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

[shunyadragon]

I have not been vindictive against the Baha'i faith or philosophy or any individual Baha'i believers, and my expression of admiration for what little I know is sincere.

Not so when you accuse the Baha'i Faith of adopting Christian anti-Semitism.

I am perfectly comfortable responding frankly and honestly concerning your references. You are the one uncomfortable with these references accusing the Baha'i Faith of adopting Christian anti-Semitism, which is off the wall and does not reflect the context of the references concerning Judaism/

[shunyadragon]

That is your view of the Trinity. I agree with those Christian theologians, eg, Thomas Aquinas, who say that God cannot be defined.

Yes,of course it is my view on the Trinity, but it is a fact the Christian Doctrine and Dogma defines what cannot be defined concerning the nature of God and God's relationship with Creation and humanity.

What specific beliefs of mine have I failed to discuss with you simply enough.

Will respond later.

[shunyadragon]

And when the days of Moses were ended, and the light of Jesus, shining forth from the Day Spring of the Spirit, encompassed the world, all the people of Israel arose in protest against Him. They clamored that He Whose advent the Bible had foretold must needs promulgate and fulfil the laws of Moses, whereas this youthful Nazarene, who laid claim to the station of the divine MessiahIsrael, wrapt in the densest veils of satanic fancy and false imaginings, is still expectant that the idol of her own handiwork will appear with such signs as she herself hath conceived! Thus hath God laid hold of them for their sins, hath extinguished in them the spirit of faith, and tormented them with the flames of the nethermost fire. And this for no other reason except that Israel refused to apprehend the meaning of such words as have been revealed in the Bible concerning the signs of the coming Revelation. As she never grasped their true significance, and, to outward seeming, such events never came to pass, she, therefore, remained deprived of recognizing the beauty of Jesus 21 and of beholding the Face of God. And they still await His coming!

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/GWB/gwb-13.html.utf8?

[shunyadragon]

What specific beliefs of mine have I failed to discuss with you simply enough.

I do not believe that you have ever asked me what I consider essential or necessary to Christian faith so I do not think it is correct to say that I have avoided this topic. I have addressed it at length elsewhere, but essentially it boils down to St Paul's Jewish understanding of the faithfulness of Jesus to the truth of God in the face of death, our obedience to his moral teachings and praxis in community. I do find the views of other theologians occasionally helpful in understanding how Christian faithfulness can be incarnated in the modern world, but I do not consider this my own belief system, 'though I am responsible for the expression of my belief, but rather I try steadfastly to responsibly understand the modern Christian faith in dialogue with our founding ancient texts and in the Jewish and Christian theological tradition as it has evolved over the centuries.

This is an example of a response I consider wordy and vague when I asked:

What are the essentials of belief based on modern and post modern theologies of Christianity?

Are you simply trying to find alternate theologies to justify the same essential beliefs?

[robrecht]

I am not attacking the Baha'i writings, but I am not required to like or agree with everything in them and I do not like the anti-Jewish rhetoric of this passage so I have tried to get you to address it in the simple hope that you too would recognize that the language is not very appreciative of genuine Jewish faith that I believe is quite profound and not satanic, not extinguished by God, etc. I have no difficulty whatsoever in criticizing Christian texts that betray anti-Jewish polemical rhetoric and antagonism. I have not neglected to do that. See, for examlpe, this thread where I discussed with you texts of the New Testament that betray this anti-Jewish polemic. I did not see a need to re-open that discussion in a thread about the sources of your Baha'i belief in God. Thus I am not attacking the Baha'i scriptures and I am not doing so in a one-sided way. I have no desire or reason to avoid discussion of Christian anti-semitism or anti-Jewish texts. Exegetes speak of this frequently and seek to come to terms with the fact that Christianity began as a Jewish sect that was involved in rivalries and persecution with other Jewish sects and eventually the two religions grew apart and ultimately separated. I think that was most unfortunate for Christianity and it is only beginning to be addressed by a significant number of leaders of the Christian churches after two thousand years.

