Is America a Christian Nation?
Robert Arvay
The question has been asked, and the proposed answers argued, in great
detail by many others, so I'll take a different approach.
As a Christian myself, I recognize that the US Constitution
deliberately avoids any reference to God, and that many of the
founders were not Christian.
So, from that particular legalistic view, the answer is, no. America
is not a Christian nation.
But neither can it be denied that America has been shaped, and its
unique culture deeply influenced, by the Christian religion. From the
Mayflower Compact onward, the foundational documents are rich with
references to our divine creator, nature's God, and Jesus Christ. For
lifetimes, the Bible was the primary literature of education, and its
message the very bedrock of our laws and institutions.
Today, America is very different. In our schools, the Bible and
prayer have been expelled from the morning ritual, and only the pledge
is recited. And even in that pledge, the reference to God has been
outlawed by the 9th Circuit Court. And while the Bible was being
pushed out, its teachings of sexual morality were being replaced by
condoms, by so-called values-neutral "how-to" sex education manuals,
and homosexual advocacy speakers.
The questionable wisdom of this policy is exemplified in the irony of
the birth control pill. Its advent promised risk-free sexual
liberation, and a drastic reduction in the already low incidence of
out-of-wedlock pregnancy. Its consequences were exactly the opposite
of what was predicted, but none of that mattered. The sexual
liberation agenda never cared about lowering out-of-wedlock pregnancy
rates. It was about throwing off the yoke of religious oppression,
and freeing us from the cruel stigma of social condemnation of harmful
practices.
It was considered an unfortunate coincidence that the legitimzation of
homosexuality occurred just before the AIDS explosion. No, that was
all just coincidence.
America is different now because it is less Christian than ever it
was. The influence of the Bible on public policy is not only
decreased and diluted, but it now exists only tenuously in a society
increasingly hostile to it.
America is not merely a post-Christian nation, but is becoming
anti-Christian in its values, it mores, and its goals.
Matt Menge
Best Regards,
Matt
Rober...@msn.com (Robert Arvay) wrote in message news:<e247d7b6.03032...@posting.google.com>...
Michel Boucher
> Is America a Christian nation?
> The question has been asked, and the proposed answers argued, in
> great detail by many others, so I'll take a different approach.
> As a Christian myself, I recognize that the US Constitution
> deliberately avoids any reference to God, and that many of the
> founders were not Christian.
What were they? Muslims (or Mooselmen as they would have been called
back then)?
Maybe not the Constitution, but the Declaration of Independence refers
to (a) God, and to (a) Creator. So that was established as a founding
principle. Constitutions deal with powers and their administration.
There is no need to mention deities in them.
--
Napoleon Solo: Are you free?
Ilya Kuryakin: No man is free who has to work for a living, but I am
available.
Pat Kohli
Robert Arvay wrote:
> (snip) From the
> Mayflower Compact onward, the foundational documents are rich with
> references to our divine creator, nature's God, and Jesus Christ.
I hope you are not suggesting that by such standards America was once a
Christian nation?
Best wishes!
- Pat
kohli at ameritel.net
Rod
> Robert Arvay wrote:
>
> > (snip) From the
> > Mayflower Compact onward, the foundational documents are rich with
> > references to our divine creator, nature's God, and Jesus Christ.
>
> I hope you are not suggesting that by such standards America was once a
> Christian nation?
Had to clean out the savage heathen natives first Pat.
Bet the 7th could use a good Christian lad like Captain Fetterman about
now.
Iroquois-Iraqis....who gives a shit...they all need a good hot lead
dose of the true faith.
Just saw the boys from the 3rd(?) artilery carefully scrawling "This
is for 9/11" on each and every one of the outgoing 500 rounds.
Good to see that the clear and unequivocable link between 9/11 and
Iraqu has been established.
Good to see that the Moslem world is being reassured this is not a
war against Islam.
Rod.
Robert Arvay
Michel Boucher <alsa...@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<Xns9345B7FF8998...@130.133.1.4>...
> Dans un moment de folie, Rober...@msn.com (Robert Arvay) écrivit:
>
> > (snip) US Constitution
> > deliberately avoids any reference to God, and that many of the
> > founders were not Christian.
>
> What were they? Muslims (or Mooselmen as they would have been called
> back then)?
Deists. While I'm not schooled in Deism, my limited understanding is
that they apparently believe in a generic God, but not in Jesus or the
prophets.
>
> Maybe not the Constitution, but the Declaration of Independence refers
> to (a) God, and to (a) Creator. So that was established as a founding
> principle. Constitutions deal with powers and their administration.
> There is no need to mention deities in them.
The Mayflower Compact specifically mentions Jesus. The state
constitutions of the time were important because it was the states
which created the Union. And many of these were quite specifically
Christian.
The Constitution omitted God because there was a great aversion to the
Church of England, which compelled obedience by those of other
religions. There should be no Church of America.
It is one thing to forbid a state institution of religion--- which the
Constitution wisely does.
It was quite another thing, and a very foolish policy, to make the
state hostile to religious values and traditions. The ACLU and AUSCS
have taken an extremist, an atheistic, position on this, and met with
much success.
The First amendment prohibits establishing a state religion, which is
the part the ACLU is quite vocal about. They are much more silent
about the part that says that the government must not prohibit the
free exercise of religion.
Any hint of Christian influence in laws or policy tends to draw the
ire of such activists, and the free exercise of religion has been the
casualty.
Robert Arvay
Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3E7BCD1E...@ameritel.net>...
> Robert Arvay wrote:
>
> > (snip) From the
> > Mayflower Compact onward, the foundational documents are rich with
> > references to our divine creator, nature's God, and Jesus Christ.
>
> I hope you are not suggesting that by such standards America was once a
> Christian nation?
>
We could debate all day about what would define a nation as
"Christian."
I've tried to take a different tack, and simply underscore that
American culture owes much to the Christian tradition. I think that
had America been settled by any other major religious group, the
nation would be much different.
Much of our devotion to human rights, human dignity, freedom and
democracy arises from Biblical principles, principles which were free
to develop in a land largely beyond the reach of the feudal
aristocrats of Europe.
This is not to ignore the very serious defects which arose, primarily
the evil of slavery. But even there, the Abolitionist movement was a
religious one.
As America becomes more anti-Christian, I fear we will see our unity
unravel, and our decline rapid. Hopefully, a religious revival might
prevent that.
Robert Arvay
kas...@tpg.com.au (Rod) wrote in message news:<8ccded73.03032...@posting.google.com>...
> Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3E7BCD1E...@ameritel.net>...
> > Robert Arvay wrote:
> >
> > > (snip) From the
> > > Mayflower Compact onward, the foundational documents are rich with
> > > references to our divine creator, nature's God, and Jesus Christ.
> >
> > I hope you are not suggesting that by such standards America was once a
> > Christian nation?
>
> Had to clean out the savage heathen natives first Pat.
The way in which American Indians were treated was despicable, and
certainly not a Christian thing to do.
Realistically, they were too weak to have held onto their lands in any
case.
Indeed, the Iroquois were in the middle of a major conquest of other
tribes at the time Europeans landed. So, whether conquest by kindred
tribes, or by Europeans, or by (eventually) Asians, the American
Indian was doomed to conquest. This does not excuse it, of course.
>
> Bet the 7th could use a good Christian lad like Captain Fetterman about
> now.
>
> Iroquois-Iraqis.......they all need a good hot lead
> dose of the true faith.
>
> Just saw the boys from the 3rd(?) artilery carefully scrawling "This
> is for 9/11" on each and every one of the outgoing 500 rounds.
>
> Good to see that the clear and unequivocable link between 9/11 and
> Iraqu has been established.
Clear, no. Link, yes.
> Good to see that the Moslem world is being reassured this is not a
> war against Islam.
>
Tell that to the Kuwaitis.
Cal E. Rollins
I'm looking forward to the time when the economy gets so bad that
religions will be taxed like everybody else in the Country. I was on a
State Board of Directors for the ACLU and do believe that's coming.
--Cal
Pat Kohli
Robert Arvay wrote:
> Greetings;
>
> Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3E7BCD1E...@ameritel.net>...
>
> > Robert Arvay wrote:
> >
> > > (snip) From the
> > > Mayflower Compact onward, the foundational documents are rich with
> > > references to our divine creator, nature's God, and Jesus Christ.
> >
> > I hope you are not suggesting that by such standards America was once a
> > Christian nation?
> >
> We could debate all day about what would define a nation as
> "Christian."
>
We could debate all day if flamingos fly. I could ask you if _you_ think flamingoes fly. That doesn't
mean you'll answer the question. We could debate all night as to whether you answered the question, or
answered _the_ question. Really, what about Naomi?
>
> I've tried to take a different tack, and simply underscore that
> American culture owes much to the Christian tradition.
What Christian tradition? Has it ever occurred to you how much Christianity owes to the Hindu
tradition? The Druid tradition? How much Christianity owes to Mithraism? Despite _all_ that, did you
mean to suggest that America was _ever_ a Christian nation due foundational documents, "rich with
references references to our divine creator, nature's God, and Jesus Christ"? It would seem like a
simple "yes, no" question to me, but, you could philibuster that for a few days, eh?
> I think that
> had America been settled by any other major religious group, the
> nation would be much different.
>
America _was_ settled by people of other religions. The Christians were simply uninvited guests who
disposed of the previous owners. Be that as it may, at any time from the 1700s on, do you suggest that
America has been, at any time, a Christian nation?
>
> Much of our devotion to human rights, human dignity, freedom and
> democracy arises from Biblical principles, principles which were free
> to develop in a land largely beyond the reach of the feudal
> aristocrats of Europe.
>
Are you in the 70s? Slavery was justified as a _Biblical_ practice, despite all decency and common
sense! To me, the sad legacy of suppression of human dignity, freedom, and democracy, is right out of
the Biblical traditions of Europe. Did you mean to suggest that America was _ever_ a Christian nation
due foundational documents, "rich with references references to our divine creator, nature's God, and
Jesus Christ"?
>
> This is not to ignore the very serious defects which arose, primarily
> the evil of slavery. But even there, the Abolitionist movement was a
> religious one.
>
Unitarians and Quakers? Be that as it may, did you mean to suggest that America was _ever_ a Christian
nation due foundational documents, "rich with references references to our divine creator, nature's God,
and Jesus Christ"?
>
> As America becomes more anti-Christian, I fear we will see our unity
> unravel, and our decline rapid. Hopefully, a religious revival might
> prevent that.
Go Unitarians and Quakers!
By the way, I meant to ask you in my last message, did you mean to suggest that America was _ever_ a
Christian nation due foundational documents, "rich with references references to our divine creator,
nature's God, and Jesus Christ"?
Susan Maneck
>case.
Robert,
It was the onslaught of European diseases that made them too weak. When the
Vikings landed centuries earlier they did not have this effect because they
themselves did not carry these diseases.
warmest, Susan
Matt Menge
>
> Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3E7BCD1E...@ameritel.net>...
>
> > Robert Arvay wrote:
> >
> > > (snip) From the
> > > Mayflower Compact onward, the foundational documents are rich with
> > > references to our divine creator, nature's God, and Jesus Christ.
> >
> > I hope you are not suggesting that by such standards America was once a
> > Christian nation?
> >
> We could debate all day about what would define a nation as
> "Christian."
Oh, let's. I think it means the extent to which Christian teachings
have permeated into every aspect of society, be it entertainment,
politics, business, or ethics.
>
> I've tried to take a different tack, and simply underscore that
> American culture owes much to the Christian tradition. I think that
> had America been settled by any other major religious group, the
> nation would be much different.
No doubt it would be different. However, you would be surprised at
how many foreign religious concepts westerners have imported.
>
> Much of our devotion to human rights, human dignity, freedom and
> democracy arises from Biblical principles, principles which were free
> to develop in a land largely beyond the reach of the feudal
> aristocrats of Europe.
Didn't these develop first in pagan Greece and to a lesser extent
pagan Rome?
>
> This is not to ignore the very serious defects which arose, primarily
> the evil of slavery. But even there, the Abolitionist movement was a
> religious one.
This at least was pretty much a Christian development.
>
> As America becomes more anti-Christian, I fear we will see our unity
> unravel, and our decline rapid.
To be honest, American Christianity seems more resistant to decline
than almost any Christian nation in the world, although I am told that
this is cyclical. Also, might I point out that in post-Christian
Europe there are still pretty high morals, so the decline in morals
must post-date the decline in religion by a few decades.
Hopefully, a religious revival might
> prevent that.
I don't know, Robert, most religious revivals tend to be mixed bags.
The 18th century Awakening, as it was called, tended to make religious
faith much more emotional and much less rational, and it also resulted
in the generation of a number of new sects.
Also, there already has been something of a revival afoot.
Pre-marital sex has gone down over the last decade. Drug use seems to
be down since the mid-80's. There is also not a significant increase
in alcohol use. Our new President seems to be trying to put religion
back into politics. There is an increased interest in Christian
radio, television, and literature. Even church attendance has been
relatively stable, presently at 43%. And as you are aware there has
been a shift away from Catholic and main-line Protestant churches to
more 'fundamentalist' churches.
In 1979, Iran had a 'revival' and we've been suffering ever since.
There's even a dramatic escalation of drug use and prostitution in
Iran, despite the severe punishments meted out for such offenses.
Best Regards,
Matt
Rod
>
> kas...@tpg.com.au (Rod) wrote in message news:<8ccded73.03032...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3E7BCD1E...@ameritel.net>...
Foundation of an ongoing local,regional and global tradition.
> certainly not a Christian thing to do.
Not what the Christians of the day believed.
> Realistically, they were too weak to have held onto their lands in any
> case.
Condemed are the weak for they shall inherit the overlords.
>the American Indian was doomed to conquest.
Bullshit.
> This does not excuse it, of course.
It tries to, of course.
> > Bet the 7th could use a good Christian lad like Captain Fetterman about
> > now.
> >
> > Iroquois-Iraqis.......they all need a good hot lead
> > dose of the true faith.
> >
> > Just saw the boys from the 3rd(?) artilery carefully scrawling "This
> > is for 9/11" on each and every one of the outgoing 500 rounds.
> >
> > Good to see that the clear and unequivocable link between 9/11 and
> > Iraqu has been established.
>
> Clear, no. Link, yes.
Hairy backs? Every second son called 'Al'?, They all come from
Klatchnia?
> > Good to see that the Moslem world is being reassured this is not a
> > war against Islam.
> >
> Tell that to the Kuwaitis.
The folks that inhabit the little bit of land that by all
historical/geographic
rights should be part of Iraqu but was left off the map that the
British drew up
without any regional consultation at the end of WWI? Those Kuwaitis?
The populace that arose as a consequence of the deliberate bastardry
of the British?
(How long hard and dirty would the US fight if a foreign power annexed
Texas Robert?)
Create a nation of hostile factions and annex Fort Kuwait, deny them a
deep sea port and sit back to see if they ever get off their knees and
if the are dammed grumpy when they do......Monsters Inc....working
well thus far.
Rod.
Claudia
> Hopefully, a religious revival might
> > prevent that.
>
> I don't know, Robert, most religious revivals tend to be mixed bags.
> The 18th century Awakening, as it was called, tended to make religious
> faith much more emotional and much less rational, and it also resulted
> in the generation of a number of new sects.
>
> Also, there already has been something of a revival afoot.
> Pre-marital sex has gone down over the last decade. Drug use seems to
> be down since the mid-80's. There is also not a significant increase
> in alcohol use. Our new President seems to be trying to put religion
> back into politics. There is an increased interest in Christian
> radio, television, and literature. Even church attendance has been
> relatively stable, presently at 43%. And as you are aware there has
> been a shift away from Catholic and main-line Protestant churches to
> more 'fundamentalist' churches.
>
> In 1979, Iran had a 'revival' and we've been suffering ever since.
> There's even a dramatic escalation of drug use and prostitution in
> Iran, despite the severe punishments meted out for such offenses.
>
> Best Regards,
>
Matt
You talk about a religious revival - but that is what the Baha'i Faith
was mant to be wasn't it - Christ returned a new Christianity? I think
we have to *blame the Baha'is for the world's present condition* and
be open to another paradigm.
It is a well-known among Baha'is that the Writings say that what
happens
first in the Bahai Faith will then happen in the wider world,
therefore the people of the Greatest Name are called to set an example
of a model community which should then take root in the world
commonwealth as the Baha'i Faith
represents the Zeitgeist (spirit of the Age)
"For ye are the stars of the heaven of understanding, the breeze that
stirreth at the break of day, the soft flowing waters upon which must
depend
the very LIFE OF ALL MEN." The Bab
Moving on from there we can then extrapolate that the world's
conditions,
and the warring mentality can be blamed on the memberships of the
Baha'i
Faith.
Using this principle of the Bahai Faith being the microcosm and
beginning pattern of what will happen in the macrocosm of the world as
a guidepost one can
predict what the world will be experiencing. Looking at the events
and change of character of the BF in the past few decades it is not
surprising to see today's conflicts raging in the world and the
potential dream of the Lesser Political Peace prophesied to have
occurred by the turn of the century (2000) a
nonhappening.
Below are some indicators within the BF that have mirrored into the
wider
world but first we should take two points into consideration -
First, the BF appeared to be holding to it's spiritual principles
at the writing of the Peace Message in 1985-6 and it was shortly after
that
the face of BF started to make definite changes which is evident in
the character of the Baha'i Life today - change that is acknowledged
by the leaders and members of the Faith and is being recognized in
other sectors of the world's population in their publications.
Secondly, it should also be noted that the BF was taking on the
capitalistic
materialism rampant in the West at this stage (mid 1980's) which was
evidenced in the property acquisitions, the palatial buildings in
Haifa, the
elaborate Gardens, the large stock market investments held by the
Faith, the
expensive world-wide travel and perks of it's leading representatives,
and
the continual call for sacrificial giving from it's members and
benefactors
(many who were wealthy oil barons).
*The Pattern First Birthed in the Microcosm of the Baha'i Faith*
By the early 1980's the Baha'i World was deep into integrating and
accepting the massive amount of Iranian Refugees who were escaping the
religious persecution in Iran. At the same time many Baha'is of an
Eastern
background who had been living in the West rose to prominent positions
in
the Administration of the Faith world-wide and were in a position to
influence the new refugees in a way that held political sway in the
outcome
of Administration and policies of the Faith. This phenomena was also
visible at the Center of the Faith where almost all of the people
elected to
the Universal House of Justice were members who had been appointed to
the
International Teaching Center or Secretaries of wealthy and powerful
National Spiritual Assemblies whereby the electorial process was no
longer representative of the world membership's input. This entire
process during the past few decades caused many Western Baha'i
Communities to be colonized by their
Eastern counter parts which had a direct impact on the culture and
practice
of the Baha'i Faith. Cultural practices under repressive regimes
carried over and in time a fundamental exclusive mind set replaced
the liberal, scholarly, and open mindedness that had previously
prevailed.
It must be kept in mind that the Western materialistic oligarchy
within the
BF at this time was opened to facilitating the change of power and was
influenced by the wealthy oil investors who helped maintain holdings.
All this was not done without causalities and polarization which has
left
the Faith in degrees of chaos and a period of little or no expansion.
The
displaced Baha'is became known as the liberals or dissidents. They
tried to
hold on to the principles as they had come to know them while the
dominant
ruling group took on a hard conservative fundamental position which
has
resulted in the abandonment of the practice of some of the basic
principles
of the Faith that many in the world-wide Baha'i community had put into
their
lives. This change of face of the BF has allowed for a cult-like
presence to
effect policy and practice in the Faith and is fast becoming more
visible as
a more totalitarian face emerges. . It should be noted that many true
hearted Easterner's have suffered under this form of take over in the
Faith as have those in the West. There has been some growth in the
understanding but there still remains strong division as many Western
Baha'is have left the Faith or become inactive.
*The Microcosm Expanding to the Macrocosm of the Planet*
We see the same effect in the wider-world whereby Revolutions in the
East
caused Refugees to flee to the West in mass and as such Eastern
Islamic
subcultures arose in the midst of the Western Countries where they
continually impact the local culture through this form of entryism
into the
host community. While some influence is positive there are those
within the
subcultures that have a more radical Eastern interpretation of the
Koran and
have set up cells of radicalism to bring about their domination of the
world
(just as was done within the Baha'i Community). The result is similar
to
the microcosm of the Baha'i Faith whereby fundamentalism is spreading
throughout the world .....and as it happened in the BF many Western
Powers
have played a hand in orchestrating this effect because of their greed
for
power and materialism.
The people of the world are resisting the take over of radical
fundamentalism, globalization, totalitarianism and that of gross
materialism by either marching for peace or waging war. Where it will
end
and what the spoils will be may depend on you....the people effecting
the
microcosm!!!!! But then again, you may have already failed as
prophesied in
the Holy Mariner and She may have to breathe a new Zeitgeist for the
up and coming Sixth Sun Cycle (2012) to get things in order.......and
thus there may be many Bayaniyyah Experiments (new Paths) in the
Wind......may one and all arise to the occasion and not persecute the
Spirit out of the Messengers.
Claudia Starr*
{\
>)))*>
{/
Joyous Journey ---- Tahirih-Sitareh*
Solace of the Sun
Pat Kohli
Claudia wrote:
I thought it was well known among Baha'is, 'to refer to the book'. Could
you please refer to some passage from the writings of Baha'u'llah which says
'blame the Baha'is for any evil ye see'?
Thanks!
Matt Menge
>
> Secondly, it should also be noted that the BF was taking on the
> capitalistic
> materialism rampant in the West at this stage (mid 1980's) which was
> evidenced in the property acquisitions, the palatial buildings in
> Haifa, the
> elaborate Gardens, the large stock market investments held by the
> Faith, the
> expensive world-wide travel and perks of it's leading representatives,
> and
> the continual call for sacrificial giving from it's members and
> benefactors
> (many who were wealthy oil barons).
So let me get this straight. The fact that Baha'is were contributing
more and more money to the Faith makes them materialistic? Most of
these buildings are even open to the public. The only thing here that
really sounds materialistic are the "perks" you mention. Maybe you
would care to elaborate on these.
