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

[robrecht]

No you do not!

It is absolutely true. I am always seeking dialogue. You only need reciprocate to confirm this.

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.

Like Thomas, I do not believe that God can be defined. Maybe that helps explain why my answer did not seem as simple as your question. If there is anything that you find vague or overly complex, you need only seek clarification with a follow-up question.

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.

Perhaps it was originally or merely intended as an insult by pman, but I don't think so. I suspect he chose the actual word 'boosterism' because of the alliteration with 'Baha'i' and, being itself a rather humorous and unusual word in the context of religion, it was a way of making fun of you in a light-hearted and humorous manner. Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt there was an intended critique of your behavior on the forum, and I personally think it was a valid critique. I think a more sober description of you is that of a religious polemicist. I intend that as an objective description of your frequent argumentative tactics in denigrating other religions with simplistic characterizations as inferior and less evolved than your own more nuanced description of your own religious faith and institution, of which you show no willingness to critically reflect upon. If you would engage more effectively with thoughtful theological expressions of other faiths, the denigrating comparison would not be so one-sided and relatively superficial. While I accept 'Christianity' as an evolution of some streams of various Judaisms of the time, I do not feel a need to denigrate Judaism as a whole or other strands within earlier expressions of Jewish faith and I fully recognize and appreciate that all of these earlier strains continued to evolve alongside multiple Christianities, which have also evolved a variety of theological schools and traditions, some quite profound. I do not think Christianity can be well understood apart from its roots in and continuing commonalities with Jewish faith. My Christian faith and beliefs are not a criticism of Jewish faith and beliefs, which I hold in the very highest esteem. And I am very willing to critique 'Christianity', its institutions and history, not only the obvious flaws but also more subtle issues. Once again with respect to this strawman ('to argue and defend the Baha'i view and the reasons why I believe what I believe, and my reasons for not believing other religions is not boosterism'), I have no objection whatsoever to your efforts to argue for and in defense of your Baha'i beliefs, nor do I attack your Baha'i beliefs, 'though I do sometimes enjoy challenging your beliefs in infallibility or anti-Jewish expressions of faith that you would not tolerate in adherents of the religions you like to criticize. I would better appreciate your defense or articulation of your faith as more credible if it admitted of any self-critical reflection.

Apart from your bringing up pman's description of your behavior as Baha'i Boosterism, and my own description of your use of polemics, the specific 'insult' being referenced here was my saying: "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." I meant no insult whatsoever by this remark and it should not be perceived as such. If you were more familiar with some works of fundamental theology, particularly those I recommended, you would realize that my approach is not at all peculiar or isolated among modern Christian theologians.

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.

Feser is not a theologian, but a philosopher, I believe. I have recommended to you a couple of books of fundamental theology for a very specific reason and it has nothing to do with a slur upon your lack of reading or fundamental knowledge. That is a misunderstanding of 'fundamental theology' as a modern academic discipline. Fundamental theology has to do with fundamental questions of theological method, particularly with respect to revelation, its sources within history and human experience, and the very nature of theology as a modern academic discipline. Familiarity with some good works of fundamental theology would resolve a lot of the objections you seem to have about my view and expression of the Christian faith.

[robrecht]

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

No, you still seem to be misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting my position. All theological statements need to be understood theologically. It is not a question of a alternate theological interpretations being given equal consideration alongside otherwise non-theological statements of fixed foundational beliefs. All expressions of belief, be they scriptural, creedal, concilliar, or personal are expressed in theological terms that are necessarily subject to fundamental questions of theological, historico-critical, and sociological method.

[shunyadragon]

No, you still seem to be misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting my position. All theological statements need to be understood theologically. It is not a question of a alternate theological interpretations being given equal consideration alongside otherwise non-theological statements of fixed foundational beliefs. All expressions of belief, be they scriptural, creedal, concilliar, or personal are expressed in theological terms that are necessarily subject to fundamental questions of theological, historico-critical, and sociological method.

Misunderstand and/or misinterpretations are understandable based on the nature of your argument.

