Contact With Baha'is and the Baha'i Faith

[Sen_McGlinn]

You’re saying that the Bahai’s do not use a “high comma” in their lexicon but an apostrophe?

I’ve never heard of a “high comma” before, but from the example you pointed us to, I think it’s a good term for what Bahais usually call an apostrophe.

The Semitic languages, and Persian, have two glottal stop sounds for which there is no letter available in the Roman alphabet. A glottal stop is the first sound you make if you pause, tense up a bit, and say “every” quite emphatically. It works with any word beginning with a vowel. These sounds are usually represented with the apostrophe, for the soft glottal stop, and or a superscript c for the hard glottal stop (I gather that the soft glottal stop is similar to the one found in D'ante, where it is called a high comma). The conventions of using ' and for soft and hard stops derives from the signs used for a soft and hard breathing in Greek script.

However the usual transcription used in Bahai texts in European languages uses one sign, the apostrophe, for both the soft and hard stop, and to indicate an elided letter.

The word Baha’ has four written letters: b h aa and ’ (the first a is short and is not written, as in any Semitic language). It means Glory, and it’s a noun. When a noun is modified by an adjective, in semitic languages, it’s done like this [the house, the green (one)]: that is, the order is noun-article-adjective, rather than article-adjective-noun as in English (the green house). The same is true of a possessive: John’s book is “book, the John’s (one).” So the Glory of God is expressed as Glory, the God’s. However “the” is al- or in this case ul, and God is Allah, and one does not say ul-allah, but rather, [ullah]. That’s ellision, when the sounds are merged and something is dropped, and it’s indicated in Bahai orthography with an apostrophe. So we get Baha’ + u’llah, Baha’u’llah.

And what would it mean if I put the apostrophe in a different place, (as I often inadvertently type it as Bah’ai and have to backspace and correct it. That’s why I wonder what its significance is.)

It’s just a spelling mistake, but a common one, because people are familiar with the Hebrew word B’nai as in B’nai B’rith. As you will have noticed, I’ve dropped the apostrophe marking the soft stop in Bahai (and at the beginning of Abdu’l-Baha, which is usually written 'Abdu’l-Baha). I think these words have become anglicized and should be spelled in English, rather than transcribed from the Arabic alphabet. Moreover, the apostrophe at the beginning of a word is ambiguous with a single speech mark. Logically, I should write Bahaullah, but au looks like a dipthong, which it is not, so Baha’ullah would be a logical English spelling. Yet I actually use Baha’u’llah. Consistency is not my strong point

 

[Vouthon]

Greetings and blessings to you Sen McGlinn

Thank you for very thorough reply! It has helped me understand much about which i previously did not regarding the - to my eyes - odd usage of the word “theocracy” in referring to the Catholic Church.

One thing I still do not quite understand, although I fully endorse and accept your great intelligence and scholarship in this respect, is why Shoghi Effendi used the word “theocracy” at all when he must have known, that in the popular imagination and cultural usage of this term, it has the meaning of clerics or indeed any religious establishment possessing direct power over the affairs of civil government as happened in the Papal States and the various Caliphates?

I believe that if he had simply referred to the Catholic Church government, as “episcopal government” or “clerical government” or indeed “ecclesial government” then it would have avoided unneccessary confusion, as on my part - do you not agree?

I have never heard of theocracy used in the same vein as you describe Shoghi Effendi too have used it. Indeed it would appear to me that he has given the word a new meaning.

This is not all that helpful, to my mind, especially since the eyes of the Western world are today directed towards what is quite possibly the most theocratic of 21st century forms of government, the Islamic Republic of Iran which gives “theocracy” a most alarming and disturbing application in most peoples minds that is far removed from the spiritual, episcopal government of the Catholic Church or indeed the relatively tolerant (in Islamic terms) civil and spiritual government of the Ottomans.

 

[PRmerger]

I’ve never heard of a “high comma” before, but from the example you pointed us to, I think it’s a good term for what Bahais usually call an apostrophe.

The Semitic languages, and Persian, have two glottal stop sounds for which there is no letter available in the Roman alphabet. A glottal stop is the first sound you make if you pause, tense up a bit, and say “every” quite emphatically. It works with any word beginning with a vowel. These sounds are usually represented with the apostrophe, for the soft glottal stop, and or a superscript c for the hard glottal stop (I gather that the soft glottal stop is similar to the one found in D'ante, where it is called a high comma). The conventions of using ' and for soft and hard stops derives from the signs used for a soft and hard breathing in Greek script.

However the usual transcription used in Bahai texts in European languages uses one sign, the apostrophe, for both the soft and hard stop, and to indicate an elided letter.