>
> *The Pattern First Birthed in the Microcosm of the Baha'i Faith*
>
> By the early 1980's the Baha'i World was deep into integrating and
> accepting the massive amount of Iranian Refugees who were escaping the
> religious persecution in Iran.
Yes, and creating a community that integrated Americans and Iranians
brought a whole new meaning to the concept of race unity and cultural
unity. Two more different and antagonistic cultures probably don't
exist in the world today.
> All this was not done without causalities and polarization which has
> left
> the Faith in degrees of chaos and a period of little or no expansion.
Actually, 'Abdu'l-Baha did say that the presence of foreigners could
slow the progress of the Faith, but that hardly means we should kick
them out.
> The
> displaced Baha'is became known as the liberals or dissidents.
Yes, that is too bad, as most of them are fine people.
Best Regards,
Matt
Robert Arvay
crol...@webtv.net (Cal E. Rollins) wrote in message news:<1663-3E7...@storefull-2332.public.lawson.webtv.net>...
I agree that churches should repay the costs they impose on government
for police, fire protection and the like.
Otherwise, as the US Supreme Court ruled early in our history, the
power to tax is the power to destroy.
However, it would be intersting to tax churches with one proviso:
No Taxation Without Representation!
Robert Arvay
sma...@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote in message news:<20030322192841...@mb-cg.aol.com>...
(Robt wrote)
> >Realistically, they were too weak to have held onto their lands in any
> >case.
>
> Robert,
>
> It was the onslaught of European diseases that made them too weak. When the
> Vikings landed centuries earlier they did not have this effect because they
> themselves did not carry these diseases.
>
But this does not change what I said. Sooner or later, a
technologically advanced society (with or without diseases) was bound
to reach America's shores. Even the Indians themselves were
conquerors of other tribes.
And BTW, it's interesting that the Vikings did not carry any such
disease?
We should also take note that the American Indians infected Europeans
with certain sexually transmitted diseases.
And even the Vikings may have been preceded by Druids from Ireland.
There's an interesting archaeological curiosity in New Hampshire
(which I visited) that experts deem to be plausible evidence (last I
heard) for this sort of theory.
God bless you.
Robert Arvay
Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3E7CF4F8...@ameritel.net>...
> > >
(snip unanswerable comments)
> >
> > I've tried to take a different tack, and simply underscore that
> > American culture owes much to the Christian tradition.
>
> What Christian tradition? Has it ever occurred to you how much Christianity owes to the Hindu tradition?
Please enlighten me.
> The Druid tradition? How much Christianity owes to Mithraism? Despite _all_ that, did you
> mean to suggest that America was _ever_ a Christian nation due foundational documents, "rich with
> references references to our divine creator, nature's God, and Jesus Christ"? It would seem like a
> simple "yes, no" question to me, but, you could philibuster that for a few days, eh?
Pat, what are you talking about? I addressed this question in my
opening post. Legalistically, no, America is not a per se Christian
nation. I then went on to address the tradition, the embodiments in
law and culture. I wrote a brief post, not a book length treatise,
so of course there are shortcomings in my opening remarks. That does
not constitute evasion, but a preamble, the details of which can be
introduced in turn, and discussed at length without acrimony.
>
> > I think that
> > had America been settled by any other major religious group, the
> > nation would be much different.
>
> America _was_ settled by people of other religions. The Christians were simply uninvited guests who
> disposed of the previous owners. Be that as it may, at any time from the 1700s on, do you suggest that
> America has been, at any time, a Christian nation?
American culture and law have been saturated with Christian values.
And this has been accomplished by flawed men who brought with them
their panoply of sins. Nonetheless, the Christian tradition is good,
and I believe, included the basis for our national mores of individual
rights and dignity. That these concepts were so violated on so tragic
a scale for so long (even today) is horrifying. But consider certain
other cultures which might have prevailed instead, examine their
commitments to these principles, and decide for yourself if the
continent would have fared better under the rule of a Shogun or a Khan
or a Caliphate. Earth has not yet, to my knowledge, known a
continent-sized Utopian empire.
(snip)> >
> > This is not to ignore the very serious defects which arose, primarily
> > the evil of slavery. But even there, the Abolitionist movement was a
> > religious one.
>
> Unitarians and Quakers? (snip repetitious question already replied to, but apparently, never to satisy you, Pat)
> >
> > As America becomes more anti-Christian, I fear we will see our unity
> > unravel, and our decline rapid. Hopefully, a religious revival might
> > prevent that.
>
> Go Unitarians and Quakers!
>
> By the way, I meant to ask you in my last message, did you mean to suggest that America was _ever_ a
> Christian nation due foundational documents, "rich with references references to our divine creator,
> nature's God, and Jesus Christ"?
>
I did elaborate on that.
God bless you!
Robert Arvay
mspm...@msn.com (Matt Menge) wrote in message
news:<dc19cfc5.03032...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3E7BCD1E...@ameritel.net>...
> >
> > > Robert Arvay wrote:
> > >
> > > > (snip) From the
> > > > Mayflower Compact onward, the foundational documents are rich with
> > > > references to our divine creator, nature's God, and Jesus Christ.
> > >
> > > I hope you are not suggesting that by such standards America was once a
> > > Christian nation?
> > >
> > We could debate all day about what would define a nation as
> > "Christian."
>
> Oh, let's. I think it means the extent to which Christian teachings
> have permeated into every aspect of society, be it entertainment,
> politics, business, or ethics.
> >
> > I've tried to take a different tack, and simply underscore that
> > American culture owes much to the Christian tradition. I think that
> > had America been settled by any other major religious group, the
> > nation would be much different.
>
> No doubt it would be different. However, you would be surprised at
> how many foreign religious concepts westerners have imported.
> >
> > Much of our devotion to human rights, human dignity, freedom and
> > democracy arises from Biblical principles, principles which were free
> > to develop in a land largely beyond the reach of the feudal
> > aristocrats of Europe.
>
> Didn't these develop first in pagan Greece and to a lesser extent
> pagan Rome?
My impression is that the principles of human rights and dignity
developed first and faster in the Hebrew culture.
Undoubtedly the Greeks were the first major civilization to employ the
concepts we know as democracy. But remember that early Greek
democracy (and even that of the American colonies) had little to do
with the respect of individual human rights, but rather, with the
protection of the established "landed gentry."
When the Pilgrims came to America, they had no titled aristocracy. So
they formed a far more egalitarian society than perhaps had ever taken
root in the world, consciously modelled on the early Christian
churches. Of course, once they established an elite upper crust,
matters took a different turn.
> >
> > This is not to ignore the very serious defects which arose, primarily
> > the evil of slavery. But even there, the Abolitionist movement was a
> > religious one.
>
> This at least was pretty much a Christian development.
> >
> > As America becomes more anti-Christian, I fear we will see our unity
> > unravel, and our decline rapid.
>
> To be honest, American Christianity seems more resistant to decline
> than almost any Christian nation in the world, although I am told that
> this is cyclical. Also, might I point out that in post-Christian
> Europe there are still pretty high morals, so the decline in morals
> must post-date the decline in religion by a few decades.
I'm not sure. My very brief periods in Europe, and of those visitors
with whom I've discussed this, show the west Europeans to be a very
regulated society, but morally very shallow and ambiguous. I could be
wrong.
And yes, American Christianity has been resilient. I hope it will
remain so. But the challenges it faces are mounting, and society is
beginning to codify into law its rejection not only of Christian
institutions, but of its ideals. Perhaps this will change?
>
> Hopefully, a religious revival might prevent that.
>
> I don't know, Robert, most religious revivals tend to be mixed bags.
> The 18th century Awakening, as it was called, tended to make religious
> faith much more emotional and much less rational, and it also resulted
> in the generation of a number of new sects.
>
> Also, there already has been something of a revival afoot.
> Pre-marital sex has gone down over the last decade. Drug use seems to
> be down since the mid-80's. There is also not a significant increase
> in alcohol use. Our new President seems to be trying to put religion
> back into politics. There is an increased interest in Christian
> radio, television, and literature. Even church attendance has been
> relatively stable, presently at 43%. And as you are aware there has
> been a shift away from Catholic and main-line Protestant churches to
> more 'fundamentalist' churches.
>
> In 1979, Iran had a 'revival' and we've been suffering ever since.
> There's even a dramatic escalation of drug use and prostitution in
> Iran, despite the severe punishments meted out for such offenses.
>
As a Christian, I would not compare a Moslem revival to a Christian
one.
I think they are different species of human behavior. For example, as
you pointed out, Christian revivals do tend to generate new sects, and
I don't see that having happened in Iran (unless you count the Baha'is
of the 1840s).
You make interesting comments, however.
Christian revivals seem to occur in times when people feel that their
separation from God has increased, and when they see a connection
between that separation and social decline. Parents and grandparents
see their children suffer from this, and remembering their own
religious upbringing, and the strength it gave them, decide to
inculcate that into their own children.
The revivals seem to energize society, and for a time, religious life
flourishes.
Yes, it is cyclical (see the Old Testament history of Israel).
I think that what has happened in Europe, however, is that the revival
did not occur, and the drift from Christianity became so great that
instead of revival, what is needed there is missionaries.
It's quite ironic that today, many Christian missionaries to Europe
are native Africans evangelizing the West. Some of these Africans
have paid a heavy price (as have the Chinese) for their faith.
Perhaps they (or Chinese Christians) may soon be needed in the
Americas.
May God provide them!
Susan Maneck
>nation.
Dear Robert,
Not only is it not 'legalisitcally' but the Deists who founded this country
were largely anti-Christian.
>American culture and law have been saturated with Christian values.
Yes, there are things like bankruptcy laws which are clearly biblical in their
origin.
warmest, Susan
Claudia
> you please refer to some passage from the writings of Baha'u'llah which says
> 'blame the Baha'is for any evil ye see'?
>
> Thanks!
> - Pat
> kohli at ameritel.net
Before I start looking up quotes for you - you must consider that
according to Baha'i Cannon there is no passage beyond the Tree
(Sadaratu'l-Muntaha)* as all creation is begotton of and through the
Manifestation; therefore, by virtue of, and as a consequence of,
Baha'u'llah being the Manifestation for this Age it is easy to deduce
that He is the generating source of humanity's animation in this Day
(the good, the bad, and the ugly).
*Sadaratu'l-Muntaha: The 'Tree beyond which there is no passing'.
Originally the tree which, in ancient times, the Arabs planted to mark
the end of a road. In the Baha'i Writings, a symbol of the
Manifestations of God, the Tree beyond which neither men nor angels
can pass'; specifically, Baha'u'llah. Sometimes called the Divine or
Sacred lote Tree.'Twin Lote Trees'; the Bab and Baha'u'llah
Baha'i Dictionary page 200
Claudai Starr*
Susan Maneck
>technologically advanced society (with or without diseases) was bound
>to reach America's shores.
They were civilizations in America that were quite comparable those found
elsewhere in the world.
>And BTW, it's interesting that the Vikings did not carry any such
>disease?
The diseases which ran rampant through Europe did so after the Mongol invasions
which carried them from China westward.
>
>We should also take note that the American Indians infected Europeans
>with certain sexually transmitted diseases.
Yeah, well that's what you get for rape. But unlike small pox and the various
air borne diseases which Europeans brought, syphillis does not immediately
effect the demographics in the same way, though it spread very rapidly. Within
fifty years syphillis had spread to Indonesia.
Busy sailors.
Pat Kohli
Robert Arvay wrote:
> Greetings;
>
> Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3E7CF4F8...@ameritel.net>...
> > > >
> (snip unanswerable comments)
Sure, snip away, I don't mind, but I would appreciate it if you would answer the question in your reply, OR, directly
say, "I AM NOT ANSWERING THAT QUESTION!!!!!"
>
> > >
> > > I've tried to take a different tack, and simply underscore that
> > > American culture owes much to the Christian tradition.
> >
> > What Christian tradition? Has it ever occurred to you how much Christianity owes to the Hindu tradition?
>
> Please enlighten me.
>
Trimurti; it isn't in your Bible.
>
> > The Druid tradition? How much Christianity owes to Mithraism? Despite _all_ that, did you
> > mean to suggest that America was _ever_ a Christian nation due foundational documents, "rich with
> > references references to our divine creator, nature's God, and Jesus Christ"? It would seem like a
> > simple "yes, no" question to me, but, you could philibuster that for a few days, eh?
>
> Pat, what are you talking about?
Easter Eggs, All Souls Day would be influences in Christianity.
What I really wanted was an answer related to the title question. Maybe if I repeated it a few times you might realize
I am asking a question.
Of course, you are not required to asnwer the question. You could come out directly and say, under the fifthe
amendment to the United States Constitution, I have the right to decline to answer such questions.
> I addressed this question in my
> opening post.
Was your answer "Yes" OR was it "No"?
> Legalistically, no, America is not a per se Christian
> nation.
That is a different question. That 'America' is not now a Christian nation does not imply that it was not _ever_ a
Christian nation. So, I had vainly requested clarification.
> I then went on to address the tradition, the embodiments in
> law and culture.
Did you conclude that America was a Christian country, ever, at some time in the past?
> I wrote a brief post, not a book length treatise,
I noticed. I had a simple question. In my previous message, I even indicated that a simply "yes" or "no" response
would suffice. Quantitatively, you have clearly exceeeded that. Qualitatively, is in the eye of the beholder. If
your assessment of the quality of your response is in evading a direct question, you have done superbly well. If you
had intended a direct and concise response to a related question, you did less well.
>
> so of course there are shortcomings in my opening remarks.
Of course. Thus, we have follow-up questions _related_ to your opening remarks
> That does
> not constitute evasion, but a preamble, the details of which can be
> introduced in turn, and discussed at length without acrimony.
Of course, details can be discussed. If you choose, please answer the question without acrimony.
>
> >
> > > I think that
> > > had America been settled by any other major religious group, the
> > > nation would be much different.
> >
> > America _was_ settled by people of other religions. The Christians were simply uninvited guests who
> > disposed of the previous owners. Be that as it may, at any time from the 1700s on, do you suggest that
> > America has been, at any time, a Christian nation?
>
> American culture and law have been saturated with Christian values.
Does this inlcude overlooking the fact of who originally settled these lands?
>
> And this has been accomplished by flawed men who brought with them
> their panoply of sins. Nonetheless, the Christian tradition is good,
> and I believe, included the basis for our national mores of individual
> rights and dignity.
That is your opinion.
> That these concepts were so violated on so tragic
> a scale for so long (even today) is horrifying.
Okay, whatever.
> But consider certain
> other cultures which might have prevailed instead, examine their
> commitments to these principles, and decide for yourself if the
> continent would have fared better under the rule of a Shogun or a Khan
> or a Caliphate. Earth has not yet, to my knowledge, known a
> continent-sized Utopian empire.
>
Okay, whatever.
>
> > > This is not to ignore the very serious defects which arose, primarily
> > > the evil of slavery. But even there, the Abolitionist movement was a
> > > religious one.
> >
> > Unitarians and Quakers? (snip repetitious question already replied to, but apparently, never to satisy you, Pat)
> > >
> > > As America becomes more anti-Christian, I fear we will see our unity
> > > unravel, and our decline rapid. Hopefully, a religious revival might
> > > prevent that.
> >
> > Go Unitarians and Quakers!
> >
> > By the way, I meant to ask you in my last message, did you mean to suggest that America was _ever_ a
> > Christian nation due foundational documents, "rich with references references to our divine creator,
> > nature's God, and Jesus Christ"?
> >
> I did elaborate on that.
Did you elaborate by saying "yes", or was your elaboration to say "no"?
Q: Despite _all_ that, did you mean to suggest that
America was _ever_ a Christian nation due foundational
documents, "rich with references references to our
divine creator, nature's God, and Jesus Christ"? It would
seem like a simple "yes, no" question to me, but, you
could philibuster that for a few days, eh?
Q: Despite _all_ that, did you mean to suggest that
America was _ever_ a Christian nation due foundational
documents, "rich with references references to our
divine creator, nature's God, and Jesus Christ"? It would
seem like a simple "yes, no" question to me, but, you
could philibuster that for a few days, eh?
Q: Despite _all_ that, did you mean to suggest that
America was _ever_ a Christian nation due foundational
documents, "rich with references references to our
divine creator, nature's God, and Jesus Christ"? It would
seem like a simple "yes, no" question to me, but, you
could philibuster that for a few days, eh?
Q: Despite _all_ that, did you mean to suggest that
America was _ever_ a Christian nation due foundational
documents, "rich with references references to our
divine creator, nature's God, and Jesus Christ"? It would
seem like a simple "yes, no" question to me, but, you
could philibuster that for a few days, eh?
Q: Despite _all_ that, did you mean to suggest that
America was _ever_ a Christian nation due foundational
documents, "rich with references references to our
divine creator, nature's God, and Jesus Christ"? It would
seem like a simple "yes, no" question to me, but, you
could philibuster that for a few days, eh?
Q: Despite _all_ that, did you mean to suggest that
America was _ever_ a Christian nation due foundational
documents, "rich with references references to our
divine creator, nature's God, and Jesus Christ"? It would
seem like a simple "yes, no" question to me, but, you
could philibuster that for a few days, eh?
Q: Despite _all_ that, did you mean to suggest that
America was _ever_ a Christian nation due foundational
documents, "rich with references references to our
divine creator, nature's God, and Jesus Christ"? It would
seem like a simple "yes, no" question to me, but, you
could philibuster that for a few days, eh?
Q: Despite _all_ that, did you mean to suggest that
America was _ever_ a Christian nation due foundational
documents, "rich with references references to our
divine creator, nature's God, and Jesus Christ"? It would
seem like a simple "yes, no" question to me, but, you
could philibuster that for a few days, eh?
Q: Despite _all_ that, did you mean to suggest that
America was _ever_ a Christian nation due foundational
documents, "rich with references references to our
divine creator, nature's God, and Jesus Christ"? It would
seem like a simple "yes, no" question to me, but, you
could philibuster that for a few days, eh?
Q: Despite _all_ that, did you mean to suggest that
America was _ever_ a Christian nation due foundational
documents, "rich with references references to our
divine creator, nature's God, and Jesus Christ"? It would
seem like a simple "yes, no" question to me, but, you
could philibuster that for a few days, eh?
Best wishes!
Matt Menge
> Greetings;
>
> > pagan Rome?
>
> My impression is that the principles of human rights and dignity
> developed first and faster in the Hebrew culture.
I don't know. Democracy, at least, was originally a Greek idea. But
of course the Greeks had slaves. The Roman government was a Republic,
and in that sense was even closer to our government.
But our concept of human rights may have indeed developed in Hebrew
culture. I just don't know. But if it did, that still doesn't make
it a Christian ideal.
> Undoubtedly the Greeks were the first major civilization to employ the
> concepts we know as democracy. But remember that early Greek
> democracy (and even that of the American colonies) had little to do
> with the respect of individual human rights, but rather, with the
> protection of the established "landed gentry."
Actually, that appears to be how democracy took hold in Europe. I
would imagine our current concept of human rights developed after the
serfs began to have more power.
>So
> they formed a far more egalitarian society than perhaps had ever taken
> root in the world, consciously modelled on the early Christian
> churches.
By which you mean the Protestant churches I would imagine. Do you
know this for a fact?
Of course, once they established an elite upper crust,
> matters took a different turn.
>
> I'm not sure. My very brief periods in Europe, and of those visitors
> with whom I've discussed this, show the west Europeans to be a very
> regulated society, but morally very shallow and ambiguous. I could be
> wrong.
I was thinking more statistically. I know for a fact that alcohol
consumption in Europe has declined over the last decade.
> And yes, American Christianity has been resilient. I hope it will
> remain so. But the challenges it faces are mounting, and society is
> beginning to codify into law its rejection not only of Christian
> institutions, but of its ideals. Perhaps this will change?
Yes. Shoghi Effendi called America materialistic, by which I think he
meant the compartmentalization of religion. People go to church in
America, but other than that religion seems to have a limited impact
on people's lives. Unfortunately, materialism is very difficult to
quantify.
> >
> As a Christian, I would not compare a Moslem revival to a Christian
> one.
They are certainly not completely the same.
> I think they are different species of human behavior. For example, as
> you pointed out, Christian revivals do tend to generate new sects, and
> I don't see that having happened in Iran (unless you count the Baha'is
> of the 1840s).
It's really hard to see how it is going to end up. These people have
been going at it for 20 years. The whole time the country has been
going from bad to worse, but they just don't seem to care. They want
an Islamic society come hell or high water. And they've got both.
> You make interesting comments, however.
> Christian revivals seem to occur in times when people feel that their
> separation from God has increased, and when they see a connection
> between that separation and social decline.Parents and grandparents
> see their children suffer from this, and remembering their own
> religious upbringing, and the strength it gave them, decide to
> inculcate that into their own children.
Yes, a big difference with these Christian revivals is that they are
more bottom-up and freedom-based. Islamic revivals often result in a
change in government, or at least scaring other people towards acting
in a desired way.
> The revivals seem to energize society, and for a time, religious life
> flourishes.
> Yes, it is cyclical (see the Old Testament history of Israel).
> I think that what has happened in Europe, however, is that the revival
> did not occur, and the drift from Christianity became so great that
> instead of revival, what is needed there is missionaries.
Perhaps. I think the big problem in Europe is that religion is so
closely wed to politics. In many European nations the churches are
supported by tax dollars rather than donations. So there is no room
for "unapproved" churches. What I think makes American churches so
strong is that if you don't like what one pastor is saying, you can
just move on to another one.
Best Regards,
Matt
And good luck to those African Christians
Claudia
> > Secondly, it should also be noted that the BF was taking on the
> > capitalistic
> > materialism rampant in the West at this stage (mid 1980's) which was
> > evidenced in the property acquisitions, the palatial buildings in
> > Haifa, the
> > elaborate Gardens, the large stock market investments held by the
> > Faith, the
> > expensive world-wide travel and perks of it's leading representatives,
> > and
> > the continual call for sacrificial giving from it's members and
> > benefactors
> > (many who were wealthy oil barons).