[robrecht]

Yes,of course it is my view on the Trinity, but it is a fact the Christian Doctrine and Dogma defines what cannot be defined concerning the nature of God and God's relationship with Creation and humanity.

Will respond later.

No, that is your interpretation. Since there are other opposing interpretations, we cannot say that it is a fact that the various Trinitarian doctrines and theologies are definitions of God. Those Christians who do not believe that God can be defined and nonetheless believe in the Trinity do not accept your interpretation of the Trinity, do not believe that their beliefs attempt to define God.

[shunyadragon]

I am not attacking the Baha'i writings, but I am not required to like or agree with everything in them and I do not like the anti-Jewish rhetoric of this passage so I have tried to get you to address it in the simple hope that you too would recognize that the language is not very appreciative of genuine Jewish faith that I believe is quite profound and not satanic, not extinguished by God, etc. I have no difficulty whatsoever in criticizing Christian texts that betray anti-Jewish polemical rhetoric and antagonism. I have not neglected to do that. See, for examlpe, this thread where I discussed with you texts of the New Testament that betray this anti-Jewish polemic. I did not see a need to re-open that discussion in a thread about the sources of your Baha'i belief in God. Thus I am not attacking the Baha'i scriptures and I am not doing so in a one-sided way. I have no desire or reason to avoid discussion of Christian anti-semitism or anti-Jewish texts. Exegetes speak of this frequently and seek to come to terms with the fact that Christianity began as a Jewish sect that was involved in rivalries and persecution with other Jewish sects and eventually the two religions grew apart and ultimately separated. I think that was most unfortunate for Christianity and it is only beginning to be addressed by a significant number of leaders of the Christian churches after two thousand years.

I addressed it clearly and specifically, the rejection of a Revelation from God has consequences, and the citations address some of the consequences. They are self-inflicted wrongs.

[shunyadragon]

No, that is your interpretation. Since there are other opposing interpretations, we cannot say that it is a fact that the various Trinitarian doctrines and theologies are definitions of God. Those Christians who do not believe that God can be defined and nonetheless believe in the Trinity do not accept your interpretation of the Trinity, do not believe that their beliefs attempt to define God.

Of course there are 'other' interpretations, and 'of course,' they do not believe as I do like the sky is Carolina Blue on a clear day on the 4th of July at noon, but again I will side with the pure Monotheistic belief I share with the Baha'i Faith and contemporary Judaism and Islam. No my beliefs do not try to define God. God is unknowable and undefinable from the human perspective.

[robrecht]

This is an example of a response I consider wordy and vague when I asked:

What are the essentials of belief based on modern and post modern theologies of Christianity?

Are you simply trying to find alternate theologies to justify the same essential beliefs?

Recall that when you said that you considered my response to be wordy and vague, I invited you to seek out a better explanation about whatever parts of my response you wanted to be less wordy or less vague. What precise specifics are looking for here? Part of what you said you wanted was how I define God. I don't. I don't believe God can or should be defined. You were also asking for how I define salvation or the relationship between God and humanity. I'm not sure that I can always give you a simple definition of some of these things in a way that is both very specific and also with fewer words. I will try, but you have to meet me half-way and let me know exactly what it is you want to know about my beliefs. So I again invited you follow up with a more specific question about whatever it is that you find vague or overly complex. I don't think you responded after that. I have given you what I consider to be the essentials of Christian belief. What part of my answer would you like to be less wordy and more specific:

... essentially it boils down to St Paul's Jewish understanding of the faithfulness of Jesus to the truth of God in the face of death, our obedience to his moral teachings and praxis in community.

It may be hard to give more specific answers and come in at less than these 29 words.

