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

[robrecht]

No, not atheist. You should be aware by now that my references to humanism do not necessarily refer to atheism. Though atheism is a philosophy that endorses humanism as the only nature of being human.

The last time I identified myself as a Christian humanist, you claimed that I was not understanding your use of humanism to refer to atheistic humanism. So, of course, I do not do not consider all references to refer to humanism to necessarily be atheistic. I'm just trying to understand how you are using the term today.

Nonetheless you emphasized only the humanist aspect here, when referring to references to Baha'u'llah 'mistakes concerning evolution, and other references you have made which concludes you apparently consider Baha'u'llah only to have humanist attributes, and not inspired by Revelation and Divine guidance.

This is ok from your perspective, but up to this point your perspective was not the subject of the thread. I believe my statements put these references in perspective of the Baha'i writings as a whole, the human and Divine nature of Manifestations of God.

I do not believe the question as what follows logically at present applies here, because putting religious beliefs in proper context of the whole is not a logical issue.

I believe it is best to avoid illogical views, 'though I don't believe that we should necessarily limit our views of the divine merely to our human understanding of logic.

The question at this point was my belief, and the Baha'i perspective on infallibility and inerrancy. Your view is a different story as to what you consider human institutions and belief is not clear yet. The Baha'i Faith is my belief system, and the Divine nature of the institutions is grounded in Divine Spiritual Law and progressive evolving nature of the decisions of the Institutions of the Baha'i Faith, and not a fixed absoute unchangeable nature of the decisions. It is not remotely expected that you also believe in the Baha'i Faith.

Understanding the Baha'i Faith as a whole and the principles of the 'Independent Investigation of Truth,' and acknowledging that the nature of truth and knowledge is an evolving process in the Baha'i Faith, and actually endorsing skepticism in the human intellectual role in this dynamic process.

Could you please complete this sentence fragment with an actual predicate? That is, presuming you want to make a coherent statement here.

I have at present showed more skepticism and questioning of my own beliefs and all belief systems than you do.

Not really. Despite being asked several times, you've never explained why you believe in the infallibility and inerrancy of the spiritual truths revealed in the Baha'i scriptures or why you believe in the infallibility and inerrancy of the Universal House of Justice.

Yes, I think it is wiser to subject my own beliefs to the same scrutiny that I direct toward of anyone else, but as a matter of fact I do not believe you do so, including your stoic inflexible beliefs toward the Trinity, and not willing to acknowledge alternate views.

Nonsense. My beliefs are not at all inflexible and I acknowledge many alternative views, not only of the Trinity but of many attempts to characterize belief in the divine and human natures. That you do not realize this is perhaps just your polemic attempt to falsely characterize my views or represents an inability or unwillingness to understand my actual views.

In fact you like others have questioned my skepticism, and appear to endorse the forced designation of agnostic questioning whether I believe in God or not.

No, your memory is very poor here. I have very recently told you in no uncertain terms that I take you at your word that you are a theist. Please do try to be more careful in not misrepresenting my views.

It depends on how one describes as infallible and inerrant, and how you define human institutions, which you have not made yourself clear on your beliefs concerning the claims of the Roman Church. Do you no longer believe in the Roman Church and its claims?

Again, untrue. I have told you several times and quite recently that I do not accept claims of infallibility or inerrancy, whether those of Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxcy, or various Protestant views of church order or scripture.

Do you consider any religious institutions Divinely inspired?

I consider many human views and perspectives, individual, communal, and institutional to be divinely inspired. But I do not consider any of them to be infallible and inerrant.

As far as what you have revealed so far you appear to be designing your own Christian perspective, and belief system apart from any particular church. [/quote]No, I have frequently identified myself as Roman Catholic, 'though I have also asserted my right of conscience to privately and publicly dissent from some teachings of the Roman Catholic church.

[shunyadragon]

The last time I identified myself as a Christian humanist, you claimed that I was not understanding your use of humanism to refer to atheistic humanism.

False, I did not. Cite me properly I DID NOT say that my use of humanism referred to atheist humanism specifically. I said the my use of humanism referred to the belief that human reason and will is supreme and determines the course of human events. Some of our Founding Fathers were humanists and Deists. It also refers to 'secular humanism,' which is the character of the separation of church and state, and the belief that the source of inspiration is not from God, but human inspiration and intellect. Yes, Christian humanism as you use it is different.

So, of course, I do not do not consider all references to refer to humanism to necessarily be atheistic. I'm just trying to understand how you are using the term today.

See above.

The question is not 'some,' but whether you accept the claims of Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i Faith. I do, and apparently you do not.

I believe it is best to avoid illogical views, 'though I don't believe that we should necessarily limit our views of the divine merely to our human understanding of logic.

It remains my effort is to clarify my beliefs, and not to defend them logically. In fact in terms of the Divine I consider logic most often a misused tool.

Could you please complete this sentence fragment with an actual predicate? That is, presuming you want to make a coherent statement here.

