You can turn the bible and history inside out and you will not find a connection between Ishmael and arabs. That is a fond contradiction by muslims, who do not realize that arabs were present before mahomet hit the scene; they were pagans and they still are. Let it percolate.
You live in a unrealistic world. Any interpretation, regardless of its claims, is still an interpretation and is subjected to the same issues as any other text. As a Christian, I realize these types of problems and issues. That is why I am trying to open your eyes a bit. I don't know if it is working though.
I highlighted (red) some the key texts. That is exactly why I was explaining to you about making comments about the Bible. Had you just said that this was an opinion from a Baha'i perspective and then asked what the scriptures meant in Christian context, probably none of these long dialogs would have occurred. The OP didn't imply that opinions outside of the Biblical perspective were to be given in understanding. That would defer the Biblical context to other sources, thus distorting the actual Biblical meaning. I am happy that you at least recognize the problem that I have been trying to get you to see.
You are not understanding what I was saying. If one is just giving an opinion, that is not the problem; however, when you give weight to your opinion as if it is the rule of interpretation, then you have overstepped your boundaries, given that you don't adhere to the text that you are trying to apply your interpretation to while additionally not reading and studying to learn the context of that scripture.
What I am saying is that you did not want to apply the same rules since Baha'is would not accept my interpretation as being official. You said that your scriptures explain the Bible well and effectively interpret them. If that is true, then the logical conclusion is that your scriptures can replace any Biblical interpretation and become official for Christians. Whether you said those exact words or not, that is the most logical conclusion, given what you said and how you responded. That is why I was calling you out on making some fallacious reasonings. If that was not what you were trying to do, you would not have insisted that your scriptures should be used. You would have simply given your opinion and proceeded to continue discussion and asking Christians what these scriptures actually meant. You didn't do that.
This is one of the fallacious reasonings that you need to investigate. It doesn't matter how closely they match, they are different texts written in different times and have different contexts. If you ignore these two important facts, then you are going to make false comparisons and claim that they are the same. You will perpetuate a distorted and incorrect conclusion about the Bible while over inflating the sense that your scriptures are correct on that point. Similarities don't create authenticity. I have noticed that you and Arthra use this approach a lot. You quote similarities and then conclude a peaceful coexistence of two conflicting texts. Logic dictates that you also evaluate the differences since this is how you learn to distinguish things. You can't tell that things are not alike if you don't look at the characteristics that make them different. The negative characteristics have just as much significance, if not more, than likenesses. You would not be able to make good moral judgments if you live in a world of similarities. To overuse similarities is to live in a distorted world. You will live in a world where the sun is always shining, the sky is always blue, and there is no meaningful distinction between moral and immoral. Opposites eventually become non-opposites because you learn to see them that way.
I am aware of some of them. All of them have holes in their arguments and make presumptions that are unwarranted. They are marooted in logical fallacies. They assume that Baha'u'llah is a prophet of God and then presume that all religions came from the same source and that all of the other ones except yours became flawed, but somehow your religion was immune to all of the pitfalls of men before your prophet came along. That is not real life. If the same god was responsible for sending down revelations before, then it would be consistent that god protected all of his religions in the same way that he protected yours. This is part of what I am talking about when I say that the same rules must apply to your religion as the other ones. The bottom line is that your religion is somehow above being misinterpreted, misunderstood, and not needing explaining.
There is no benefit in being wrong and believing false things. From your perspective, you may see it as enlightenment, but from a Christian perspective, you are simply being duped. You have no Biblical context to understand the passages. You are reading them through a third party who was not even contemporary to those events and didn't have any context to those events. Of course, you natural response is that your scriptures are true, but you can't say how except that your prophet said they were. That does not cut it with any learned Christian like me. I don't claim to know everything about the Bible, but I can tell that you have little clue about how to read the Bible and gain its intended meanings.
Yes, I am aware of your claims, but they are very empty. Respect means something different to you than to me. You can respect that there is a book called the Bible but you don't respect its ability to guide your life. You use Baha'i scriptures for that. But, you will say that they are the same in some generic way such as "they both provide guidance", have the same basic messages; and all religions were relevant for their time and place. All of that is just empty patronizing stuff filled with fluff. It is impossible to respect something that you don't even care about to base your life on it. In some twisted way, you will assert that you do.
[W]hen you give weight to your opinion as if it is the rule of interpretation, then . . .
Nope. I'm not speaking of (or using) my opinions. I'm speaking of what the Baha'i Faith itself teaches via its scriptures.
I disagree profoundly.
HOW MANY TIMES do I have to repeat the same thing??!!!!!
YET AGAIN:
Bruce said:
I've studied both, thank you! (And apparently, you haven't.)
Agreed, and I've found the Baha'i Faith to pass the tests, thank you! Otherwise I wouldn't be a Baha'i.
And please note that one of the rules (like it or not) is NOT that the Bible is ipso facto correct in anything and everything it says.
Which burden they fulfill quite nicely IME, thank you!