Again vagueness shrouds your monologue. Your use of non-theological above is problematic as well as the above highlighted. Fixed foundational beliefs most definitely are based theological interpretations that are based on scripture and beliefs of the church fathers. I agree that all theological 'concepts' are necessarily subject to 'questions of theological, historico-critical, and sociological method.' That is why I have rejected the ancient religions as a choice in today's world, primarily because of their incompleteness, and ancient foundations in scripture like Genesis, in light of a more universal perspective.

Because of your vagueness, and insistence on certain 'my reading' based on 'some modern and post modern theologians,' you have failed to be specific on what you consider foundational Christian beliefs, and defend those beliefs based on scripture and the church fathers as most Christians do.

You have only cited a few sources, not many. Your references on Genesis interpretations I will eventually study, but it is currently unavailable to me because of the hefty price of this three volume tome. I had discussions with some local friends who know of the reference, and they questioned whether this reference offers any significant insight into anything different from traditional interpretations other than other 'possible interpretations' than traditional beliefs. I do not believe that there is any credible reliable interpretation of 'original authors' of Genesis, which as far as I am concerned are is totally unknown since Genesis is a compilation from a number of sources over time that extend back to ancient myths. I do not believe the source discredits traditional interpretations concerning 'Original Sin and the Fall.' I will be back when I get access to this reference.

As far as giving equal consideration of 'some modern and post modern' sources,' I believe you do not give equal consideration to Traditional Christian Sources such as the church fathers. In fact your rather dismissive of these beliefs, and make statements that they are non-theological.

There are significant disagreements between us that are not based on knowledge of theology, which lie at the root of our dialogue, which in the end we will have to agree to disagree. I give more credence to the foundation Doctrines, Dogmas, and the beliefs, because that is what are taught and believed by the traditional Churches and the believers. I evaluate every religion based on these essentials, and not on hypothetical changes. Until modern and post modern theologians actually involve change in the foundation of any religion in today's world, and not just form a new church, or division of the religion I do not give them equal consideration.

You in some threads have referenced some modern descent and theological interpretations of Baha'i scripture. This al well and fine, and the Baha'i beliefs may evolve in this direction, but nonetheless, I have to evaluate my understanding and belief in the Baha'i Faith based on the 'Foundation principles and beliefs of the Baha'i Faith' as they are currently believed and taught, and not on hypothetical change based on 'modern or post modern' interpretations of scripture. This justifiably applies to all religions. ALL you have proposed is hypothetical change in beliefs, based on 'some modern and post modern' theologians.

[robrecht]

Misunderstand and/or misinterpretations are understandable based on the nature of your argument.

Again vagueness shrouds your monologue. Your use of non-theological above is problematic as well as the above highlighted. Fixed foundational beliefs most definitely are based theological interpretations that are based on scripture and beliefs of the church fathers. I agree that all theological 'concepts' are necessarily subject to 'questions of theological, historico-critical, and sociological method.' That is why I have rejected the ancient religions as a choice in today's world, primarily because of their incompleteness, and ancient foundations in scripture like Genesis, in light of a more universal perspective.

Because of your vagueness, and insistence on certain 'my reading' based on 'some modern and post modern theologians,' you have failed to be specific on what you consider foundational Christian beliefs, and defend those beliefs based on scripture and the church fathers as most Christians do.

You have only cited a few sources, not many. Your references on Genesis interpretations I will eventually study, but it is currently unavailable to me because of the hefty price of this three volume tome. I had discussions with some local friends who know of the reference, and they questioned whether this reference offers any significant insight into anything different from traditional interpretations other than other 'possible interpretations' than traditional beliefs. I do not believe that there is any credible reliable interpretation of 'original authors' of Genesis, which as far as I am concerned are is totally unknown since Genesis is a compilation from a number of sources over time that extend back to ancient myths. I do not believe the source discredits traditional interpretations concerning 'Original Sin and the Fall.' I will be back when I get access to this reference.