The question at this point was my belief, and the Baha'i perspective on infallibility and inerrancy. Your view is a different story as to what you consider human institutions and belief is not clear yet. The Baha'i Faith is my belief system, and the Divine nature of the institutions is grounded in Divine Spiritual Law and progressive evolving nature of the decisions of the Institutions of the Baha'i Faith, and not a fixed absoute unchangeable nature of the decisions. It is not remotely expected that you also believe in the Baha'i Faith.

If you wish to understand the Baha'i Faith as a whole and the principles of the 'Independent Investigation of Truth,' and acknowledging that the nature of truth and knowledge is an evolving process in the Baha'i Faith you will realize it actually endorsing skepticism in the human intellectual role in this dynamic process.

Not really. Despite being asked several times, you've never explained why you believe in the infallibility and inerrancy of the spiritual truths revealed in the Baha'i scriptures or why you believe in the infallibility and inerrancy of the Universal House of Justice.

I believe in the Baha'i Faith as a package deal, and to pick and choose would be humanist reasoning. If I choose that route I would be Unitarian Universalist, and just like the Baha'i Faith for the nice things it teaches.

I do no find the role of infallibility and inerrancy a problem in the Baha'i Faith, because it does not represent an unchanging static inerrancy and infallibility, but an evolving dynamic concept of change over time. Accepting the Spiritual Laws and Principles as infallible and inerrant for the age is not a problem for me. Other Religions and churches such as the Roman Church do not acknowledge such a dynamic process in their claims of infallibility and inerrancy, therefore they remain fossils of ancient paradigms.

Nonsense. My beliefs are not at all inflexible and I acknowledge many alternative views, not only of the Trinity but of many attempts to characterize belief in the divine and human natures. That you do not realize this is perhaps just your polemic attempt to falsely characterize my views or represents an inability or unwillingness to understand my actual views.

I understand your views very well I just do not share your beliefs. I do not falsely characterize your views, because I do not assert you believe differently from what describe. You believe the Trinity is monotheistic, and I believe differently that it is polytheistic and Tritheism. This is not a misrepresentation of your beliefs, it is simply what I believe. It is a fact you are combative concerning my alternate views.

Again, untrue. I have told you several times and quite recently that I do not accept claims of infallibility or inerrancy, whether those of Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxcy, or various Protestant views of church order or scripture.

I consider many human views and perspectives, individual, communal, and institutional to be divinely inspired. But I do not consider any of them to be infallible and inerrant.

No, I have frequently identified myself as Roman Catholic, 'though I have also asserted my right of conscience to privately and publicly dissent from some teachings of the Roman Catholic church.

I consider this picking and choosing to design your own belief system. As far as my 'belief' goes, I am a Baha'i, and do not pick and choose what I believe in the Baha'i Faith, in part because I consider this picking and choosing to be more 'humanist,' because it puts my will against the faith of my choice.

[robrecht]

False, I did not. Cite me properly I DID NOT say that my use of humanism referred to atheist humanism specifically. I said the my use of humanism referred to the belief that human reason and will is supreme and determines the course of human events. Some of our Founding Fathers were humanists and Deists. It also refers to 'secular humanism,' which is the character of the separation of church and state, and the belief that the source of inspiration is not from God, but human inspiration and intellect. Yes, Christian humanism as you use it is different.

Do you understand secular humanism to be theistic humanism or not?

See above.

The question is not 'some,' but whether you accept the claims of Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i Faith. I do, and apparently you do not.

It remains my effort is to clarify my beliefs, and not to defend them logically. In fact in terms of the Divine I consider logic most often a misused tool.

The question at this point was my belief, and the Baha'i perspective on infallibility and inerrancy. Your view is a different story as to what you consider human institutions and belief is not clear yet. The Baha'i Faith is my belief system, and the Divine nature of the institutions is grounded in Divine Spiritual Law and progressive evolving nature of the decisions of the Institutions of the Baha'i Faith, and not a fixed absoute unchangeable nature of the decisions. It is not remotely expected that you also believe in the Baha'i Faith.

If you wish to understand the Baha'i Faith as a whole and the principles of the 'Independent Investigation of Truth,' and acknowledging that the nature of truth and knowledge is an evolving process in the Baha'i Faith you will realize it actually endorsing skepticism in the human intellectual role in this dynamic process.

This is all well and good; still it would be better if you could actually construct a complete sentence having both a subject and predicate. At least if I am correct to presume that you would like to make a coherent statement.

I believe in the Baha'i Faith as a package deal, and to pick and choose would be humanist reasoning. If I choose that route I would be Unitarian Universalist, and just like the Baha'i Faith for the nice things it teaches.

What exactly do you consider defective about 'humanist reasoning' as you are using it here?