>
> So let me get this straight. The fact that Baha'is were contributing
> more and more money to the Faith makes them materialistic?
The concept of bleeding the membeship and local communities to a point
of overly sacrifical giving so the coffers overflow at the Center
whereby they develop palacial buildings in which few priveleged people
use while the local communities dry up and the human resource inside
and outside of the Faith suffer IS THE DISEASE OF MATERIALISM of which
the very people crying for money accuse others of being!
>Most of
> these buildings are even open to the public. The only thing here that
> really sounds materialistic are the "perks" you mention. Maybe you
> would care to elaborate on these.
The way I've seen it working is that high positioned members of the
Administration (most who manipulted into their position) and their
families have acess to the Funds and the 'holdings' for bolstering
their life styles and do a lot more than rort the system as they enjoy
the travel campigning trail...while there is no money for 'teaching
available' except for those who are all in the family and when a token
news article is needed.
A lot of money from local communities is used as down payments on
houses for refugees, immigrants, and administrators while the LSA's
over look submitting to the audits necessary for incorporated LSA's...
(all in the family syndrome - no wonder people get manipulated to vote
the way they are told to when it is a matter of getting a home in a
new country). The problem with this is that the indigenous people get
displaced in the administrative process in their own country and the
LSA's become what Shoghi Effendi terms 'artifical Assemblies'.
The stories and instances are multiple....a factor leading to my
retirement from the Faith - meanwhile new young human resource can be
found to join the gullible to support those who get into leadership
positions and the paid moles. I am sure others can add to my
lists...as I have read about them on many lists - many have testified
to this observation.
> >
> > *The Pattern First Birthed in the Microcosm of the Baha'i Faith*
> >
> > By the early 1980's the Baha'i World was deep into integrating and
> > accepting the massive amount of Iranian Refugees who were escaping the
> > religious persecution in Iran.
>
> Yes, and creating a community that integrated Americans and Iranians
> brought a whole new meaning to the concept of race unity and cultural
> unity. Two more different and antagonistic cultures probably don't
> exist in the world today.
Matt what you fail to realize is that 'integration' really never took
place - because what happened was that the Eastern friends largely
displaced the Indigenous Westerners and 'Artifical Assemblies' sprung
up in the major centers - this kind of centalization or congregating
in host Countries was totally against the directives of Shoghi
Effendi.....as a result the AO became artifical and manipulated. The
analogy is that it is a pattern for cells or pockets of subculutes to
develop in the Faith and ultimately in the wider sectors. This is not
intergration but rather closer to colonization and entryism.
> > All this was not done without causalities and polarization which has
> > left
> > the Faith in degrees of chaos and a period of little or no expansion.
>
> Actually, 'Abdu'l-Baha did say that the presence of foreigners could
> slow the progress of the Faith, but that hardly means we should kick
> them out.
The friends should have been assisted to locate throughout a country
rather than 'congregate' in cities where as a group they became
materially powerful and hold great sway in the AO of the Faith.
Canada took on this kind of relocation pattern which slowed down the
displacement of the hard won Indigenous believers and pioneers.
>
> > The
> > displaced Baha'is became known as the liberals or dissidents.
>
> Yes, that is too bad, as most of them are fine people.
Unfortunately the true hearts in this group have faded away and the
ones who play ball for the 'perks' and with the moles have largely
been the ones still around.
Claudia Starr*
Robert Arvay
mspm...@msn.com (Matt Menge) wrote in message news:<dc19cfc5.03032...@posting.google.com>...
> Rober...@msn.com (Robert Arvay) wrote in message news:<e247d7b6.03032...@posting.google.com>...
(snip areas of general agreement)
> > they [the Puritans in America] formed a far more egalitarian society than perhaps had ever taken
> > root in the world, consciously modelled on the early Christian
> > churches.
>
> By which you mean the Protestant churches I would imagine. Do you
> know this for a fact?
Allow me to tread carefully, since you are asking for certainty. What
I am quite sure of is that the Pilgrims' first colony in the US was so
similar to the communist collective that some people have claimed that
America was founded on communism. This was a quite different model
than the Puritans had practiced (AFAIK) in England and in Holland.
And since Marx had not yet been born, the only place the Puritans
could have got this model from was the Bible. And the Mayflower
Compact demonstrates a carefully deliberated format of self government
based on the Bible.
However, the collective system failed miserably. Indeed, it all but
starved the Pilgrims out. They then went to a system of private
ownership and enterprise, and the result was an industrious,
productive, and well fed population.
I should have confined my remarks to this level of certainty, but I
wrote for brevity.
> Of course, once they established an elite upper crust,
> > matters took a different turn.
Years later, as the population had grown to a much larger level, the
Puritans faced some of the same problems from which they had fled
Europe. Indeed, they became the persecutors themselves, and turned
more toward the "outward form of religion, but denying the power
thereof," as St Paul puts it.
Bear in mind that, unlike in protestant England where they had been
persecuted, the Puritans had been well treated in the Catholic kingdom
of Holland. What the Puritans found there, however, to their horror,
was the cultural assimilation of their children into Dutch customs and
values. (Indeed, the Pilgrims themselves wore Dutch-style clothing!)
Ironically, tolerance and hospitality had proven stronger in
undermining the Puritan religion than had the persecution in England.
Modern American Christians might be better understood in this light.
Far from being persecuted in 20th century America, we pretty much ran
the place. What undermined us was a benign neglect, a subtle
infiltration of secularism. Like the Puritan children, we became
enculturated into an alien set of values. Gradually, the general
values of secular humanism became entrenched in society. All the
while, Christians had come to view religious life and civic life in
terms of "separation of church and state." But instead of separating
only the institutions, we also separated the values.
Now, as it did with the Puritans in England, the culture has begun to
turn against us. Perhaps there will be persecution, and perhaps that
will force us to call on our strength in Christ.
God bless us all.
Susan Maneck
>houses for refugees, immigrants, and administrators
Where is your evidence for this little piece of slander? (Libel for Pat's
sake.)
Paul Hammond
> > Greetings;
> >
> > > Didn't these develop first in pagan Greece and to a lesser extent
> > > pagan Rome?
> >
> > My impression is that the principles of human rights and dignity
> > developed first and faster in the Hebrew culture.
>
> I don't know. Democracy, at least, was originally a Greek idea. But
> of course the Greeks had slaves. The Roman government was a Republic,
> and in that sense was even closer to our government.
>
> But our concept of human rights may have indeed developed in Hebrew
> culture. I just don't know. But if it did, that still doesn't make
> it a Christian ideal.
>
>
> > Undoubtedly the Greeks were the first major civilization to employ the
> > concepts we know as democracy. But remember that early Greek
> > democracy (and even that of the American colonies) had little to do
> > with the respect of individual human rights, but rather, with the
> > protection of the established "landed gentry."
>
> Actually, that appears to be how democracy took hold in Europe. I
> would imagine our current concept of human rights developed after the
> serfs began to have more power.
>
Magna Charter was a document supporting the rights of
first-rank barons against the perogatives of a weak
king. Of course, in those days, gentry always could
get themselves a little local autonomy. Later,
monarchies became more absolute, along the French
model.
"Individual human rights" is a very modern idea by
comparison.
Paul
Sekhmet
>Somebody else wrote:
>>A lot of money from local communities is used as down payments on
>>houses for refugees, immigrants, and administrators
>
>Where is your evidence for this little piece of slander? (Libel for Pat's
>sake.)
Evidence???!
Some folks don't need no steenkin' evidence!
--Sekhmet
Matt Menge
>The problem with this is that the indigenous people get
> displaced in the administrative process in their own country and the
> LSA's become what Shoghi Effendi terms 'artifical Assemblies'.
That is not entirely true. There are many Baha'i communities where
the Persian believers exist as minorities. That is certainly the case
in my community, which is about 20% Persian. That some of them
congregate in places like LA is sad, but perfectly understandable. So
I think the integration process is definitely happening, although it
may be slower than some of us might wish. Americans and Persians
aren't exactly 'best buddies', you know, in the outside world.
Best Regards,
Matt
Robert Arvay
Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3E7E60EF...@ameritel.net>...
(snip)
> > > What Christian tradition? Has it ever occurred to you how much Christianity owes to the Hindu tradition?
> >
> > Please enlighten me.
>
> Trimurti; it isn't in your Bible.
Call me ignorant, but I'm still not enlightened.
> > > The Druid tradition? How much Christianity owes to Mithraism? Despite _all_ that, did you
> > > mean to suggest that America was _ever_ a Christian nation due foundational documents, "rich with
> > > references references to our divine creator, nature's God, and Jesus Christ"? It would seem like a
> > > simple "yes, no" question to me, but, you could philibuster that for a few days, eh?
There is no simple yes or no answer. It depends on how one defines "a
Christian nation." If, by that, one means a Constitutional theocracy,
the answer is clearly no. If, one means a nation steeped in Biblical
principles, the answer is a qualified yes--- qualified because we have
not lived up to those principles. Therefore, the answer is not an
absolute yes or no, but rather, one of segments and degrees.
> >
> > Pat, what are you talking about?
>
> Easter Eggs, All Souls Day would be influences in Christianity.
These are influences in ritual and liturgy, and so to that extent,
yes, you are correct. I had thought you meant something more
theological, for example the concept of a universal deity.
>
> >> Despite _all_ that, did you mean to suggest that
> >> America was _ever_ a Christian nation due foundational
> >> documents, "rich with references references to our
> >> divine creator, nature's God, and Jesus Christ"? It would
> >> seem like a simple "yes, no" question to me, but, you
> >> could philibuster that for a few days, eh?
Yes.
>
>
> >> Despite _all_ that, did you mean to suggest that
> >> America was _ever_ a Christian nation due foundational
> >> documents, "rich with references references to our
> >> divine creator, nature's God, and Jesus Christ"? It would
> >> seem like a simple "yes, no" question to me, but, you
> >> could philibuster that for a few days, eh?
No.
>
> >> Despite _all_ that, did you mean to suggest that
> >> America was _ever_ a Christian nation due foundational
> >> documents, "rich with references references to our
> >> divine creator, nature's God, and Jesus Christ"? It would
> >> seem like a simple "yes, no" question to me, but, you
> >> could philibuster that for a few days, eh?
>
Maybe.
> >> Despite _all_ that, did you mean to suggest that
> >> America was _ever_ a Christian nation due foundational
> >> documents, "rich with references references to our
> >> divine creator, nature's God, and Jesus Christ"? It would
> >> seem like a simple "yes, no" question to me, but, you
> >> could philibuster that for a few days, eh?
>
Sort of.
> >> Despite _all_ that, did you mean to suggest that
> >> America was _ever_ a Christian nation due foundational
> >> documents, "rich with references references to our
> >> divine creator, nature's God, and Jesus Christ"? It would
> >> seem like a simple "yes, no" question to me, but, you
> >> could philibuster that for a few days, eh?
It depends.
>
> > > By the way, I meant to ask you in my last message, did you mean to suggest that America was _ever_ a
> > > Christian nation due foundational documents, "rich with references references to our divine creator,
> > > nature's God, and Jesus Christ"?
> > >
> > I did elaborate on that.
>
> Did you elaborate by saying "yes", or was your elaboration to say "no"?
>
> Q: Despite _all_ that, did you mean to suggest that
> America was _ever_ a Christian nation due foundational
> documents, "rich with references references to our
> divine creator, nature's God, and Jesus Christ"? It would
> seem like a simple "yes, no" question to me, but, you
> could philibuster that for a few days, eh?
>
Could you elaborate?
> Q: Despite _all_ that, did you mean to suggest that
> America was _ever_ a Christian nation due foundational
> documents, "rich with references references to our
> divine creator, nature's God, and Jesus Christ"? It would
> seem like a simple "yes, no" question to me, but, you
> could philibuster that for a few days, eh?
>
In a sense.
> Q: Despite _all_ that, did you mean to suggest that
> America was _ever_ a Christian nation due foundational
> documents, "rich with references references to our
> divine creator, nature's God, and Jesus Christ"? It would
> seem like a simple "yes, no" question to me, but, you
> could philibuster that for a few days, eh?
>
Some authorities answer in the affirmative.
> Q: Despite _all_ that, did you mean to suggest that
> America was _ever_ a Christian nation due foundational
> documents, "rich with references references to our
> divine creator, nature's God, and Jesus Christ"? It would
> seem like a simple "yes, no" question to me, but, you
> could philibuster that for a few days, eh?
You're badgering me.
>
> Q: Despite _all_ that, did you mean to suggest that
> America was _ever_ a Christian nation due foundational
> documents, "rich with references references to our
> divine creator, nature's God, and Jesus Christ"? It would
> seem like a simple "yes, no" question to me, but, you
> could philibuster that for a few days, eh?
I'll get back with you on this one.
>
> Q: Despite _all_ that, did you mean to suggest that
> America was _ever_ a Christian nation due foundational
> documents, "rich with references references to our
> divine creator, nature's God, and Jesus Christ"? It would
> seem like a simple "yes, no" question to me, but, you
> could philibuster that for a few days, eh?
>
Is it filibuster or philibuster?
> Q: Despite _all_ that, did you mean to suggest that
> America was _ever_ a Christian nation due foundational
> documents, "rich with references references to our
> divine creator, nature's God, and Jesus Christ"? It would
> seem like a simple "yes, no" question to me, but, you
> could philibuster that for a few days, eh?
"There shall be no religious test for public office."
(US Constitution)
>
> Q: Despite _all_ that, did you mean to suggest that
> America was _ever_ a Christian nation due foundational
> documents, "rich with references references to our
> divine creator, nature's God, and Jesus Christ"? It would
> seem like a simple "yes, no" question to me, but, you
> could philibuster that for a few days, eh?
>
"Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion,
nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
(US Constitution)
> Q: Despite _all_ that, did you mean to suggest that
> America was _ever_ a Christian nation due foundational
> documents, "rich with references references to our
> divine creator, nature's God, and Jesus Christ"? It would
> seem like a simple "yes, no" question to me, but, you
> could philibuster that for a few days, eh?
>
Please refer to my earlier posts.
> Q: Despite _all_ that, did you mean to suggest that
> America was _ever_ a Christian nation due foundational
> documents, "rich with references references to our
> divine creator, nature's God, and Jesus Christ"? It would
> seem like a simple "yes, no" question to me, but, you
> could philibuster that for a few days, eh?
Well, since you put it THAT way....
>
God bless you!
Claudia
> >A lot of money from local communities is used as down payments on
> >houses for refugees, immigrants, and administrators
>
> Where is your evidence for this little piece of slander? (Libel for Pat's
> sake.)
You are the one who can produce the truth and documentation of this
testimony as you are privy to all the correspondence at the helm of
the corrupted AO! Why don't you do it for Pat's sake and stop
pretending you don't already know?
Claudia Starr*
Pat Kohli
Robert Arvay wrote:
> Greetings;
>
> Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3E7E60EF...@ameritel.net>...
> (snip)
> > > > What Christian tradition? Has it ever occurred to you how much Christianity owes to the Hindu tradition?
> > >
> > > Please enlighten me.
> >
> > Trimurti; it isn't in your Bible.
>
> Call me ignorant, but I'm still not enlightened.
>
> > > > The Druid tradition? How much Christianity owes to Mithraism? Despite _all_ that, did you
> > > > mean to suggest that America was _ever_ a Christian nation due foundational documents, "rich with
> > > > references references to our divine creator, nature's God, and Jesus Christ"? It would seem like a
> > > > simple "yes, no" question to me, but, you could philibuster that for a few days, eh?
>
> There is no simple yes or no answer. It depends on how one defines "a
> Christian nation."
(snip)
Thank you for answering the question.
>
> > >
> > > Pat, what are you talking about?
> >
> > Easter Eggs, All Souls Day would be influences in Christianity.
>
> These are influences in ritual and liturgy, and so to that extent,
> yes, you are correct. I had thought you meant something more
> theological, for example the concept of a universal deity.
>
That would touch upon ignorance and lack of enlightenment.
> >
> > >> Despite _all_ that, did you mean to suggest that
> > >> America was _ever_ a Christian nation due foundational
> > >> documents, "rich with references references to our
> > >> divine creator, nature's God, and Jesus Christ"? It would
> > >> seem like a simple "yes, no" question to me, but, you
> > >> could philibuster that for a few days, eh?
>
> Yes.
Oh!
So, bringing this back to the topic of the newsgroup, given that the BF has documents, rich with references to our
Divine Creator, and Jesus Christ, would you consider the BF to be Christian in the same vein?
>
> >
> >
> > >> Despite _all_ that, did you mean to suggest that
> > >> America was _ever_ a Christian nation due foundational
> > >> documents, "rich with references references to our
> > >> divine creator, nature's God, and Jesus Christ"? It would
> > >> seem like a simple "yes, no" question to me, but, you
> > >> could philibuster that for a few days, eh?
>
> No.
Oh! Do you suppose the deists had a significant influence on the founding of the US?
>
> >
> > >> Despite _all_ that, did you mean to suggest that
> > >> America was _ever_ a Christian nation due foundational
> > >> documents, "rich with references references to our
> > >> divine creator, nature's God, and Jesus Christ"? It would
> > >> seem like a simple "yes, no" question to me, but, you
> > >> could philibuster that for a few days, eh?
> >
> Maybe.
I think it depends on what you mean by "Christian nation". If we mean a nation which has set aside Sundays, so
that people could go to Sunday Christian church services, and a nation which has set aside a national holiday to
commemorate the birth of Jesus Christ, it is definitely a Christian nation, and has been for some decades. If we
mean a nation which has embodied the principles enunciated in the Gospels, then, in its first hundred years, that
clearly was not the case, though it is something the counry may attain in the years to come.
I thought _you_ were badgering me. You could have answered, that you would not answer the question, when I first
asked it, instead of BSing about how you had and blah blah blah, yadah yadah yadah.
>
> >
> > Q: Despite _all_ that, did you mean to suggest that
> > America was _ever_ a Christian nation due foundational
> > documents, "rich with references references to our
> > divine creator, nature's God, and Jesus Christ"? It would
> > seem like a simple "yes, no" question to me, but, you
> > could philibuster that for a few days, eh?
>
> I'll get back with you on this one.
Yeah, let me know.
>
> >
> > Q: Despite _all_ that, did you mean to suggest that
> > America was _ever_ a Christian nation due foundational
> > documents, "rich with references references to our
> > divine creator, nature's God, and Jesus Christ"? It would
> > seem like a simple "yes, no" question to me, but, you
> > could philibuster that for a few days, eh?
> >
> Is it filibuster or philibuster?
Tomato, or tomato - hmm, well, it would be better if you could hear me.
>
>
> > Q: Despite _all_ that, did you mean to suggest that
> > America was _ever_ a Christian nation due foundational
> > documents, "rich with references references to our
> > divine creator, nature's God, and Jesus Christ"? It would
> > seem like a simple "yes, no" question to me, but, you
> > could philibuster that for a few days, eh?
>
> "There shall be no religious test for public office."
> (US Constitution)
> >
> > Q: Despite _all_ that, did you mean to suggest that
> > America was _ever_ a Christian nation due foundational
> > documents, "rich with references references to our
> > divine creator, nature's God, and Jesus Christ"? It would
> > seem like a simple "yes, no" question to me, but, you
> > could philibuster that for a few days, eh?
> >
> "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion,
> nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
> (US Constitution)
>
> > Q: Despite _all_ that, did you mean to suggest that
> > America was _ever_ a Christian nation due foundational
> > documents, "rich with references references to our
> > divine creator, nature's God, and Jesus Christ"? It would
> > seem like a simple "yes, no" question to me, but, you
> > could philibuster that for a few days, eh?
> >
> Please refer to my earlier posts.
You were not answering the question, nor would you say that you would _not_ answer the question.
>
>
> > Q: Despite _all_ that, did you mean to suggest that
> > America was _ever_ a Christian nation due foundational
> > documents, "rich with references references to our
> > divine creator, nature's God, and Jesus Christ"? It would
> > seem like a simple "yes, no" question to me, but, you
> > could philibuster that for a few days, eh?
>
> Well, since you put it THAT way....
> >
> God bless you!
Thanks, you too!
Pat Kohli
Claudia wrote:
> sma...@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote in message news:<20030324094519...@mb-dh.aol.com>...
> > >A lot of money from local communities is used as down payments on
> > >houses for refugees, immigrants, and administrators
> >
> > Where is your evidence for this little piece of slander? (Libel for Pat's
> > sake.)
>
> You are the one who can produce the truth and documentation of this
> testimony as you are privy to all the correspondence at the helm of
> the corrupted AO! Why don't you do it for Pat's sake and stop
> pretending you don't already know?
If you are going to make an accusation, show some evidence!
It is extremely easy to make false allegations, or allegations w/o evidence. For example,
You are a former mistress of Sadam Hewseyn. How much money did he give you? Did he have you execute
prisoners, as he had his sons do? Are you wanted for your crimes against humanity in Kurdistan? What
about your drug habits?
Do you see how this works? Show some evidence for your allegations, withdraw your allegations, or stand
out as a plainly non-credible poster. Your choice.
Best wishes!
Susan Maneck
>You are the one who can produce the truth and documentation of this
>testimony as you are privy to all the correspondence at the helm of
>the corrupted AO!
In other words, there is no proof. You just fabricated it all.
Susan Maneck
>Magna Charter was a document supporting the rights of
>first-rank barons against the perogatives of a weak
>king.
>
>"Individual human rights" is a very modern idea by
>comparison.
Correct. But the notions of 'no taxation without representation' and 'the right
to bear arms' are holdovers from feudal times. The belief then was that if you
had landed property which could be taxed then you had the right to participate
in government. On the other hand if you were a mere peasant paying rents you
had no rights at all. Likewise the right to bear arms goes back the feudal
rights of knights to maintain their arms and hence avoid the demands of
centralized government.