You also asked that I give you the essentials of belief based on modern and post modern theologies of Christianity? This is more difficult. I don't believe the essentials of Christian belief are based on theology, neither ancient, modern, or post-modern. Theology may begin with faith and try to express it in reasonable and thoughtful ways but it is not a basis for faith as far as I'm concerned. I do find many theologies helpful, but surely this is a very extensive discussion, not something that can be summarized and made more specific in fewer than the 29 words I gave already.

[robrecht]

Not so when you accuse the Baha'i Faith of adopting Christian anti-Semitism.

That is not vindictiveness. And it isn't an accusation either. See below for more explanation.

I am perfectly comfortable responding frankly and honestly concerning your references. You are the one uncomfortable with these references accusing the Baha'i Faith of adopting Christian anti-Semitism, which is off the wall and does not reflect the context of the references concerning Judaism/

[robrecht]

I addressed it clearly and specifically, the rejection of a Revelation from God has consequences, and the citations address some of the consequences. They are self-inflicted wrongs.

I don't think you have been very specific at all. Let's look at the specific language used by the B

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?

With respect to my beliefs, I do not think that Judaism is a satanic religion in any way whatsoever. I do not think that God has laid hold of the Jews for their sins. I think the extremely negative treatment of the Jews was done by other humans, especially Christians and Nazis and others, but not by God. I do not believe God has extinguished the spirit of faith in the Jews. Nor do I think that they have themselves extinguished their own Jewish faith. I am profoundly grateful to the Jews that they have persevered in their faith and it is to me a very strong and profound witness. I do not believe that God has tormented the Jews with the flames of the nethermost fire. Anyone who uses such language should learn to speak in less inflammatory ways about whatever disagreements they may have with Judaism and Jewish people. It is simply not good for anyone to speak in such a nasty way about the beauties and profundity of the Jewish faith and people.

[robrecht]

Of course there are 'other' interpretations, and 'of course,' they do not believe as I do like the sky is Carolina Blue on a clear day on the 4th of July at noon, but again I will side with the pure Monotheistic belief I share with the Baha'i Faith and contemporary Judaism and Islam. No my beliefs do not try to define God. God is unknowable and undefinable from the human perspective.

Then why not acknowledge that your beliefs and interpretations are not simply 'facts of history'.

[shunyadragon]

Then why not acknowledge that your beliefs and interpretations are not simply 'facts of history'.

Your sarcasm needle just pegged in the ridiculous.

[shunyadragon]

That is not vindictiveness. And it isn't an accusation either. See below for more explanation.

If you are comfortable frankly and directly discussing I suggested that perhaps it was language he just absorbed from his Islamic culture or from whatever Christian sources he may have used. That is not an accusation, just speculating on possible sources. If you have any better ideas for the sources of his anti-Jewish rhetoric, let us know. To say he may have absorbed it from any Christian sources that may have relied upon is just a possibility. For all I know, he dreamed up this anti-Jewish rhetoric on his own and is fully responsible for it himself. I would think that would be worse, not better; there's no doubt that there are plenty of sources of Christian anti-semitism around. If I recall correctly, I think you have excused his ignorance or criticism of contemporary evolutionary theory on his relative lack of education in the biological sciences. Is that right? Something like that? Why could he not also have picked up other less than exemplary ideas from his culture and sources of education? Or do you believe that he only had perfect thoughts and perfect expression of all his ideas? If you personally like his anti-Jewish rhetoric, let us know. If you do not, be honest about that as well. If you have better ideas on its sources, let us know. But don't just ignore it.

Your vindictive bitter mindless rhetoric continues unabated. More casting stones from a glass house. Reveals your dishonest view of any potential respect you may have for the Baha'i Faith. These references attack the Baha'i Faith, and not my view of the citations.

[robrecht]

Your vindictive bitter mindless rhetoric continues unabated. More casting stones from a glass house. Reveals your dishonest view of any potential respect you may have for the Baha'i Faith. These references attack the Baha'i Faith, and not my view of the citations.

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