god and human rights, are they compatible?

[Copernicus]

Which is perhaps a good reason to bear in mind not only that waging war is expressly forbidden Baha'is, but that we're also told explicitly in our scriptures that clarifications about religion are to remain verbal (or written) and never to degenerate into any sort violence or hostility.

Nevertheless, you quite explicitly endorsed those scriptural traditions that do not forbid waging war. Therein lies the contradiction.

The antecedent was the statement I'd alredy made previously.

You made a lot of statements. This does not help.

Then perhaps you should read ours, in particular volumes like Some Answered Questions, which you can find in the "Writings" section at: www.bahai-library.org

Bruce, I am not going to go on a scriptural fishing expedition to validate claims that you make in this forum. I'm sorry if that sounds unreasonable to you, but what happens if I go in search of your reply and still don't find it? I trust you to summarize the relevant responses here. If you can't do that, then waving your hands at your scripture probably won't help me either.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Nevertheless, you quite explicitly endorsed those scriptural traditions that do not forbid waging war. Therein lies the contradiction.

No, what you overlook is that social laws change from Age to Age. While some previous religions may have permitted war, in the Baha'i Era this has clearly changed; quotes upon request!

You made a lot of statements. This does not help.

It was the immediately previous statement I'd posted in that thread.

Bruce, I am not going to go on a scriptural fishing expedition to validate claims that you make in this forum. I'm sorry if that sounds unreasonable to you, but what happens if I go in search of your reply and still don't find it?

Given that I provided you the exact web address for it, if you can't find it, then you're simply incompetant at using a computer. I gave you a simple, direct way to verify what I'd said! If you don't want to bother, then that's your loss. All I can do is lead the horse to water: drinking is YOUR department!

Bruce

 

[Copernicus]

Given that I provided you the exact web address for it, if you can't find it, then you're simply incompetant at using a computer. I gave you a simple, direct way to verify what I'd said! If you don't want to bother, then that's your loss. All I can do is lead the horse to water: drinking is YOUR department!

Bruce, you yourself have engaged in what appears to me to be contradiction in this thread. That is, you wax ecumenical about accepting all scripture, yet you disagree with the concept of God or gods depicted in scripture other than your own. If you cannot explain that apparent contradiction in your own words, then pointing at someone else's words is not really likely to convince me of your point, is it? You can't even paraphrase the reasoning in that scripture which is supposed to convince me of your point. After all, I'm not making any claims about what your religious literature says. So, unless you make the argument here, please do not give me reading assignments and complain when I choose not to go on a fishing expedition for an explanation that your yourself cannot provide. Again, sorry if that sounds unreasonable to you, but I really find plowing through scripture tedious when I don't even know what I'm looking for.

BTW, I did look at the link that you provided. It was the index page of lots of links to other online materials--a massive amount of material to plow through.

 

[BruceDLimber]

It had a clear item addressing the topic we were discussing, so there should have been no problem knowing where to look.

And there are clarifications as to the nature of God such that any ambiguities in earlier Ages are hopefully resolved.

But again, to the extent you don't want to read anything, feel free.

Bruce

 

[Copernicus]

It had a clear item addressing the topic we were discussing, so there should have been no problem knowing where to look.

It was not clear to me. When I asked you to clarify the antecedent of your pronoun, you simply repeated that you thought it clear. Not helpful.

And there are clarifications as to the nature of God such that any ambiguities in earlier Ages are hopefully resolved.

You could help by providing those clarifications here rather than attempting to send me off on a wild goose chase through your scripture.

But again, to the extent you don't want to read anything, feel free.

Let me clarify this again, because I seem to be having trouble getting the message across. I am willing to read what you post, and I certainly appreciate summaries, clarifications, explanations, etc. If you point me to a web page with a vast amount of material (or links to a vast amount of material) and tell me to go find the answers for myself, then that isn't going to happen. Sorry if that sounds intransigent to you, but my impression is rather that you are the one being intransigent here. This is a discussion group. Discuss. Don't give open-ended reading assignments.

 

[BruceDLimber]

OK; let's try this again.

You endorse scriptures that present a blatantly false representation of God from your perspective.

This is what I disagreed to because our scriptures not only state clearly that God is One (indeed, this is one of our three most central teachings), but also state two important qualifications about these other religions:

• That apparent differences between them are because their social laws had changed to fit whichever Age they were revealed for.
• The original scriptures of most of the early religions have either been lost or been changed through human tampering almost beyond recognition. They therefore are no longer reliable either as specific guidance or as to what was originally taught. And most of the other scriptures millenia old have been altered at least a little.

As to the Oneness of God, it's stressed in many places in our scriptures.

I hope this helps clarify where we were.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[waitasec]

*The original scriptures of most of the early religions have either been lost or been changed through human tampering almost beyond recognition. They therefore are no longer reliable either as specific guidance or as to what was originally taught. And most of the other scriptures millenia old have been altered at least a little.

and this constitutes what really? hearsay...

*That apparent differences between them are because their social laws had changed to fit whichever Age they were revealed for.

so are god's laws are subjected to his creation ...

 

[Copernicus]

You endorse scriptures that present a blatantly false representation of God from your perspective.

This is what I disagreed to because our scriptures not only state clearly that God is One (indeed, this is one of our three most central teachings)

But there is a lot of religious literature that does not teach this view of God, so they would be a false representation of God from your perspective. You are projecting your own belief system onto that of people who had a completely different view of God and gods. Do you really think that the doctrine surrounding the Mayan god Kukulkan is presenting the same idea of God that you are?

but also state two important qualifications about these other religions:

• That apparent differences between them are because their social laws had changed to fit whichever Age they were revealed for.

I don't recall that we were talking about differences between social laws, but different ideas of what God represented. You seem to have objected to depictions of God that were highly anthropomorphic--e.g. the standard Christian fundamentalist or Islamic fundamentalist God. I felt that it was a contradiction then to endorse scriptures that depicted God in that way.

• The original scriptures of most of the early religions have either been lost or been changed through human tampering almost beyond recognition. They therefore are no longer reliable either as specific guidance or as to what was originally taught. And most of the other scriptures millenia old have been altered at least a little.

Fair enough, but this does not sound like a ringing endorsement of those scriptures. Rather, it seems to reject those scriptures as tainted or impure, whereas you see your own scripture as untainted and pure. I have no problem with that, but it seems to contradict your claim that you accept those scriptures. In fact, you accept what you imagine them to have been in their original, untainted form, which is now lost to us.

I hope this helps clarify where we were.

It does, Bruce. Thank you for indulging in my request for clarification.

 

[BruceDLimber]

No, Divine Revelation contained in our own scriptures.

That apparent differences between them are because their social laws had changed to fit whichever Age they were revealed for.

so are god's laws are subjected to his creation?

No, He changes them as He sees fit accomodate our gradual growth and changing needs.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[waitasec]

No, Divine Revelation contained in our own scriptures.

That apparent differences between them are because their social laws had changed to fit whichever Age they were revealed for.

No, He changes them as He sees fit accomodate our gradual growth and changing needs.

Peace,

Bruce

slavery was a need for that time