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

[JonathanL]

Abusive name calling? Slander? This is ridiculous.

I have no idea why you're still engaging in discussion with shuny when there are a lot of posters in this thread that you could have a lot more fruitful discussions with.

[shunyadragon]

Abusive name calling? Slander? This is ridiculous.

No not ridiculous at all. Accusation of boosterism, ad hominem arguments, and religious polemics, are meaningless name calling that DO NOT contribute to the dialogue.

My posts are straight forward and sincere as to what I believe. You should be able to take them as such as disagreements, and continue the dialogue constructively without the blue smoke and mirrors antics.

[robrecht]

No not ridiculous at all. Accusation of boosterism, ad hominem arguments, and religious polemics, are meaningless name calling that DO NOT contribute to the dialogue.

My posts are straight forward and sincere as to what I believe. You should be able to take them as such as disagreements, and continue the dialogue constructively without the blue smoke and mirrors antics.

[shunyadragon]

I've always challenged you to engage with thoughtful theological positions rather than mere <snipe>. Your typical response is that positions of theologians are not meaningful to a discussion because your point in discussions often seems to be merely the superiority of more modern revelatory texts of the Baha'i Faith over more ancient scriptures or doctrinal positions of Judaism, Christianity (especially), or Islam understood in a simplistic propositional manner.

False, I did not consider theologians and apologists not meaningful to the discussion, but I often disagreed with your references to some theologians and apologists. Nothing merely or necessarily simplistic here, I am a Baha'i, and of course prefer the Baha'i Faith over more ancient scriptures or doctrinal positions of Judaism, Christianity (especially), or Islam. There are very good reasons I believe this, not only my belief, but the history of the religions is more than adequate to justify this. As I said before, I do not consider them False, but incomplete from the universal perspective. That is why they are not options for me to believe in them, and why the strong agnostic/weak atheist is the best option.

The fact that I argue for the Baha'i Faith as superior is obvious, it was what I believe. Do you actually expect someone to argue what they do not believe? I will engage in modern theological views, but I consider them variable and inconsistent, and the most important problem is what the Doctrines, Dogmas, beliefs and teachings of Traditional Christianity, Judaism and Islam which at present show no signs of changing. In Christianity when some change their views they just form a new church. I do not believe that is the answer.

You have failed to demonstrate any significant change in the Doctrines and Dogmas of Traditional Christianity and what they teach to the followers of the world, particularly the Roman Church. The suggestion of other possible interpretations does not make the cut. Still waiting . . .

The views of modern theologians and apologists are ok to discuss, in fact some are proposing interpretations of scripture that are indeed similar to the Baha'i Faith

[Adrift]

Curious, why do you always capitalize Doctrines and Dogmas of Traditional Christianity. Is that the official title of something?

[shunyadragon]

Curious, why do you always capitalize Doctrines and Dogmas of Traditional Christianity. Is that the official title of something?

The represent the unchanging fixed foundation of Traditional Christian beliefs that do not change much from church to church of the dominant Traditional Christian churches.

Robrecht seem to believe that the alternate interpretations of some modern theologians and apologists should be given equal consideration. I believe they can be discussed, but unfortunately there is no evidence they have influenced any possible change in the foundation beliefs now or in the future

[Adrift]

The represent the unchanging fixed foundation of Traditional Christian beliefs that do not change much from church to church of the dominant Traditional Christian churches.

Robrecht seem to believe that the alternate interpretations of some modern theologians and apologists should be given equal consideration. I believe they can be discussed, but unfortunately there is no evidence they have influenced any possible change in the foundation beliefs now or in the future

I'm not sure I'm following. Are you saying that you capitalize the first letter of the words in the phrase "Doctrines and Dogmas of Traditional Christianity" to signify to others your belief that the doctrines and dogmas don't change? Capitalization is supposed to infer a sort of permanence upon the words?

[shunyadragon]

I'm not sure I'm following. Are you saying that you capitalize the first letter of the words in the phrase "Doctrines and Dogmas of Traditional Christianity" to signify to others your belief that the doctrines and dogmas don't change? Capitalization is supposed to infer a sort of permanence upon the words?

No the capitalization does not infer a sort permanence. It is simply emphasis on the words. I do not consider this issue you brought up is of any significance to the intent of the discussion.

[Adrift]

No the capitalization does not infer a sort permanence. It is simply emphasis on the words.

Ok, so that's pretty much all I wanted to know. You're not actually using it as a title for any official record or book or anything, it just happens to be an idiosyncrasy.

[shunyadragon]

We are at present arguing from different perspectives. We both object some other world views, but for different reasons. Apparently you of course object to the Baha'i view in the same manner. Accusing others of being polemicists, and insisting your way is the high road is not meaningful.

My objection center around what most Traditional Christians consider the essentials, which you have avoided addressing as to whether you consider these or some essentials as necessary for Christian belief, and how these beliefs are grounded in scripture. Apparently you favor developing your own belief system and particular belief in God based on some modern and post modern views of theologians and apologists.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...an-faith/page8

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?

