The Baha'i Faith - Satan and the ego

[shunyadragon]

ad ho·mi·nem
/ad ˈhämənəm/
adverb & adjective

1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"vicious ad hominem attacks"

2. relating to or associated with a particular person.
"the office was created ad hominem for Fenton"

Origin: Latin, literally ‘to the person.

Sounds like your Venomous selective tactics without taking into consideration the whole of the Baha'i writings in context. Your terminology of 'Anti-Jewish rhetoric' is a clear example.

[robrecht]

Sounds like your Venomous selective tactics without taking into consideration the whole of the Baha'i writings in context. Your terminology of 'Anti-Jewish rhetoric' is a clear example.

Nothing venomous in trying to help you understand what an ad hominem argument is. Do you now agree that an ad hominem argument can employ either true or false claims about the other person?

[shunyadragon]

You assume that I have not also been critical of the very same things within Christianity, but that is not true, and at considerable personal cost.

No, you have been selectively critical of the Baha'i Faith without any effort to understand objectively the greater context of the Baha'i scripture.

[shunyadragon]

Nothing venomous in trying to help you understand what an ad hominem argument is. Do you now agree that an ad hominem argument can employ either true or false claims about the other person?

Well, ok, with you the ad hominem is true and stands.

[robrecht]

No, you have been selectively critical of the Baha'i Faith without any effort to understand objectively the greater context of the Baha'i scripture.

That's just not true.

[robrecht]

Well, ok, with you the ad hominem is true and stands.

Well at least you admit that you have employed ad hominem arguments. That is a start. But these ad hominem statements about me are not true. I am not dishonest and you have not even attempted to support this allegation. I am not hypocritical, neglectful or selective about the history of the Christian faith, but have strongly criticized Christian antisemitism in no uncertain terms. I am not anchored in an ancient worldview. I am very respectful of the Baha'i faith and scriptures, 'though I have expressed two criticism in a respectful manner. I have never been venomous toward you or the Baha'i faith.

[shunyadragon]

Which is why we have theologians who can reflect on such issues, eg, leading the Pope to express gratitude for the Jews maintaining their Jewish faith or the Catholic bishops in Britain calling for an end to prayer or the conversion of the Jews. Some might need authority figures to make it OK for them to engage in common sense evaluation of their scriptures and to engage in thoughtful and open dialogue with people of other faiths but others can come to the same conclusions on their own. Shuny does not hesitate to criticize the faith of others so I merely challenge him to engage in his own self-critical theological reflection regarding his beliefs and their temporally bound authoritative expression in his holy scriptures.

The Baha'i Faith does not need 'authority figures' to engage in common sense evaluation of their scriptures and to engage in thoughtful and open dialogue with people of other faiths but others can come to the same conclusions on their own. . . because there are no priests, clergy nor bishops in the Baha'i Faith to give them permission to do this, because like the equality of men and women it is grounded in the fundamental principles of the Baha'i Faith. Notice recent statements by the pope only referred to Judaism and not the other religions in this consideration.

The Vatican II is a clear example of the limitations of reform when Doctrine Dogma trump change and reform.

The positive point of Vatican II was to encourage greater dialogue outside the church to secular governments, and to other churches through what is called ecumenism, but attempts at greater dialogue the illusion of ecumenism is conditioned by a Catch 22 in the Decree of Ecumenism “our separated brethren…are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body.” It is only through “Christ’s Catholic Church” that “they can benefit fully from the means of salvation”, for “Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God”

Thus the Catch 22 'Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus' trumps reform.

Be careful of Greeks bearing gifts.

[robrecht]

The Baha'i Faith does not need 'authority figures' to engage in common sense evaluation of their scriptures and to engage in thoughtful and open dialogue with people of other faiths but others can come to the same conclusions on their own. . . because there are no priests, clergy nor bishops in the Baha'i Faith to give them permission to do this, because like the equality of men and women it is grounded in the fundamental principles of the Baha'i Faith. Notice recent statements by the pope only referred to Judaism and not the other religions in this consideration.

The Vatican II is a clear example of the limitations of reform when Doctrine Dogma trump change and reform.

