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

[shunyadragon]

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."

There are of course, different views, and the Independent Investigation of Truth and debate goes on, and you can probably provide different views. If you wish to discuss my view at present the reference I gave reflects my view, and does discuss specific aspects of translation. Also I have provided a direct citation of scripture that described the Spiritual Laws and Principles as the only unchangeable infallible beliefs for this age and dispensation.

Again, let's move on if you wish to discuss my views.

[robrecht]

There are of course, different views, and the Independent Investigation of Truth and debate goes on, and you can probably provide different views. If you wish to discuss my view at present the reference I gave reflects my view, and does discuss specific aspects of translation. Also I have provided a direct citation of scripture that described the Spiritual Laws and Principles as the only unchangeable infallible beliefs for this age and dispensation.

Again, let's move on if you wish to discuss my views.

You are not interested in discussing the legitimacy of your source, bahairants.com? Does it represent the view of the Universal House of Justice or not? Is it merely personal opinion? By the way, whenever I have given you my own personal academic theological opinion or exegetical interpretation, you typically claim that such views are practically meaningless.

[shunyadragon]

You are not interested in discussing the legitimacy of your source, bahairants.com? Does it represent the view of the Universal House of Justice or not? Is it merely personal opinion? By the way, whenever I have given you my own personal academic theological opinion or exegetical interpretation, you typically claim that such views are practically meaningless.

IF you wish to discuss my view this is it. The source documented some translation issues and citations of Baha'i writings as I have. In looking back I have read over the years different views on the issue, and I am satisfied with the reference I gave, and scripture referring to Spiritual Laws and Principles. You have over time presented different sources with different views on scripture. This is ok, but at this point contesting the legitimacy of the source would not be constructive. You would simply present different views on the subject, which I am familiar with. My references concerning science and other issues have clearly demonstrated change over time in the evolving view of the Baha'i Faith, and I believe this is sufficient to support my view.

In the bold above I basically disagree with you. You are not approaching our dialogue with an objective unbiased view. Your view that the reference attacks the UHJ represents this problem. I do not believe it 'attacks' the UHJ.

Your methods of dialogue remind of someone trying to find holes in the sieve of fallible human beliefs.

[robrecht]

IF you wish to discuss my view this is it. The source documented some translation issues and citations of Baha'i writings as I have. In looking back I have read over the years different views on the issue, and I am satisfied with the reference I gave, and scripture referring to Spiritual Laws and Principles. You have over time presented different sources with different views on scripture. This is ok, but at this point contesting the legitimacy of the source would not be constructive. You would simply present different views on the subject, which I am familiar with. My references concerning science and other issues have clearly demonstrated change over time in the evolving view of the Baha'i Faith, and I believe this is sufficient to support my view.

In the bold above I basically disagree with you. You are not approaching our dialogue with an objective unbiased view. Your view that the reference attacks the UHJ represents this problem. I do not believe it 'attacks' the UHJ.

Your methods of dialogue remind of someone trying to find holes in the sieve of fallible human beliefs.

I am not contesting the legitimacy of your source, simply asking you about it.

[shunyadragon]

I am not contesting the legitimacy of your source, simply asking you about it.

The question of the 'legitimacy' of the source is more the presenting of different views on the subject. The source in and of it own is basically 'legitimate,' and cites scripture, historical views, and translation issues on the subject. I do not believe those who disagree are necessarily not 'legitimate,' but present their views on the issue.

[robrecht]

The question of the 'legitimacy' of the source is more the presenting of different views on the subject. The source in and of it own is basically 'legitimate,' and cites scripture, historical views, and translation issues on the subject. I do not believe those who disagree are necessarily not 'legitimate,' but present their views on the issue.

But does it represent the view of the Universal House of Justice of its own authority?

[shunyadragon]

But does it represent the view of the Universal House of Justice of its own authority?

I do not believe it agrees nor disagrees. I am familiar with different levels of infallibility in the Baha'i Faith. The following citation acknowledges change and amendment of the decision of the UHJ.

[shunyadragon]

In a previous post you questioned the role of democracy in the Baha'i Faith as part of the process of change. You mentioned the election within orders of the Roman Church as an example, but I am not sure how this transfers, because the hierarchy of the Roman Church is not remotely democratic from the perspective of the believers.

