalimat Press, 1997), 137-152. Reprinted with permission.

Anyone who begins an interreligious conversation with the pronouncement of a common sharing of beliefs and values among the world's religions, one that is merely masked by superficial semantical differences, has done precisely that—only made a beginning. Such declarations of commonality, although they contain a grain of truth, can be maintained only at a superficial level. They start to lose meaning as one goes deeper into the inner landscape, the experience, beliefs and practices of the different religious traditions. Paul Knitter, a prominent dialogue theologian, likens dialogue to the situation of a newly married couple beginning to grow out of the infatuation that brought them together. As they begin to experience the daily tests and trials of living and working as partners, as they get to know one another better, they soon arrive at the existential realization of how bewilderingly different they are. Like the young couple experiencing the harsh light of real living for the first time, Knitter observes that the contemporary challenge in interreligious dialogue is to reconcile differences:

. . . one might still believe that Ultimate Reality or God is one and that ultimately differences will be swallowed into oneness; but right now, in the dust and dirt of the real world, we have to deal with the manyness, the differences, among the religions before we can ever contemplate, much less realize, their possible unity or oneness.1

Dialogue is a term used to describe a great variety of interfaith relations. Generally, it involves a collective process or a conversation, a two-way communication or a reciprocal relationship in which two or more parties holding significantly different beliefs endeavor to express accurately to dialogue partners what they mean and to learn from each other in the process. But dialogue is more than just an exchange of views and has come to mean a personal process of refining the beliefs and values of one's own faith vis-à-vis the insights that one has gleaned from others.

Three goals of dialogue are succinctly summarized by Leonard Swidler, a Catholic professor of interreligious dialogue: (1) to know oneself more profoundly, just as one learns more about one's native land as a result of living abroad; (2) to know the other ever more authentically; and (3) to live ever more fully, a process described as "mutual transformation."2 Furthermore, John Cobb, a liberal Protestant scholar of interreligious dialogue, reflects the academic consensus when he states that "a sharp distinction is made between dialogue and evangelistic witness." While the latter aims at conversion, the former does not. The goal is rather mutual understanding, appreciation, and transformation.3

This paper will explore the Bahá'í imperative to foster dialogue. Questions arise along the way. Why, for example, should Bahá'ís involve themselves in interreligious dialogue? What does dialogue have to offer to the development of the Bahá'í community? What challenges will Bahá'ís face in the process? The focus in answering these questions will not be historical, but rather will center on the theory and practice of dialogue as depicted in the Bahá'í sacred writings and how it correlates to contemporary scholarship in the field. "
(continued: Interreligious Dialogue and the Bahá'í Faith: Some Preliminary Observations )

Seena Fazel is a frequent co-author with a close digital friend in Haifa, and I respect this paper a lot because it makes clear that it is not interested in 'dialogue' as 'an excuse for evangelism'. I'm trying to avoid that here, I respect that you would like to avoid it as well.

"Bahá'u'lláh's call to the peoples of the world to promote unity and concord contains some explicit injunctions to dialogue. He states that his revelation is centered on the promotion of the unity of humankind: "The fundamental purpose animating the Faith of God and His Religion is to safeguard the interests and promote the unity of the human race, and to foster the spirit of love and fellowship amongst men."12 In the same tablet, Bahá'u'lláh expresses the desire that religious leaders of the world "take counsel together" in order to implement whatever measures are necessary to advance the cause of unity:

Our hope is that the world's religious leaders and the rulers thereof will unitedly arise for the reformation of this age and the rehabilitation of its fortunes. Let them, after meditating on its needs, take counsel together and, through anxious and full deliberation, administer to a diseased and sorely-afflicted world the remedy it requireth."

If we could proceed in that vein, and accept that we might commit error in the process occasionally and turn a 'sin covering eye' to those errors the conversation might be beneficial.

Regards,
Scott

[I, Brian]

I'm curious about something, which hopefully isn't going to derail the thread...

A number of major faiths - Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism for starters - all prophesize a coming figure to fulfill/rebirth the faith in some way. A "messianic" figure of sorts.

The Baha'i position appears to be that all of these faiths were great but limited to some degree, because the message of God is most relevant for that time and place.

Therefore their messianic predictions were all either wrong or misinterpreted over time.

Would that therefore mean that the Baha'i faith would fall under the same criteria - that the messiah figure of the Baha'i Faith will also be missed by the majority of the Baha'i faithful, and that the Baha'i faith itself is subject to the same limitations as attributed to other faiths?

In other words, that a messianic figure could return at any time and fulfill the Baha'i faith, and that the Baha'i faith doesn't simply acknowledge that, but also acknowledges that it is also likely to be errant on it's own predictions and interpretations?

I guess I'm asking if the door swings both ways, or whether the Baha'i faith regards it's scriptures and interpretations as inerrant, just as other faiths may do so?

Simply curious.

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings redux!

[quote=bananabrain;84190]from the point of view of judaism, it is inconceivable that jews, even as individuals, can be released from their religious obligations.

Which of course is no problem whatever because we're presenting the scriptures, beliefs, and teachings of the Baha'i Faith, not of Judaism.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

from the reactions of muslims i've seen in the past, i should think it's about as popular a viewpoint as the previous. . . .

Then you obviously haven't met the many Muslims who have become Baha'i!

I hope you do. :-)

Peace,

Bruce

[bananabrain]

i'm really not having a go, popeyesays, but i don't think you needed to quote my entire post there. i mean, what's the point?

brucedlimber: well, of *course* the muslims who have become baha'is are convinced. that's why they did it, isn't it? people convert, or apostasise, or whatever you want to call it, all the time. it would be convincing if it was, say, a major theologian, or imam, or someone who actually knew all there was to know about islam. by the same token, i very much doubt you can point me at a jew who really knows all about judaism (which is not the same as thinking you know all about it) who has become a baha'i. "show me the rabbi", as jerry maguire might have put it.

that last post, by the way, is exactly the sort of attitude i'm talking about: "well, if you converted, you'd see i was right". *rolls eyes*

b'shalom

bananabrain