The Baha'i Source some call God(s) and why I believe in God.

[shunyadragon]

The inflammatory anti-Jewish rhetoric in this particular passage under discussion is, I suspect, pretty obvious to most people, and I do disagree with such rhetoric, but pointing out that I disagree with this rhetoric does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that I am vindictive, bitter, mindless, attacking the Baha'i faith, or dishonest about my genuine respect for he Baha'i philosophy, way of life, or faith. If you think I am lying, I think you have an obligation to support such an accusation. I also have a great deal of respect for the Christian faith, obviously, but that in no way limits my ability to question, criticize, and even condemn the rhetoric or behavior of Christians, especially their use of biblical texts to condemn Jews and the atrocities committed against the Jews over the centuries. Such criticisms and condemnations do not mean that I am dishonest about my Christian faith; nor does my dislike of the rhetoric of this particular text mean that I am dishonest about my respect for Baha'i principles and faith. Why not refrain from the inaccurate ad hominem characterizations of me and respond to the specific questions I have posed to you about Bahá'u'lláh's rhetoric here:

Do you believe that Judaism is in any way a satanic religion? If not, why say that the Jews are wrapt in the densest veils of satanic fancy?

Do you believe that God has laid hold of the Jews for their sins? It seems you want to say, 'no, it is their own rejection of God that is being discussed here.' OK, but if that is the case, why say that God has laid hold of the Jews for their sins?

Do you believe that God has extinguished in the Jews their spirit of faith? It seems you want to say, 'no, they themselves have extinguished their own spirit of faith.' OK, but if that is the case, why say that God has extinguished their spirit of faith.

Do you believe that God has and tormented the Jews with the flames of the nethermost fire? It seems you want to say, 'no, the Jews have inflicted this on themselves. If that is the case, why say that God has tormented the Jews with the flames of the nethermost fire?

Important context that you are not taking into consideration in understanding Baha'i writings is there is not a literal Satan, evil, hell, satanic, nor neithermost fire. These concepts are descriptive of spiritual attributes in this world and journeys through other worlds. Your ignorance of the Baha'i writings and beliefs as a whole are a barrier from a archaic Christian perspective where these things are a literal reality.

[robrecht]

Important context that you are not taking into consideration in understanding Baha'i writings is there is not a literal Satan, evil, hell, satanic, nor neithermost fire. These concepts are descriptive of spiritual attributes in this world and journeys through other worlds. Your ignorance of the Baha'i writings and beliefs as a whole are a barrier from a archaic Christian perspective where these things are a literal reality.

No, I am aware of this, which is why I am focusing on the anti-Jewish rhetoric and trying to get you to address it directly.

[Adrift]

No, I am aware of this, which is why I am focusing on the anti-Jewish rhetoric and trying to get you to address it directly.

It's interesting to me how often he projects his concept of a simple-minded, pro-evangelist, pro-apologetic Christian on you. I can't help but think that he imagines that all Christians think how he once thought. It's impossible for him to understand how you're able to discuss a topic with a bit of cool awareness and objectivity, and that you can simultaneously hold to your faith while being respectful and appreciative of other faith positions, yet still ask hard questions with sincerity.

I honestly don't know how you have the patience to deal with him though, or why you bother wasting time on him. I admit that it's entertaining to watch, but years of experience at this point ought to be enough to show you that he's sort of locked into his own head, unable and unwilling to discuss anything rationally and honesty. I can only imagine that you're incredibly bored, and find him an enjoyable distraction. I'm often reminded of a cat toying with a mouse for amusement.

It also seems that he underestimates your own academic background. That your point of view on a lot of the material that the two of you go over isn't simply from a lay perspective, as he seems to believe, but from a scholastic one. It's not really relevant to this thread, but I am interested in your academic qualifications. I think I remember you saying in the past that you were trained in NT scholarship at a Catholic seminary, or that you were a monk at one point or something, but that you are no longer associated with the field of NT scholarship professionally. I can understand wanting to keep some of that private, so forgive me for prying. Just curious as I said.

[shunyadragon]

No, I am aware of this, which is why I am focusing on the anti-Jewish rhetoric and trying to get you to address it directly.

I have addressed it directly. Your speaking from an archaic Christian perspective where these things represent a literal reality, and throwing rocks from a glass house.

[robrecht]

I have addressed it directly. Your speaking from an archaic Christian perspective where these things represent a literal reality, and throwing rocks from a glass house.

No, I have just clarified that I am not speaking from such a perspective. I am only addressing the inflammatory anti-Jewish rhetoric. If you want to address the rhetoric directly, please respond directly to each of these questions:

Do you believe that Judaism is in any way, literally or figuratively, a 'satanic' religion? If not, why say that the Jews are wrapt in the densest veils of satanic fancy, especially if one does not even believe in Satan? Why use such terrible rhetoric?

