Baha`i:Islam::Christianity:Judaism

[bananabrain]

i'm not here to 'win miss congeniality'. i don't enjoy getting annoyed and, of course, i really shouldn't get personal about it, but you guys need to understand precisely what it is about your attitude that gets up people's noses, particularly mine.

Perhaps you should reflect on your own words more given that they appear [to?] answer your question all too clearly.

actually, that's exactly the sort of mealy-mouthed avoidance of the question i'm complaining about.

You can find ample evidence generally at these web sites:

no, i'm not going to do that. i want to hear what *you* think, as a real person - how you deal with these questions personally. reading some policy blurb off a website is precisely what i would describe as "spoon-feeding" and, believe me, asking you questions so i can make up my own mind is precisely what i intend to do.

It's YOUR job to investigate and then come to an informed conclusion!

it's not my job to do anything. you've made a bunch of claims and done nothing to back them up. a case in point: all this business about the bab being a descendant of abraham and keturah - really? isn't that a *tiny* bit like the gospel saying jesus was descended from king david? do you not think i'm entitled to be even the teensiest bit sceptical about this? by contrast, i make no such claims about judaism - like the muslims, we let our Text speak for us. i don't have to do the work, because i start from a position of not having to prove anything. if you don't prove anything, then there's no reason for me to change my default position of "sez you".

the Baha'i Faith is an independant religion and stands on its own Covenant quite well

not if you're saying "all religions are one and the same but ours is the final and most complete one".

popeyesays - thank you for your posts. i appreciate your candour. i'm not trying to have a fight here, i'm just taking issue with some of the airy-fairy language and superior tone that baha'is tend to adopt.

promethium -

Understandbly there is a time for interreligious dialogue, which shouldnt include harping on someone about fufillment of relgious prophecies. And there is a time where Bahais can present their arguments and proofs.

what's the point of interreligious dialogue if it is compartmentalised away from another set of beliefs which i would object to? isn't that intellectually dishonest?

think that many Jews do not follow to the letter the punishments set down in the old testament, largely because it is not necessary in this day and age.

this argument is a real old chestnut. if you are referring to the copious amount of capital offences, then you fail to understand the function of the Oral Law. i've talked about this many times on this very site. the Torah has not changed, even if our precise application of it has. the Text remains the same.

Bahais believe there is a legitimate claim to scriptual fufillment of prophecies

right, that's what i'm talking about. jews cannot concede that another religion can fulfil our prophecies. our prophecies refer to us, not to anyone else. for you to try to prove otherwise is an absolutely futile (not to mention irritating) exercise.

Baha'u'llah does criticize religious custodians for twisting the scriptures to cause violence while some are praised for being a beacon of light.

well, in that case, it's such a truism that it scarcely qualifies as revelation, does it? it's a "press release from the department of the bleeding obvious":

"religious leaders misuse their power"

cor, stone the crows!! i'd never noticed! what an insightful thing to point out.

thanks for posting the news article though, a fine example of social action - but no more than i'd expect from anyone helping out their co-religionists.

One thing that you (BananaBrain) might appreciate about Matrixism is that you don't have to give up being a Jew to join along.

thank you, dynomight - the same claim is made by buddhism and scientology among a huge number of others. we're used to that. it's a very culty technique - "ooh, you're not giving anything up, you're getting something for free". because that really happens in the real world. harrumph.

what do you mean, do i do mana? do you mean manna?

b'shalom

bananabrain

[DynoMight]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

what do you mean, do i do mana? do you mean manna?

Yeah manna. "Mana" is the archaic spelling. It kind of went with the "old school" joke and echoed the "ana" of banana. Sucks when you have to explain it though.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

thank you, dynomight - the same claim is made by buddhism and scientology among a huge number of others. we're used to that. it's a very culty technique

Who you calling "culty". Judaism is a culty cult if there ever was one. Heck they may have even invented cultyism for all we know.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

"ooh, you're not giving anything up, you're getting something for free". because that really happens in the real world. harrumph.

Looking a gift horse in the mouth? Why that's quite Jewy of you.

