Changed my Faith Icon to Agnostic:Explanation

[smaneck]

The Musims revere both Christ and His mother Mary.
But, they belive Christ was only sent to the Israelites and not to the whole world. Muhammad is the one they view as the final prophet to mankind
What would be the Bahai's response to that?

Bruce answered this correctly, but I would like to add that I've never seen a Muslim suggest that Christ was only sent to the Israelites. After all, by Muhammad's time most Christians were not Jews.

As to the issue of finality, isn't it the case that no religion wants to be superseded? The Qur'an itself speaks to this when it condemns the Jews for 'trying up the Hand of God.' Or in this passage:

"And Joseph came to you aforetime with clear tokens, but ye ceased not to doubt of the message with which He came to you, until, when He died, ye said, 'God will by no means raise up a Messenger after Him.' Thus God misleadeth him who is the transgressorthe doubter." (40:34)

 

[smaneck]

Isn't HaShem the only one that can forgive sins?

Unless He bestows that power on someone else. The NT suggests this right was bestowed in the church.

 

[BruceDLimber]

As to the issue of finality, isn't it the case that no religion wants to be superseded?

I'm not sure of the word "wants," but I'll suggest that the Baha'i Faith is a vivid exception to this because it freely states that it will be superceded after the thousand-year delay period stated in its scriptures!

Cheers!

Bruce

 

[LoAmmi]

As to the issue of finality, isn't it the case that no religion wants to be superseded?

A problem arises when one's holy scriptures say that the practices will continue "forever", "eternally", or "throughout every generation". It being superseded by something else would render those phrases meaningless and lies.

 

[smaneck]

I'm not sure of the word "wants," but I'll suggest that the Baha'i Faith is a vivid exception to this because it freely states that it will be superceded after the thousand-year delay period stated in its scriptures!

Cheers!

Bruce

That's very true.

 

[smaneck]

A problem arises when one's holy scriptures say that the practices will continue "forever", "eternally", or "throughout every generation". It being superseded by something else would render those phrases meaningless and lies.

I checked the Tanak for places where the term 'every generation' occurs (eternally and forever are too commonly used to be helpful for a search.) It talks about the events associated with the story of Esther being remembered during Purim 'every generation.' It also talks about the Noachide Covenant being eternal. That's about the only places I could find that phrase.

 

[LoAmmi]

I checked the Tanak for places where the term 'every generation' occurs (eternally and forever are too commonly used to be helpful for a search.) It talks about the events associated with the story of Esther being remembered during Purim 'every generation.' It also talks about the Noachide Covenant being eternal. That's about the only places I could find that phrase.

Translations may vary.

 

[smaneck]

Good post.
The Christian NT book of Revelation shows Jesus, not only of the tribe of Judah, root of David, but also as a conqueriong lion [/QUOTE

"Were sovereignty to mean earthly sovereignty and worldly dominion, were it to imply the subjection and external allegiance of all the peoples and kindreds of the earth -- whereby His loved ones should be exalted and be made to live in peace, and His enemies be abased and tormented -- such form of sovereignty would not be true of God Himself, the Source of all dominion, Whose majesty and power all things testify. For, dost thou not witness how the generality of mankind is under the sway of His enemies? Have they not all turned away from the path of His good-pleasure? Have they not done that which He hath forbidden, and left undone, nay repudiated and opposed, those things which He hath commanded? Have not His friends ever been the victims of the tyranny of His foes? All these things are more obvious than even the splendour of the noon-tide sun.

Know, therefore, O questioning seeker, that earthly sovereignty is of no worth, nor will it ever be, in the eyes of God and His chosen Ones."

(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 124)

 

[smaneck]

Translations may vary.

Indeed. I'm using the version found on Ocean which doesn't given much information regarding the translation but it is a Jewish translation of the Tanakh and not simply a Christian OT. It might be useful to examine the root words being used here.

 

[LoAmmi]

Indeed. I'm using the version found on Ocean which doesn't given much information regarding the translation but it is a Jewish translation of the Tanakh and not simply a Christian OT. It might be useful to examine the root words being used here.