Do you believe that God has laid hold of the Jews for their sins? It seems you want to say, 'no, it is their own rejection of God that is being discussed here.' OK, but if that is the case, why say that God has laid hold of the Jews for their sins? You do believe in God, right? Or is he just a figure of speech? This is not just speaking of Jews rejecting God, but God being in opposition to the Jews in some way. Do you really believe that?

Do you believe that God has extinguished in the Jews their spirit of faith? It seems you want to say, 'no, they themselves have extinguished their own spirit of faith.' OK, but if that is the case, why say that God has extinguished their spirit of faith? Do you really believe that Jews can and do have a very profound and active spirit of faith?

Do you believe that God has and tormented the Jews with the flames of the nethermost fire? It seems you want to say, 'no, the Jews have inflicted this on themselves. If that is the case, why say that God has tormented the Jews with the flames of the nethermost fire? We could go down the path of whether Baha'is in some sense of spiritual afterlife without affirming a literal place called heaven or hell, and that is an interesting question, but that is not the issue here as far as I'm concerned. Merely for the sake of this discussion, let us say that Bahá'u'lláh believed in no afterlife of any kind, and was only speaking figuratively, why would he use such inflammatory rhetoric about God tormenting the Jews with the flames of the nethermost fire?

[shunyadragon]

No, I have just clarified that I am not speaking from such a perspective. I am only addressing the inflammatory anti-Jewish rhetoric. If you want to address the rhetoric directly, please respond directly to each of these questions:

Do you believe that Judaism is in any way, literally or figuratively, a 'satanic' religion? If not, why say that the Jews are wrapt in the densest veils of satanic fancy, especially if one does not even believe in Satan? Why use such terrible rhetoric?

Do you believe that God has laid hold of the Jews for their sins? It seems you want to say, 'no, it is their own rejection of God that is being discussed here.' OK, but if that is the case, why say that God has laid hold of the Jews for their sins? You do believe in God, right? Or is he just a figure of speech? This is not just speaking of Jews rejecting God, but God being in opposition to the Jews in some way. Do you really believe that?

Do you believe that God has extinguished in the Jews their spirit of faith? It seems you want to say, 'no, they themselves have extinguished their own spirit of faith.' OK, but if that is the case, why say that God has extinguished their spirit of faith? Do you really believe that Jews can and do have a very profound and active spirit of faith?

Do you believe that God has and tormented the Jews with the flames of the nethermost fire? It seems you want to say, 'no, the Jews have inflicted this on themselves. If that is the case, why say that God has tormented the Jews with the flames of the nethermost fire? We could go down the path of whether Baha'is in some sense of spiritual afterlife without affirming a literal place called heaven or hell, and that is an interesting question, but that is not the issue here as far as I'm concerned. Merely for the sake of this discussion, let us say that Bahá'u'lláh believed in no afterlife of any kind, and was only speaking figuratively, why would he use such inflammatory rhetoric about God tormenting the Jews with the flames of the nethermost fire?

All these issues have been addressed. The vindictive arrogant 10,000 monkeys on typewriters continues.

If you were an atheists arguing against the Theism of Christianity, Islam and the Baha'i Faith, then your argument would have some consistency, but at present it is a hypocritical argument of throwing stones from a glass house.

[robrecht]

All these issues have been addressed.

You have not answered a single one of my specific questions pertaining to Bahá'u'lláh's rhetoric.

The vindictive arrogant 10,000 monkeys on typewriters continues.

Ad hominem and inaccurate characterizations of my motives or demeanor and insulting remarks do a great job of highlighting your lack of substantive response to these specific questions.

If you were an atheists arguing against the Theism of Christianity, Islam and the Baha'i Faith, then your argument would have some consistency, but at present it is a hypocritical argument of throwing stones from a glass house.

My position here has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with theism or confessional differences between or among faiths or faith in general. As a Christian, or as an atheist, or as a Baha'i or as a Muslim, I would consistently make the exact same argument against any and all forms of anti-Jewish rhetoric, whatever the source. My position is not that the Baha'i faith is invalid because Bahá'u'lláh's used anti-Jewish rhetoric in this passage, but merely that Bahá'u'lláh's used anti-Jewish rhetoric in this passage. I can understand that if one's faith requires one to believe that a particular author or group of authors always had perfect thoughts perfectly expressed, such a person might feel that my point is an attack on their faith, but my God is much bigger than that. I do not believe that the Jewish or Christian or Islamic or Baha'i holy scriptures are inerrant or infallible, neither eternally or temporarily. I don't believe Jesus had such perfect knowledge of all things and he seems to have engaged in some polemical arguments, and certainly his followers were embroiled in polemical arguments with other Jewish sects, and eventually against all Judaism. I can be a Christian and be honest about the failings of Christianity. I think most Jews and Muslims and I suppose most Baha'i can do the same, 'though I've only known a handful of Muslims and Baha'i. Unfortunately, I have not yet had the opportunity to discuss this text with any other Baha'i so I am giving them the benefit of the doubt here. Just as I would give Bahá'u'lláh the benefit of the doubt if I ever had the opportunity to ask him directly about his rhetoric here.