[bananabrain]

dynomight -

you've just crossed a *big* red line with that "gift horse" comment. consider yourself warned.

as for the culty thing, there's nothing culty about judaism. we don't recruit-and-brainwash. at least, not people who aren't jewish already. plus, i think when you're a 3000-year-old civilisation, you kind of cross the line into "established religion".

b'shalom

bananabrain

[DynoMight]

You'll have to forgive me I thought all your ranting wasn't as mindless as it seemed. I in fact mistook it for a sense of humor. I can see now that you lack that particular trait. That trait of course being myrrhth.

Anyhow, if you have no sense of humor then I think you crossed a BIG RED LINE with your "culty" accusation. Go look in the mirror and get over your dumb self.

It seems your over exuberent persecution complex is causing you to railroad a reasonable discussion. I think that it is safe to say that everyone here accepts the fact that you are Jewish. I think that it is also safe to say that we all respect your religion (I would have said that we respect your person also but for me personally that feeling is starting to wane). So why not go in peace and let the others here have their conversation in peace?

[I, Brian]

Okay - PopeyeSays was good enough to start this thread in order to allow people to raise critical evaluations of the big Abrahamic Faiths, and especially the place of the Baha'i Faith to them, without fear of members being excluded over the "Walled Garden" approach.

However, I think it's fair to say this thread is turning from being a great opportunity to something derogatory, and I'd won't allow it to continue in this manner.

If we could pick up the discussion on any constructive points of appraisal, that would be great. Any further personal comments get removed from the thread.

Hope that helps.

[Promethium]

what's the point of interreligious dialogue if it is compartmentalised away from another set of beliefs which i would object to? isn't that intellectually dishonest?

Interreligious dialogue is a time when people engage in religious discussion to clarify beliefs where noone is trying to convert the other. Or where other issues are being discussed not necessarily theological points.

right, that's what i'm talking about. jews cannot concede that another religion can fulfil our prophecies. our prophecies refer to us, not to anyone else. for you to try to prove otherwise is an absolutely futile (not to mention irritating) exercise.

Thats true for you and most, but not all.

well, in that case, it's such a truism that it scarcely qualifies as revelation, does it? it's a "press release from the department of the bleeding obvious":
"religious leaders misuse their power"
cor, stone the crows!! i'd never noticed! what an insightful thing to point out.

I was pointing out that not all references by Baha'u'llah makes towards religius leaders is negative and that the ones that are refer primarily to their conduct.

[dauer]

Promethium,

I'm unclear about what you mean when you make the point that interreligious dialogue is a place " where noone is trying to convert the other." and then state in response to BB's statement that it's futile to try and prove that the prophecies of one religion are fulfilled by another that it's true for most, but not all.

The first point seems to suggest that you're against evangelism, while the second seems to suggest that in some situations you think it's okay, that even though it annoys most people and won't have a major impact on most people, it still will sway some so maybe it's not so futile. Could you clarify for me? Thanks.

Dauer

[Promethium]

Im sorry sometimes I dont realize how unclear I can be. I was thinking primarily of interfaith events I have attended, where they have people from different Faiths speak. And noone was trying to convert everyone. The point was to illustrate that there is a time for "evangelism" and there is a time when its not appropriate. And hopefully Bahais can be sensitive enough to know the difference. In other words sometimes certain topics shouldnt be discussed with people at the expense of the other persons happiness or to bolster some kind of superiority complex.

As for the prophecy fufillment, I was saying that some Jewish people have converted to the Bahai Faith, and perhaps they believe that certain prophecies were "fufilled".He was explaining to me that nobody outside the Jewish religion could fufille prophecies. I was saying that I do not deny that that is the opinion of most Jews. But if some Jews have converted to the Bahai Faith, then it may in some instances be possible that there are people who believe otherwise. Not denying BB's opinion just trying to take into account minority opinions.