I do no find the role of infallibility and inerrancy a problem in the Baha'i Faith, because it does not represent an unchanging static inerrancy and infallibility, but an evolving dynamic concept of change over time. Accepting the Spiritual Laws and Principles as infallible and inerrant for the age is not a problem for me. Other Religions and churches such as the Roman Church do not acknowledge such a dynamic process in their claims of infallibility and inerrancy, therefore they remain fossils of ancient paradigms.

But why do you believe that the Universal House of Justice is infallible and incapable of error in the exercise of its proper authority? Why not believe that it is, inspired by faith in God or not, still human and capable of making a mistake? It's a simple question. Do you have an answer?

I understand your views very well I just do not share your beliefs.

Then why would you say that my beliefs are not clear?

I do not falsely characterize your views, because I do not assert you believe differently from what describe. You believe the Trinity is monotheistic, and I believe differently that it is polytheistic and Tritheism.

This is entirely too simplistic. Some expressions of belief in trinities are potentially tritheistic, but not as the Trinity is defined by the church and theologians that I have cited for you. You yourself have recently acknowledged that your polytheistic interpretation of the Trinity is not in fact what most Christians believe. That is correct.

This is not a misrepresentation of your beliefs, it is simply what I believe. It is a fact you are combative concerning my alternate views.

Combative, no. I merely want it to be clear, as you yourself have recently acknowledged, that most Christians are indeed monotheists and completely reject your tritheistic interpretation of the Trinity.

I consider this picking and choosing to design your own belief system. As far as my 'belief' goes, I am a Baha'i, and do not pick and choose what I believe in the Baha'i Faith, in part because I consider this picking and choosing to be more 'humanist,' because it puts my will against the faith of my choice.

'My will' vs the faith of 'my choice'? Is not 'your will' and 'your choice' the same?

[shunyadragon]

Do you understand secular humanism to be theistic humanism or not?

Secular humanism is the belief in human will is the decision maker. atheists, Deists, and agnostics can be secular humanists, but not likely theists. My mistake in the previous post, secular humanism is not equivalent to separation of church and state. Unitarian Universalists are for the most part secular humanist.

I did not change the question, nor your answer. Simple; Do you believe in the claims of Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i Faith?

The answer is obviously no, because you remain a Roman Church believer of sorts.

What exactly do you consider defective about 'humanist reasoning' as you are using it here?

Not defective. Just questionable from my perspective.

But why do you believe that the Universal House of Justice is infallible and incapable of error in the exercise of its proper authority? Why not believe that it is, inspired by faith in God or not, still human and capable of making a mistake? It's a simple question. Do you have an answer?

I have answered the question as best as I am able.

Then why would you say that my beliefs are not clear?

You appear to designing your own belief system and picking choosing what you believe.

This is entirely too simplistic. Some expressions of belief in trinities are potentially tritheistic, but not as the Trinity is defined by the church and theologians that I have cited for you. You yourself have recently acknowledged that your polytheistic interpretation of the Trinity is not in fact what most Christians believe. That is correct.

That has always been the case. I was describing my belief and why I believe so, and not representing your belief, nor that of the Roman Church and predominant view of traditional Christianity.

Combative, no. I merely want it to be clear, as you yourself have recently acknowledged, that most Christians are indeed monotheists and completely reject your tritheistic interpretation of the Trinity.

Combative yes. I never said that most Christians believe differently from what they do. It is my belief I have been always defending that the belief is a heresy and a form of polytheism, tritheism.


'My will' vs the faith of 'my choice'? Is not 'your will' and 'your choice' the same?[/QUOTE]

[shunyadragon]

'My will' vs the faith of 'my choice'? Is not 'your will' and 'your choice' the same?

No. I consider this picking and choosing to design your own belief system. As far as my 'belief' goes, I am a Baha'i, and do not pick and choose what I believe [within] the Baha'i Faith, in part because I consider this picking and choosing to be more 'humanist,' because it puts my will against the faith of my choice.

The problem is picking choosing within a faith what one wants to believe, and not believe.

I made the decision to become a Baha'i, and it was not conditional on part of the Baha'i Faith I wish to choose to believe and which part I choose not to believe.

[robrecht]

Secular humanism is the belief in human will is the decision maker. atheists, Deists, and agnostics can be secular humanists, but not likely theists. My mistake in the previous post, secular humanism is not equivalent to separation of church and state. Unitarian Universalists are for the most part secular humanist.

Thank you for that concession.

I did not change the question, nor your answer. Simple; Do you believe in the claims of Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i Faith?

The answer is obviously no, because you remain a Roman Church believer of sorts.

Not defective. Just questionable from my perspective.

Again, then, what exactly is 'questionable' about my 'humanist' reasoning that humans can make mistakes, that they can be both right about some things and wrong about other things. In order to avoid my reasoning being questioned by you, I must believe that some people or human institutions are infallible and inerrant???

I have answered the question as best as I am able.