I used to have a list of places where it was pretty implicit that we were not to stop keeping the Torah, but I no longer have it at hand.

 

[smaneck]

I used to have a list of places where it was pretty implicit that we were not to stop keeping the Torah, but I no longer have it at hand.

Except as you yourself admit you *don't* observe all parts of the Torah. You don't stone your children for being disobedient, for instance. In fact, you don't stone adulterers or anyone else anymore.

It seems to me that religious teachings are of two kinds. There are the spiritual teachings which on some level are eternal and there are the social teachings which change with the circumstances and the times.

It seems to me that the difference between us is that such changes are often made within a religion in accordance with what the believers themselves desire, whereas Baha'is believe these changes should come by means of continuing revelation so that their source remains divine and not human.

 

[LoAmmi]

Except as you yourself admit you *don't* observe all parts of the Torah. You don't stone your children for being disobedient, for instance. In fact, you don't stone adulterers or anyone else anymore.

It seems to me that religious teachings are of two kinds. There are the spiritual teachings which on some level are eternal and there are the social teachings which change with the circumstances and the times.

Perhaps, but I will never see it as so that our Torah was superseded by Christianity, and then Islam, and then... and then...

It simply does not seem to be what we were told to do. Even when it comes to stoning people and the like, it is not that we do not see it as in the Law, it is part of the Law that applied to the nation of Israel. A nation that now does not exist. The current nation of Israel is a secular nation, whereas the previous one was a theocracy with a monarch.

To expand, I have no real issue with there being other messages given by HaShem to the gentiles. I simply do not think those messages, if they exist, are for us.

 

[smaneck]

Even when it comes to stoning people and the like, it is not that we do not see it as in the Law, it is part of the Law that applied to the nation of Israel. A nation that now does not exist. The current nation of Israel is a secular nation, whereas the previous one was a theocracy with a monarch.

But if the Torah actually came from Moses, then it proceeded the formation of Israel as theocracy and monarchy.

And given the power exercised by the Chief Rabbinate within in Israel to define what constitutes a "Jew" (and hence covered by the 'right of returned') I would hardly describe Israel as it currently operates as 'secular.' It seems to me that Israel faces the same sort of problems as does Pakistan. Like Pakistan, Israel was founded as a secular socialist state based on a religious identity. The contradictions inherent in this continually pull both nations towards the religious right.

 

[LoAmmi]

But if the Torah actually came from Moses, then it proceeded the formation of Israel as theocracy and monarchy.

Yes, but it is quite obvious where the political power will be. Moses and Aaron are unquestionably the leaders. It was clear what would happen once a formal nation was setup.

And given the power exercised by the Chief Rabbinate within in Israel to define what constitutes a "Jew" (and hence covered by the 'right of returned') I would hardly describe Israel as it currently operates as 'secular.' It seems to me that Israel faces the same sort of problems as does Pakistan. Like Pakistan, Israel was founded as a social secular state based on a religious identity. The contradictions inherent in this continually pull both nations towards the religious right.

I've argued for years that Israel needs to decide if they are secular or religious. The right of return is an area I am find with there being a definition of Jew, since the nation was setup to be a safe haven for Jews. There has to be a working definition otherwise everybody would be eligible.

I am not sure the chief rabbinate actually has the power anymore. Reform converts are able to use the right of return, something the Orthodox would oppose.

 

[smaneck]

To expand, I have no real issue with there being other messages given by HaShem to the gentiles. I simply do not think those messages, if they exist, are for us.

That does seem to be the position taken by most Jews today and it is certainly laudable in many ways. That appears to be exactly what Muhammad hoped the Jews of Medina would accept, that His message was basically the same as what had been received by the Jews, but now it was given for the benefit of the Arabs. I don't think he ever expected Jews to convert. Instead of accepting Muhammad's mission to the Arabs, however, the Jews of Medina insisted that Prophets could only appear from the Jewish line and publicly mocked Muhammad for the discrepancies in his account of the lives of the prophets. Hence the Qur'anic statement about the Hand of God being tied up.