The word Baha’ has four written letters: b h aa and ’ (the first a is short and is not written, as in any Semitic language). It means Glory, and it’s a noun. When a noun is modified by an adjective, in semitic languages, it’s done like this [the house, the green (one)]: that is, the order is noun-article-adjective, rather than article-adjective-noun as in English (the green house). The same is true of a possessive: John’s book is “book, the John’s (one).” So the Glory of God is expressed as Glory, the God’s. However “the” is al- or in this case ul, and God is Allah, and one does not say ul-allah, but rather, [ullah]. That’s ellision, when the sounds are merged and something is dropped, and it’s indicated in Bahai orthography with an apostrophe. So we get Baha’ + u’llah, Baha’u’llah.

It’s just a spelling mistake, but a common one, because people are familiar with the Hebrew word B’nai as in B’nai B’rith. As you will have noticed, I’ve dropped the apostrophe marking the soft stop in Bahai (and at the beginning of Abdu’l-Baha, which is usually written 'Abdu’l-Baha). I think these words have become anglicized and should be spelled in English, rather than transcribed from the Arabic alphabet. Moreover, the apostrophe at the beginning of a word is ambiguous with a single speech mark. Logically, I should write Bahaullah, but au looks like a dipthong, which it is not, so Baha’ullah would be a logical English spelling. Yet I actually use Baha’u’llah. Consistency is not my strong point

Fabulous explanation!

So the high comma in Baja’i represents a glottal stop sound?

 

[arthra]

Let’s think this through: a bunch of disciples experienced Jesus coming to them in a vision, and then they…. Please tell me what story they told about this vision.

Indeed, arthra. But this is a non-sequitur.

No one is denying that Christ did not commit his spirit to God.

PRmerger also wrote:

So they knew that he wasn’t actually “alive” but only “alive” in their hearts and minds and teachings?

*When did it get mistakenly assumed that Christ had literally risen? *

…

PRmerger…

Thanks for your post!

I’d ask you to study the reported incident of the Transfiguration on the Mount … this occurs in Mark 9:1-9; Matthew 17:1-9; Luke 9:28-36…these are pretty much the same story with slight variations…

In Luke it has:

28 *About eight days after Jesus said this, he took Peter, John and James with him and went up onto a mountain to pray. *29 As he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became as bright as a flash of lightning. 30 Two men, Moses and Elijah, appeared in glorious splendor, talking with Jesus. 31 They spoke about his departure,a] which he was about to bring to fulfillment at Jerusalem. 32 Peter and his companions were very sleepy, but when they became fully awake, they saw his glory and the two men standing with him. 33 As the men were leaving Jesus, Peter said to him, “Master, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.” (He did not know what he was saying.)
34 While he was speaking, a cloud appeared and covered them, and they were afraid as they entered the cloud. 35 A voice came from the cloud, saying, “This is my Son, whom I have chosen; listen to him.” 36 When the voice had spoken, they found that Jesus was alone. The disciples kept this to themselves and did not tell anyone at that time what they had seen.

…

Now let’s consider the following…

Here is a story about not only Christ but Moses and Elijah appearing to the three close disciples before the crucifixion of Jesus… Peter was beside himself and wants to build shelters or tabernacles for the three … and in Mark’s version: For he wist not what to say; for they were sore afraid…

I haven’t heard anyone saying that Moses and Elijah had to be there physically… Peter’s wanting to build shelters for Them is interesting… but he was beside himself. This is very similar to some of the reports after Jesus crucifixion… I think it’s possible the disciples did have visions and some latter wanted this to be a more physical or tangible kind of experience… but at the same time it is symbolic and a spiritual allegory.

There were people who reported visions but they did not seem to mind if they were not corporeal and physical.

Thanks for your post PRmerger…and God’s blessing to you!

 

[arthra]

Vouthon wrote above in a note to Sen:

This is not all that helpful, to my mind, especially since the eyes of the Western world are today directed towards what is quite possibly the most theocratic of 21st century forms of government, the Islamic Republic of Iran which gives “theocracy” a most alarming and disturbing application in most peoples minds that is far removed from the spiritual, episcopal government of the Catholic Church or indeed the relatively tolerant (in Islamic terms) civil and spiritual government of the Ottomans.

My comment:

Consider it again:

“What the Guardian was referring to was the Theocratic systems, such as the Catholic Church and the Caliphate, which are not divinely given as systems, but man-made and yet, having partly derived from the teachings of Christ and Muhammad are, in a sense, theocracies. The Bahá’í theocracy, on the contrary, is both divinely ordained as a system and, of course, based on the teachings of the Prophet Himself… Theophany is used in the sense of Dispensation…”

(Shoghi Effendi, Directives from the Guardian, p. 78)

It’s a note by his secretary that is directed at the development of the Caliphate and the Church:

“…divinely given as systems, but man-made and yet, having partly derived from the teachings of Christ and Muhammad are, in a sense, theocracies.”

And note the word “theocarcies” is qualified “…in a sense”.

I think it refers to a period long before the split in the church in 1054 CE…so it is a reference to events that occurred well before the current events today and has more to do with the issue of how these institutions began to incorporate “man made” elements.