Strange. I have not seen you explain anywhere why you believe that the Universal House of Justice is infallible and incapable of error in the exercise of its authority. When you have given explanation, has it been convincing? Have you convinced anyone else here that the Universal House of Justice is infallible and incapable of error in the exercise of its authority? Has anyone said, hey, Shuny, you have some pretty good reasons for believing that the Universal House of Justice is infallible and incapable of error in the exercise of its authority?

You appear to designing your own belief system and picking choosing what you believe.

That has always been the case. I was describing my belief and why I believe so, and not representing your belief, nor that of the Roman Church and predominant view of traditional Christianity.

Combative yes. I never said that most Christians believe differently from what they do. It is my belief I have been always defending that the belief is a heresy and a form of polytheism, tritheism.

When you say 'the belief', what belief exactly are you speaking of here? If you are merely speaking of the misunderstood and heretical views of a minority of Christians who do not properly understand the dogma and doctrine of their church, there would never have been any discussion whatsoever. Pretty much everyone says that. But that is not what you have been saying.

No. I consider this picking and choosing to design your own belief system. As far as my 'belief' goes, I am a Baha'i, and do not pick and choose what I believe [within] the Baha'i Faith, in part because I consider this picking and choosing to be more 'humanist,' because it puts my will against the faith of my choice.

The problem is picking choosing within a faith what one wants to believe, and not believe.

I made the decision to become a Baha'i, and it was not conditional on part of the Baha'i Faith I wish to choose to believe and which part I choose not to believe.

So, for you, it is 'questionable' and 'humanist' to make a choice to believe some things and to choose not to believe other things. One should only choose to believe specific sets of things as defined by others, eg, as defined by governing bodies of religious institutions, eg, the Pope, the Missouri Synod, or the Universal House of Judgment. What happened to the independent investigation of truth?

[shunyadragon]

Actually if you read the materials of the Baha'i Faith it is clear and specific on the claims of Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i Faith. I do not like to spoon feed someone who can read. As far (right and wrong?) as the belief in the inerrancy and infallibility of the writings I have been very clear and specific. The Spiritual Laws and Principles are infallible and inerrant for the Age of this dispensation, as were all the Manifestation of God in the past. The references to historical and scientific subjects are commentary based on the nature of knowledge at the time. I was very clear on the belief in the nature of Baha'u'llah and all the Manifestations of God throughout the history of humanity as having two natures, human and Divine.

Again, then, what exactly is 'questionable' about my 'humanist' reasoning that humans can make mistakes, that they can be both right about some things and wrong about other things. In order to avoid my reasoning being questioned by you, I must believe that some people or human institutions are infallible and inerrant???

There is nothing that you must believe in. I simply disagree with your belief strategy concerning the Roman Church where there is actually little or no room for change.

Strange. I have not seen you explain anywhere why you believe that the Universal House of Justice is infallible and incapable of error in the exercise of its authority. When you have given explanation, has it been convincing? Have you convinced anyone else here that the Universal House of Justice is infallible and incapable of error in the exercise of its authority? Has anyone said, hey, Shuny, you have some pretty good reasons for believing that the Universal House of Justice is infallible and incapable of error in the exercise of its authority?

Yes and my reasons have been given to the best of my ability. It is unlikely you will ever 'see' an explanation that satisfies your desires. You apparently lack the comprehension to understand the following repeated at the end:

You are not quoting me accurately. When I say it is a problem of picking and choosing within a religious belief system to make your own. It is not simply specific things defined by others. In terms of the Baha'i Faith it is a central concept of the nature of the scripture and the function of the administrative order. It is a temporal concept subject to change, maturation, and evolution in terms of the decisions of the Universal House of Justice. The spiritual Laws and Principles cannot be changed by the UHJ. It is by far not the traditional view of what is infallible, inerrant, nor free from error. Like your missque, Universal House of Judgement, the translation of Persian and Arabic scripture is subject uIt applies only to the temporal limitation of individual decisions at the time they were made. Understanding and proper translation is necessary in the over all context of he nature of the Baha'i Faith.


Probably longer than 50 years, but nonetheless I disagree with this pragmatic naive hope for change, where the system has built in brakes saying no substantial change. The concept of chand and evolution of the decisions of the UHJ are acceptable on my part.

When you say 'the belief', what belief exactly are you speaking of here? If you are merely speaking of the misunderstood and heretical views of a minority of Christians who do not properly understand the dogma and doctrine of their church, there would never have been any discussion whatsoever. Pretty much everyone says that. But that is not what you have been saying.

The definition of 'belief' is not rocket science. It simply states that I do not believe there is any objective evidence to support either view, and my belief is based on theological/ philosophical considerations of the nature of God, Revelation, and the nature of the relationship between God and Creation.

I neither misinterpret nor misunderstand the minority nor the majority of Christians, I argue my case irrespective of either view. It is true that some churches argue against the Trinity and consider it heresy as I do, and I believe their argument is valid. Arguing from perspective of popularity among Christians and their devoted belief in the doctrines and dogma of the churches, nor whatever 'pretty much says whatever,' does not impress me.

