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

[robrecht]

What you clearly described is indeed an argument from the fallacy of arguing from popularity.

No, I made no argument from popularity, neither for or against the truth of any proposition. I did not even assert the truth or falseness of any proposition, let alone argue for same on the basis of popularity.

I never argued either way concerning the validity of Christianity.

I never said or presumed that you were.

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.

I never said anything about the validity of a belief system being based upon or even related to the number of proponents either in the early history or at any other point in the history of a belief system.

The same problem applies to the early history of Christianity, and you fail to acknowledge that.

It is completely irrelevant to the point I was making.

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.

Sure; I never said otherwise.

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.

I made no claim whatsoever that the length of time that Christianity or any other religion has been around was a witness to their universal nature.

My point was merely that your criticisms of the Roman Catholic church and much of traditional Christianity as suffering from 'hardening of the arteries', and of real change being foreign to Buddhist believers in pretty much all of the various divisions of Buddhism may end up also being true of Baha'i-ism if and when it has become a major religious tradition surviving and flourishing over many centuries. This is not an argument for or against the truth or falsity of Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity or the Baha'i faith; it merely represents an awareness of some of the sociological forces at play. Got it?

Failure to respond is no excuse.

To what do you imagine I did not respond?

[shunyadragon]

No, I made no argument from popularity, neither for or against the truth of any proposition. I did not even assert the truth or falseness of any proposition, let alone argue for same on the basis of popularity.

I never said or presumed that you were.

I never said anything about the validity of a belief system being based upon or even related to the number of proponents either in the early history or at any other point in the history of a belief system.

It is completely irrelevant to the point I was making.

Sure; I never said otherwise.

Problem, direct quote from you . . .

. . . but obviously it is not yet shared by many people since the Baha'i communities 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.

Your obviously back peddling here and denying what you said.Most definitely the fallacy of the argument from popularity. Would this be true for Christianity in 150 AD?

The reality is the Baha'i Faith is larger than a few scattered communities and has membership in the millions, with National Spiritual Assemplies in almost every country except those where it is severely persecuted.

I made no claim whatsoever that the length of time that Christianity or any other religion has been around was a witness to their universal nature.

I did not say you did. I was making the parallel to your negative statemetn concerning the the need for there to be millions of Baha'is and pass the test of time.

My point was merely that your criticisms of the Roman Catholic church and much of traditional Christianity as suffering from 'hardening of the arteries', and of real change being foreign to Buddhist believers in pretty much all of the various divisions of Buddhism may end up also being true of Baha'i-ism if and when it has become a major religious tradition surviving and flourishing over many centuries. This is not an argument for or against the truth or falsity of Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity or the Baha'i faith; it merely represents an awareness of some of the sociological forces at play. Got it?

To what do you imagine I did not respond?

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 the human relationship to God.

[robrecht]

Shuny, you're missing the point entirely. The problem with 'hardening of the arteries' of Christian institutions come from their acquisition of societal, sometimes even governmental and military, power over centuries. This is largely a bad thing in terms of diminishing or even obliterating the inspiring message of the founder. If and when the Baha'i communities acquire such centuries-long societal power, we will see if they suffer from some of the same negative effects.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, you're missing the point entirely. The problem with 'hardening of the arteries' of Christian institutions come from their acquisition of societal, sometimes even governmental and military, power over centuries. This is largely a bad thing in terms of diminishing or even obliterating the inspiring message of the founder. If and when the Baha'i communities acquire such centuries-long societal power, we will see if they suffer from some of the same negative effects.

Not really missing the point totally. You are judging a faith, not by the nature of its beliefs, but by hypothetical future problems, and the need for larger numbers to validate a religion. Actually your presenting a very good argument for secular humanist choices.

This is actually a large part of the reason for the Baha'i Faith, and accepted that happens to all religions as they age as described in the Baha'i writings, It will eventually happen to the Baha'i Faith. It i is also a good reason to abandon the ancient paradigms for the rebirth and renewal of religion found in the Baha'i Faith. The built in characteristics of democracy, and allowing for change over time reduce the potential of 'hardening of the arteries.'

[robrecht]

This is actually a large part of the reason for the Baha'i Faith, and accepted that happens to all religions as they age as described in the Baha'i writings, It will eventually happen to the Baha'i Faith. It i is also a good reason to abandon the ancient paradigms for the rebirth and renewal of religion found in the Baha'i Faith. The built in characteristics of democracy, and allowing for change over time reduce the potential of 'hardening of the arteries.'