Democracy, of course, is not the ultimate means of all ends, but it is indeed a vehicle for change.

[robrecht]

I do not believe it agrees nor disagrees. I am familiar with different levels of infallibility in the Baha'i Faith. The following citation acknowledges change and amendment of the decision of the UHJ.

LOL! That's the very same page I quoted for you 6 days ago when I was acquainting you with the Baha'i belief in the inerrancy and infallibility of the Universal House of Justice. We've come full circle and are finally on the same page.

[robrecht]

In a previous post you questioned the role of democracy in the Baha'i Faith as part of the process of change. You mentioned the election within orders of the Roman Church as an example, but I am not sure how this transfers, because the hierarchy of the Roman Church is not remotely democratic from the perspective of the believers.

Democracy, of course, is not the ultimate means of all ends, but it is indeed a vehicle for change.

I was not refering to the hierarchy of the church but to the history of monasteries and religious orders as an illustration of the fact that democracy is not a panacea for avoiding the human abuse of religious authority and general decline of religious ideals throughout history. You seemed to think that I had not taken into consideration the novelty of democracy and its role in safeguarding the Baha'i community over time, but I am very familiar with the exercise of democracy in religious communities.

[shunyadragon]

LOL! That's the very same page I quoted for you 6 days ago when I was acquainting you with the Baha'i belief in the inerrancy and infallibility of the Universal House of Justice. We've come full circle and are finally on the same page.

Maybe then you will agree with me, the concept of infallibility and inerrancy is a very limited concept for UHJ that allows for change over time. What's your problem now? Is it just the words used that offend you?

I do not believe you cited this particular important point citing the actual nature of the UHJ decision making process.

[shunyadragon]

I was not refering to the hierarchy of the church but to the history of monasteries and religious orders as an illustration of the fact that democracy is not a panacea for avoiding the human abuse of religious authority and general decline of religious ideals throughout history. You seemed to think that I had not taken into consideration the novelty of democracy and its role in safeguarding the Baha'i community over time, but I am very familiar with the exercise of democracy in religious communities.

It is not an illustration that of the fact that democracy is not a panacea for avoiding the human abuse of religious authority and general decline of religious ideals throughout history, because it is not democracy in any way shape or form.

I would never propose that it is some kind of panacea, but your example is bogus. There are other reasons for the human abuse of religious authority and general decline of religious ideals throughout history, but not being accountable to democratic system is an important issue.

[robrecht]

Maybe then you will agree with me, the concept of infallibility and inerrancy is a very limited concept for UHJ that allows for change over time. What's you problem now? Is just the words used?

I think you should first agree with and thank me for educating you about your own faith, namely that infallibility and inerrancy are indeed claims made by Baha'i about the Universal House of Justice! Otherwise you sound like Donald Trump trying to take credit for finally putting an end to birtherism. Then perhaps we can try to understand together what exactly else you are supposed to believe as a Baha'i. I have my own ideas, based on my study of religious traditions, but I am not that familiar with the various Baha'i traditions. As for judgements of the Universal House of Justice being able to be amended or abrogated, this is not news to me, and popes and councils claim the same authority, indeed this was one of the seninal issues that initiated theological reflection upon papal authority and infallibility in the Roman Catholic tradition. I still await from you reasons why one should believe that the Universal House of Justice is infallible and inerrant, but you do not seem inclined to articulate these.

[robrecht]

It is not an illustration that of the fact that democracy is not a panacea for avoiding the human abuse of religious authority and general decline of religious ideals throughout history, because it is not democracy in any way shape or form.

I would never propose that it is some kind of panacea, but your example is bogus. There are other reasons for the human abuse of religious authority and general decline of religious ideals throughout history, but not being accountable to democratic system is an important issue.

Translation please? You said I was not taking democracy into account and I demonstrated that I certainly was. Beyond that I am not sure what you are trying to say here.

[shunyadragon]

I think you should first agree with and thank me for educating you about your own faith, namely that infallibility and inerrancy are indeed claims made by Baha'i about the Universal House of Justice!

NO! Your ego just popped flush barrier.