So, for you, it is 'questionable' and 'humanist' to make a choice to believe some things and to choose not to believe other things.

Very biased rewording of my statements, see below.

One should only choose to believe specific sets of things as defined by others, eg, as defined by governing bodies of religious institutions, eg, the Pope, the Missouri Synod, or the Universal House of Judgment. What happened to the independent investigation of truth?

You are not quoting me accurately. When I say it is a problem of picking and choosing it is within the central beliefs of a religious belief system to make your own. It is not simply specific things defined by others. In terms of the Baha'i Faith it is a central concept of the nature of the scripture and the function of the administrative order. It is a temporal concept subject to change, maturation, and evolution in terms of the decisions of the Universal House of Justice. The spiritual Laws and Principles cannot be changed by the UHJ. It is by far not the traditional view of what is infallible, inerrant, nor free from error. Like your missque, Universal House of Judgement, the translation of Persian and Arabic scripture is subject understanding and proper translation in the over all context of he nature of the Baha'i Faith.

The Independent Investigation of Truth,' is indeed a process of change and the evolution of the decisions of the UHJ, philosophical and theological questions, and all other considerations of the investigation of the nature of our physical existence. Questions is the name of one of attributes of God endowed on humanity. Accepting the temporal decisions of the UHJ does not mean they cannot be questioned and changed in the future. I do not believe you fully understand the the nature of the evolving and changeable nature of infallibility and inerrancy of the decisions of the UHJ, and cling to the ancient view of rigid unchangability that relegates the Roman Church to a fossil of an ancient paradigm.

[robrecht]

Actually if you read the materials of the Baha'i Faith it is clear and specific on the claims of Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i Faith. I do not like to spoon feed someone who can read.

I have not asked you to spoon feed me anything at all, but if you want to know specifically what I do and do not believe among various claims of Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i Faith, just ask a specific question and I will give you a specific answer. Don't just presume that I do not believe any of the tenets of the Baha'i faith because I have already indicated a number of positive things about it, which I consider to be shared with modern Jewish and Christian theological perspectives as well, and and I have also indicated a couple of things that I do not agree with. Beyond that, if you want a specific answer, ask a specific question.

As far (right and wrong?) as the belief in the inerrancy and infallibility of the writings I have been very clear and specific. The Spiritual Laws and Principles are infallible and inerrant for the Age of this dispensation, as were all the Manifestation of God in the past. The references to historical and scientific subjects are commentary based on the nature of knowledge at the time. I was very clear on the belief in the nature of Baha'u'llah and all the Manifestations of God throughout the history of humanity as having two natures, human and Divine.

But, the subject of this discussion is specifically why you believe that the Universal House of Justice is infallible and its pronouncements inerrant.

There is nothing that you must believe in. I simply disagree with your belief strategy concerning the Roman Church where there is actually little or no room for change.

The discussion here is what exactly you consider to be 'humanist' and 'questionable' about my choice not to believe some tenets of the Roman Catholic faith.

Yes and my reasons have been given to the best of my ability. It is unlikely you will ever 'see' an explanation that satisfies your desires. You apparently lack the comprehension to understand the following repeated at the end:

You are not quoting me accurately. When I say it is a problem of picking and choosing within a religious belief system to make your own. It is not simply specific things defined by others. In terms of the Baha'i Faith it is a central concept of the nature of the scripture and the function of the administrative order. It is a temporal concept subject to change, maturation, and evolution in terms of the decisions of the Universal House of Justice. The spiritual Laws and Principles cannot be changed by the UHJ. It is by far not the traditional view of what is infallible, inerrant, nor free from error. Like your missque, Universal House of Judgement, the translation of Persian and Arabic scripture is subject uIt applies only to the temporal limitation of individual decisions at the time they were made. Understanding and proper translation is necessary in the over all context of he nature of the Baha'i Faith.

There is nothing here that is beyond my comprehension. But the above does not contain any reasons for why you believe the Universal House of Justice to be infallible and inerrant in its pronouncements.

Probably longer than 50 years, but nonetheless I disagree with this pragmatic naive hope for change, where the system has built in brakes saying no substantial change. The concept of chand and evolution of the decisions of the UHJ are acceptable on my part.

The definition of 'belief' is not rocket science. It simply states that I do not believe there is any objective evidence to support either view, and my belief is based on theological/ philosophical considerations of the nature of God, Revelation, and the nature of the relationship between God and Creation.

You're hedging. I did not ask for your definition of 'belief'! I asked what you mean here in this context by 'the belief' in the Trinity. You concede that most Christians do not understand it in a polytheistic manner so in what sense is 'the belief' in the Trinity polytheistic? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I neither misinterpret nor misunderstand the minority nor the majority of Christians, I argue my case irrespective of either view. It is true that some churches argue against the Trinity and consider it heresy as I do, and I believe their argument is valid. Arguing from perspective of popularity among Christians and their devoted belief in the doctrines and dogma of the churches, nor whatever 'pretty much says whatever,' does not impress me.