Spurious argement. Things that follow are necessarily later than earlier things. This is obvious, and no point to argue.
And not only the Bible but Jesus Himself prophesied that there was more to come: the Comforter or Spirit of Truth, for one, Whom we see as being Baha'u'llah (our Founder)!
So what? My interpretation isn't, either, as I've already pointed out!
Just as they have indeed already done for millions of Christians!
Of course, but that in no way invalidate either of them!
The exact same thing is true, for example, about the Jewish and Christian scriptures!
No, I don't claim they're the same. We say they're all part of a single religious tradition (and faith), the Faith of God!
Only in your opinion. A few million of us disagree.
Except, of course, for those instances when Christians rely upon symbolism and mysticism! :-S
And these prophecies are quite well-documented and surprisingly consistent (for anyone who actually cares to check into them)! Biblical exegesis abounds! Indeed, I can show you (or send you if you prefer) a good 300 pages of this right now from materials I already have immediately at hand.
Other than the fact that He was imprisioned and denied such things.
What on earth are you talking about?!
The Baha'i Faith didn't exist until Baha'u'llah founded it! I'm sorry, but you apparently know even less Baha'i history than I'd thought.
The issue isn't God, but the way humans alter and corrupt religions!
Not at all!
It can still be misunderstood, and this regrettably happens and has happened.
On the contrary, IME the fruits of the Baha'i Faith reflect its goodness extremely well, thankyouverymuch!
I still hold that you have to examine our scriptures on their own merit, free of prejudice ("pre-judging") and bias, which so far as I can tell you've never truly done.
So you are still cordially invited to do so. I'd be more than happy to suggest a few recommended titles.
Peace,
Bruce
You are correct about respect. It is meaningless vis a vis the bible and what it contains toward eternal life. I respect the manual of my car; and the recipe I love for making donuts. Neither has a thing to do with Jesus and His promises.originally posted by BruceDLimber
You live in a unrealistic world. Any interpretation, regardless of its claims, is still an interpretation and is subjected to the same issues as any other text. As a Christian, I realize these types of problems and issues. That is why I am trying to open your eyes a bit. I don't know if it is working though.
Your prophet, Baha'ullah reinterpreted the Bible and other scriptures in making his claims about the Baha'i faith. The House of Justice interprets things that are debated and disputed within the Baha'i faith. Honesty is important here. Don't try to paint your religion as infallible to criticism and error.
I highlighted (red) some the key texts. That is exactly why I was explaining to you about making comments about the Bible. Had you just said that this was an opinion from a Baha'i perspective and then asked what the scriptures meant in Christian context, probably none of these long dialogs would have occurred. The OP didn't imply that opinions outside of the Biblical perspective were to be given in understanding. That would defer the Biblical context to other sources, thus distorting the actual Biblical meaning. I am happy that you at least recognize the problem that I have been trying to get you to see.
You are not understanding what I was saying. If one is just giving an opinion, that is not the problem; however, when you give weight to your opinion as if it is the rule of interpretation, then you have overstepped your boundaries, given that you don't adhere to the text that you are trying to apply your interpretation to while additionally not reading and studying to learn the context of that scripture.
I was using this to point out your absurdity of trying to interpret the Bible through the Baha'i scriptures. As I have already stated, you would not want Christians or Muslims reciprocating that same standard that you were using.
It should be obvious because you will quickly point out that Baha'i scriptures don't say this or that. Why could you make that claim? Because you would have hopefully studied the scriptures and found the context to support your statement. This is no different with the Bible. Some of us have studied certain portions of the Bible and understand them very well. That is why I am discussing this topic with you. I have studied and realized that "only son" is not to be taken in a literal fashion with a denoted meaning of one son born. It is talking from both a historical perspective with legal implications and a promised given to Abraham (Biblical) regarding one son being born of the flesh of both Abraham and his legal wife, Sarah. Just like the word green, when used today in many circles denotes clean air/environment, we would not understand that it was not referring to color until we looked at the context in which it was being used. Studying requires careful attention to details about the text that you will not find in using sources not rooted in these specifics.
Using the same rules alone would not be the correct procedure. The rules would have to pass certain tests to determine if they are logical and sound methods. In the example that I gave you, if we both used the same rules by allowing each other's interpretation to usurp the contextual interpretation of our perspective scriptures, we would end up having each scripture redefining the other. That is neither fruitful nor proper in arriving at the correct contexts and meanings.
One other thing to point out: your scriptures came after the Bible and bear the burden of justifying any thing that it says about the Bible. Having all things equal, the Bible would have an assumed authority in determining whether the Baha'i scriptures are authentic, but the Baha'i scriptures can't reciprocate this with the Bible. I am speaking from a point of chronology.