I dont think I can clarify the evangelism issue. I basically was responding to the view point that Bahais insensitively gangbang people with their theological viewpoints. I contended that this doesnt always have to be the case. And that the claims of Bahais were not intended to gleefully stomp on religious tradition but to reaffirm their Divine source and to offer teachings they believe can benefit humanity.I was trying to point out tat the Bahais are not advised to indiscriminately attack other beliefs or haugtily present them to annoy people.
"...if you wish to give admonition or advice let it be offered in such a way that it will not burden the heart of the hearer. Turn all your thoughts towards bringing joy to hearts.."
-Abdu'l-Bahá

[Promethium]

My choice of terminology was inappropriate in the last paragraph. It would be better to say. "Insensitively proselytise to people about their[Bahais] theological viewpoints". I also am not an official representative of the Bahai Faith and I cannot claim any authoritative insight into the matters being discussed.

[Promethium]

[quote=bananabrain;82633]it's not my job to do anything. you've made a bunch of claims and done nothing to back them up. a case in point: all this business about the bab being a descendant of abraham and keturah - really? isn't that a *tiny* bit like the gospel saying jesus was descended from king david? do you not think i'm entitled to be even the teensiest bit sceptical about this? by contrast, i make no such claims about judaism - like the muslims, we let our Text speak for us. i don't have to do the work, because i start from a position of not having to prove anything. if you don't prove anything, then there's no reason for me to change my default position of "sez you".[/quote/

"Through Hagar, Sarah's Egyptian maid, He had Ishmael, legendary father of the Arabs and ancestor to Muhammad and, therefore, of the Báb. Through Keturah, Abraham's little-mentioned third wife (Gen. 25:1-4), came numerous children, from whom Bahá'u'lláh is said to have descended (Some Answered Questions, 213). All the genealogies, even Bahá'u'lláh's, are probably legendary—no human being can trace a complete genealogy through thousands of years. Furthermore, simple mathematics shows that after almost four thousand years, everyone in the Middle East should be descended from Abraham, so the claim is not genetically significant. This point is reinforced by the biblical promise that from Abraham would come many nations. However, the spiritual point of the genealogies is unmistakable: Abraham was the father of all the later Semitic revelations"
-taken from an article by Rober Stockman, the link isn working right now.

[BruceDLimber]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

look you smug, unctuous, patronizing git, . . .

Originally Posted by bananabrain

what, in your opinion, are the “gods” of my “vain imaginings”? who are our “sowers of dissention”?

Originally Posted by bruce

Perhaps you should reflect on your own words more given that they appear to answer your question all to clearly.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

actually, that's exactly the sort of mealy-mouthed avoidance of the question i'm complaining about.

Hey--_I_ wasn’t the one who posted the mindless attacks and put-downs, and then turned around and asked, in effect, what the problem was! And now you’re merely adding insult to injury.

Besides which, you clearly expect me to do your investigational work for you. Wrong number.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

no, i'm not going to do that. i want to hear what *you* think, as a real

Fine. Then you’re welcome to ask sincere questions, hopefully in an at least minimally polite manner as contrasted to how you started out (as quoted above).

Originally Posted by bananabrain

it's not my job to do anything.

Come on!: Even your own scriptures don’t support that one. (Perhaps they ESPECIALLY don’t.)

Originally Posted by bananabrain

you've made a bunch of claims and done nothing to back them up. a case in point: all this business about the bab being a descendant of abraham and keturah – really?

As I said, you’re quite welcome to ask questions and request clarification.

Though as Promethium already pointed out, you’ve scrambled the facts in your statement above.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

not if you're saying "all religions are one and the same but ours is the final and most complete one".

Except, of course, that we don’t say that: there will never be a “final” religious Revelation, and ours is only relatively complete—as is every religion—until a successor appears. Even your own prophecies promise more to come—“completion,” if you like. . . .

Originally Posted by bananabrain

jews cannot concede that another religion can fulfil our prophecies.

Except that clearly a number have stipulated precisely that, which is why they’ve since become Baha’is.

And we’re not in a position to deny what our own investigations have convinced us is true fact. (I hope you aren’t, either.) YMMV, as always.

So my point holds: Pleas feel free to ask questions, and we’ll do our best to reply, or to refer you to where you can find answers to them.

We’re here for dialogue, not for casting put-downs, as I hope you are.

Peace,

Bruce

[IMSassafras]

Since Genealogy is still a question, I figured I would post this URL to a PDF file which shows the Genealogy of Adam through Shoghi Effendi from a Baha'i perspective, without so many words.