Nice prediction, but, as I said before, only time will tell. In my opinion, institutional claims of infallibility and inerrancy do not bode well for avoiding some if the same pitfalls.

[robrecht]

Not really missing the point totally. You are judging a faith, not by the nature of its beliefs, but by hypothetical future problems, and the need for larger numbers to validate a religion. Actually your presenting a very good argument for secular humanist choices.

Not at all! I'm reserving judgment. Only time will tell. In the meantime, I will point out some of the problematic elements that you prefer to ignore.

[shunyadragon]

Nice prediction, but, as I said before, only time will tell. In my opinion, institutional claims of infallibility and inerrancy do not bode well for avoiding some if the same pitfalls.

Your not considering the the fact that built into the Baha'i system is democracy, and the allowing for evolving change in the decision making process of the UHJ. Also the principles of the Harmony of Science and Religion, and the Independent Investigation of Truth bode well for avoiding such pitfalls.

Nothing will ever be the ideal perfection in the fallible human world that many expect in the future.

[robrecht]

Your not considering the the fact that built into the Baha'i system is democracy, and the allowing for evolving change in the decision making process of the UHJ. Also the principles of the Harmony of Science and Religion, and the Independent Investigation of Truth bode well for avoiding such pitfalls.

Nothing will ever be the ideal perfection in the fallible human world that many expect in the future.

No, I do not ignore that. Monasteries and religious orders have been electing abbots and religious superiors for centuries. It can be a good thing, certainly, but it is no panacea, as we can see from the history of religious orders. Women cannot be elected to exercise leadership in the Universal House of Justice. To change that situation would require a new revelation from God, according to you. In the meantime, these elected men claim infallibility and inerrancy. The independent investigation of truth is, of course, a wonderful thing, encouraged by theologians, philosophers, and other academics of all major religions, but you are not free to publicly question the infallibility and inerrancy of the Universal House of Justice. You cannot recognize obvious anti-Jewish rhetoric when it is spoken by the founder of your religion. I encourage you to embrace a truly independent investigation of truth.

[shunyadragon]

No, I do not ignore that. Monasteries and religious orders have been electing abbots and religious superiors for centuries. It can be a good thing, certainly, but it is no panacea, as we can see from the history of religious orders. Women cannot be elected to exercise leadership in the Universal House of Justice. To change that situation would require a new revelation from God, according to you. In the meantime, these elected men claim infallibility and inerrancy. The independent investigation of truth is, of course, a wonderful thing, encouraged by theologians, philosophers, and other academics of all major religions, but you are not free to publicly question the infallibility and inerrancy of the Universal House of Justice. You cannot recognize obvious anti-Jewish rhetoric when it is spoken by the founder of your religion. I encourage you to embrace a truly independent investigation of truth.

You still have not understood the concept of infallibility and inerrancy in the Baha'i Houses of Justice despite hundreds of posts passing, and does not mean the decisions cannot be changed in the future. In the Baha'i Faith this is a temporal evolving and changing process.

I provided a pretty comprehensive explanation in a previous post with a good reference, and you appeared to have ignored it. I do not believe you opened it and read the reference. I also explained that it is only the Spiritual Laws and Principles that cannot be changed, and not all the writings of the Baha'i Faith.

Your hung up on an old world understanding of the concept.

Source: http://bahairants.com/the-concept-of-infallibility-in-the-bahai-faith-399.html

The UHJ is not bound by its own history, nor by the need to appear consistent to the world. If is FREE, in a way that the Pope is not. He, like the Shaykh al-Azhar and the Shi`ah Mujtahids, dare not be seen to change what the authorities before them have laid down. They are prisoners of history, and of the expectations of the faithful.

© Copyright Original Source

[robrecht]

You still have not understood the concept of infallibility and inerrancy in the Baha'i Houses of Justice despite hundreds of posts passing, and does not mean the decisions cannot be changed in the future. In the Baha'i Faith this is a temporal evolving and changing process.

I provided a pretty comprehensive explanation in a previous post with a good reference, and you appeared to have ignored it. I do not believe you opened it and read the reference. I also explained that it is only the Spiritual Laws and Principles that cannot be changed, and not all the writings of the Baha'i Faith.

Your hung up on an old world understanding of the concept.