If you asked the peasantry what they preferred more often they would have
supported absolutism as the only protection they had against the tyranny of the
aristocracy.
warmest, Susan
NEMO418
actually a place where you are supposed to cite proverbial footnotes
like in a journal article. Evidence: talk to Mr Fanayan of Perth WA
and find out how Peter Khan financially bamboozled him and promoted
his lackey ABM Alan Waters in the city council which if ever disclosed
to an Australian court would generate the single biggest scandal of
the AO and permanently end Peter Khan's career and have him and his
lackey convicted on serious financial corruption charges in this
country.
You cultists commit all manner of corruption, double dealing and
sleaze and then try to hide behind euphemisms of plausible deniability
by repeating the totally transparent 'no evidence' mantra. Your
leaders are the most corrupt on earth and in time they will be dealt
with and convicted in courts and media with all the requisite
'evidence' necessary.
Nima
sekhm...@aol.com.nz (Sekhmet) wrote in message news:<20030324120531...@mb-fa.aol.com>...
Matt Menge
> I am quite sure of is that the Pilgrims' first colony in the US was so
> similar to the communist collective that some people have claimed that
> America was founded on communism. This was a quite different model
> than the Puritans had practiced (AFAIK) in England and in Holland.
> And since Marx had not yet been born, the only place the Puritans
> could have got this model from was the Bible. And the Mayflower
> Compact demonstrates a carefully deliberated format of self government
> based on the Bible.
Ok, although some Native Americans also claim to have had democracies.
By the way, I will be on vacation come Wednesday, away from the computer.
Best Regards,
Matt
Sekhmet
>And some folk take themselves so seriously they think that USENET is
>actually a place where you are supposed to cite proverbial footnotes
>like in a journal article.
Translation: "We don't need no steenkin' evidence!"
>Evidence: talk to Mr Fanayan of Perth WA
>and find out how Peter Khan financially bamboozled him and promoted
>his lackey ABM Alan Waters in the city council which if ever disclosed
>to an Australian court would generate the single biggest scandal of
>the AO and permanently end Peter Khan's career and have him and his
>lackey convicted on serious financial corruption charges in this
>country.
Got any documentation for that?
>You cultists commit all manner of corruption, double dealing and
>sleaze and then try to hide behind euphemisms of plausible deniability
>by repeating the totally transparent 'no evidence' mantra.
Translation: "We don't need no steenkin' evidence!"
>Your
>leaders are the most corrupt on earth and in time they will be dealt
>with and convicted in courts and media with all the requisite
>'evidence' necessary.
So, how many years is it now that you've been telling us that?
--Sekhmet
Claudia
> Claudia wrote:
>
> > sma...@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote in message news:<20030324094519...@mb-dh.aol.com>...
> > > >A lot of money from local communities is used as down payments on
> > > >houses for refugees, immigrants, and administrators
> > >
> > > Where is your evidence for this little piece of slander? (Libel for Pat's
> > > sake.)
> >
> > You are the one who can produce the truth and documentation of this
> > testimony as you are privy to all the correspondence at the helm of
> > the corrupted AO! Why don't you do it for Pat's sake and stop
> > pretending you don't already know?
>
> If you are going to make an accusation, show some evidence!
Silly bugger - I am not at liberty to show copies of the books of the
LSA or the documentation that was provided to the NSA and UHJ. That is
why I suggested Susan (who seems to have access to all files and
correspondence) release what I and others have witnessed, brought
before Counsellors (some of who were involved in the loaning of Fund
monies), and Baha'i Institutions - who did nothing to resolve the
misuse of Baha'i Funds - and keeping them all in the family. I did my
duty as an Assembly member which means the details are confidential
and I intend to maintain that integrity unless the matter is ever
brought before a civil court. I was asked how the Funds are misused
and I gave a few examples from my own personal experience...most
likely it''s no skin off your paychecks but maybe even a benefit for
all I know....how many houses do you own?
Surely, you who will not put a statement of your annual earnings and
tax return on the net can't expect others to do something
similar...execpt under the double standard policy you seem to be
following.
Claudia Starr*
Paul Hammond
I guess that would depend on how oppressive/just the rule of your
local lord happened to be. A little like the Baha'i AO, indeed!
Paul
Susan Maneck
>LSA or the documentation that was provided to the NSA and UHJ.
That's because no such documentation exists.
> I did my
>duty as an Assembly member which means the details are confidential
Yeah, right. If you actually had such evidence you would be broadcasting it
everywhere. After all, you haven't hestited to break every other Baha'i law and
even went so far as to support someone who said he pissed on the Kitab-i Aqdas.
>
>Surely, you who will not put a statement of your annual earnings and
>tax return on the net can't expect others to do something
>similar
Somehow not posting ones own personal tax information isn't exactly the same
thing as refusing to post evidence of corruption while making accusations of
it.
Pat Kohli
Claudia wrote:
> Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3E7FA655...@ameritel.net>...
> > Claudia wrote:
> >
> > > sma...@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote in message news:<20030324094519...@mb-dh.aol.com>...
> > > > >A lot of money from local communities is used as down payments on
> > > > >houses for refugees, immigrants, and administrators
> > > >
> > > > Where is your evidence for this little piece of slander? (Libel for Pat's
> > > > sake.)
> > >
> > > You are the one who can produce the truth and documentation of this
> > > testimony as you are privy to all the correspondence at the helm of
> > > the corrupted AO! Why don't you do it for Pat's sake and stop
> > > pretending you don't already know?
> >
> > If you are going to make an accusation, show some evidence!
>
> Silly bugger - I am not at liberty to show copies of the books of the
> LSA or the documentation that was provided to the NSA and UHJ.
(snip)
Even sillier! I don't expect any more evidence than an accusation.
Here is the classic outrageous assertion. See if you can top it.
- Pat
kohli at ameritel.net
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
fyi
From: Juan Cole jrcole@u....
Date: Sun Oct 21, 2001 4:28 am
Subject: pusallanimity of Baha'i administration
I have seen a directive from the US NSA instructing Baha'is not to say the
"prayer for America" publicly in response to the horrid assault on our
country of September 11. Apparently this instruction derives from a fear
that Baha'is will be seen as pro-American, which in turn might endanger
Baha'is living in Muslim countries.
I will try to restrain myself from a Dennis Miller rant on this subject,
but this message is the height of yellow-bellied cowardice, rank
ingratitude, and unpatriotic near-treason. The prayer for America was
revealed to celebrate its commitment to human liberty, that same liberty
that was the target of the terrorists on Black Tuesday. It was revealed to
be read *precisely* in such moments as these.
The United States Congress and State Department have been *indefatigable*,
moreover, in defending the Baha'is of Iran when they were attacked by the
Ayatollahs. Please note that they did not quake in their booties that
maybe taking up such unpopular causes as the Baha'is might endanger the
lives of Americans in the Middle East (though, that was obviously a
possibility). Americans put themselves on the line for the Baha'is. But
now that we Americans need all the allies we can get, what is the response
of the Baha'i administration? "Sorry, folks, you're on your own. We won't
risk anything for you, the way you risked for us."
Moreover, this pretext of the poor Baha'is in Muslim countries that keeps
being trotted out to justify whatever weird policies get into Ali
Nakhjavani's head is rather thin. Uh, get a clue guys. Baha'is are not
welcome in Muslim countries *already*. You might have noticed that 200
were killed in Iran in the past 20 years and they have been banned in
Egypt, Libya, Indonesia, etc., etc. They are viewed as dangerous heretics
attempting to undermine the Muslim religion. So, that they object to 6000
innocent civilians being butchered and vaporized is a little unlikely to
matter much one way or another to their Muslim critics! But if they
*don't* object to it, and publicly, then they have acquiesced in
barbarism. Yet, when *they* were being killed in Iran, they ran around
insisting that the European Union and the US Congress and everyone else
under the sun stridently denounce the ayatollahs!
I am sickened by this level of hypocrisy and selfishness on the part of the
more cult-like elements in our religion, which have so inexplicably grabbed
the reins of power. And, I have an even more unsettling suspicion that
some of the more extreme cultists among them, the Ian Semples, Farzam
Arbabs, Peter Khans, Doug Martins--are secretly joyous that the United
States, bastion of evil Western liberal values such as freedom of speech
and "immature" separation of religion and state, has been humiliated and
weakened. That is, I suspect that in the Baha'i Far Right the response to
all this has been somewhat similar to that of the Taliban themselves. And
that is the real reason they don't want Baha'is reading the prayer for
America. They despise America, unlike the Baha'i Holy Figures who praised
it and held it up as an exemplar.
cheers Juan Cole
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=9qt2to%241uh%241%40gnamma.connect.com.au
Pat Kohli
Claudia wrote:
> (snip) I did my
> duty as an Assembly member which means the details are confidential
> and I intend to maintain that integrity unless the matter is ever
> brought before a civil court.
I think it is really great that you are capable of preserving confidentiality, Claudia, Beth, Jeremiah,
Starr. I would not want to think you were some sort of perennial squealer.
Pat Kohli
Claudia wrote:
> (snip)
> Surely, you who will not put a statement of your annual earnings and
> tax return on the net can't expect others to do something
> similar...execpt under the double standard policy you seem to be
> following.
Nobody puts their tax returns on the internet just to post on usenet. Get a clue, silly! Get off your own
double standards.
Matt Menge
> I am quite sure of is that the Pilgrims' first colony in the US was so
> similar to the communist collective that some people have claimed that
> America was founded on communism. This was a quite different model
> than the Puritans had practiced (AFAIK) in England and in Holland.
> And since Marx had not yet been born, the only place the Puritans
> could have got this model from was the Bible. And the Mayflower
> Compact demonstrates a carefully deliberated format of self government
> based on the Bible.
>
I am sure that normal levels of religion contribute to social
progress. But I am not sure that revivals have the same effect. The
Islamic revival restored morals in Iran for a while (now they are
beginning to decline again), but was devastating for the country
politically and economically. While the Islamic revivals are
different from Christian revivals in the sense that the former rely on
coercion, I do wonder whether they are truly that different. In other
words, I would worry that while a Christian revival might improve
morals, it would be dangerous politically and economically.
Maybe you could e-mail me your response as I will be gone tomorrow
morning.
Best Regards,
Matt
Claudia
Blah Blah Blah ---- just send some money to the Fund and post your
receipts so we can get a good laugh at the ironic justice!
Claudia Starr*
news:<20030325081014...@mb-fk.aol.com>...
> > I am not at liberty to show copies of the books of the
> >LSA or the documentation that was provided to the NSA and UHJ.
>
> That's because no such documentation exists.
The sad truth is it did exist...but I suppose you've had it burned or
expunged.
Starr*
> >
> >You are the one who can produce the truth and documentation of this
> >testimony as you are privy to all the correspondence at the helm of
> >the corrupted AO!
>
> In other words, there is no proof. You just fabricated it all.
You're just jealous because you, Pat and the rest of your pack didn't
get down payments...just pay checks...and you have had to sell your
friends out, support injustice, and slave it out on the net for those
peanuts---- hahahhahaa - too bad you didn't know about the 'All in the
Family' Fund' and you're just dumb white girl - I wouldn't want to
believe it either if I were you....but the people who used the system
are sitting happy in their new homes....you can bet on it. I gave a
lot of money to the Fund too, so you're not the only one duped.
Starr*
>
>
>
> http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
Starr*
> cla...@volcanomail.com (Claudia) wrote in message
>
> >The problem with this is that the indigenous people get
> > displaced in the administrative process in their own country and the
> > LSA's become what Shoghi Effendi terms 'artifical Assemblies'.
>
> That is not entirely true.
Of course not but maybe 95% the case.
>There are many Baha'i communities where
> the Persian believers exist as minorities. That is certainly the case
> in my community, which is about 20% Persian.
Well Matt - Maybe these pockets that 'are exceptions' will somehow
prove to be seeds and examples in some manner shape or form in a
better system.
That some of them
> congregate in places like LA is sad, but perfectly understandable.
Yes - if you don't want to be ostracized by the Pack leaders for
venturing out of the subculture - that kind of cultural pressure is
understandable and was used to manipulate refugees - and take over
Assemblies in major towns as part of the hijacking techniques. You
have to live in it to understand it...
So
> I think the integration process is definitely happening, although it
> may be slower than some of us might wish. Americans and Persians
> aren't exactly 'best buddies', you know, in the outside world.
Oh, so you know more than I thought on the subject!
Starr*
Paul Hammond
Nice one, Pat!
Paul
Robert Arvay
mspm...@msn.com (Matt Menge) wrote in message news:<dc19cfc5.03032...@posting.google.com>...
>
> I am sure that normal levels of religion contribute to social
> progress.
A curious term, "normal levels of religion." Hmmm.
> But I am not sure that revivals have the same effect.
So a revival is not normal (I'm not being sarcastic here, just
pondering)?
> The
> Islamic revival restored morals in Iran for a while (now they are
> beginning to decline again),
There are two aspects to "morals." One is outward behavior, one is
inward. The outward behavior can be coerced, as in say a maximum
security prison for extremely dangerous felons. But one would hardly
call them moral inwardly. I think that true morality only arises from
the inward transformation brought about by the indwelling of the Holy
Spirit. And while individual Moslems can be genuinely moral people, I
think that a moral society on the whole can only be sustained through
the transforming power of Jesus.
> but was devastating for the country
> politically and economically.
> While the Islamic revivals are
> different from Christian revivals in the sense that the former rely on
> coercion, I do wonder whether they are truly that different. In other
> words, I would worry that while a Christian revival might improve
> morals, it would be dangerous politically and economically.
On the contrary, I believe that a society which is not attuned to God
is doomed to fail. And revival is simply a turning back to God. It
does not have to happen in a revival tent. It can be a quiet,
person-by-person discovery, or reaffirmation, of trust in God, and of
a hunger for His word.
This could be politically dangerous to those in power, but not at all
dangerous to society, and on the contrary, quite necessary for its
political and economic survival.
> Maybe you could e-mail me your response as I will be gone tomorrow
> morning.
>
Enjoy your vacation!
Paul Hammond
>
> mspm...@msn.com (Matt Menge) wrote in message news:<dc19cfc5.03032...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > I am sure that normal levels of religion contribute to social
> > progress.
>
> A curious term, "normal levels of religion." Hmmm.
>
> > But I am not sure that revivals have the same effect.
>
> So a revival is not normal (I'm not being sarcastic here, just
> pondering)?
>
I would think that Matt is suggesting that a "revival"
is a time of heightened emotion, when people might
behave and accept things in ways which in their
everyday life they might not.
At least, this usage is suggested by, for example,
Maya Angelou's description of a "revival" in her
home town - the incoming preacher set up his tent,
and the local people went to it as to a circus,
play or sporting event - and were caught up in
the feelings of the moment - raising them all
for a moment from the cares of their workaday
lives.
> > The
> > Islamic revival restored morals in Iran for a while (now they are
> > beginning to decline again),
>
> There are two aspects to "morals." One is outward behavior, one is
> inward. The outward behavior can be coerced, as in say a maximum
> security prison for extremely dangerous felons. But one would hardly
> call them moral inwardly. I think that true morality only arises from
> the inward transformation brought about by the indwelling of the Holy
> Spirit. And while individual Moslems can be genuinely moral people, I
> think that a moral society on the whole can only be sustained through
> the transforming power of Jesus.
>
And that, of course, is your point of view - but as a non
Christian, I strongly refute the idea that basing your
spirituality on Christ is a more solid foundation than
basing it on Muhammad.
> > but was devastating for the country
> > politically and economically.
>
> > While the Islamic revivals are
> > different from Christian revivals in the sense that the former rely on
> > coercion, I do wonder whether they are truly that different. In other
> > words, I would worry that while a Christian revival might improve
> > morals, it would be dangerous politically and economically.
>
> On the contrary, I believe that a society which is not attuned to God
> is doomed to fail. And revival is simply a turning back to God. It
> does not have to happen in a revival tent. It can be a quiet,
> person-by-person discovery, or reaffirmation, of trust in God, and of
> a hunger for His word.
I think there is a difference in the connotations of the
word for you two.
Paul
Susan Maneck
I wonder if you might comment on this article about Jerry Falwell and the
Moonies which appeared in Christianity Today?
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/8t2/8t2082.html
warmest, Susan
Robert Arvay
sma...@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote in message news:<20030327233201...@mb-fk.aol.com>...
> Dear Robert,
>
> I wonder if you might comment on this article about Jerry Falwell and the
> Moonies which appeared in Christianity Today?
> http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/8t2/8t2082.html
>
The article begins with:
"Affiliates of Sun Myung Moon, controversial leader of the Unification
Church, have a history of supporting and courting conservative
evangelicals. Now, according to published reports, financial support
has been filtered to Liberty University from Moon-related enterprises.
But Liberty founder Jerry Fallwell told Christianity Today that the
source of the funds does not influence his ministry. "
You ask for my comments, but I suppose I must disappoint you by having
only the most obvious of reactions. Falwell is dead wrong to accept
money from sources which are in conflict with Christian principles.
The reasons for this are both pragmatic and moral.
Pragmatism requires one to avoid dependency on donor sources which
may, at some future time, make unacceptable demands in return for
continuing the cash stream.
Principle requires one to consider how such moneys are obtained. One
would hardly accept money which is raised by an ongoing criminal
enterprise.
Falwell's excuse that "the devil has had it long enough," doesn't
wash. (It might be okay to accept money found in a very old pirate
treasure chest, unless the money could be traced and returned to
rightful heirs.)
If Falwell is accepting money from the Moonies, he should be using it
solely to repair damage the Moonies have caused to families (and they
have caused plenty).
Falwell has done a lot of good work, and that should be appreciated.
But he is prone to lapses of judgment, and this is one of them. He
needs to hire close advisors who are free to criticize his decisions.
On a tangent, this reminds me of my state's lottery system. When I
first heard the arguments for instituting it, I was all in favor. The
logic seemed irrefutable. People will gamble anyway, and the money
only goes to the mafia and other crooks. Why not use it for education
instead?
I have since concluded that the state would be better off letting the
money go to the crooks. Pragmatically, the lottery tickets go largely
to people on welfare or low incomes, causing worse problems than the
lottery solves. In principle, when small children see the state as an
agent of gambling, they learn to view gambling as an acceptable
activity, when they should view it as an activity of sleazy people.
And now, your turn. I recently saw a UPS delivery truck pull up to an
Indian casino to deliver a package, and a thought occurred to me:
were that driver either a Christian or a Baha'i, should he inform his
boss that he cannot have anything to do with such an institution? On
a larger view, where do we draw the line in participating in a society
pervaded by sinful industry?
God bless you!
NEMO418
> Translation: "We don't need no steenkin' evidence!"
Actually, what it means is we don't hide behind plausible
deniabilities, transparently coerced and fradulent whitwashes of
facts.
> >Evidence: talk to Mr Fanayan of Perth WA
> >and find out how Peter Khan financially bamboozled him and promoted
> >his lackey ABM Alan Waters in the city council which if ever disclosed
> >to an Australian court would generate the single biggest scandal of
> >the AO and permanently end Peter Khan's career and have him and his
> >lackey convicted on serious financial corruption charges in this
> >country.
>
> Got any documentation for that?
Yep :-)
> >You cultists commit all manner of corruption, double dealing and
> >sleaze and then try to hide behind euphemisms of plausible deniability
> >by repeating the totally transparent 'no evidence' mantra.
>
> Translation: "We don't need no steenkin' evidence!"
The Soviet state used to vehemently deny the malefeasances attributed
to it prior to 1991 as well and accused its dissidents of the same. Of
course the world knew better and once the USSR collapsed the archives
revealed in minute detail the truth of what was claimed. One day when
the uhj cult is finally smashed and dwindles into insignificance its
archives will reveal the details of what I and others have been
saying.
> >Your
> >leaders are the most corrupt on earth and in time they will be dealt
> >with and convicted in courts and media with all the requisite
> >'evidence' necessary.
>
> So, how many years is it now that you've been telling us that?
And I'll keep telling it until we're all in the grave.
Nima
Susan Maneck
>to people on welfare or low incomes, causing worse problems than the
>lottery solves.
I agree. State lotteries are a form of regressive taxation on the poor.
warmest, Susan
Robert Arvay
sma...@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote in message news:<20030328214322...@mb-cg.aol.com>...
> >Pragmatically, the lottery tickets go largely
> >to people on welfare or low incomes, causing worse problems than the
> >lottery solves.
>
> I agree. State lotteries are a form of regressive taxation on the poor.
>
Susan, it seems hopeless to find common ground with you. Even when we
seem to agree, we really don't.
Lotteries are not a form of taxation, except in the most abstract
sense, since they do not represent the meeting of an obligation to the
government.
The harm caused by lotteries is twofold. They drain money from, among
others, the very poor. But even without the lottery, many of those
poor would still squander their money on vices (which to a large
extent is why the poor, even when given lots of money, remain poor).
The more sinister harm done is that the state legitimizes, under its
own auspices, a destructive behavior. It even promotes it.
Even Jerry Falwell understands that church bingo is wrong :)
QisQos
>But even without the lottery, many of those
> poor would still squander their money on vices (which to a large
> extent is why the poor, even when given lots of money, remain poor).
> The more sinister harm done is that the state legitimizes, under its
> own auspices, a destructive behavior. It even promotes it.
> Even Jerry Falwell understands that church bingo is wrong :)
This is very sad to see, an alleged Christian making such an evil
statement about the poor.
I respond:
James 2:5 - 6
"Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this
world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised
to them that love him?
But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw
you before the judgment seats? "
Your type of view springs from the very core of selfishness which lies
at the heart of protestantism as promulgated by Jean Calvin and Martin
Luther and their theological descendants:
-personal scriptural interpretation
-the idea of predestination and the abolition of freewill in the plans
of Grace (Calvin especially)
-the idea of justification by faith alone (Luther and Calvin)
James2:19
Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also
believe, and tremble.
20
But wilt thou know, O vain man, that *faith without works is dead*?
I will admonish you with the following from the Magnificat (Luke 1:
46-55) of the Virgin Mary the Mother of Graces and from whose body
sprang the very Flesh which was crucified for our sins:
"He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree.