There is no argument from popularity such as something is true because it is believed by many or the majority of people or Christians. It is merely a question of whether or not you are speaking of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity as defined and believed by most Christians or not.

Very biased rewording of my statements, see below.

You are not quoting me accurately. When I say it is a problem of picking and choosing it is within the central beliefs of a religious belief system to make your own. It is not simply specific things defined by others. In terms of the Baha'i Faith it is a central concept of the nature of the scripture and the function of the administrative order. It is a temporal concept subject to change, maturation, and evolution in terms of the decisions of the Universal House of Justice. The spiritual Laws and Principles cannot be changed by the UHJ. It is by far not the traditional view of what is infallible, inerrant, nor free from error. Like your missque, Universal House of Judgement, the translation of Persian and Arabic scripture is subject understanding and proper translation in the over all context of he nature of the Baha'i Faith.

The Independent Investigation of Truth,' is indeed a process of change and the evolution of the decisions of the UHJ, philosophical and theological questions, and all other considerations of the investigation of the nature of our physical existence. Questions is the name of one of attributes of God endowed on humanity. Accepting the temporal decisions of the UHJ does not mean they cannot be questioned and changed in the future. I do not believe you fully understand the the nature of the evolving and changeable nature of infallibility and inerrancy of the decisions of the UHJ, and cling to the ancient view of rigid unchangability that relegates the Roman Church to a fossil of an ancient paradigm.

You are not answering my question. What exactly you consider to be 'humanist' and 'questionable' about my choice not to believe some tenets of the Roman Catholic faith?

[shunyadragon]

I have not asked you to spoon feed me anything at all, but if you want to know specifically what I do and do not believe among various claims of Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i Faith, just ask a specific question and I will give you a specific answer. Don't just presume that I do not believe any of the tenets of the Baha'i faith because I have already indicated a number of positive things about it, which I consider to be shared with modern Jewish and Christian theological perspectives as well, and and I have also indicated a couple of things that I do not agree with. Beyond that, if you want a specific answer, ask a specific question.

I have no specific questions.

But, the subject of this discussion is specifically why you believe that the Universal House of Justice is infallible and its pronouncements inerrant.

. . . and I have answered to best of my ability.

The discussion here is what exactly you consider to be 'humanist' and 'questionable' about my choice not to believe some tenets of the Roman Catholic faith.

I believe picking and choosing what t o believe within a faith's tenants has a humanist element to rationally decide what is right or wrong within a belief system, once on accepts the belief system itself.

There is nothing here that is beyond my comprehension. But the above does not contain any reasons for why you believe the Universal House of Justice to be infallible and inerrant in its pronouncements.

I have answered this to the best of my ability.

You're hedging. I did not ask for your definition of 'belief'! I asked what you mean here in this context by 'the belief' in the Trinity. You concede that most Christians do not understand it in a polytheistic manner so in what sense is 'the belief' in the Trinity polytheistic? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

No problem, I do not want the cake nor do I want to eat it. The fact that most Christians believe the Trinity is monotheistic is in no way a concession. It is just a matter of fact what most Christians believe for the whole course of this discussion, and it is a matter of fact I do not agree with the conclusions of 'most' Christians.

There is no argument from popularity such as something is true because it is believed by many or the majority of people or Christians. It is merely a question of whether or not you are speaking of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity as defined and believed by most Christians or not.

see above.

You are not answering my question. What exactly you consider to be 'humanist' and 'questionable' about my choice not to believe some tenets of the Roman Catholic faith?

Question answered, I consider reasoning to pick choose among the beliefs of one belief system to justify ones own belief system has a 'humanist ring.' If a belief system is really Divinely inspired by God, not sometimes or partially, my human will is not qualified to judge particular aspects of that belief system to make me comfortable with it, nor make the shoes fit any better.

If I go through the process of the 'Independent Investigation of Truth' to find a belief system that id Divinely inspired by God, I do not feel my self qualified to pick and choose within the belief system to make the shoes fit me. In fact personally the belief system I am most comfortable with is Unitarian Universalist.

The most important criteria for my search is what belief system best embraces the Universal, or catholic. All the ancient belief systems in my conclusion of my search did not reflect the universal. They only reflected part of the nature of the universal form the cultural and time frame context of that belief system. The only belief systems that reflected a universal perspective were the Unitarian Universalism from the secular humanist perspective, and the from the Theist perspective the Baha'i Faith. The in between theologies and philosophies like Deism had little or no meaning to me

Source: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=humanism+definition

Humanism - an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.

© Copyright Original Source

[robrecht]

I have no specific questions.

. . . and I have answered to best of my ability.

I believe picking and choosing what t o believe within a faith's tenants has a humanist element to rationally decide what is right or wrong within a belief system, once on accepts the belief system itself.