URL: Genealogy of Prophets

Happy Self-Investigation to all!!!


Sassafras

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by brucedlimber

Hey--_I_ wasn’t the one who posted the mindless attacks and put-downs, and then turned around and asked, in effect, what the problem was! And now you’re merely adding insult to injury.

listen - the original exasperated comments were and are due to the fact that you don't seem to understand why it is you get up people's noses. they weren't at all "mindless" - they come from frustration with what i see as an excessive amount of verbiage without content, as a substitute for clear ideas. i asked for a clear interpretation of an unclear text. i got a couple - but not from you.

Besides which, you clearly expect me to do your investigational work for you.

not at all. providing a link to a large site is the equivalent of saying "read this massive book and then you'll agree with me". it's a lazy response. you are the one making the claim, but you refuse to substantiate it. i have asked you to do so and you have told me it's my job to look into it. have you ever heard of bertrand russell's "teapot orbiting mars" idea?

in response to my "it's not my job to do anything" - that refers, as you ought to have understood, to the lack of an obligation to examine every hat every tom, dick and harry decides to throw into the religious ring - you said:

Come on!: Even your own scriptures don’t support that one. (Perhaps they ESPECIALLY don’t.)

If prophets or those who divine by dreams appear among you and promise you omens or portents, and the omens or the portents declared by them take place, and they say, ‘Let us follow other gods’ (whom you have not known) ‘and let us serve them,’ you must not heed the words of those prophets or those who divine by dreams; for HaShem your G!D is testing you, to know whether you indeed love HaShem your G!D with all your heart and soul. HaShem your G!D you shall follow, G!D alone you shall fear, G!D's commandments you shall keep, G!D's voice you shall obey, G!D you shall serve, and to G!D you shall hold fast.

Deuteronomy 13:2-4

this is expounded by maimonides:

"A person is forbidden to give a prophecy in the name of HaShem, when in fact, HaShem never instructed him to give such a prophecy." (sefer hamitzvot)

of course, this applies to prophecies which are brought to the jewish people. it is one thing for prophets to speak to others, but stuff for us has a very high standard which has not been met since the death of micah.

Except, of course, that we don’t say that: there will never be a “final” religious Revelation, and ours is only relatively complete—as is every religion—until a successor appears. Even your own prophecies promise more to come—“completion,” if you like. . . .

now *that* is a fair observation. however, we say that proper prophecy cannot occur in the absence of the Temple and a functioning "red heifer" process. in which case, it must wait upon the arrival of the messiah, which we have not experienced.

Except that clearly a number have stipulated precisely that, which is why they’ve since become Baha’is.

which doesn't mean that a) they are correct, or b) that baha'i is anything do do with judaism. jews have become buddhists, communists and atheists too, but nobody suggests that is part of a continuous abrahamic revelation process.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Popeyesays]

BB says:
"which doesn't mean that a) they are correct, or b) that baha'i is anything do do with judaism. jews have become buddhists, communists and atheists too, but nobody suggests that is part of a continuous abrahamic revelation process."

No, but neither does it mean they are wrong. That the Baha`i Faith is related to Judaism is obvious, whether the observer thinks it is true or not. The Baha`i writings honor, Abraham, Moses, Noah, Daniel, etc. and DOES point to Judaic prophecy in terms of Baha`u'llah's revelation.

Does it mean that individuals who become Baha`i (from Jewish roots or not) are correct? No. Not at all. But it does mean that some people find the faith undeniably true. Truth is like beauty, it exists in the beholder's eye. Other than that we'll have to leave it up to God to sort it out

As another note altogether, what is the essence of proselytizing, anyway? I look at it like this; it is an active and agressive thing. It states "This is the truth, like it or not." and insists and persists in the face of rejection.

This thread got started because of a question on another forum. It's my personal estimation the question was hostile, but whether it was or wasn't, the reason for this thread was to examine an issue raised by another and defend accusations already made.

That isn't proselytizing, it is "apologizing". Apologia is a philosophical method of explaining and defending religious or ethical belief systems. Every faith practices apologia whether it proselytizes or not.