He has filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich He has sent empty away"
Remember the very and true words of our Lord Christ Jesus:
Mark 14:7 "The poor you will always have with you, and you can help
them any time you want. But you will not always have me. "
And the words of the Lord in Leviticus 19:10:
"Likewise, you shall not pick your vineyard bare, nor gather up the
grapes
that have fallen. These things you shall leave for the poor "
To blame the poor for their state as the result of indulging in vice
is symptomatic of the complete selfishness of evangelical teachings on
prosperity , the false teachings of "once saved always saved, the
rapture, and the current apocalypticism surrounding the establishment
of the State of Israel.
Proverbs 16:18 "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit
before a fall."
The true vice is to stand proudly before God and to put on the
attitude of pride as if to declare that one's personal affairs are a
true reflection of one's faith in God: a calvinist belief that those
whom the Lord has blessed are predestined for material wealth in this
world and that those who are sinners and fuel for Hell are predestined
to poverty in this world and damnation in the next. To presume that
the poor are such because they indulge in vice, and that you are not
poor because of your right standing before God is a proud saying which
does not stand upon detailed examination of scripture, or true
Christian tradition.
Proverbs 16:8 "Better is a little with righteousness than great
revenues without right."
Jerry Falwell and his false doctrines, may God rebuke him we humbly
pray:
QisQos
Pat Kohli
QisQos wrote:
> Rober...@msn.com (Robert Arvay) wrote in message They drain money from, among
> >But even without the lottery, many of those
> > poor would still squander their money on vices (which to a large
> > extent is why the poor, even when given lots of money, remain poor).
> > The more sinister harm done is that the state legitimizes, under its
> > own auspices, a destructive behavior. It even promotes it.
> > Even Jerry Falwell understands that church bingo is wrong :)
>
> This is very sad to see, an alleged Christian making such an evil
> statement about the poor.
It is a sad thing. Yet I am gladdened seeing you try to bring some light to our
friend who means well.
Via con Dios, amigo.
errol9
Qis...@aol.com wrote on 31/3/03 3:13 am:
> Proverbs 16:8 "Better is a little with righteousness than great
> revenues without right."
>
> Jerry Falwell and his false doctrines, may God rebuke him we humbly
> pray:
>
> QisQos
Many of the 2 billion other world Christions than Jerry Falwel, would see
that Biblical verse as pointing the finger towards the actions of many
selfrighteous fundalmentalist Baha'is.........................errol9
Robert Arvay
Qis...@aol.com (QisQos) wrote in message news:<29a4262b.03033...@posting.google.com>...
> Rober...@msn.com (Robert Arvay) wrote in message
> >They drain money from, among
> >But even without the lottery, many of those
> > poor would still squander their money on vices (which to a large
> > extent is why the poor, even when given lots of money, remain poor).
> > The more sinister harm done is that the state legitimizes, under its
> > own auspices, a destructive behavior. It even promotes it.
> > Even Jerry Falwell understands that church bingo is wrong :)
>
> This is very sad to see, an alleged Christian making such an evil
> statement about the poor.
>
> James 2:5 - 6
> "Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this
> world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised
> to them that love him?
>
> But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw
> you before the judgment seats? "
>
> Your type of view springs from the very core of selfishness which lies
> at the heart of protestantism as promulgated by Jean Calvin and Martin
> Luther and their theological descendants:
> -personal scriptural interpretation
> -the idea of predestination and the abolition of freewill in the plans
> of Grace (Calvin especially)
> -the idea of justification by faith alone (Luther and Calvin)
>
==========
No, no, and again, no.
Your quickness at taking a small segment of my writings, and then
stereotyping me according to your prejudgments, leaves you with a very
inaccurate assessment of--- not only me--- but of the Protestant
ethic, and indeed, of the Bible itself.
Poverty is indeed an affliction of many good and virtuous people,
indeed, many a devout Christian practices his faith while in abject
poverty. Many of these people are in circumstances in which their
best efforts to live frugally and productively are thwarted at every
turn. I was in South Korea during much of the late 1960's and early
70's, and am quite familiar with the hopeless condition of economic
deprivation.
But anything more than a quick glance at poverty in America will
inform you that systemic economic deprivation is not the condition of
most poor people here. Why is it that those who are born here and
raised here seem perpetually impoverished, while new arrivals from
poor countries quickly take advantage of the vast opportunities and
shed poverty within a five or ten year span?
I once lived next door to a family one might stereotype as "rednecks."
They lived in a rundown, rented trailer. They were poor, dirt poor.
But they never lacked for cigarettes or alcohol. They owned a pickup
truck, the accessories of which were worth enough to have bought
another truck (purely decorative accessories). They had cable TV, but
the babies had no diapers.
And to top it all off, they complained that the people for whom they
worked were "no good immigrants." Well, I happened to have known
those immigrants. They, too, had been dirt poor. They had lived
three families in one apartment for over a year, eating basic staples
(mostly beans and rice), working 12 hours or more a day, and saving
every penny possible. It had taken them several years to accumulate
enough money to buy a commercial boat, after which, they thrived with
continued work.
Granted, this is only anecdotal, but it demonstrates that, in America,
even great disadvantages can be overcome, and one need not be poor
forever.
To be sure, if one is thrifty, industrious, and avoids destructive
vices, he might still remain poor. Ironically, such a person is
disadvantaged by our welfare system, which punishes frugality and
work, and rewards sloth and vice.
But my church, which has very little money (but no debt), targets its
meager resources to providing help to people who are willing to work
and save. No, we have little means of discerning the sincere from the
insincere, and are quite taken advantage of. But we are not
discouraged by that. We maintain a food cabinet which we try to empty
as soon as we fill it up.
I can say of myself that, during my life, I have squandered much of
the gifts and golden opportunities which God has given me. I, more
than anyone, deserve to be impoverished and miserable. Were it not
for God's generosity and forgiveness, my state would be wretched. I
am by no means rich, but only a common wage earner with no appreciable
estate, and a mortgage to pay or become homeless myself.
But true compassion is to teach the impoverished the basic principles
of wealth: to be industrious and productive, to save rather than to
spend, to train rather than to indulge in vice, and to make
responsible moral decisions concerning marriage and parenthood.
For those who are truly incapable of supporting themselves, we must
support them. But, to support someone who could support himself is
not only a curse to him, but also, a curse to those who otherwise
could have benefitted from one's charity.
But thanks for your response. I find the Biblical passages to be a
blessing.
===========
Adelard
God Bless
Adelard
errol9
themostg...@yahoo.com wrote on 31/3/03 4:39 pm:
> There is not such thing as a fundamentalist Bahai.
>
Oh yeah! Tell that one to the marines Adelard.................errol9
Matt Menge
are certainly Baha'is who are this way. On the other hand, I tend to
wonder whether being inflexible or rigid is all bad. These people are
often extremely moral.
Best Regards,
Matt
errol9 <err...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<BAAE6CB9.1E163%err...@ntlworld.com>...
Susan Maneck
>are certainly Baha'is who are this way. On the other hand, I tend to
>wonder whether being inflexible or rigid is all bad. These people are
>often extremely moral.
Dear Matt,
In the name of their 'morality' they are also the first to commit atrocities
like 9-11.
warmest, Susan
Adelard Rubangura
Hi Errol9,
I believe you are talking about the members of Ansar al-Islam.
Here, I am talking about the Baha'i Faith.
Baha'u'llah took out some of the teachings of the previous religions which
could be easily used to endoctrinate believers to fundamentalism from his
revelation.
And instead, he added the following ones:
-The Baha'i Faith teaches moderation in everything.
-We don't believe in existence of devil or Satan.
-We believe a human-being is pure in essence.
-We believe all people have different understanding according to their
capacity.
-We believe in our faith because of our choice based on sincerity, not
because of fear of hell.
-We believe we are all one, interconnected spiritually.
-We believe all people are following the divine path according to their
spiritual capacity.
-All humanity worships God, even the "Devil" worships God.
I can go on and on. If there are fundamentalists todady, it's because the
points mentioned above are not taken as a part of their beliefs.
A fundamentalist is driven by fear of hell, and by ignorance of his own
religion and other religions as whole and lack of understanding of the
broader complexity of human spiritual and social life.
He has been taugh that he is the only one who has the truth and others who
don't believe his way of life are doomed to go to hell.
God Bless
Adelard
Adelard Rubangura
Hi Matt,
> Fundamentalists are essentially inflexible or rigid people, and there
> are certainly Baha'is who are this way.
Well, we should recognize that many of us come to the Faith with our old
beliefs. While some of the beliefs of other religions, like Christianity,
teach that if you believe in the Lord, you are miraculously born again and
granted salvation, the Baha'i Faith emphasizes that when someone declares
his beliefs to the Baha'i Faith is considered to begin a long spiritual
journey of becoming a Baha'i.
So, in my opinion, to really give justice to the Faith and the label
"Bahai", it would not be fair to say that someone is a fundamentalist
Baha'i.
> On the other hand, I tend to wonder whether being inflexible or rigid is
all bad. These people are
> often extremely moral.
I tend to believe that fundamentalism is not about if someone is not
flexible or rigid in his beliefs, rather fundamentalism is caused mainly
because of lack of spiritual discernment of what is right or false according
to the social needs of the age.
A a Bahai, I believe that's why a new Manifestation of God is supposed to
come again to renew the teachings of the religion.
Mostly fear and lack of education are the really causes of fundamentalism.
For example, you would not say that Dr. King or Ghandi were fundamentalists
because they believed strongly ( I mean they were inflexible ) in justice.
God Bless
Adelard
Robert Arvay
"Adelard Rubangura" <Adelard_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<b6ciqa$40c7c$3...@ID-75457.news.dfncis.de>...
> Hi Matt,
>
> > Fundamentalists are essentially inflexible or rigid people, and there
> > are certainly Baha'is who are this way.
>
> Well, we should recognize that many of us come to the Faith with our old
> beliefs. While some of the beliefs of other religions, like Christianity,
> teach that if you believe in the Lord, you are miraculously born again and
> granted salvation,
An important clarification is necessary here.
Even the devil believes in God.
Being born again is a conscious choice to accept the free gift of
Christ's selfless sacrifice. Its result is the indwelling of the Holy
Spirit, an indescribable but self-proving state of being which seals
one forever as a child of God.
As for salvation alone, nothing is required of you, because your
salvation is the finished work of Jesus. However, you are free to
reject that salvation through a knowing, wilfull and persistent effort
(which I believe corresponds to what the Bible calls the sin against
the Holy Spirit, or alternatively, as accepting the mark of the
beast).
Sorry if this sounds like quibbling, but your characterization of
Christianity sounded terribly dismisive of its essential nature.
> the Baha'i Faith emphasizes that when someone declares
> his beliefs to the Baha'i Faith is considered to begin a long spiritual
> journey of becoming a Baha'i.
The event of being born again makes one an infant in Jesus, the
beginning point of a lifelong adventure of growth and discovery. It
confers joy despite life's pains, peace amid war, and hope where
hoplessness once reigned. It provides eternal triumph over sin and
death.
It does not make one better than his fellow man, but on the contrary,
enlightens him as to why he should be a humble servant of them.
And there is far too much more to describe here.
Just thought you should know.
(BTW I am a fundamentalist, evangelical, radical conservative right
wing religious extremist.)
Matt Menge
>
> (BTW I am a fundamentalist, evangelical, radical conservative right
> wing religious extremist.)
It just goes to show how diverse this group is. Your theology is
certainly far more inclusive and positive than many I have seen, in
the sense that it is pretty easy to find salvation.
Best Regards,
Matt
Adelard Rubangura
Having talked to you for a while, I don't believe you are that much a
Christian Fundamentalist, rather you may be a Right-Wing Conservative and /
or maybe
a Christian-Materialist if one may consider your last posting on the Poor
ones.
You really should not try to teach me about Salvation, because not only I
believed that I was granted Salvation when I became a Born Again, as a
Christian Fundamentalist, but also, I used to teach about it, when I was
back then a Preacher.
I believe in it in that every deed, I was doing, was always *correct* as far
I am concerned. I was not required to improve my spiritual character.
Here are the verses of the Bible:
"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" (
Romans10:13)
"But God loved you so much he gave his only begotten son, jesus, to bear
your sin and die in your place... he made him to be sin for us ...that we
might be made the righteousness of God in him " ( 2 Corinthians 5:21 )
God Bless
Adelard
"Robert Arvay" <Rober...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:e247d7b6.03040...@posting.google.com...
Robert Arvay
"Adelard Rubangura" <Adelard_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<b6ggcq$55lsv$3...@ID-75457.news.dfncis.de>...
> Hi Robert,
>
> Having talked to you for a while, I don't believe you are that much a
> Christian Fundamentalist, rather you may be a Right-Wing Conservative and /
> or maybe a Christian-Materialist if one may consider your last posting on the Poor ones.
I think you really misunderstood what I said.
Personal charity is commanded of us by God toward the poor. I feel
compelled to grant money to beggars, even when I often suspect the
money will go immediately for alcohol. The money belongs to God, not
to me.
Governmental charity, on the other hand, is not only impersonal, it is
often counterproductive, even more so than giving money to a drunkard.
This is because the conditions which are set by government require
immorality (fatherless children, sloth, etc) as I described in
previous posts. Large private charities are much better, but
sometimes they insulate the giver from the recipient. I believe that
personal giving, and close contact with the poor, are the best (and
most Biblical) form of charity. Institutions should limit themselves
to facilitating this personal involvement, and to essential tasks
where that involvement might not be immediately feasible (natural
catastrophes, war relief, etc).
>
> You really should not try to teach me about Salvation, because not only I
> believed that I was granted Salvation when I became a Born Again, as a
> Christian Fundamentalist, but also, I used to teach about it, when I was
> back then a Preacher.
> I believe in it in that every deed, I was doing, was always *correct* as far
> I am concerned. I was not required to improve my spiritual character.
Whoa. Being saved does not make your deeds just. On the contrary,
the saved soul is driven at every turn to improve his spiritual
character. That is not a condition of spiritual rebirth, but rather a
consequence of it.
>
> Here are the verses of the Bible:
> "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" (
> Romans10:13)
>
> "But God loved you so much he gave his only begotten son, jesus, to bear
> your sin and die in your place... he made him to be sin for us ...that we
> might be made the righteousness of God in him " ( 2 Corinthians 5:21 )
>
Thank you for the familiar passages, which are a renewed blessing each
time they are read.
Unfortunately, Baha'is prefer the Koran to the Bible, wherever they
conflict, and the Koran does not reflect these verses. It denies the
Resurrection, except perhaps in a highly symbolic interpretation, and
therefore, turns Baha'is away from the full appreciation of the
atoning sacrifice. Moreover, Baha'is belief in world unity, and their
disbelief that The Revelation is about the future, combine to make
them especially susceptible to the grand deceptions uttered by the
anti-Christ. The one, only, and all-sufficient defense against those
deceptions is Jesus the Messiah, whose name is above all names.
Robert Arvay
mspm...@msn.com (Matt Menge) wrote in message news:<dc19cfc5.03040...@posting.google.com>...
As the familiar sociological saying goes, and with which I mostly
agree, there is more diversity within groups than between groups.
Susan Maneck
>Unfortunately, Baha'is prefer the Koran to the Bible, wherever they
>conflict, and the Koran does not reflect these verses.
Dear Robert,
Where Baha'is take the Qur'an over the Bible it is over relatively small
matters such as which son did Abraham try to sacrifice. The issue of atoning
sacrifice is affirmed in our wrtings not denied, though perhaps our
understanding of this is a bit different. As for our belief in world unity and
peace, this is a biblical not a Qur'anic hope. It is Isaiah, not Muhammad who
said: "They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into
pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they
train for war anymore."
warmest, Susan
Adelard Rubangura
> > Here are the verses of the Bible:
> > "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" (
> > Romans10:13)
> >
> > "But God loved you so much he gave his only begotten son, jesus, to bear
> > your sin and die in your place... he made him to be sin for us ...that
we
> > might be made the righteousness of God in him " ( 2 Corinthians 5:21 )
> >
>
> Thank you for the familiar passages, which are a renewed blessing each
> time they are read.
>
> Unfortunately, Baha'is prefer the Koran to the Bible, wherever they
> conflict, and the Koran does not reflect these verses.
No, you don't have to talk about the Koran, even the Bible contradict it's
self when it comes to those verses above. Those verses above relate to
Salvation taught by Fundamentalist Christians or people who care less
improving their spiritual character or who use Christianity for their
political agenda.
There is an other kind of Salvation which is based not only on recognizing
the name of Christ, but on doing good *deeds*. This kind of Salvation is
only taught in some Churches, like Catholic, and some Progressive
Protestants Churches. This kind of Salvation is the one which is so close to
what the Baha'is believe, a Salvation based on doing good deeds and the
recognition of the Manifestation of this Day, Baha'u'llah, may peace and
glory be upon him.
Here is the link where I used to talk to you about it long time ago.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=adelard+salvation+bahai+Romans10&hl=en&lr=
&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=9snv2p%24146ih1%241%40ID-75457.news.dfncis.de&rnum=2
God Bless
Adelard
Adelard Rubangura
> Whoa. Being saved does not make your deeds just. On the contrary,
> the saved soul is driven at every turn to improve his spiritual
> character.
Nope, I have been there and done that, Robert. You don't need at all to
require improving yourself, when you are a Born Again Christian. You can do
bad deeds any time you want and later on, call on the name of Jesus, and
that's all, and your salvation is given without any condition.
You might have read the Bible's verses on my last posting and but failed to
understand their implications on human spiritual and social behavior, when
being taught to believers.
"Jesus bearded our sins and died in our place" Do you undestand what that
means?! It means even if we commit sins, Jesus will take care of them. He
died alreay in our place for us, two thousands years ago.
But God loved you so much he gave his only begotten son, jesus, to bear
your sin and die in your place... he made him to be sin for us ...that we
might be made the righteousness of God in him " ( 2 Corinthians 5:21 )
God Bless
Adelard
reli...@yahoo.com
"Is the Qur'an the Word of God?" Click here for information on
downloading a Windows 'Write' version of this material.
http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/debate/debate.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Introduction
B. The Problems with the Islamic Traditions
1. The Sources
2. Late Dates
a. Writing
b. Age
c. Scripts
3. Credibility
4. Contradictions
5. Similarities
6. Proliferation
7. Isnad
8. Storytelling
I. An Internal Critique of the Qur'an
1. The Qur'an's Makeup
a. Inimitability
b. Structural weaknesses
c. Literary defects
d. Universality
e. Interpolation
2. Talmudic Sources in the Qur'an
a. The story of Cain and Abel
b. The story of Abraham
c. The Story of Solomon and Sheba
3. Scientific Peculiarities in the Qur'an
4. A Possible Solution ("Salvation History")
E. An External Critique of the Qur'an
1. Hijra
2. Qibla
3. The Jews
4. Mecca
5. Dome of the Rock
6. Muhammad
7. 'Muslim' and 'Islam'
8. Qur'an
I. Can We Use These Non-Muslim Sources?
J. Conclusion
K. References Cited
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Arvay
sma...@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote in message news:<20030403102225...@mb-fv.aol.com>...
> >
> >Unfortunately, Baha'is prefer the Koran to the Bible, wherever they
> >conflict, and the Koran does not reflect these verses.
>
> Dear Robert,
>
> Where Baha'is take the Qur'an over the Bible it is over relatively small
> matters such as which son did Abraham try to sacrifice.
This is by no means a small matter. One of the things that impresses
me more and more as I do read the Bible is that there are no
"unimportant" passages in it. Isaac was the son borne of God's
promise. Ishmael was the son borne of Abraham's lapse of faith, via
the Egyptian maid Hagar. Isaac stands in as a premonition of the only
acceptable sacrifice. Ishmael is driven out. These are not small
matters. They are critical prophetic events, foreshadowing the
context of the crucifixion and resurrection.
> The issue of atoning
> sacrifice is affirmed in our wrtings not denied, though perhaps our
> understanding of this is a bit different.
Quite a bit different. Entirely different. The crucifixion and
resurrection are so key to Christianity that St Paul affirms that if
Christ is not the risen savior, then our faith is in vain. The
resurrection is the central fact of Christianity. In Baha'i, it is at
best understated, and underrated, to put it mildly. My understanding
is that the Koran dismisses the resurrection entirely.
> As for our belief in world unity and
> peace, this is a biblical not a Qur'anic hope. It is Isaiah, not Muhammad who
> said: "They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into
> pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they
> train for war anymore."
>
But, here again there is a major difference. In the Bible, the first
world empire will come about under the heel of Satan. Only after that
will Christ return to earth and destroy all evil from the earth and
establish His 1,000 year kingdom. After that, His offer of mercy to
Satan is rejected, and a final war occurs (a very brief one), after
which heaven and earth are passed away, and a new heaven and a new
earth are created.
That is entirely different from the teachings of Islam and Baha'i.
Besides all of which, I have to point out each time the Baha'is quote
the Bible: Your teaching is that the Bible is corrupted, and not to
be trusted as the word of God, at least not without considerable
interpretation in which the words are often unrelated to the final,
interpreted meaning. It is therefore disingenuous to claim it as
support for your positions, and most especially when you use the
literal wording where it suits you, but a heavily interpreted version
otherwise.
Pat Kohli
Susan Maneck wrote:
> >
> >Unfortunately, Baha'is prefer the Koran to the Bible, wherever they
> >conflict, and the Koran does not reflect these verses.
>
> Dear Robert,
>
> Where Baha'is take the Qur'an over the Bible it is over relatively small
> matters such as which son did Abraham try to sacrifice.
I was not aware that the Qor'an and the Bible differed on this.
My understanding of the different understandings of the story was due to the
Biblical account: variously Abraham's only son, who could have been Ishmael and
could not have been Isaac, AND Isaac by name, who could only have been Isaac. My
guess is the thing happened twice, once with each of the older two sons.
> The issue of atoning
> sacrifice is affirmed in our wrtings not denied, though perhaps our
> understanding of this is a bit different. As for our belief in world unity and
> peace, this is a biblical not a Qur'anic hope.
I read peace on the Holy Qor'an.
> It is Isaiah, not Muhammad who
> said: "They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into
> pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they
> train for war anymore."