I have answered this to the best of my ability.

No problem, I do not want the cake nor do I want eat it. The fact that most Christians believe the Trinity is monotheistic is in no way a concession. It is just a matter of fact what most Christians believe, and it is a matter of fact I do not agree with the conclusions of 'most' Christians.

see above.

Question answered, I consider reasoning to pick choose among the beliefs of one belief system to justify ones own belief system has a 'humanist ring.'

If I go through the process of the 'Independent Investigation of Truth' to find a belief system that id Divinely inspired by God, I do not feel my self qualified to pick and choose within tht belief system to make the shoes fit me. In fact personally the belief system I am most comfortable with is Unitarian Universalist.

Source: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=humanism+definition

Humanism - an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.

© Copyright Original Source

Such an approach does not seem realistic given, among other things, the fact that religious doctrines and dogmas evolve over time. For example, the Roman Catholic dogma of papal infallibility was not even defined until 1870. Even some of the bishops invited to and assembled at Vatican I did not agree with this doctrine. In addition, no one should be compelled to assent to doctrines against one's conscience. This is not merely a humanist perspective but also flows from the nature of the church as the body of Christ and a community.

[shunyadragon]

Such an approach does not seem realistic given, among other things, the fact religious doctrines and dogmas evolve over time. For example, the Roman Catholic dogma of papal infallibility was not even defined until 1870. Even some of the bishops invited to and assembled at Vatican I did not agree with this doctrine. In addition, no one's should not be compelled to assent to doctrines against one's conscience. This is not merely a humanist perspective but also flows from the nature of the church as the body of Christ and a community.

The fact is the major framework of doctrines and dogmas of Christianity were established fairly early, and in reality did not change much. The fact that the belief system of the Roman Church hardened like arteries when a person ages remains a flawed reality, and in recent history no significant change at all is allowed. When one considers the nature of belief systems in terms of 'What is the Universal?' From my perspective I have to evaluate religions and churches on how they relate to the world in recent and modern history.

In fact the arteries are hardening in much if not most of traditional Christianity with many if not most Protestants increasingly embracing one version or another of a literal fundamentalist belief, makes the case for Christianity offering a universal belief system to humanity more than problematic.

I have over time continuously investigated different belief systems and how the relate to the universal reality of the world. I found Buddhism to have high marks, because of the limited doctrine and dogma defining their beliefs, but nonetheless real change remains foreign to pretty much all divisions of Buddhism and the believers as well. Despite the instruction of Buddha, most believe they have found IT, that which cannot be found.

It remains the culture of the ancient religions dominates and significant change basically no longer takes place.

. . . and the most important criteria for my search is what belief system best embraces the Universal, or catholic. All the ancient belief systems in my conclusion of my search did not reflect the universal. They only reflected part of the nature of the universal form the cultural and time frame context of that belief system. The only belief systems that reflected a universal perspective were the Unitarian Universalism from the secular humanist perspective, and the from the Theist perspective the Baha'i Faith. The in between theologies and philosophies like Deism had little or no meaning to me.

[robrecht]

The fact is the major framework of doctrines and dogmas of Christianity were established fairly early, and in reality did not change much. The fact that the belief system of the Roman Church hardened like arteries when a person ages remains a flawed reality, and in recent history no significant change at all is allowed. When one considers the nature of belief systems in terms of 'What is the Universal?' From my perspective I have to evaluate religions and churches on how they relate to the world in recent and modern history.

In fact the arteries are hardening in much if not most of traditional Christianity with many if not most Protestants increasingly embracing one version or another of a literal fundamentalist belief, makes the case for Christianity offering a universal belief system to humanity more than problematic.

I have over time continuously investigated different belief systems and how the relate to the universal reality of the world. I found Buddhism to have high marks, because of the limited doctrine and dogma defining their beliefs, but nonetheless real change remains foreign to pretty much all divisions of Buddhism and the believers as well. Despite the instruction of Buddha, most believe they have found IT, that which cannot be found.

It remains the culture of the ancient religions dominates and significant change basically no longer takes place.

. . . and the most important criteria for my search is what belief system best embraces the Universal, or catholic. All the ancient belief systems in my conclusion of my search did not reflect the universal. They only reflected part of the nature of the universal form the cultural and time frame context of that belief system. The only belief systems that reflected a universal perspective were the Unitarian Universalism from the secular humanist perspective, and the from the Theist perspective the Baha'i Faith. The in between theologies and philosophies like Deism had little or no meaning to me.

I realize this is your opinion, but obviously it is not yet shared by many people since the Baha'i communitis are rather small and scattered compared with the major religions that you criticize. We could better judge the reality of this claim of best embracing universality if and when the Baha'i faith has incorporated millions and billions of faithful in diverse cultures over many centuries. I suspect it would be subject to some of the same sociological forces that characterize all human institutions that attempt to address such challenges. In the meantime, let me know if you ever develop any specific reasons for believing in the infallibility and inerrancy of the Universal House of Justice.