What I am saying is that you did not want to apply the same rules since Baha'is would not accept my interpretation as being official. You said that your scriptures explain the Bible well and effectively interpret them. If that is true, then the logical conclusion is that your scriptures can replace any Biblical interpretation and become official for Christians. Whether you said those exact words or not, that is the most logical conclusion, given what you said and how you responded. That is why I was calling you out on making some fallacious reasonings. If that was not what you were trying to do, you would not have insisted that your scriptures should be used. You would have simply given your opinion and proceeded to continue discussion and asking Christians what these scriptures actually meant. You didn't do that.
This is one of the fallacious reasonings that you need to investigate. It doesn't matter how closely they match, they are different texts written in different times and have different contexts. If you ignore these two important facts, then you are going to make false comparisons and claim that they are the same. You will perpetuate a distorted and incorrect conclusion about the Bible while over inflating the sense that your scriptures are correct on that point. Similarities don't create authenticity. I have noticed that you and Arthra use this approach a lot. You quote similarities and then conclude a peaceful coexistence of two conflicting texts. Logic dictates that you also evaluate the differences since this is how you learn to distinguish things. You can't tell that things are not alike if you don't look at the characteristics that make them different. The negative characteristics have just as much significance, if not more, than likenesses. You would not be able to make good moral judgments if you live in a world of similarities. To overuse similarities is to live in a distorted world. You will live in a world where the sun is always shining, the sky is always blue, and there is no meaningful distinction between moral and immoral. Opposites eventually become non-opposites because you learn to see them that way.
Those prophecies you refer are overinflated and lack proper Biblical exegesis. They heavily rely upon symbolism and mysticism, which is a concept foreign to interpreting the Bible. It is not surprising that your prophet can make glaring similarities about the Bible since the Bible was already known to most of the world by the 1800s. Your prophet had the potential to access all kinds of books, commentaries, etc. on the Bible to make his writings seem authentic.
I am aware of some of them. All of them have holes in their arguments and make presumptions that are unwarranted. They are marooted in logical fallacies. They assume that Baha'u'llah is a prophet of God and then presume that all religions came from the same source and that all of the other ones except yours became flawed, but somehow your religion was immune to all of the pitfalls of men before your prophet came along. That is not real life. If the same god was responsible for sending down revelations before, then it would be consistent that god protected all of his religions in the same way that he protected yours. This is part of what I am talking about when I say that the same rules must apply to your religion as the other ones. The bottom line is that your religion is somehow above being misinterpreted, misunderstood, and not needing explaining.
There is no benefit in being wrong and believing false things. From your perspective, you may see it as enlightenment, but from a Christian perspective, you are simply being duped. You have no Biblical context to understand the passages. You are reading them through a third party who was not even contemporary to those events and didn't have any context to those events. Of course, you natural response is that your scriptures are true, but you can't say how except that your prophet said they were. That does not cut it with any learned Christian like me. I don't claim to know everything about the Bible, but I can tell that you have little clue about how to read the Bible and gain its intended meanings.
Yes, I am aware of your claims, but they are very empty. Respect means something different to you than to me. You can respect that there is a book called the Bible but you don't respect its ability to guide your life. You use Baha'i scriptures for that. But, you will say that they are the same in some generic way such as "they both provide guidance", have the same basic messages; and all religions were relevant for their time and place. All of that is just empty patronizing stuff filled with fluff. It is impossible to respect something that you don't even care about to base your life on it. In some twisted way, you will assert that you do.
Anyways, I hope that I explained myself thoroughly (long post) so that you get the complete picture of where I stand and what I think. I am glad that you at least realize the logical problem with unofficial interpretations. I will now devote my time to explaining what the OP is saying. I hope that we can get back to that. Feel free to ask questions on anything that I say if you need clarity or disagree. You will find that I do welcome disagreements, but I want substance behind them and for one be able to back up their points with reasonable evidence. I don't like someone to say that their scriptures say so and that somehow establishes a fact. That is very unconvincing to me.
Thank you. My scriptures say nothing about Ishmael being the father of arabs or islam.Luzeiro,
I don't speak for Muslims... I am a Baha'i not a Muslim. The Baha'i Faith may mean nothing to you but you'll note in my reply to you all I have been quoting are Bible verses.. Please be respectful of your own scripture and don't compare Ishmael with Santa Claus..
- Art
is an adherent of the religion of Islam. The feminine form of 'Muslim' is Muslimah (مسلمة. Literally, the word means "one who submits to God". The word "Muslim" is the participle of the same verb of which "Islam" is the infinitive. ...and
A Muslim (مسلم
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim
To become a Nuslim it is a requirement to verbally testify that Muhammed is God's Prophet. It seems they are as interested in submission to Muhammed as much as submission to God. Let them drop that part of the Shahada and your premise would be valid."They associated Islam with following Mohammad"
This is one of the misunderstandings I believe that many Christians have..since they ostensibly follow Christ they believe Muslims must "follow" Muhammad and so the term "Muhammadan" developed.. that term is now antiquated and hardly used anymore but many Christians still believe it.
The follower of Light looks to the Light and not the particular frame of the mirror it appears in.
- Art