Sure, and Jesus said,
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to
bring peace, but a sword." Matt 10:34
"He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you
don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." Luke 22:36
Best wishes!
Pat Kohli
Robert Arvay wrote:
> (snip)
> Besides all of which, I have to point out each time the Baha'is quote
> the Bible: Your teaching is that the Bible is corrupted, and not to
> be trusted as the word of God, at least not without considerable
> interpretation in which the words are often unrelated to the final,
> interpreted meaning.
Please quote Baha'u'llah, the Founder of the Baha'i Faith, saying that the Bible is corrupted.
"We have also heard a number of the foolish of the earth assert that the genuine text of the
heavenly Gospel doth not exist amongst the Christians, that it hath ascended unto heaven. How
grievously they have erred! How oblivious of the fact that such a statement imputeth the
gravest injustice and tyranny to a gracious and loving Providence! How could God, when once
the Day-star of the beauty of Jesus had disappeared from the sight of His people, and ascended
unto the fourth heaven, cause His holy Book, His most great testimony amongst His creatures,
to disappear also? What would be left to that people to cling to from the setting of the
day-star of Jesus until the rise of the sun of the Muhammadan Dispensation? What law could be
their stay and guide? How could such people be made the victims of the avenging wrath of God,
the omnipotent Avenger? How could they be afflicted with the scourge of chastisement by the
heavenly King? Above all, how could the flow of the grace of the All-Bountiful be stayed? How
could the ocean of His tender mercies be stilled? We take refuge with God, from that which His
creatures have fancied about Him! Exalted is He above their comprehension!"
http://bahai-library.org/writings/bahaullah/iqan/89.html
Baha'u'llah also refers to the Gospel in the "Gems of Divine Mystery". Again He points out
that those who suggest it is inaccurate, are insulting God.
"And should they reply: "The Books that are in the hands of this people, which they call the
Gospel and attribute to Jesus, the Son of Mary, have not been revealed by God and proceed not
from the Manifestations of His Self", then this would imply a cessation in the abounding grace
of Him Who is the Source of all grace. If so, God's testimony to His servants would have
remained incomplete and His favour proven imperfect. His mercy would not have shone
resplendent, nor would His grace have overshadowed all. For if at the ascension of Jesus His
Book had likewise ascended unto heaven, then how could God reprove and chastise the people on
the Day of Resurrection, as hath been written by the Imáms of the Faith and affirmed by its
illustrious divines?"
http://bahai-library.org/writings/bahaullah/gems.html
> It is therefore disingenuous to claim it as
> support for your positions, and most especially when you use the
> literal wording where it suits you, but a heavily interpreted version
> otherwise.
Your conclusion, of how disenginuous the Baha'is are, should flow after evidence that Baha'u'llah taught
that the Bible was textually corrupted. As you know, Jesus taught that the Pharisees had corrupted the
Law of Moses with their traditions. What Baha'u'llah says of the clerics of His day, is below.
"This is one of the instances that have been referred to. Verily by "perverting" the text is not meant
that which these foolish and abject souls have fancied, even as some maintain that Jewish and Christian
divines have effaced from the Book such verses as extol and magnify the countenance of Muhammad, and
instead thereof have inserted the contrary. How utterly vain and false are these words! Can a man who
believeth in a book, and deemeth it to be inspired by God, mutilate it? Moreover, the Pentateuch had been
spread over the surface of the earth, and was not confined to Mecca and Medina, so that they could privily
corrupt and pervert its text. Nay, rather, by corruption of the text is meant that in which all Muslim
divines are engaged today, that is the interpretation of God's holy Book in accordance with their idle
imaginings and vain desires. And as the Jews, in the time of Muhammad, interpreted those verses of the
Pentateuch, that referred to His Manifestation, after their own fancy, and refused to be satisfied with
His holy utterance, the charge of "perverting" the text was therefore pronounced against them. Likewise,
it is clear, how in this day, the people of the Qur'án have perverted the text of God's holy Book,
concerning the signs of the expected Manifestation, and interpreted it according to their inclination and
desires."
http://bahai-library.org/writings/bahaullah/iqan/86.html
You are in _no_ position to accuse Baha'is of being disingenuous in this area.
Matt Menge
>
> This is by no means a small matter. One of the things that impresses
> me more and more as I do read the Bible is that there are no
> "unimportant" passages in it.
I know you have said this before and I guess I still don't get it.
There are especially parts of the Tanakh that I find to be quite
boring and unrelated to my life. Maybe it's because I don't know many
Jews that well, but how much insight can you get out of an outdated
religious law?
Isaac was the son borne of God's
> promise. Ishmael was the son borne of Abraham's lapse of faith, via
> the Egyptian maid Hagar. Isaac stands in as a premonition of the only
> acceptable sacrifice. Ishmael is driven out. These are not small
> matters. They are critical prophetic events, foreshadowing the
> context of the crucifixion and resurrection.
Ishmael is the progenitor of the Arab race. Isaac is the progenitor
of the Jewish race. We are neither Arab nor Jewish. How important
can it be? I guess I am not really trying to persuade you that it is
unimportant so much as proclaim my bafflement, if that is a word.
>
> Quite a bit different. Entirely different. The crucifixion and
> resurrection are so key to Christianity that St Paul affirms that if
> Christ is not the risen savior, then our faith is in vain. The
> resurrection is the central fact of Christianity. In Baha'i, it is at
> best understated, and underrated, to put it mildly.
No, I would say it is ambivalent, which is different. In terms of a
literal resurrection it is mostly silent, leaving the person to
believe what he wants.
> >
> But, here again there is a major difference. In the Bible, the first
> world empire will come about under the heel of Satan. Only after that
> will Christ return to earth and destroy all evil from the earth and
> establish His 1,000 year kingdom. After that, His offer of mercy to
> Satan is rejected, and a final war occurs (a very brief one), after
> which heaven and earth are passed away, and a new heaven and a new
> earth are created.
Your opposition to collective security is probably the thing I like
least about you.
>
> That is entirely different from the teachings of Islam and Baha'i.
Not really. Collective security and the Lesser Peace both come before
a Baha'i society. In between there is supposed to be worldwide
(simultaneous) opposition to the Baha'i Faith.
Best Regards,
Matt
reli...@yahoo.com
>
> > >
> > >Unfortunately, Baha'is prefer the Koran to the Bible, wherever they
> > >conflict, and the Koran does not reflect these verses.
> >
> > Dear Robert,
> >
> > Where Baha'is take the Qur'an over the Bible it is over relatively small
> > matters such as which son did Abraham try to sacrifice.
The 1300 year debate over which son did Abraham try to sacrifice.is
far from a small matter. In a Tablet revealed in answer to the
question of a Jewish convert to the Faith Baha'u'llah,wrote on 14
Ramadan 1295 AH (11 September 1878), the following: "The question is
that whereas in past Scriptures (kutub-e qabl) [i.e., the Torah or
Pentateuch] Isaac is said to have been the sacrifice, in the Qur'An
(furqAn) this station is given to Ishmael. This is, undoubtedly, true.
All, however, must fix their gaze upon the word which has dawned from
the Divine Horizon [i.e., the Manifestation of God]: it is incumbent
upon every soul to ponder upon its sovereignty, influence, might, and
on its all-encompassing nature. There has never been any doubt
whatsoever that all these things are confirmed and corroborated only
by the Word of God. It is the Word of God that transcends all things,
creates the universe, trains people, guides them who are sore athirst
from separation unto the ocean of reunion, and penetrates through the
darkness of ignorance with the light of understanding. Consider this:
all those who believe in past Scriptures [i.e., the Bible, the
Pentateuch] think of Isaac as the Sacrifice; likewise, the people of
Qur'An (furqAn) confirm this station for Ishmael. It is clear and
evident to every possessor of insight and every religious person that
no one was, outwardly actually, sacrificed; all agree that an animal
was sacrificed. So, ponder upon this: Why is it that a person who has
gone to the altar of sacrifice for the Beloved and yet has come back
[alive], is adorned with the raiment of "Sacrifice of God" and
accepted [in His sight] as such? There is no doubt that this is so
because of the Word of God. Therefore, the criterion (madAr) for the
manifestation of all names and for confirmation and fulfillment of all
stations is dependent upon the Word of God. Likewise, there is no
doubt, that the Inaccessible, Unknowable [God] does not talk as He is,
and hath always been, sanctified from such conditions; rather, He
speaketh through the tongue of His Manifestations. Thus the Torah
issued from the tongue of Moses; the same is true of other Holy
Scriptures that all were revealed by the tongues of Prophets and
Messengers but, the real Speaker [Author] in all these Holy Books is
the One true God.... It is now, therefore, established and confirmed
that the station of "Sacrifice of God" was, according to past Books
[i.e, the Torah], given to Isaac by Abraham and that very same station
is, according to Divine Revelation, Ishmael's in the Qur'Anic
Dispensation" - From "amr va khalq",Volume 2, pages 197-198.
`Abdu'l-Baha says about this mystery of Sacrifice, etc. that:
This secret of sacrifice, according to degree, becometh apparent
[manifest] in every reality of the Holy Realities, the sublime
Beings, the
luminous Manifestations. All these are martyrs. All have offered up
Their
lives in the pathway of God. All of Them fled away to the place where
They were killed for [Their] love [of God]. Therefore both Isaac and
Ishmael
were martyrs; indeed, so are all God's servants. And this is one
station
among many, which is essential to those Stars of Oneness. Furthermore,
in the station of oneness, Ishmael and Isaac are in effect a single
being, and it is permissible to call each by the other's name...." -
From "amr va khalq" Volume 2, page 199".
As regards Christian views of differences between the Quran and the
Bible they are far from small matters:.................RP
http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/question.htm
The Seven Deadly Questions of Islam
Robert Arvay
mspm...@msn.com (Matt Menge) wrote in message news:<dc19cfc5.0304...@posting.google.com>...
> Rober...@msn.com (Robert Arvay) wrote in message news:<e247d7b6.03040...@posting.google.com>...
>
> >
> > This is by no means a small matter. One of the things that impresses
> > me more and more as I do read the Bible is that there are no
> > "unimportant" passages in it.
>
> I know you have said this before and I guess I still don't get it.
> There are especially parts of the Tanakh that I find to be quite
> boring and unrelated to my life. Maybe it's because I don't know many
> Jews that well, but how much insight can you get out of an outdated
> religious law?
I felt the same way. I thought, who cares about all those Jewish
feasts and festivals? Those intricate laws? And even now I find
certain parts of the Bible to be boring. But I heard a sermon about
the feasts, and they are rich with meaning, and even with prophetic
significance. When God reveals anything, be it a law or a prophecy or
a commandment--- His word does not return to Him empty. It carries
with it His infinite and perfect wisdom. So, even those parts which
presently "bore" me, I know by faith that they are God's word, and
therefore treasures.
>
> > Isaac was the son borne of God's
> > promise. Ishmael was the son borne of Abraham's lapse of faith, via
> > the Egyptian maid Hagar. Isaac stands in as a premonition of the only
> > acceptable sacrifice. Ishmael is driven out. These are not small
> > matters. They are critical prophetic events, foreshadowing the
> > context of the crucifixion and resurrection.
>
> Ishmael is the progenitor of the Arab race. Isaac is the progenitor
> of the Jewish race. We are neither Arab nor Jewish. How important
> can it be? I guess I am not really trying to persuade you that it is
> unimportant so much as proclaim my bafflement, if that is a word.
I'll have to let my explanation stand as is. The character of God's
word is such that every detail is perfect.
One item: Christians are Jews. We are adopted, "grafted" into the
vine, as St Paul describes it. As Jesus told the Pharisees, do not be
proud because you are descended from Abraham. If God desired to do
so, He could raise up from the very stones, descendants of Abraham.
The time will come when the Jews will recognize "Him whom they have
pierced," and weep for Him as one weeps for an only child. (Biblical
reference not at hand at the moment.)
> >
> > Quite a bit different. Entirely different. The crucifixion and
> > resurrection are so key to Christianity that St Paul affirms that if
> > Christ is not the risen savior, then our faith is in vain. The
> > resurrection is the central fact of Christianity. In Baha'i, it is at
> > best understated, and underrated, to put it mildly.
>
> No, I would say it is ambivalent, which is different. In terms of a
> literal resurrection it is mostly silent, leaving the person to
> believe what he wants.
Again, the character of truth is such that there are no options, no
menu of alternatives. I think it is in the Book of 2nd Kings that the
nadir of Jewish culture is described as, in those days, every man did
what was right in his own eyes--- that is to say, the people turned
away from God. One reason why Christians are often deemed intolerant
is that we insist that there is only one truth.
The truth of Christ's literal resurrection (and His eventual return)
are indispensable to Christian faith.
>
> > >
> > But, here again there is a major difference. In the Bible, the first
> > world empire will come about under the heel of Satan. Only after that
> > will Christ return to earth and destroy all evil from the earth and
> > establish His 1,000 year kingdom. After that, His offer of mercy to
> > Satan is rejected, and a final war occurs (a very brief one), after
> > which heaven and earth are passed away, and a new heaven and a new
> > earth are created.
>
> Your opposition to collective security is probably the thing I like
> least about you.
(Bert: Do you know what I like MOST about you?
Snert: No, Bert. What do you like MOST about me?
Bert: Nothing!)
Now it's my turn to be baffled. I thought that I considered
collective security to be a good thing. I am by no means opposed to
world unity per se. But as I look upon the condition of man, his
turning away from God, I realize why the prophecy is true. Man's
technological prowess is accelerating much faster than his moral
development. World unity will be a good thing, but only when Jesus
establishes it. But before then, man will establish a quite evil
world unity. Perhaps that is God's way of demonstrating that evil (or
even just plain secularism), given free reign, is utterly incapable of
fulfilling man's needs, and that quite the opposite, must inevitably
ruin him. The evil (people) will never be able to complain that, if
only God had not interfered, their model would have worked.
>
> >
> > That is entirely different from the teachings of Islam and Baha'i.
>
> Not really. Collective security and the Lesser Peace both come before
> a Baha'i society. In between there is supposed to be worldwide
> (simultaneous) opposition to the Baha'i Faith.
>
Time will tell which prophecies are of God.
May His blessings be upon you!
Matt Menge
> Greetings;
> I felt the same way. I thought, who cares about all those Jewish
> feasts and festivals? Those intricate laws? And even now I find
> certain parts of the Bible to be boring. But I heard a sermon about
> the feasts, and they are rich with meaning, and even with prophetic
> significance. When God reveals anything, be it a law or a prophecy or
> a commandment--- His word does not return to Him empty. It carries
> with it His infinite and perfect wisdom. So, even those parts which
> presently "bore" me, I know by faith that they are God's word, and
> therefore treasures.
Well, I don't know what your smokin', as they say, but I'm happy for
you.
> > >
> > > Quite a bit different. Entirely different. The crucifixion and
> > > resurrection are so key to Christianity that St Paul affirms that if
> > > Christ is not the risen savior, then our faith is in vain. The
> > > resurrection is the central fact of Christianity. In Baha'i, it is at
> > > best understated, and underrated, to put it mildly.
> >
> > No, I would say it is ambivalent, which is different. In terms of a
> > literal resurrection it is mostly silent, leaving the person to
> > believe what he wants.
>
> Again, the character of truth is such that there are no options, no
> menu of alternatives.
Well, to be honest, I find some of your literal readings of scripture
to be kind of foolish. But to be honest, I am repeatedly surprised
that such interpretations don't manifest themselves in more harmful
ways.
I think it is in the Book of 2nd Kings that the
> nadir of Jewish culture is described as, in those days, every man did
> what was right in his own eyes--- that is to say, the people turned
> away from God.
I think the nadir was before Jesus came. This was just a formative
stage in the Jewish Faith.
One reason why Christians are often deemed intolerant
> is that we insist that there is only one truth.
I think most people believe that there is only one truth. I know I
do. I think Christians are seen as intolerant because they think they
have a *monopoly* on this one truth, which is different. Baha'is
generally don't believe they have a monopoly on truth.
> The truth of Christ's literal resurrection (and His eventual return)
> are indispensable to Christian faith.
My take on this was that it proved there was an afterlife. After all,
if there is no afterlife, then most of religion is pointless.
> >
> > > >
> > > But, here again there is a major difference. In the Bible, the first
> > > world empire will come about under the heel of Satan. Only after that
> > > will Christ return to earth and destroy all evil from the earth and
> > > establish His 1,000 year kingdom. After that, His offer of mercy to
> > > Satan is rejected, and a final war occurs (a very brief one), after
> > > which heaven and earth are passed away, and a new heaven and a new
> > > earth are created.
> >
> > Your opposition to collective security is probably the thing I like
> > least about you.
>
> (Bert: Do you know what I like MOST about you?
> Snert: No, Bert. What do you like MOST about me?
> Bert: Nothing!)
>
> Now it's my turn to be baffled. I thought that I considered
> collective security to be a good thing.
I've never hear you say this before.
Have a great weekend!
Matt
Robert Arvay
mspm...@msn.com (Matt Menge) wrote in message news:<dc19cfc5.03040...@posting.google.com>...
> Rober...@msn.com (Robert Arvay) wrote in message news:<e247d7b6.0304...@posting.google.com>...
(snip)
> > One reason why Christians are often deemed intolerant
> > is that we insist that there is only one truth.
>
> I think most people believe that there is only one truth. I know I
> do. I think Christians are seen as intolerant because they think they
> have a *monopoly* on this one truth, which is different. Baha'is
> generally don't believe they have a monopoly on truth.
Now, this is a phrase that I cannot understand. What, exactly, is a
monopoly on Truth? If there is only one Truth, then only God can have
a monopoly on it. And as it so happens, He shares that "monopoly"
with us, making it available to all.
If I say 3 + 4 = 7, am I claiming a monopoly on truth? Am I being
intolerant of other "points of view"? Can 3 + 4 equal whatever suits
the individual?
It seems to me that the basis of the accusation, "you claim to have a
monopoly on truth," must be the assumption that everybody can have his
own diverse and sundry truths.
Now, if what you mean is that some people say, such and so is true
because i say so, then that would be a foolish claim by them.
>
> > The truth of Christ's literal resurrection (and His eventual return)
> > are indispensable to Christian faith.
>
> My take on this was that it proved there was an afterlife. After all,
> if there is no afterlife, then most of religion is pointless.
True. It does, and it would be. But the Resurrection is important
for many reasons. It demonstrates Christ's uniqueness, His power over
death, and it makes Him the first fruits of the rapture, that is to
say, our sharing in His resurrection. It also sets the stage for His
soon return in triumph. It shows that the name of Jesus is above all
names, and that only He is the way, the truth and the light, the
living water. All spokes of the Christian wheel meet at the hub of
the Resurrection.
>
> > > > >
> > > > ....In the Bible, the first
> > > > world empire will come about under the heel of Satan. Only after that
> > > > will Christ return to earth and destroy all evil from the earth and
> > > > establish His 1,000 year kingdom. After that, His offer of mercy to
> > > > Satan is rejected, and a final war occurs (a very brief one), after
> > > > which heaven and earth are passed away, and a new heaven and a new
> > > > earth are created.
> > >
> > > Your opposition to collective security is probably the thing I like
> > > least about you.
> >
> > (Bert: Do you know what I like MOST about you?
> > Snert: No, Bert. What do you like MOST about me?
> > Bert: Nothing!)
> >
> > Now it's my turn to be baffled. I thought that I considered
> > collective security to be a good thing.
>
> I've never hear you say this before.
>
How remiss I've been. But perhaps we have differing definitions of
"collective security." I do not see that it requires a worldwide,
centrally commanded bureaucracy.
God bless you!
Pat Kohli
Robert Arvay wrote:
> Greetings;
>
> mspm...@msn.com (Matt Menge) wrote in message news:<dc19cfc5.03040...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > Rober...@msn.com (Robert Arvay) wrote in message news:<e247d7b6.0304...@posting.google.com>...
>
> (snip)
>
> > > One reason why Christians are often deemed intolerant
> > > is that we insist that there is only one truth.
> >
> > I think most people believe that there is only one truth. I know I
> > do. I think Christians are seen as intolerant because they think they
> > have a *monopoly* on this one truth, which is different. Baha'is
> > generally don't believe they have a monopoly on truth.
>
> Now, this is a phrase that I cannot understand. What, exactly, is a
> monopoly on Truth? If there is only one Truth, then only God can have
> a monopoly on it. And as it so happens, He shares that "monopoly"
> with us, making it available to all.
> If I say 3 + 4 = 7, am I claiming a monopoly on truth? Am I being
> intolerant of other "points of view"? Can 3 + 4 equal whatever suits
> the individual?
> It seems to me that the basis of the accusation, "you claim to have a
> monopoly on truth," must be the assumption that everybody can have his
> own diverse and sundry truths.
Excellent!
The basis of the accusation that some Christians seem to claim a monopoly on truth, is the perception that these
Christians won't see the Godliness in Islam, won't see the Godliness in Buddhism, won't see God anywhere but in
their own mirrors, and, it engenders a _disinterest_ in their spirituality, a sense that they have nothing of
interest to me, a sense that they have only a false idol, a modern day image of a city god of old, a god who is
only of them. This sort of idolatry, a confusion of their local deity with God, when distributed among all the
other cities of the ancient world, is a world of diverse (false) truths.
There is only one God; there is only one truth. What most Christians and Baha'is have, is the humility in the
face of God to confess that we don't know the entirety of God - God is greater than any and all of us. What most
Christians and Baha'is have, is the humility to confess that we do not know the entire truth, we have the
essentials that God wants us to have. What people of faith (not necessarily you) have is a relationship with God
beyond their finite capabilities.
What some folks have, some claiming to be Christians, some Muslims, and maybe a few Baha'is - who knows - is the
vanity to suppose that God is no more and no less that what they imagine, that truth is identical with their
current suspicions, that those who disagree with them might just not be as favored with God as they are. In a
nutshell, some folks have the mistaken assumption that they are the arbiters of truth and everyone of those fools
has different suspicions such that ultimately all of them will disagree about the truth.
>
> Now, if what you mean is that some people say, such and so is true
> because i say so, then that would be a foolish claim by them.