[shunyadragon]

I realize this is your opinion, but obviously it is not yet shared by many people since the Baha'i communitis are rather small and scattered compared with the major religions that you criticize. We could better judge the reality of this claim of best embracing universality if and when the Baha'i faith has incorporated millions and billions of faithful in diverse cultures over many centuries. I suspect it would be subject to some of the same sociological forces that characterize all human institutions that attempt to address such challenges.

I believe your claims of numbers required is an argument from the fallacy of popularity of a belief or numbers of believers validates it. This would translate to the case for Christianity is not valid until the numbers reflected its popularity.

My 'Independent Search for Truth' goes far deeper than this superficial fallacy. Part of the reason I consider the secular humanism, agnostic/atheist, alternative today is that evolving from the Enlightenment philosophers and many of our Founding Fathers is that it reflects an evolving and changing philosophy that uniformly accepts the evolving changing knowledge of science and the nature of our knowledge in all things. The Baha'i Faith is Theistic worldview that also embraces this evolving and changing knowledge of the nature of our physical existence and humanity from the Theist perspective. Regardless of your persistent obfescations the simplicity my responses that decision making process of the Universal House of Justice also acknowledges the changing and evolving nature of their guidance for humanity regardless of what you call the process. Consultation and the skeptical questioning basis for the 'Investigation of Truth' acknowledges that change is a part of the process.

This is a significant part of the fact that these world views go much further in acknowledging a consistent dynamic changing and evolving nature of our knowledge of both the spiritual nature of our existence, but also the knowledge of our physical world lacking in ancient paradigms like Christianity. It is actually grounds for rejecting these ancient world views entirely as many secular humanists believe, but I find spiritual value in all the ancient world views as a part of spiritual heritage of the human relationship to God.

In the meantime, let me know if you ever develop any specific reasons for believing in the infallibility and inerrancy of the Universal House of Justice.

In the mean time question addressed and answered. Actually repeated somewhat in the response above. Case closed.

[robrecht]

I believe your claims of numbers required is an argument from the fallacy of popularity of a belief or numbers of believers validates it. This would translate to the case for Christianity is not valid until the numbers reflected its popularity.

No, not at all. I am not advancing any argument for the truth of Christianity whatsoever. I am merely stating the challenges pursuant to any religion or other human institution which seeks to demonstrate true universality over the centuries. Only time will tell if your current judgement will stand the test of time. It is easy to criticize the various sociological effects and consequences of other religions that have embraced and endured such challenges.

My 'Independent Search for Truth' goes far deeper than this superficial fallacy. Part of the reason I consider the secular humanism, agnostic/atheist, alternative today is that evolving from the Enlightenment philosophers and many of our Founding Fathers is that reflects an evolving and changing philosophy that uniformly accepts the evolving changing knowledge of science and the nature of our knowledge in all things. The Baha'i Faith is Theistic worldview that also embraces this evolving and changing knowledge of the nature of our physical existence and humanity from the Theist perspective. Regardless of your persistent obfescations the simplicity my responses that decision making process of the Universal House of Justice also acknowledges the changing and evolving nature of their guidance for humanity regardless of what you call the process. Consultation and the skeptical questioning basis for the 'Investigation of Truth' acknowledges that change is a part of the process.

This is a significant part of the fact that these world views go much further in acknowledging a consistent dynamic changing and evolving nature of our knowledge of both the spiritual nature of our existence, but also the knowledge of our physical world lacking in ancient paradigms like Christianity. It is actually grounds for rejecting these ancient world views entirely as many secular humanists believe, but I find spiritual value in all the ancient world views as a part of spiritual heritage of th enuman relationship to God.

In the mean time question addressed and answered. Actually repeated somewhat in the response above. Case closed.

Responding with a strawman is hardly sufficient.

[shunyadragon]

No, not at all. I am not advancing any argument for the truth of Christianity whatsoever. I am merely stating the challenges pursuant to any religion or other human institution which seeks to demonstrate true universality over the centuries. Only time will tell if your current judgement will stand the test of time. It is easy to criticize the various sociological effects and consequences of other religions that have embraced and endured such challenges.

What you clearly described is indeed an argument from the fallacy of arguing from popularity. I never argued either way concerning the validity of Christianity. I was arguing for the factt that you assert that the limited numbers in the early history is a factor for the validity of the belief system. The same problem applies to the early history of Christianity, and you fail to acknowledge that.

It is a valid argument that the 'true universality' of a belief system is grounded in the actual beliefs, the nature of the relationships to the present world of humanity, and not numbers nor length of history. Christianity has been around for thousands of years as well as other ancient religions. The only thing that demonstrates is that they have prospered in the 'test of time,' an most definitely not a witness as to their universal nature.

Responding with a strawman is hardly sufficient.

Failure to respond is no excuse.