So your belief that I have overstated the conclusions in Westermann's (Claus is his first name, by the way) commentary on Genesis is based on something you heard from some local friends who know of the reference and who had questions about what might be contained in the reference--do I understand that correctly, ie, that even these friends have not read the reference but merely know of it and have questions about it? It is also still unclear to me exactly which conclusions of Westermann's commentary you believe that I have overstated. I could make some guesses based on the above, but I would really prefer that you clarify exactly what you think I have overstated and cite where I did so, as I have previously requested. I would greatly prefer to clarify and perhaps even finish this conversation before we move into more detail about other specifics of and sources of the Christian faith. There will be a much better chance of genuine dialogue if you can be clear about your criticism.

As far as giving equal consideration of 'some modern and post modern' sources,' I believe you do not give equal consideration to Traditional Christian Sources such as the church fathers. In fact your rather dismissive of these beliefs, and make statements that they are non-theological.

No, quite the opposite!

There are significant disagreements between us that are not based on knowledge of theology, which lie at the root of our dialogue, which in the end we will have to agree to disagree. I give more credence to the foundation Doctrines, Dogmas, and the beliefs, because that is what are taught and believed by the traditional Churches and the believers. I evaluate every religion based on these essentials, and not on hypothetical changes. Until modern and post modern theologians actually involve change in the foundation of any religion in today's world, and not just form a new church, or division of the religion I do not give them equal consideration.

My focus is on understanding the original sources, not on hypothetical changes. If I feel that I have understood an original source sufficient well, I may go beyond that initial exercise and consider theological implications for today's world, both the experience of believers and nonbelievers. Where others have already done this work, I am sometimes aware of general trends among contemporary theologians, but this is typically based on my studies from a generation ago.

You in some threads have referenced some modern descent and theological interpretations of Baha'i scripture.

I have? Please refresh my memory. I don't recall having ever done so.

This al well and fine, and the Baha'i beliefs may evolve in this direction, but nonetheless, I have to evaluate my understanding and belief in the Baha'i Faith based on the 'Foundation principles and beliefs of the Baha'i Faith' as they are currently believed and taught, and not on hypothetical change based on 'modern or post modern' interpretations of scripture. This justifiably applies to all religions. ALL you have proposed is hypothetical change in beliefs, based on 'some modern and post modern' theologians.

Where exactly have I proposed hypothetical change in beliefs? I do not recall having done this either.

[Adrift]

It is not a monologue when you respond.

In my opinion he has a severe issue with reading comprehension, and that's why he sees your posts as monologues. A lot of what you say goes over his head.

[robrecht]

You in some threads have referenced some modern descent and theological interpretations of Baha'i scripture. This al well and fine, and the Baha'i beliefs may evolve in this direction, but nonetheless, I have to evaluate my understanding and belief in the Baha'i Faith based on the 'Foundation principles and beliefs of the Baha'i Faith' as they are currently believed and taught, and not on hypothetical change based on 'modern or post modern' interpretations of scripture. This justifiably applies to all religions.

ALL you have proposed is hypothetical change in beliefs, based on 'some modern and post modern' theologians.

Are you perhaps referring to one of the examples I gave of 'theological reflection' used in the context of a discussion of potential doctrinal development regarding leadership roles of women in the Catholic church and in comparison with the potential role of women within the Baha'i Universal House of Justice?

"Neither the practice and discipline of Christian life (liturgy and prayer as well as ethics and asceticism) nor the process of doctrinal formulation (whether the result of theological reflection on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ or as the legitimation of disciplinary developments) arose in a vacuum. ... Institutional change, in the Church as in other human societies, occurs in three major stages: innovation, articulation, and adoption. Pastoral practice is already undergoing considerable innovation as women share in many forms of ministry; the continued evolution of practice will in time make an argument of fittingness work in the direction of ordination of women to the priesthood. Theological reflection on the ordination of women is only now beginning to mature; a new level of discourse, beyond the old arguments and the appeal to authority, must evolve before the process of articulation can be completed. The time for magisterial decision is not yet, and even the Declaration is not a final pronouncement on the question; adoption will come as the Church learns to live toward the future."

http://www.womenpriests.org/classic/cardman.asp

[shunyadragon]

As far as I know he resigned from the Baha'i Faith and not excommunicated.