They may be closer to you than you might guess.
>
> >
> > > The truth of Christ's literal resurrection (and His eventual return)
> > > are indispensable to Christian faith.
> >
> > My take on this was that it proved there was an afterlife. After all,
> > if there is no afterlife, then most of religion is pointless.
>
> True. It does, and it would be. But the Resurrection is important
> for many reasons. It demonstrates Christ's uniqueness,
Unique means only one. Since someone else rose from the dead, Resurrection from the dead, does not make Him
unique.
> His power over
> death,
The power of God, through the prophets, over death, was demonstrated at the other resurrection from the dead, too.
> and it makes Him the first fruits of the rapture,
I think you are offering an interpretation rather than a Biblical fact.
> that is to
> say, our sharing in His resurrection. It also sets the stage for His
> soon return in triumph.
He returned in triumph just 1800 years later, though some would put the day off indeterminately.
> It shows that the name of Jesus is above all
> names, and that only He is the way, the truth and the light, the
> living water.
If it were unique, I would agree that it could, but since Resurrection from the dead is not unique to Jesus, it
does not show that.
> All spokes of the Christian wheel meet at the hub of
> the Resurrection.
And I thought they were meeting wherever Jesus is!
QisQos
> ==========
>
> No, no, and again, no.
> Your quickness at taking a small segment of my writings, and then
> stereotyping me according to your prejudgments, leaves you with a very
> inaccurate assessment of--- not only me--- but of the Protestant
> ethic, and indeed, of the Bible itself.
>
Hello Robert:
There are serious problems with the so-called "protestant work ethic"
which I will not belabour much here, being as this is a bahaist forum.
Suffice to say, a great deal of poverty arises from the materialistic
doctrines which have their origins in Calvin's teachings and
Puritanism. Hence, due to the erosion of moral behavior and ethical
principles as a result of the Reformation and its outcomes we have
growing numbers of impoverished, and the haves continues to take from
the have-nots owing to the materialism of the Protestant work ethic
which has personal gain and success as an end in itself rather than as
the product of holy living.
The Reformation paved the way for deistic principles of Freemasonry to
enter governments, and deism appears to inhere in bahism as well, the
concept of an unknowable architect of the Universe. Being as so many
early Freemasons were among the founding fathers of this country and
the priciples of Freemasonry are essentially the basis of the
Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution - Bill of Rights
it is important to understand that America is NOT a Christian nation,
nor is it founded on Christian principles.
Despite what pandits like Falwell and Robertson claim, the American
Republic is essentially Masonic and NOT Christian in its origins.
While many see Masons as being harmless men who congregate in Lodges
to fund their favorite charities and ride little scooters down
mainstreet in the 4th of July parade, Freemasonry has been the fuel
for revolution world-wide, and the philanthropic acts of Freemasonry
are only a front face, or disguise for the more sinister agenda, that
of Synarchy, or rule by a secret elite. One could credibly assert that
the Protocols of the Elders of Sion are in fact a freemasonic document
rather than "jewish" as has been asserted by anti-semites, since the
principles of Synarchy are outlined there and reflect the same
principles of synarchy as documented in other leaked documents like
the Alta Vendita. The ultimate foes of the Freemasons are The Church
Catholic and Apostolic and the Crown.
Protestantism is of little threat since it lacks Catholicity and
Apostolicity, i.e., Universal Truth and Divine Authority. hence the
American revolution was somewhat toned down since it was a revellion
against Crown only, and a protestant one at that. Conversely, where
Masonry has inspired revolution in Catholic Countries ruled by
Catholic Monarchs (LouisXVI and Maximilian I) the resultant French and
Mexican revolutions were long and bloody.
The French and Mexican revolutions were direct products of Masonry
with the consequent effects of destroying civilization and social
order in those countries. The immigrant problem from Mexico is by and
large a product of the Masonic rule that has held Mexico in a
stranglehold since the turn of the 20th century - a little known fact.
When the Mexican government under Masonic leadership made the Catholic
Church illegal, thousands of Mexicans fled to the American southwest
rather than continue to be persecuted in Mexico. The resultant
consolidation of property in the hands of the masonic wealthy elite
further created the economic conditions which exist today and serve to
inspire poor Mexican Catholics to migrate to the US, often illegally.
This being said, the so-called work ethic of protestantism is a myth
used by such as a self serving piece of propaganda to otherwise
disguise what has really neen taking place by the concentration of
wealth and power in the hands of Masonic elites.
Sadly, in response we have the ideas of socialism and the infiltration
of the heresy of "liberation theology" by Jesuits into Catholic
teachings which have by and large been destructive - Nicaragua, El
Salvador, etc., consequently it can be said that humanistic aims lack
entirely the salvific basis upon which to establish true social
justice. Thus only true Catholic teachings can prevent the excesses of
capitalism, socialism and capitalism.
It is clear that the so-called New World Order of Bahaullah, as
detailed by Shoghi Effendi, is nothing but the same old masonic and
socialist models dressed up in bahaist terminology. The bahaist
religion has social order as an end in itself rather than as a result
of orderly and sanctified people - i.e. the Church. The bahaist ideals
while lofty appearing, are abstract, humanistic and completely lacking
in any salvific intent. Merely to carry on an ever advancing
civilization is not in itself Godly, but rather appears to conform to
modernist principles of evolutionism . Evolutionism, not proved by any
hard science has been coopted by the social sciences to make likewise
unproven claims about humanity and human societies: consider the
concepts of Hegel, Marx and Bahaullah in this regard and you see they
all rest on the same shoddy foundations of social progressivism -
albeit bahullah attempted to dress up his form of masonic world
orderism in Islamic terms.
Nevertheless. when one inspects the foundations of bahism, there are
no real teachings outside of bahullahs rants about being persecuted -
the majority of his books, threats and exhortations to believe him,
and what little else was written is about social reform.
What happens if someone does not believe in Bahollah? Goes he/she go
to Hell? Is there and eternal punishment? Is there any reward for
doing good on Earth? In the end the Bahullah is silent on this matter
- there appear to be no consequences for disobedience to the divine,
except being declared a CB and shunned - hardly a terrible price to
pay since at best human life is scarcely more than 70 years duration.
But otherwise there are no "sins", simply poor choices, and the moral
foundations of Bahaism are likewise dubious - witness the deceptive
campaigns among Blacks in the South and Indians in New Mexico - all
worked and engineered by poorly trained zealots it would seem, intent
on using bahism as a cover for the civil rights movement, feminism and
any other number of now failed 20th century liberal ideologies .
Absent of morals or ethics, Bahism really became it would appear
little more than a mahometan version of UNICEF and the like. This is
certainly not a characteristic of something divine, these humanistic
aims and purposes, and the moral relativism one sees among bahais is
clearly a mark of dubious spirituality.
For example, what happens after death? Sin? Salvation? there is no
depth to the writings of bahullah on these topics - just a few flowery
metaphorical phrases, little else.
So in the end, we have only obedience to the UHJ in Haifa as the sole
aim and end of the life of a Bahaist, and the community goal of a "New
World Order" - there does not appear to be anything else of salvific
import in Bahaism.
Now, this is not unlike the ends and aims of freemasonry and it has
occurred to me that while Bahullah was in Anatolia and the Balkans he
may have encountered these ideals and incorporated them into his
teachings.
All the same, there is little to distinguish the Bahaist New World
Order from the Masonic one and the Marxist one, except that the
Bahaist one has a veneer of religiosity not found in masonic deism and
marxist atheism. Perhaps this is why so many of the bahaist college
professors had Marxist leanings and perhaps still do.
In the end working towards social justice cannot be the end and aim of
the soul, since it is the fact that mankind is born in Original Sin,
dies and is punished or rewarded in the life to come, and the Christ
Jesus died and was resurrected for the salvation of many. This is
counter to the idea of progressive (evolutionary) revelation of
bahaism. Contrary to Bahulah's teachings, Christ Jesus was the Son of
God, and the Word Incarnate in fact, not merely in symbol or parable.
He also did not reveal a Book, but taught and healed as his ministry,
and died on the Cross for our sins. that those who would join
themselves to this sacrifice would be saved from the pains of sin
which is Death and Hell. rather than being a progression or evolution
from judaism, he is the fulfillment of Judaism - his life and
sacrifice foreshadowed in the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms. He did
not abrogate the Judaic law but fulfilled it, and all covenenential
sacrifices were abolished by the Wrath of God through the destruction
of the Temple by the Romans, who themselves became the Graft onto the
Vine, while the old fruitless branch was pruned.
Bahullah, Mahomet, Buddha, Moses, Krishna, none have died as a
proptiation for our sins, nor have they risen in glory, nor will they
come as Judges at the Last Day. The resurrection is REAL and OF THE
FLESH not symbolic or metaphorical.
1John 4:2. By this is the spirit of God known. Every spirit which
confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
4:3. And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus is not of God. And this is
Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh: and he is now
already in the world.
In KJV 4:3 rendered:
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the
flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof
ye have heard that it should come ; and even now already is it in
the world.
(So I think we can safely determine what Abdul baha's spirit is by
careful discernment.)
The last day is also a real promise not a symbolic one, and the
Judgement will likewise be real, and the reward and punishment will
likewise be real - not symbolic as Abdool baha says in his various
conjectures about the New Testament.
So let us consider the real ends of human existence: to love God,
worship God and know God in Spirit and in truth through Christ Jesus,
and to Love our neighbors as ourselves and to act with mercy and
charity; to exhort to good, to turn the sinner and disbeliever from
the path of error and death and towards eternal life.
This is a far cry from establishing a humanistic government on earth,
and living in a naturalistic peace, overseen by a hidden elite
(synarchy) whose visible instrument is 9 men in Haifa.
QisQos
Pat Kohli
QisQos wrote:
> (snip)
> Nevertheless. when one inspects the foundations of bahism, there are
> no real teachings outside of bahullahs rants about being persecuted -
> the majority of his books, threats and exhortations to believe him,
> and what little else was written is about social reform.
>
There are prayers, directions to pray daily, read the writings of the Bab
and Baha'u'llah, to fast, to attend feast, etc. In a nutshell, there
appears to be even more religious directions than one sees in the Gospel. I
surmise that the BF is a religion rathet than simply a social movement.
>
> What happens if someone does not believe in Bahollah?
You tell me.
> Goes he/she go
> to Hell?
You are where you are.
> Is there and eternal punishment? Is there any reward for
> doing good on Earth? In the end the Bahullah is silent on this matter
There is much more to a religion than the fearful question of how one's skin
will smell when it is carmelized, or the self-absorbed curiosity about one's
eternal reward. The point of a _real_ religion is a relationship with God.
A relationship with God _is_ heaven and its loss is hell. I thought you
knew this much!
"WORSHIP thou God in such wise that if thy worship lead thee to the fire, no
alteration in thine adoration would be produced, and so likewise if thy
recompense should be paradise. Thus and thus alone should be the worship
which befitteth the one True God. Shouldst thou worship Him because of fear,
this would be unseemly in the sanctified Court of His presence, and could
not be regarded as an act by thee dedicated to the Oneness of His Being. Or
if thy gaze should be on paradise, and thou shouldst worship Him while
cherishing such a hope, thou wouldst make God's creation a partner with Him,
notwithstanding the fact that paradise is desired by men."
http://www.bahai-library.org/writings/bab/swb/5/sec-3.html
> (snip)
> In the end working towards social justice cannot be the end and aim of
> the soul, since it is the fact that mankind is born in Original Sin,
> dies and is punished or rewarded in the life to come,
If these are your relevant facts, the human life between the birth in
Original Sin, and the death, is not even mentioned, of course the love
towards one neighbors, a love reflected in the pursuit of social justice, in
obedience to God, would seem to be irrelevant. That does not mean that
human life is irrelevant to God, I simply point out that appears irrelevant
in your framework, unless I've misunderstood it.
> and the Christ
> Jesus died and was resurrected for the salvation of many.
Again, you seem to rush into the significance of the death and the
afterlife. Much of the ministry of Jesus was actually _before_ His
crucfixion. Many of His healings, and teachings, were in the three years
_before_ the Last Supper. Jesus lived the Gospel, walking among us,
teaching, loving, before His arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane.
> This is
> counter to the idea of progressive (evolutionary) revelation of
> bahaism. Contrary to Bahulah's teachings, Christ Jesus was the Son of
> God,
I don't have the specific quotes that you are drawing from. If you could
provide them, you could combine them with these quotations from 'Abdu'l Baha
and have an argument between Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l Baha, on the Blessed
Jesus Christ.
Here Abdu'l Baha refers to the Blessed Jesus Christ as the Son of God,
acknowledging His claim to that station,
"This rod out of the stem of Jesse might be correctly applied to Christ, for
Joseph was of the descendants of
Jesse, the father of David; but as Christ found existence through the Spirit
of God, He called Himself the Son
of God. If He had not done so, this description would refer to Him. Besides
this, the events which he indicated
as coming to pass in the days of that rod, if interpreted symbolically, were
in part fulfilled in the day of Christ,
but not all; and if not interpreted, then decidedly none of these signs
happened. For example, the leopard and
the lamb, the lion and the calf, the child and the asp, are metaphors and
symbols for various nations, peoples,
antagonistic sects and hostile races, who are as opposite and inimical as
the wolf and lamb. We say that by the
breath of the spirit of Christ they found concord and harmony, they were
vivified, and they associated
together."
http://www.bahai-library.org/writings/abdulbaha/saq/12.html
> and the Word Incarnate
When Christ appeared, twenty centuries ago, although the Jews were eagerly
awaiting His Coming, and prayed every day, with tears, saying: `O God,
hasten the Revelation of the Messiah,' yet when the Sun of Truth dawned,
they denied Him and rose against Him with the greatest enmity, and
eventually crucified that divine Spirit, the Word of God, and named Him
Beelzebub, the evil one, as is recorded in the Gospel. The reason for this
was that they said: `The Revelation of Christ, according to the clear text
of the Torah, will be attested by certain signs, and so long as these signs
have not appeared, whoso layeth claim to be a Messiah is an impostor. Among
these signs is this, that the Messiah should come from an unknown place, yet
we all know this man's house in Nazareth, and can any good thing come out of
Nazareth? The second sign is that He shall rule with a rod of iron, that is,
He must act with the sword, but this Messiah has not even a wooden staff.
Another of the conditions and signs is this: He must sit upon the throne of
David and establish David's sovereignty. Now, far from being enthroned, this
man has not even a mat to sit on. Another of the conditions is this: the
promulgation of all the laws of the Torah; yet this man has abrogated these
laws, and has even broken the sabbath day, although it is the clear text of
the Torah that whosoever layeth claim to prophethood and revealeth miracles
and breaketh the sabbath day, must be put to death. Another of the signs is
this, that in His reign justice will be so advanced that righteousness and
well-doing will extend from the human even to the animal world--the snake
and the mouse will share one hole, and the eagle and the partridge one nest,
the lion and the gazelle shall dwell in one pasture, and the wolf and the
kid shall drink from one fountain. Yet now, injustice and tyranny have waxed
so great in his time that they have crucified him! Another of the conditions
is this, that in the days of the Messiah the Jews will prosper and triumph
over all the peoples of the world, but now they are living in the utmost
abasement and servitude in the empire of the Romans. Then how can this be
the Messiah promised in the Torah?'
In this wise did they object to that Sun of Truth, although that Spirit of
God was indeed the One promised in the Torah. But as they did not understand
the meaning of these signs, they crucified the Word of God. Now the Bahá'ís
hold that the recorded signs did come to pass in the Manifestation of
Christ, although not in the sense which the Jews understood, the description
in the Torah being allegorical."
http://www.bahai-library.org/writings/abdulbaha/swab/020.html
> in fact, not merely in symbol or parable.
You tell me the facts of the Bible, then. Did the Messiah come from an
unknown place consistent with the expectations of the learned Pharisees, or
from Nazareth as the Gospel reads? Did He rule with a rod of iron, as the
learned clergy expected, or did he walk the backroads as an itenerant
preacher, w/o so much as a staff? Did He sit on the throne of David, as the
Rabbis knew He was destined to do, or was He run out of the Synagog for
announcing His day? Did He enforce the Law to the interpretation of the
scribes, or did He preach that the Sabbat was made for man? Did the snake
and the mouse share the same hole, the lamb laying down with the lion in
material harmony, OR did this somehow foreshadow how, in Him, the Hellenic
Jews would be reconciled with the Sadducees, Pharisees, Zealots, and others,
even gentiles; that the Son Himself would fall to Roman soldiers, etc.
Which of your Lord's blessings will you deny?
>
> He also did not reveal a Book, but taught and healed as his ministry,
Amen.
>
> and died on the Cross for our sins. that those who would join
> themselves to this sacrifice would be saved from the pains of sin
> which is Death and Hell.
I think salvation was before the death and Resurrection, but was simply in
accepting Jesus as Lord.
> rather than being a progression or evolution
> from judaism, he is the fulfillment of Judaism - his life and
> sacrifice foreshadowed in the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms.
That is why it is seen as a progression from the Law of Moses; It is the
perfection of the Law of Moses. In the same vein, the Bab perfected the
Holy Qoran.
> He did
> not abrogate the Judaic law but fulfilled it, and all covenenential
> sacrifices were abolished by the Wrath of God through the destruction
> of the Temple by the Romans,
I think you extemporize here. I would think that if the Jews wanted to
sacrifice IAW the Torah, they certainly would not need a temple, merely the
Ark of the Covenant.
> who themselves became the Graft onto the
> Vine, while the old fruitless branch was pruned.
>
Harry, is that _really_ you? I had no idea how vain you could go on the
Jews! A whole lot of the early Christians were Jews. The Hebrews were
_not_ a fruitless branch to be pruned away! Some day you might get a better
feel for your own ritual and see how much of it traces back to the ritual of
modern Judaisms pre-cursors.
>
> Bahullah, Mahomet, Buddha, Moses, Krishna, none have died as a
> proptiation for our sins, nor have they risen in glory, nor will they
> come as Judges at the Last Day.
If Jesus were simply to die as a propitiation for sin, why did the angel
tell Joseph to get Him out of Bethlehem when He was a baby?
> The resurrection is REAL and OF THE
> FLESH not symbolic or metaphorical.
>
Spiritual. Spiritual truths are much larger and more significant than
material facts. Ask the snake and the mouse.
>
> 1John 4:2. By this is the spirit of God known. Every spirit which
> confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
>
> 4:3. And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus is not of God. And this is
> Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh: and he is now
> already in the world.
>
> In KJV 4:3 rendered:
>
> And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the
> flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof
> ye have heard that it should come ; and even now already is it in
> the world.
>
> (So I think we can safely determine what Abdul baha's spirit is by
> careful discernment.)
Safely? Maybe you will quote 'Abdu'l Baha as well as John?
"In this wise did they object to that Sun of Truth, although that Spirit of
God was indeed the One promised in the Torah. But as they did not understand
the meaning of these signs, they crucified the Word of God. Now the Bahá'ís
hold that the recorded signs did come to pass in the Manifestation of
Christ, although not in the sense which the Jews understood, the description
in the Torah being allegorical."
>
> The last day is also a real promise not a symbolic one, and the
> Judgement will likewise be real, and the reward and punishment will
> likewise be real - not symbolic as Abdool baha says in his various
> conjectures about the New Testament.
>
Very real. The last day is a point that you and I disagree on. Though you
claim it is real, you have plainly rejected it. In contrast, I have
accepted it, and embraced my reward; thank God.
>
> So let us consider the real ends of human existence: to love God,
> worship God and know God in Spirit and in truth through Christ Jesus,
> and to Love our neighbors as ourselves and to act with mercy and
> charity; to exhort to good, to turn the sinner and disbeliever from
> the path of error and death and towards eternal life.
>
Amin!
>
> This is a far cry from establishing a humanistic government on earth,
> and living in a naturalistic peace, overseen by a hidden elite
> (synarchy) whose visible instrument is 9 men in Haifa.
A simplistic misconception.
reli...@yahoo.com
> > (snip)
> > Nevertheless. when one inspects the foundations of bahism, there
>> are no real teachings outside of bahullahs rants about being
>> persecuted - the majority of his books, threats and exhortations to
>> believe him, and what little else was written is about social
reform.
(snip)
Pat Kohli replied:
> There is much more to a religion than the fearful question of how one's > skin will smell when it is carmelized, or the self-absorbed curiosity
> about one's eternal reward. The point of a _real_ religion is a
> relationship with God. A relationship with God _is_ heaven and its loss > is hell. I thought you knew this much!
"WORSHIP thou God in such wise that if thy worship lead thee to the
fire, no alteration in thine adoration would be produced, and so
likewise if thy
recompense should be paradise. Thus and thus alone should be the
worship which befitteth the one True God. Shouldst thou worship Him
because of fear, this would be unseemly in the sanctified Court of
His presence, and couldnot be regarded as an act by thee dedicated to
the Oneness of His Being. Or if thy gaze should be on paradise, and
thou shouldst worship Him while cherishing such a hope, thou wouldst
make God's creation a partner with Him, notwithstanding the fact that
paradise is desired by men."
http://www.bahai-library.org/writings/bab/swb/5/sec-3.html
RP replies:
Baha'u'llah mentions the fire (hell) here, so it is obvious (coming
from a Muslim background) the founders of the Baha'i Faith believed
in
a burning hellfire for apostates, heritics and non-believers like
Islam Christianity also believes.
Yet, to create fire, science tells us we need Heat, Oxygen and dry
matter all three components related to the material world we live in.
How come the Baha'is believe it is impossible for God to transmute
from a supernatural world into a material world like the
"Incarnation.of Christ." Shoghi Effendi wrote the Manifestation
Bahaullah said: "So crude and fantastic a theory of Divine incarnation
is as removed from and inadmissable pantheistic and anthromorphic
conceptions of God - both of which the utterences of Baha'u'llah
emphatically repudicate and the fallacy of which they expose"
(Dispensation of Baha'u'llah page 23) Baha'u'llah also refutes
Christian belief that it is impossible to transmute *bodily matter*
"The body of Christ" and (especially) in Catholic belief "The Body of
Mary" from the material world to the supernatural world.