Source: http://bahairants.com/the-concept-of-infallibility-in-the-bahai-faith-399.html

The UHJ is not bound by its own history, nor by the need to appear consistent to the world. If is FREE, in a way that the Pope is not. He, like the Shaykh al-Azhar and the Shi`ah Mujtahids, dare not be seen to change what the authorities before them have laid down. They are prisoners of history, and of the expectations of the faithful.

© Copyright Original Source

No, I understand completely what you mean by infallibility within a given dispensation. I understood it the very first time you explained it to me with respect to the Baha'i sacred scriptures and I understood it when I showed you that Baha'i also believe in the infallibility and inerrancy of the Universal House of Jusrice. Actually, it was you who did not think that infallibility applied to the Universal House of Justice because their decisions could change, which is not the Baha'i understanding of infallibility and inerrancy. Remember?

[shunyadragon]

No, I understand completely what you mean by infallibility within a given dispensation. I understood it the very first time you explained it to me with respect to the Baha'i sacred scriptures and I understood it when I showed you that Baha'i also believe in the infallibility and inerrancy of the Universal House of Jusrice. Actually, it was you who did not think that infallibility applied to the Universal House of Justice because their decisions could change, which is not the Baha'i understanding of infallibility and inerrancy. Remember?

NO! I do not remember !?!?!?!

I may have left the impression in reference to infallibility and inerrancy that the traditional Christian view did not apply to the Baha'i Scripture and the UHJ, but I believe I have clarified my view in repeated posts as described in the reference. Your recent posts do not reflect this.

This is a misunderstanding, if this is the impression you have. The reference I gave is very clear and specific as to the nature of infallibility and inerrancy concerning the Baha'i Scripture and the UJH. Let's go from here with this reference so there is no further misunderstanding.

[robrecht]

NO! I do not remember !?!?!?!

I may have left the impression in reference to infallibility and inerrancy that the traditional Christian view did not apply to the Baha'i Scripture and the UHJ, but I believe I have clarified my view in repeated posts as described in the reference. Your recent posts do not reflect this.

This is a misunderstanding, if this is the impression you have. The reference I gave is very clear and specific as to the nature of infallibility and inerrancy concerning the Baha'i Scripture and the UJH. Let's go from here with this reference so there is no further misunderstanding.

http://bahai-library.com/uhj_election_infallibility_uhj

[robrecht]

.... Let's go from here with this reference so there is no further misunderstanding.

OK, what do you know about this blog bahairants that you are using as a reference? The author (or group of authors) claims to be in good standing as a Baha'i but is rather critical of the Universal House of Justice. Another person claims this is a ruse of feigned dissent. I can get you references for these views, but I presume you should already know much more than me about the nature of this site that you are using as a reference.

[shunyadragon]

Here was the exchange:

robrecht: Now, what about the infallibility of the Universal House of Justice? Do you hold a minimalist or maximalist view of its infallibility or do you deny that it is infallible?

Shuny: Since I believe the decisions of the UHJ may change in the future I do not believe infallibility applies. Of course I may be wrong.
http://bahai-library.com/uhj_election_infallibility_uhj

considering this citation I was correction in my assessment, and I have since clarified the difference from the Christian view and the Baha'i view. Please note in this particular exchange I said 'I may be wrong.' I was referring to an unchangeable absolute infallibility and inerrancy.

One citation by Abdul'baha does not fully explain the infallibility and inerrancy concept in the Baha'i Faith. If you wish to go on from here let us refer to the more complete description that I cited, and the citations I referred to in the past concerning Spiritual Laws and Principles.

[robrecht]

considering this citation I was correction in my assessment, and I have since clarified the difference from the Christian view and the Baha'i view. Please note in this particular exchange I said 'I may be wrong.' I was referring to an unchangeable absolute infallibility and inerrancy.

One citation by Abdul'baha does not fully explain the infallibility and inerrancy concept in the Baha'i Faith. If you wish to go on from here let us refer to the more complete description that I cited, and the citations I referred to in the past concerning Spiritual Laws and Principles.

As I mentioned a few pages ago, I already realized you were mistaken. Now, with respect to your bolded repetition, see my earlier post: "OK, what do you know about this blog bahairants that you are using as a reference? The author (or group of authors) claims to be in good standing as a Baha'i but is rather critical of the Universal House of Justice. Another person claims this is a ruse of feigned dissent. I can get you references for these views, but I presume you should already know much more than me about the nature of this site that you are using as a reference."