The positive point of Vatican II was to encourage greater dialogue outside the church to secular governments, and to other churches through what is called ecumenism, but attempts at greater dialogue the illusion of ecumenism is conditioned by a Catch 22 in the Decree of Ecumenism “our separated brethren…are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body.” It is only through “Christ’s Catholic Church” that “they can benefit fully from the means of salvation”, for “Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God”

Thus the Catch 22 'Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus' trumps reform.

Be careful of Greeks bearing gifts.

But where are the Baha'i theologians who can critique or interpret critically scriptures or those who exercise authority in the Baha'i faith? Or why can't you yourself do this?

[shunyadragon]

Well at least you admit that you have employed ad hominem arguments. That is a start. But these ad hominem statements about me are not true. I am not dishonest and you have not even attempted to support this allegation. I am not hypocritical, neglectful or selective about the history of the Christian faith, but have strongly criticized Christian antisemitism in no uncertain terms. I am not anchored in an ancient worldview. I am very respectful of the Baha'i faith and scriptures, 'though I have expressed two criticism in a respectful manner. I have never been venomous toward you or the Baha'i faith.

Acknowledging the adhominem as true does not get you off the hook. You selective aggressive monologue is not a respectful manner when you fail to make the effort to understand the context of the whole in the Baha'i writings in pounding aggressively on individual citations.

[robrecht]

Acknowledging the adhominem as true does not get you off the hook. You selective aggressive monologue is not a respectful manner when you fail to make the effort to understand the context of the whole in the Baha'i writings in pounding aggressively on individual citations.

But your ad hominem statements about me are not true.

[shunyadragon]

But where are the Baha'i theologians who can critique or interpret critically scriptures or those who exercise authority in the Baha'i faith? Or why can't you yourself do this?

Your language and aggressive manner do not represent a reasoned objective critique or critical interpretation of the scripture. I addressed this before. I have been to seminars, and done this in a constructive manner considering multiple sources in scripture, and read results of Baha'i scholars who do this. Your language, manner and overtly pounding away at one citation does not remotely represent an 'objective critique' on this subject nor the others we have discussed.

[shunyadragon]

But your ad hominem statements about me are not true.

Please review your language and aggressive manner. It is indeed true.

[robrecht]

Your language and aggressive manner do not represent a reasoned objective critique or critical interpretation of the scripture. I addressed this before. I have been to seminars, and done this in a constructive manner considering multiple sources in scripture, and read results of Baha'i scholars who do this. Your language, manner and overtly pounding away at one citation does not remotely represent an 'objective critique' on this subject nor the others we have discussed.

I am not aggressive, but I have been persistent in the face of your avoidance of the issue. If you feel the rhetoric in question is not anti-Jewish, why won't you ask Jews what they think of this rhetoric? If the language is not offensive, why won't you use the same language for members of the Baha'i faith?

[robrecht]

Please review your language and aggressive manner. It is indeed true.

You made the claims, why don't you try to support them? Where have I been dishonest? Where have I been anything but critical of Christian antisemitism? Where have I been anchored in an ancient worldview? When have I said anything disrespectful of the Baha'i faith and scriptures? What are your examples of my venomous language?

[shunyadragon]

I am not aggressive, but I have been persistent in the face of your avoidance of the issue. If you feel the rhetoric in question is not anti-Jewish, why won't you ask Jews what they think of this rhetoric? If the language is not offensive, why won't you use the same language for members of the Baha'i faith?

Source: Abdul-baha The Promulgation of Universal Peace 1912

Therefore, Christ really promulgated Judaism; for he was a Jew and not opposed to the Jews. He did not deny the Prophethood of Moses; on the contrary, He proclaimed and ratified it. He did not invalidate the Torah; He spread its teachings. That portion of the ordinances of Moses which concerned transactions and unimportant conditions underwent transformation, but the essential teachings of Moses were revoiced and confirmed by Christ without change. He left nothing unfinished or incomplete. Likewise, through the supreme efficacy and power of the Word of God He united most of the nations of the East and the West. This was accomplished at a time when these nations were opposed to each other in hostility and strife. He led them beneath the overshadowing tent of the oneness of humanity. He educated them until they became united and agreed, and through His spirit of conciliation the Roman, Greek, Chaldean and Egyptian were blended in a composite civilization. This wonderful power and extraordinary efficacy of the Word prove conclusively the validity of Christ. Consider how His heavenly sovereignty is still permanent and lasting. Verily, this is conclusive proof and manifest evidence.

© Copyright Original Source