Are you perhaps referring to one of the examples I gave of 'theological reflection' used in the context of a discussion of potential doctrinal development regarding leadership roles of women in the Catholic church and in comparison with the potential role of women within the Baha'i Universal House of Justice?

This the case as I remember. This may change in the future based on interpretation of scripture, but I do not consider my belief to be in hope that there is any such hypothetical change.

"Neither the practice and discipline of Christian life (liturgy and prayer as well as ethics and asceticism) nor the process of doctrinal formulation (whether the result of theological reflection on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ or as the legitimation of disciplinary developments) arose in a vacuum. ... Institutional change, in the Church as in other human societies, occurs in three major stages: innovation, articulation, and adoption. Pastoral practice is already undergoing considerable innovation as women share in many forms of ministry; the continued evolution of practice will in time make an argument of fittingness work in the direction of ordination of women to the priesthood. Theological reflection on the ordination of women is only now beginning to mature; a new level of discourse, beyond the old arguments and the appeal to authority, must evolve before the process of articulation can be completed. The time for magisterial decision is not yet, and even the Declaration is not a final pronouncement on the question; adoption will come as the Church learns to live toward the future."

http://www.womenpriests.org/classic/cardman.asp

Yes, this is a possible interpretation of allowing women to be priests in the future in the Roman Church, but I see no move among the leadership of the church that would lead to this change. In fact most statements have negated the possibility of change despite the views of those that support the change. Note highlighted..

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_doctrine_on_the_ordination_of_women

In 1976, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued the Declaration on the Question of the Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood which taught that for doctrinal, theological, and historical reasons, the Church "... does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination." Reasons given were the Church's determination to remain faithful to its constant tradition, its fidelity to Christ's will, and the iconic value of male representation due to the "sacramental nature" of the priesthood. In April 1976, the Pontifical Biblical Commission released a study examining the exclusion of women from the ministerial priesthood from a biblical perspective: "The masculine character of the hierarchical order which has structured the church since its beginning ... seems attested to by scripture in an undeniable way." "As a matter of fact, we see in the Acts of the Apostles and the epistles that the first [Christian] communities were always directed by men exercising the apostolic power."[19] However, in the conclusion of the document, they write:
"It does not seem that the New Testament by itself alone will permit us to settle in a clear way and once and for all the problem of the possible accession of women to the presbyterate.

© Copyright Original Source

[robrecht]

As far as I know he resigned from the Baha'i Faith and not excommunicated.

I've provided you with his account previously and he himself corrected your misrepresentation of his views.

This the case as I remember. This may change in the future based on interpretation of scripture, but I do not consider my belief to be in hope that there is any such hypothetical change.

Yes, this is a possible interpretation of allowing women to be priests in the future in the Roman Church, but I see no move among the leadership of the church that would lead to this change. In fact most statements have negated the possibility of change despite the views of those that support the change. Note highlighted..

Unnecessary. As you may recall, I do not think the Roman Catholic Church will change its position on women's ordination anytime soon and only offered this as an example of the usage of the terms 'theological reflection'.

[shunyadragon]

Unnecessary. As you may recall, I do not think the Roman Catholic Church will change its position on women's ordination anytime soon and only offered this as an example of the usage of the terms 'theological reflection'.

That is one of my points is the futility of 'theological reflection' leading to change in the Roman Church.

[shunyadragon]

It is not a monologue when you respond. Methodological questions of fundamental theology are necessarily vague because they are, well, methodological. Whereas you use these methods to reject ancient foundations in ancient scriptures, others employ theological, historico-critical, and sociological methods to critically reflect upon and retain what is still considered valuable for today's world, (not only from the scriptures, but also from the fathers and subsequent theologians).