When I was a college freshman I attended a debate between a Rabbi, a Christian minister and an Imam. When the Muslim spoke he started talking about the Finality of Prophethood. I raised my hand and asked "aren't you saying that the Hand of God is tied up?" The Rabbi about swallowed his pipe. He jumped up and said, "That's right, that's right. We don't say that Hand of God is tied up, that is what Muslims are saying!"

That's probably true of most Jews today, but not true during Muhammad's time. And there are still some Jews who insist God has revealed Himself exclusively in the Torah. I met one when I gave a talk at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem last year.

 

[LoAmmi]

That's probably true of most Jews today, but not true during Muhammad's time. And there are still some Jews who insist God has revealed Himself exclusively in the Torah. I met one when I gave a talk at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem last year.

One group of Jews in a specific place does not equal all Jews of Muhammad's time. Granted, I have to actually trust the story is accurate and not a one-sided interpretation of a conflict. People tend to write history in such a way that they are the clear innocents put upon by evil men.

The Torah has a gentile prophet in it for example.

 

[fschmidt]

It simply does not seem to be what we were told to do. Even when it comes to stoning people and the like, it is not that we do not see it as in the Law, it is part of the Law that applied to the nation of Israel. A nation that now does not exist. The current nation of Israel is a secular nation, whereas the previous one was a theocracy with a monarch.

This is another problem I have with Judaism, the emphasis on legalism instead of reason. Instead of using legalistic reasoning to wiggle out of Torah law, I prefer understanding God's reasoning and applying that. God had very good reasoning for stoning adulterers. The death penalty was used because more humane alternatives weren't practical at that time. Now we can afford life imprisonment as an alternative to the death penalty, so the death penalty is no longer needed. But the main point is that adultery (sex with another man's wife) should carry the harshest penalty allowed by law, and nothing has changed to change this. God is entirely correct because adultery completely destroys any society where it is permitted. History shows this to be true. When non-Orthodox Jews permit adultery based on modern times, they are doing exactly what the corrupt Jews in the Tanakh did when they accept Baal worshipping practices based on their times.

 

[LoAmmi]

This is another problem I have with Judaism, the emphasis on legalism instead of reason. Instead of using legalistic reasoning to wiggle out of Torah law, I prefer understanding God's reasoning and applying that. God had very good reasoning for stoning adulterers. The death penalty was used because more humane alternatives weren't practical at that time. Now we can afford life imprisonment as an alternative to the death penalty, so the death penalty is no longer needed. But the main point is that adultery (sex with another man's wife) should carry the harshest penalty allowed by law, and nothing has changed to change this. God is entirely correct because adultery completely destroys any society where it is permitted. History shows this to be true. When non-Orthodox Jews permit adultery based on modern times, they are doing exactly what the corrupt Jews in the Tanakh did when they accept Baal worshipping practices based on their times.

There is no reason in our society for adultery to carry a life sentence. What exactly do you mean by "permit adultery"? As opposed to what? Hunting these people down and throwing them in jail?

It is not legalism to get out of the Torah. In my estimation, once Israel as a nation ceased to exist and Jews became part of other nations, the laws that applied to government could not apply. This is MY OPINION. That is not legalism, that is reason. Your arguments about the death penalty are fine. I also believe the death penalty should never be used when alternatives that can keep society safe exist. They are ones I have read in the opinions of rabbis as well. There are about 30 reasons for everything in Judaism.

You honestly just seem to hate.

 

[fschmidt]

You honestly just seem to hate.

Do you remember when I said:

The Liberal response to "Why are we doing this?" is to give some long convoluted answer, and when the questioner shows the faults in logic in the answer, the next Liberal response is a hysterical personal attack against the questioner.

You are following this pattern perfectly.

 

[LoAmmi]

Do you remember when I said:

Except I gave a very clear answer. Certain Laws appear to apply to a specific nation at a specific time. That is my belief. Where is the logical fault there? Please show where the convoluted answer is exactly?

Your constant attacking of rabbinic Judaism leads me to the idea that you have some sort of hatred toward it. That is not a "hysterical personal attack". You demonstrate a clear pattern. If you would like to correct my findings, please go ahead.