[shunyadragon]

You have not answered a single one of my specific questions pertaining to Bahá'u'lláh's rhetoric.

Ad hominem and inaccurate characterizations of my motives or demeanor and insulting remarks do a great job of highlighting your lack of substantive response to these specific questions.

My position here has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with theism or confessional differences between or among faiths or faith in general. As a Christian, or as an atheist, or as a Baha'i or as a Muslim, I would consistently make the exact same argument against any and all forms of anti-Jewish rhetoric, whatever the source. My position is not that the Baha'i faith is invalid because Bahá'u'lláh's used anti-Jewish rhetoric in this passage, but merely that Bahá'u'lláh's used anti-Jewish rhetoric in this passage. I can understand that if one's faith requires one to believe that a particular author or group of authors always had perfect thoughts perfectly expressed, such a person might feel that my point is an attack on their faith, but my God is much bigger than that. I do not believe that the Jewish or Christian or Islamic or Baha'i holy scriptures are inerrant or infallible, neither eternally or temporarily. I don't believe Jesus had such perfect knowledge of all things and he seems to have engaged in some polemical arguments, and certainly his followers were embroiled in polemical arguments with other Jewish sects, and eventually against all Judaism. I can be a Christian and be honest about the failings of Christianity. I think most Jews and Muslims and I suppose most Baha'i can do the same, 'though I've only known a handful of Muslims and Baha'i. Unfortunately, I have not yet had the opportunity to discuss this text with any other Baha'i so I am giving them the benefit of the doubt here. Just as I would give Bahá'u'lláh the benefit of the doubt if I ever had the opportunity to ask him directly about his rhetoric here.

The vindictive arrogant 10,000 monkeys on typewriters continues.
Ad hominem and inaccurate characterizations of my motives or demeanor and insulting remarks do a great job of highlighting your lack of substantive response to these specific questions.

If you were an atheists arguing against the Theism of Christianity, Islam and the Baha'i Faith, then your argument would have some consistency, but at present it is a hypocritical argument of throwing stones from a glass house.

[robrecht]

The vindictive arrogant 10,000 monkeys on typewriters continues.
Ad hominem and inaccurate characterizations of my motives or demeanor and insulting remarks do a great job of highlighting your lack of substantive response to these specific questions.

If you were an atheists arguing against the Theism of Christianity, Islam and the Baha'i Faith, then your argument would have some consistency, but at present it is a hypocritical argument of throwing stones from a glass house.

More insults. Good argument, Shuny.

[shunyadragon]

More insults. Good argument, Shuny.

Yes you offer only more insults in response to a good argument.

[robrecht]

Yes you offer only more insults in response to a good argument.

How have I insulted you now?

[shunyadragon]

How have I insulted you now?

Actually you have been more insulting of the Baha'i Faith concerning accusations of anti-Semitism, and than pretending some vague respect.

Hiding behind glass walls and chucking boulders.

[One Bad Pig]

More insults. Good argument, Shuny.

I think shunya inadvertently quoted your words as his; the only new words here contain his accusation of hypocrisy.

[robrecht]

Actually you have been more insulting of the Baha'i Faith concerning accusations of anti-Semitism, and than pretending some vague respect.

Hiding behind glass walls and chucking boulders.

I apologize. I thought I had already clarified that I am NOT accusing the Baha'i faith or the Bahá'u'lláh of being anti-Semitic. I am only trying to discuss the specifics of the the anti-Jewish rhetoric of this one particular passage. The hypothesis that the Bahá'u'lláh might have absorbed this from an anti-Semitic Christian source is an implicit accusation of the putative Christian source, but not an accusation against the Bahá'u'lláh, the Baha'i faith, or their holy scriptures. But I do still find the rhetoric objectionable, and I would have thought you also would object to such rhetoric.

[robrecht]

... I do still find the rhetoric objectionable, and I would have thought you also would object to such rhetoric.

So, do you not find Bahá'u'lláh's rhetoric objectionable--would you yourself refer to Judaism as satanic in any way?