I also use these methods to retain what is still considerable value in today's word, but nonetheless it has led me justifiably to eliminate these choices as possibly relevant to the world today, because they are incomplete, and anchored in ancient paradigms.

So your belief that I have overstated the conclusions in Westermann's (Claus is his first name, by the way) commentary on Genesis is based on something you heard from some local friends who know of the reference and who had questions about what might be contained in the reference--do I understand that correctly, ie, that even these friends have not read the reference but merely know of it and have questions about it? It is also still unclear to me exactly which conclusions of Westermann's commentary you believe that I have overstated. I could make some guesses based on the above, but I would really prefer that you clarify exactly what you think I have overstated and cite where I did so, as I have previously requested. I would greatly prefer to clarify and perhaps even finish this conversation before we move into more detail about other specifics of and sources of the Christian faith. There will be a much better chance of genuine dialogue if you can be clear about your criticism. [/quote]

My friends are two ministers who occasional meet at Cup of Joes, and they used these tomes in a college class. Actually, I just found a complete set of his books for about $20.00, and will be addressing this reference in posts shortly.

No, quite the opposite!

Then you would have no problem with the belief in a literal Adam and Eve, and the events that led to 'Fall and the Original sin,' as by far most of the church fathers and all the apostles believed.

[robrecht]

That is one of my points is the futility of 'theological reflection' leading to change in the Roman Church.

But you still seem to be ignorant of or in denial of the role that theological reflection has already played in the development of doctrine and dogma in the Catholic Church. You do recall, I hope, the doctrine of the Trinity, right?

[shunyadragon]

But you still seem to be ignorant of or in denial of the role that theological reflection has already played in the development of doctrine and dogma in the Catholic Church. You do recall, I hope, the doctrine of the Trinity, right?

I definitely do recall the Trinity, and its unfortunate formulation at the foundation of the Roman Church.

I was referring to the fact that once the Roman Church Doctrine and Dogma was set in concert anchored in ancient myths and pardigms, there will be no fundamental change.

[robrecht]

I also use these methods to retain what is still considerable value in today's word, but nonetheless it has led me justifiably to eliminate these choices as possibly relevant to the world today, because they are incomplete, and anchored in ancient paradigms.

So do you really feel that you have a source of knowledge about God that is truly complete???

My friends are two ministers who occasional meet at Cup of Joes, and they used these tomes in a college class. Actually, I just found a complete set of his books for about $20.00, and will be addressing this reference in posts shortly.

Then, unless you merely propose to go on a fishing expedition, I think you owe it to me, in all justice, to at least clarify and specify where you believe I have overstated the conclusions of Westermann's commentary. Otherwise, it sounds like you are just posturing and temporizing.

Then you would have no problem with the belief in a literal Adam and Eve, and the events that led to 'Fall and the Original sin,' as by far most of the church fathers and all the apostles believed.

Not at all. You should know better if you have read my posts.

[robrecht]

I definitely do recall the Trinity, and its unfortunate formulation at the foundation of the Roman Church.

I was referring to the fact that once the Roman Church Doctrine and Dogma was set in concert anchored in ancient myths and pardigms, there will be no fundamental change.

We've already seen quite a bit of evidence to support the contention that you do not understand even the basics the doctrine of the Trinity, but do you at least admit, at long last, that it is the product of theological reflection?

[shunyadragon]

So do you really feel that you have a source of knowledge about God that is truly complete???

I believe my choice represents the most complete possibly considering the universal spiritual nature of humanity and existence. Your use of 'truly' is a bit problematic here. Truly we are all humans making human choices.

Then, unless you merely propose to go on a fishing expedition, I think you owe it to me, in all justice, to at least clarify and specify where you believe I have overstated the conclusions of Westermann's commentary. Otherwise, it sounds like you are just posturing and temporizing.

I said I will do this after I receive the books.

Not at all. You should know better if you have read my posts.

Is that a yes or no to my question. If no, than you dismiss the beliefs of the apostles and church fathers who believed these as factual events, and foundation of the Traditional Churches.