Why did I express the proposition as I did? Because it is on many levels. One cannot deny that ethically and culturally Christianity grew out of Judaism. Jesus was a Jew, He spoke and taught Jews, and was accepted or denied by Jews. He spoke Aramaic and perhaps some Greek, just like the people of His times, His values were the same, His behavior the same. This is true for the Baha`i Islam link as well.

Now the question becomes is Christ foretold and awaited by Judaism and the world at large? That's arguable, have at it.

Is Baha`u'llah's Revelation the destiny of Islam? That's arguable, have at it.

Regards,
Scott

[bananabrain]

No, but neither does it mean they are wrong.

from the point of view of judaism, it is inconceivable that jews, even as individuals, can be released from their religious obligations. a jew remains a jew regardless of whether s/he becomes a heretic or even an apostate. the only way out is "feet first" - that is the nature of the covenantal relationship. to purposefully renege on your covenanted obligations is basically welshing on a done deal and essentially denying its binding nature, which is of course an insult to the Holy Blessed One Who set it up in the first place. therefore a jew who attempts to stop being jewish and follow another system is by definition wrong.

That the Baha`i Faith is related to Judaism is obvious, whether the observer thinks it is true or not.

by the same logic, these guys here: Azurite Press Melchizedek Cloister Emerald Order talk seventeen kinds of bollocks about how the ark of the covenant is some kind of space computer or something. is it therefore obvious that they are "related to judaism" simply because they are attempting to co-opt our symbols and texts?

The Baha`i writings honor, Abraham, Moses, Noah, Daniel, etc. and DOES point to Judaic prophecy in terms of Baha`u'llah's revelation.

well, if i write a poem honouring how baha'ullah inspired my own 'revelation', does that make me part of the great chain of tradition? you must see how this argument does appear to be a bit "because we say so".

As another note altogether, what is the essence of proselytizing, anyway? I look at it like this; it is an active and agressive thing. It states "This is the truth, like it or not." and insists and persists in the face of rejection.

absolutely not. the essence of proselytising is to say "you must change what you believe, because what i believe is better/more up to date/more humane/efficient". it requires change. simply talking about what is true for oneself is not proselytising. talking about what other people ought to believe which they don't at the moment is proselytising. to proselytising is to require change in others.

Apologia is a philosophical method of explaining and defending religious or ethical belief systems. Every faith practices apologia whether it proselytizes or not.

i agree. however, apologia which attempt to explain another's belief system in a way different from that which the belief system explains and understands itself has crossed the line into proselytisation. it's a subtle but important distinction.

One cannot deny that ethically and culturally Christianity grew out of Judaism. Jesus was a Jew, He spoke and taught Jews, and was accepted or denied by Jews. He spoke Aramaic and perhaps some Greek, just like the people of His times, His values were the same, His behavior the same. This is true for the Baha`i Islam link as well.

i agree with this too. nonetheless, there was a point at which jesus' followers denied fundamental tenets of judaism broke the link, thus causing it to be a different religion. you have to understand, popeyesays, that we don't consider revelation to be a universal continuum. it is of course not only possible but probable that G!D has chosen other ways to convey Divine messages to the nations of the world, but the mechanism of covenantal relationship that judaism has with G!D is fundamentally different. that is part of what the "chosenness" means. we were chosen for the abrahamic and sinaitic covenants and others were not. that imposed obligations upon us that others do not have. the covenantal relationship that is universally binding upon humankind is that represented by the noachide laws. we do of course, as it were, give extra credit for being monotheistic, but i would imagine (not being an authority on this subject) the self-imposed obligations of christians, muslims and, i dare say, baha'is are only considered as binding insofar as they constitute an actionable system of law.

Now the question becomes is Christ foretold and awaited by Judaism and the world at large? That's arguable, have at it.

it is inconceivable for us that this is even arguable. that's what i mean by denying fundamental tenets of judaism. if the messiah had come it would be inconceivable that the messianic prophecies should not be fulfilled. are we all living in israel? is every jew religious? is there universal peace (and probably vegetarianism)? the problem with this should really be self-evident.

as for baha'ullah's relationship with islam, i really couldn't say, but from the reactions of muslims i've seen in the past, i should think it's about as popular a viewpoint as the previous paragraph.

b'shalom

bananabrain