I am perfectly willing to discuss modern and post modern perspectives on Christian theology and that of other religions, but these views could not be the basis of believing in Traditional Christianity, particularly the Roman Church, nor any other ancient religion. Yes, there is value, spiritual guidance, inspiration, and value in the basis for morals and ethics, and value in study modern and post modern theologians, but these studies again would not be basis of belief, and do not resolve the incompleteness of the belief in any one ancient religion.

[robrecht]

We are at present arguing from different perspectives. We both object some other world views, but for different reasons. Apparently you of course object to the Baha'i view in the same manner.

Untrue. I have reassured you many times that I do not object to the Baha'i worldview. Quite the contrary, as I have said many times, I find it admirable.

Accusing others of being polemicists, and insisting your way is the high road is not meaningful.

I think it is very meaningful to challenge you to abandon polemics in favor of more substantive and thoughtful discussion and dialogue.

My objection center around what most Traditional Christians consider the essentials, which you have avoided addressing as to whether you consider these or some essentials as necessary for Christian belief, and how these beliefs are grounded in scripture. Apparently you favor developing your own belief system and particular belief in God based on some modern and post modern views of theologians and apologists.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...an-faith/page8

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?

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.

I am perfectly willing to discuss modern and post modern perspectives on Christian theology and that of other religions, but these views could not be the basis of believing in Traditional Christianity, particularly the Roman Church, nor any other ancient religion. Yes, there is value, spiritual guidance, inspiration, and value in the basis for morals and ethics, and value in study modern and post modern theologians, but these studies again would not be basis of belief, and do not resolve the incompleteness of the belief in any one ancient religion.

Many Catholic and other theologians would disagree with you about this. You need only peruse a good introduction to fundamental theology. I think I've recommended a couple to you previously.

[robrecht]

This is a strawman, one which you frequently employ. I have never objected to your favoring and defending your own view. That is a given, as I have previously clarified for you, and did so again in my previous post that you just quoted. And yet, even when I repeatedly clarify for you that I have no objection to this, and even when you just cited me trying to clarify this once more for you, you still trot out this strawman.

You have failed to demonstrate any significant change in the Doctrines and Dogmas of Traditional Christianity and what they teach to the followers of the world, particularly the Roman Church. The suggestion of other possible interpretations does not make the cut. Still waiting . . .

This is another of your frequently employed strawmen. If I do not in fact claim or intend to demonstrate that a doctrine or dogma of traditional Christianity has changed within traditional churches, it is absolutely pointless and ridiculous for you to say that I have failed to demonstrate something that I never set out to demonstrate and even more ridiculous for you to wait for me to do this. Pure strawman. It only serves your polemical agenda and completely fails to address my position.

The views of modern theologians and apologists are ok to discuss, in fact some are proposing interpretations of scripture that are indeed similar to the Baha'i Faith

[shunyadragon]

I think it is very meaningful to challenge you to abandon <snipe> in favor of more substantive and thoughtful discussion and dialogue.

It is a two way street. Your monologue needs to more like dialogue, and if possible a thoughtful discussion. Dump the polemics foolishness and high minded monologue, because it is meaningless.

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.

I consider the above wordy and vague.

Many Catholic and other theologians would disagree with you about this. You need only peruse a good introduction to fundamental theology. I think I've recommended a couple to you previously.

. . . but most would not. The bolded insult is not productive. It is another version of talking down to me.

[robrecht]

It is a two way street. Your monologue needs to more like dialogue, and if possible a thoughtful discussion. Dump the polemics foolishness and high minded monologue, because it is meaningless.

I am always seeking dialogue. You need only reciprocate.

I consider the above wordy and vague.

Then seek out a more detailed exposition.

. . . but most would not. The bolded insult is not productive. It is another version of talking down to me.

You seem so easily insulted where none is intended. Have you read either of the books of fundamental theology I have recommended to you?

[shunyadragon]

I am always seeking dialogue. You need only reciprocate.

No you do not!

Then seek out a more detailed exposition.

The question was simple. Your response was not. In the thread I cited, those that posted gave straight forward and specific answers. It is actually related to our discussion, because it is the bottom line as to how churches and believers define God, their relationship with God and salvation.

You seem so easily insulted where none is intended. Have you read either of the books of fundamental theology I have recommended to you?

Challenges like boosterism are indeed insults. Of course, I will argue and defend the Baha'i view and the reasons why I believe what I believe, and my reasons for not believing other religions. This is not boosterism.

I am constantly reading and I have for over 40 years. Disagreement between us should not be interpreted as a lack of fundamental knowledge. I am reading Feser, but find him problematic. He tends to play word games, and unnecessarily denigrates atheists and broadly scientists on philosophy issues. His use of the vague term 'scientism,' a layman's term, creates an us versus them false dichotomy.