So if Baha'u'llah and the Baha'is disbelieve in the incarnation and
bodily ressurection ( a mystery that Christians believe only God knows
how it is done) how then do Baha'i's believe Gas, heat and dry
matter is going be transmuted to create fire to burn one's soul away
in hell?
Finally, the saying most Baha'is use to get out of this argument is
"We as Baha'i see heaven and hell as an afterlife place of lightness
and darkness. Lightness is closer to God and Baha'u'llah and darkness
is the shunning hell of being kept further away in the dark. A
practice Baha'is are quite good at doing here on earth, and they
probably think that God is going to follow their example in the
afterlife. as well.
We as humans only know lightness (daytime) as created by light coming
from burning **matter** from the sun and darkness coming at
(nightime) when the planet we live on revolves to a position were we
dont receive any light in a 24 hr period. Electricity has been
discovered to create light scientifically by humankind. But without
the elements( matter) on planet earth this would not have been
possible. So all our human concepts relating to **lightness and
darkness** are of a three dimentional material world we live in and
not of the spirtual world.
Therefore to explain heaven as lightness, and hell as darkness, is no
different than saying heaven is (no pain) and hell as (fire and
burning pain), because all these *imaginary* concepts, comes from
living experience while alive on the material world we live
in.......RP
Cal E. Rollins
I'd sure like to hear from the poor about the Lottery or from Indians
about gambling on their reservations. What you guys with means have to
say about the morality and usages of the monies is nice but worthless
for any real people discussion. It's like Baha'is saying the slaves in
the Households of the Bab and Baha'u'llah were happy slaves, when we
have heard nada/zilch from the slaves themselves. Although we do know
they hotfooted it out of the one Household when they were freed without
only one returning for whatever reason. I'd love to hear from the
non-returnees about how happy they were. Right? --Cal
Robert Arvay
crol...@webtv.net (Cal E. Rollins) wrote in message news:<25582-3E9...@storefull-2333.public.lawson.webtv.net>...
> Robert, Susan,
>
> I'd sure like to hear from the poor about the Lottery or from Indians
> about gambling on their reservations. What you guys with means
I am a wage earner with a mortgage to pay or become homeless.
> have to
> say about the morality and usages of the monies is nice but worthless
> for any real people discussion.
There are reasons why some people are poor in a land of wealth and
opportunity. There are reasons why people who are given a place to
live, money to spend, and free medical care--- all without having to
go find a job--- remain poor generation after generation.
While the reasons may include insurmountable handicaps and even
oppression, the great majority of poverty in America is due to
squandering one's human capital on vices.
Again, I am speaking here of people who are given every opportunity to
make something of themselves, but who do not.
One may consider these words to be harsh, and so they would be if it
ended there.
But I am advocating the teaching of skills, skills of thrift,
industriousness, and efficient allocation of limited resources, so
that the poor may lift themselves from poverty without having to kiss
the ring of government bureaucracy.
That, my friend, is a far more compassionate route than merely handing
out money.
> It's like Baha'is saying the slaves in
> the Households of the Bab and Baha'u'llah were happy slaves, when we
> have heard nada/zilch from the slaves themselves. Although we do know
> they hotfooted it out of the one Household when they were freed without
> only one returning for whatever reason. I'd love to hear from the
> non-returnees about how happy they were. Right? --Cal
Also, notice that the slave-owners did not offer to trade places with
the slaves.
God bless the poor!
Matt Menge
>
> Now, this is a phrase that I cannot understand. What, exactly, is a
> monopoly on Truth? If there is only one Truth, then only God can have
> a monopoly on it. And as it so happens, He shares that "monopoly"
> with us, making it available to all.
> If I say 3 + 4 = 7, am I claiming a monopoly on truth?
Setting aside the fact that mathematics is the least subjective of all
sciences and religion the most subjective, may it not be possible
that your Hindu friend knows about the science of geometry whereas you
are only familiar with algebra?
> >
> > > The truth of Christ's literal resurrection (and His eventual return)
> > > are indispensable to Christian faith.
> >
> > My take on this was that it proved there was an afterlife. After all,
> > if there is no afterlife, then most of religion is pointless.
>
> True. It does, and it would be. But the Resurrection is important
> for many reasons. It demonstrates Christ's uniqueness
He is already unique, so I don't see why this is pivotal. And didn't
one of the Tanakh prophets resurrect a whole army?
, His power over
> death,
As I was saying.
and it makes Him the first fruits of the rapture, that is to
> say, our sharing in His resurrection.
Are you getting this from 1 Thessalonians 4 somehow?
> >
>
> How remiss I've been. But perhaps we have differing definitions of
> "collective security." I do not see that it requires a worldwide,
> centrally commanded bureaucracy.
>
What does it require?
Best Regards,
Matt
Robert Arvay
(Snip)
>
> The basis of the accusation that some Christians seem to claim a monopoly on truth, is the perception that these
> Christians won't see the Godliness in Islam, won't see the Godliness in Buddhism, won't see God anywhere but in
> their own mirrors,
That may be true for some individuals.
But for the most part, we are commanded to beware of false prophets.
Discernment requires that we recognize false spirits--- and they are
those who do not proclaim the risen savior. This is in the Bible,
although I do not have an exact reference at hand at this moment.
(snip)
>
> There is only one God; there is only one truth. What most Christians and Baha'is have, is the humility in the
> face of God to confess that we don't know the entirety of God - God is greater than any and all of us. ...to confess that we do not know the entire truth, we have the
> essentials that God wants us to have. What people of faith (not necessarily you)
Ouch!!!
> have is a relationship with God beyond their finite capabilities.
>
> What some folks have, some claiming to be Christians, some Muslims, and maybe a few Baha'is - who knows - is the
> vanity to suppose that God is no more and no less that what they imagine,
Okay...
> that truth is identical with their current suspicions,
You're really attributing a lot based on little, here....
> that those who disagree with them might just not be as favored with God as they are. In a
> nutshell, some folks have the mistaken assumption that they are the arbiters of truth and everyone of those fools
> has different suspicions such that ultimately all of them will disagree about the truth.
Whew!
> >
> > Now, if what you mean is that some people say, such and so is true
> > because i say so, then that would be a foolish claim by them.
>
> They may be closer to you than you might guess.
Ouch again!
> >
> > >
> > > > The truth of Christ's literal resurrection (and His eventual return)
> > > > are indispensable to Christian faith.
> > >
> > > My take on this was that it proved there was an afterlife. After all,
> > > if there is no afterlife, then most of religion is pointless.
> >
> > True. It does, and it would be. But the Resurrection is important
> > for many reasons. It demonstrates Christ's uniqueness,
>
> Unique means only one. Since someone else rose from the dead, Resurrection from the dead, does not make Him unique.
Yes, actually, it does. Lazarus was raised from death by Christ. But
this was not the same resurrection as Christ's. Whereas Lazarus
returned to mortality, Christ rose to immortality.
>
> > His power over
> > death,
>
> The power of God, through the prophets, over death, was demonstrated at the other resurrection from the dead, too.
Again, if you're speaking of Lazarus, you're incorrect.
>
> > and it makes Him the first fruits of the rapture,
>
> I think you are offering an interpretation rather than a Biblical fact.
Again, I don't have the exact Biblical reference at hand just now, but
the Bible does specifically say this.
>
> > that is to
> > say, our sharing in His resurrection. It also sets the stage for His
> > soon return in triumph.
>
> He returned in triumph just 1800 years later, though some would put the day off indeterminately.
Now this is standard Baha'i doctrine. But it most certainly is not
Biblical. Read The Rev ch 19.
>
> > It shows that the name of Jesus is above all
> > names, and that only He is the way, the truth and the light, the
> > living water.
>
> If it were unique, I would agree that it could, but since Resurrection from the dead is not unique to Jesus, it
> does not show that.
>
> > All spokes of the Christian wheel meet at the hub of
> > the Resurrection.
>
> And I thought they were meeting wherever Jesus is!
>
Jesus is the risen savior. As St Paul says, if He is not the risen
savior, all our faith is in vain.
God bless you!
Robert Arvay
mspm...@msn.com (Matt Menge) wrote in message news:<dc19cfc5.03040...@posting.google.com>...
> Rober...@msn.com (Robert Arvay) wrote in message news:<e247d7b6.03040...@posting.google.com>...
>
> >
> > Now, this is a phrase that I cannot understand. What, exactly, is a
> > monopoly on Truth? If there is only one Truth, then only God can have
> > a monopoly on it. And as it so happens, He shares that "monopoly"
> > with us, making it available to all.
> > If I say 3 + 4 = 7, am I claiming a monopoly on truth?
>
> Setting aside the fact that mathematics is the least subjective of all
> sciences and religion the most subjective, may it not be possible
> that your Hindu friend knows about the science of geometry whereas you
> are only familiar with algebra?
I find this analogy unhelpful. A better one is that, if someone says
that 3 + 4 = 8, then his "truth" is inaccurate.
> > >
> > > > The truth of Christ's literal resurrection (and His eventual return)
> > > > are indispensable to Christian faith.
> > >
> > > My take on this was that it proved there was an afterlife. After all,
> > > if there is no afterlife, then most of religion is pointless.
> >
> > True. It does, and it would be. But the Resurrection is important
> > for many reasons. It demonstrates Christ's uniqueness
>
> He is already unique, so I don't see why this is pivotal. And didn't
> one of the Tanakh prophets resurrect a whole army?
I'm unfamiliar with this event.
>
> , His power over death,
>
> As I was saying.
>
> and it makes Him the first fruits of the rapture, that is to
> > say, our sharing in His resurrection.
>
> Are you getting this from 1 Thessalonians 4 somehow?
This chapter does deal with the rapture, but there is a specific
mention of Jesus as the first fruits (in relation to His resurrection,
and the rapture). I'll look up the exact quote as soon as I can.
> > >
> >
> > How remiss I've been. But perhaps we have differing definitions of
> > "collective security." I do not see that it requires a worldwide,
> > centrally commanded bureaucracy.
> >
>
> What does it require?
>
Do you really think that it does require a worldwide, centrally
commanded bureaucracy? That seems to me entirely radical.
Collective security depends upon freedom. When people are genuinely
free, when their governments are ruled by them, accountable to them,
and revocable by them at any time, then people will have both freedom
and security.
Centralizing power is always a risky proposition at best.
Government's most powerful tendency is to expand. That tendency must
always be guarded against--- aggressively and intrusively--- by an
informed, empowered electorate.
I'm a firm believer that when people try to obtain security by
surrendering freedom, they wind up with neither freedom nor security.
Unfortunately, too many people would rather be ruled by King Saul than
by Samuel. And thus, the rise of the anti-Christ.
May God preserve us!
Robert Arvay
mspm...@msn.com (Matt Menge) wrote in message news:<dc19cfc5.03040...@posting.google.com>...
> Rober...@msn.com (Robert Arvay) wrote in message news:<e247d7b6.03040...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > Now, this is a phrase that I cannot understand. What, exactly, is a
> > monopoly on Truth? If there is only one Truth, then only God can have
> > a monopoly on it. And as it so happens, He shares that "monopoly"
> > with us, making it available to all.
> > If I say 3 + 4 = 7, am I claiming a monopoly on truth?
>
> Setting aside the fact that mathematics is the least subjective of all
> sciences and religion the most subjective, (snip remainder, addressed in separate post)
Mathematics is the most exact, but also, the most abstract, of all
sciences. While you can point to a number of something (7 apples, 7
degrees celsius, etc), you cannot point to just 7. 7 in and of itself
is abstract.
Mathematics deals purely in principle. Its principles are subject to
proof, and are demonstrable in the practical world.
I think that true religion is analogous to this. The proof of God,
however, is not the kind of proof that can be conveyed by one
individual to another. God proves Himself. He does this in the heart
of those who seek Him. He hears those who call out to Him, and He
answers. He breaks through the barrier of sin, which otherwise
separates us from Him. He heals us of our blindness, shows Himself to
us in many ways, and speaks to us when we commune with Him.
All one individual can do to prove God to another, is simply to
witness, to tell others what God has done in our own lives. Then,
like the inhabitants of Sychar, those who hear the witness decide for
themselves whether or not to go to Jacob's well. (See John ch 4).
And as they said to the woman at the well, we first believed because
of your testimony, but now we believe because we have seen Him
ourselves.
God bless you!
Matt Menge
> commanded bureaucracy? That seems to me entirely radical.
I think it requires the vast majority of the countries to reach an
agreement. I suppose it could be done without said bureaucracy.
>
> Collective security depends upon freedom. When people are genuinely
> free, when their governments are ruled by them, accountable to them,
> and revocable by them at any time, then people will have both freedom
> and security.
Are you trying to tell me that free countries won't go to war with
each other??!!
Best Regards,
Matt
Matt Menge
>
> Mathematics is the most exact, but also, the most abstract, of all
> sciences. While you can point to a number of something (7 apples, 7
> degrees celsius, etc), you cannot point to just 7. 7 in and of itself
> is abstract.
>
> Mathematics deals purely in principle. Its principles are subject to
> proof, and are demonstrable in the practical world.
>
> I think that true religion is analogous to this.
Actually, now that you bring it up, I am currently studying the
relationship between mathematics and religion. For example, I am
currently reading Euclid's _Elements_. One thing I discovered was
that axioms were not only pivotal to early mathematics (in this case
geometry), but there was also a kind of intense interests in what
axioms were and why they were important.
The other is that the mathematical "fields" used in a particular
culture seem to be strongly related to the nature of the culture. For
instance the Arabs, with the historical preoccupation developed
algebra (arabic for "find the root"), the Hindu's , preoccupied with
self-annihilation, invented the concept of zero, Isaac Newton,
preoccupied with love or "attraction", developed calculus, and John
Nash, in an American culture of capitalism and competition, developed
game theory.
The proof of God,
> however, is not the kind of proof that can be conveyed by one
> individual to another. God proves Himself. He does this in the heart
> of those who seek Him. He hears those who call out to Him, and He
> answers. He breaks through the barrier of sin, which otherwise
> separates us from Him. He heals us of our blindness, shows Himself to
> us in many ways, and speaks to us when we commune with Him.
Yes.
>
> All one individual can do to prove God to another, is simply to
> witness, to tell others what God has done in our own lives.
Actually, William Hatcher seems to have made a pretty interesting
proof for the existence of God.
Then,
> like the inhabitants of Sychar, those who hear the witness decide for
> themselves whether or not to go to Jacob's well. (See John ch 4).
> And as they said to the woman at the well, we first believed because
> of your testimony, but now we believe because we have seen Him
> ourselves.
I missed that line. I read about the Samaritan woman, and her
discourse with Jesus, and finally that Jesus knew some secret things
about her by virtue of His innate knowledge. Also, Jesus revivified
someone's son before the ned of the chpater. What am I missing?
Best Regards,
Matt
Pat Kohli
Robert Arvay wrote:
> Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3E8F67EE...@ameritel.net>...
>
> (Snip)
> >
> > The basis of the accusation that some Christians seem to claim a monopoly on truth, is the perception that these
> > Christians won't see the Godliness in Islam, won't see the Godliness in Buddhism, won't see God anywhere but in
> > their own mirrors,
>
> That may be true for some individuals.
> But for the most part, we are commanded to beware of false prophets.
> Discernment requires that we recognize false spirits--- and they are
> those who do not proclaim the risen savior. This is in the Bible,
> although I do not have an exact reference at hand at this moment.
>
Precisely! There are those who see false prophets and do not follow the risen Spirit of God; clearly they do not see God.
>
> (snip)
> >
> > There is only one God; there is only one truth. What most Christians and Baha'is have, is the humility in the
> > face of God to confess that we don't know the entirety of God - God is greater than any and all of us. ...to confess that we do not know the entire truth, we have the
> > essentials that God wants us to have. What people of faith (not necessarily you)
>
> Ouch!!!
>
There is yet time!
>
> > have is a relationship with God beyond their finite capabilities.
> >
> > What some folks have, some claiming to be Christians, some Muslims, and maybe a few Baha'is - who knows - is the
> > vanity to suppose that God is no more and no less that what they imagine,
>
> Okay...
>
> > that truth is identical with their current suspicions,
>
> You're really attributing a lot based on little, here....
>
> > that those who disagree with them might just not be as favored with God as they are. In a
> > nutshell, some folks have the mistaken assumption that they are the arbiters of truth and everyone of those fools
> > has different suspicions such that ultimately all of them will disagree about the truth.
>
> Whew!
> > >
> > > Now, if what you mean is that some people say, such and so is true
> > > because i say so, then that would be a foolish claim by them.
> >
> > They may be closer to you than you might guess.
>
> Ouch again!
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > The truth of Christ's literal resurrection (and His eventual return)
> > > > > are indispensable to Christian faith.
> > > >
> > > > My take on this was that it proved there was an afterlife. After all,
> > > > if there is no afterlife, then most of religion is pointless.
> > >
> > > True. It does, and it would be. But the Resurrection is important
> > > for many reasons. It demonstrates Christ's uniqueness,
> >
> > Unique means only one. Since someone else rose from the dead, Resurrection from the dead, does not make Him unique.
>
> Yes, actually, it does. Lazarus was raised from death by Christ. But
> this was not the same resurrection as Christ's. Whereas Lazarus
> returned to mortality, Christ rose to immortality.
There were others. Keep reading, try 2 Kings 13:21. If you read about the life of Elisha, you may find of a rising of the dead like that of Lazarus. These are not the
fundamental verities of Judaism, though.
>
> >
> > > His power over
> > > death,
> >
> > The power of God, through the prophets, over death, was demonstrated at the other resurrection from the dead, too.
>
> Again, if you're speaking of Lazarus, you're incorrect.
I was not referring simply to Lazarus! I was suggesting that the miracles of the Gospel paralleled miracles in the Tanakh. I see that suggestion is inadequate, so I
provided some specifics.
>
> >
> > > and it makes Him the first fruits of the rapture,
> >
> > I think you are offering an interpretation rather than a Biblical fact.
>
> Again, I don't have the exact Biblical reference at hand just now, but
> the Bible does specifically say this.
The Bible specifically says _nothing_ is the first fruits of the rapture; like the Trinity, the rapture does not merit a mention in the Bible. It is a point of
interpretation, usually _misinterpretation_. Paul wrote that the beleivers would always be with the Lord, and the way that he wrote it was misinterpreted to suggest that
the phyically dead would rise up in their material bodies so that we could be with our deceased friends and family in the next world!
>
> >
> > > that is to
> > > say, our sharing in His resurrection. It also sets the stage for His
> > > soon return in triumph.
> >
> > He returned in triumph just 1800 years later, though some would put the day off indeterminately.
>
> Now this is standard Baha'i doctrine. But it most certainly is not
> Biblical. Read The Rev ch 19.
Yup, He had a name inscribed which you do not know. Read Matthew 23. Read Mark 13. Read Danmiel. Read the Bible.
>
> >
> > > It shows that the name of Jesus is above all
> > > names, and that only He is the way, the truth and the light, the
> > > living water.
> >
> > If it were unique, I would agree that it could, but since Resurrection from the dead is not unique to Jesus, it
> > does not show that.
> >
> > > All spokes of the Christian wheel meet at the hub of
> > > the Resurrection.
> >
> > And I thought they were meeting wherever Jesus is!
> >
> Jesus is the risen savior.
Amin.
> As St Paul says, if He is not the risen
> savior, all our faith is in vain.
>
Your faith may still be in vain so long as you fail to acknowledge Him. I don't know that it _is_ in vain, it just looks risky to me.
>
> God bless you!
May God bless _you_ real soon!
Robert Arvay
Rober...@msn.com (Robert Arvay) wrote in message news:<e247d7b6.03040...@posting.google.com>...
> > Do you really think that it does require a worldwide, centrally
> commanded bureaucracy? That seems to me entirely radical.
I think it requires the vast majority of the countries to reach an
agreement. I suppose it could be done without said bureaucracy.
>
> Collective security depends upon freedom. When people are genuinely
> free, when their governments are ruled by them, accountable to them,
> and revocable by them at any time, then people will have both freedom
> and security.
Are you trying to tell me that free countries won't go to war with
each other??!!
**Matt, please tell me that you do not believe in totalitarianism as a
solution to war.
Of course free countries will go to war--- they will be free to do
whatever the electorate chooses to do. If the electorate is evil,
they will choose evil. If a world government is evil, IT will choose
evil, no matter the peoples’ choice.
Powerful, centrally commanded governments are not better than limited,
local governemts. Did not Hitler and Stalin wage a bloody war against
each other? And for no noble purpose at all!
If you have a single, world government, what will change? Will human
nature suddenly have less need for freedom? Will an unfree people be
superior to people who have responsibility to make free choices? Will
global government be more responsive to the electorate than limited
government, or less responsive? Will it be more benevolent, or less?
You will have put all the world’s eggs into a single basket.
And that basket is much more likely to go rotten than utopian.
Matt, if a free people will not be a good people, then ultimately,
lack of freedom will make them only worse. If a government nearby is
corrupt, a distant government will be not only more corrupt, but wield
more power over you to boot.
Oh, and by the way, if your answer is to enact a world government that
somehow avoids all these pitfalls, then would it not be wise to first
try it out on a local level, just in case you’ve created a
monster which you can never recall?
World government without Jesus at its head is not a blessing, but a
curse.
Robert Arvay
mspm...@msn.com (Matt Menge) wrote in message news:<dc19cfc5.03040...@posting.google.com>...
> Rober...@msn.com (Robert Arvay) wrote in message news:<e247d7b6.03040...@posting.google.com>...
I don't know that you're missing anything. I was just using John 4 as
a source. Near the end of the chapter, the people of Sychar come out
to the well to see Jesus for themselves. They invite Him into their
city, where He spends a few days.
I think this is the way it is with believers. We first hear of Jesus
from someone else (and not necessarily from a pillar of the society!).
But only when we go to the well, that is, approach Jesus in prayer,
and make Him Lord of our lives, do we gain the full benefit of His
companionship.
May His blessings be upon us all!