As to the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979 few groups that I am aware of are not more apprised of the effects of this than the Baha’is. I would direct your attention to the following:

question.bahai.org/007_1.php

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerger also wrote:

So they knew that he wasn’t actually “alive” but only “alive” in their hearts and minds and teachings?

*When did it get mistakenly assumed that Christ had literally risen? *

…

PRmerger…

Thanks for your post!

I’d ask you to study the reported incident of the Transfiguration on the Mount … this occurs in Mark 9:1-9; Matthew 17:1-9; Luke 9:28-36…these are pretty much the same story with slight variations…

In Luke it has:

28 About eight days after Jesus said this, he took Peter, John and James with him and went up onto a mountain to pray. **29 As he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became as bright as a flash of lightning. 30 Two men, Moses and Elijah, appeared in glorious splendor, talking with Jesus. 31 They spoke about his departure,a] which he was about to bring to fulfillment at Jerusalem. 32 Peter and his companions were very sleepy, but when they became fully awake, they saw his glory and the two men standing with him. 33 As the men were leaving Jesus, Peter said to him, “Master, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.” (He did not know what he was saying.)
34 While he was speaking, a cloud appeared and covered them, and they were afraid as they entered the cloud. 35 A voice came from the cloud, saying, “This is my Son, whom I have chosen; listen to him.” 36 When the voice had spoken, they found that Jesus was alone. The disciples kept this to themselves and did not tell anyone at that time what they had seen.

…

Now let’s consider the following…

Here is a story about not only Christ but Moses and Elijah appearing to the three close disciples before the crucifixion of Jesus… Peter was beside himself and wants to build shelters or tabernacles for the three … and in Mark’s version: For he wist not what to say; for they were sore afraid…

I haven’t heard anyone saying that Moses and Elijah had to be there physically… Peter’s wanting to build shelters for Them is interesting… but he was beside himself. This is very similar to some of the reports after Jesus crucifixion… I think it’s possible the disciples did have visions and some latter wanted this to be a more physical or tangible kind of experience… but at the same time it is symbolic and a spiritual allegory.

There were people who reported visions but they did not seem to mind if they were not corporeal and physical.

Thanks for your post PRmerger…and God’s blessing to you!

Right back at 'cha, arthra!

I appreciate your comments. Could you please address my question below, and fill in the blank as to what happened after the disciples experienced this vision of Christ returning?

Thanks.

Let’s think this through: a bunch of disciples experienced Jesus coming to them in a vision, and then they…. Please tell me what story they told about this vision.

 

[PRmerger]

Now let’s consider the following…

Here is a story about not only Christ but Moses and Elijah appearing to the three close disciples before the crucifixion of Jesus… Peter was beside himself and wants to build shelters or tabernacles for the three … and in Mark’s version: For he wist not what to say; for they were sore afraid…

I haven’t heard anyone saying that Moses and Elijah had to be there physically… Peter’s wanting to build shelters for Them is interesting… but he was beside himself. This is very similar to some of the reports after Jesus crucifixion… I think it’s possible the disciples did have visions and some latter wanted this to be a more physical or tangible kind of experience… but at the same time it is symbolic and a spiritual allegory.

There were people who reported visions but they did not seem to mind if they were not corporeal and physical.

Thanks for your post PRmerger…and God’s blessing to you!

Indeed. They reported visions of Moses and Elijah. And everyone in Christianity understood that it was visions.

Why, then, did everyone in Christianity understand the disciples to mean NOT A VISION?

And why were the apostles killed for proclaiming that it was, not a vision, but a true resurrection?

 

[arthra]

Thanks PGmerger for your post,

PGmerger wrote:

I appreciate your comments. Could you please address my question below, and fill in the blank as to what happened after the disciples experienced this vision of Christ returning?

Thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PRmerger
Let’s think this through: a bunch of disciples experienced Jesus coming to them in a vision, and then they…. Please tell me what story they told about this vision.

My comment:

To be honest PG I thought you had some kind of glitch in your computer…

I had no idea you wanted me to fill in the missing word(s) for you… I would suggest you refer to the Transfiguration of the Mount story for some hints… or you might refer to the story of Paul on his way to Damascus… or another story…

PGmerger wrote:

Indeed. They reported visions of Moses and Elijah. And everyone in Christianity understood that it was visions.

Why, then, did everyone in Christianity understand the disciples to mean NOT A VISION?

And why were the apostles killed for proclaiming that it was, not a vision, but a true resurrection?

My comment:

Well Peter wanted to build three tabernacles each … one for Christ, one for Elijah and one for Moses…

Personally I suspect that (1) there were doctrines that developed later in the church through it’s creedal statements that was one factor involved … I also think (2) the understanding you suggest came about gradually as there were some people called Docetists and Gnostics who had their own views.

The story of the apostles suggests to me that they were martyred for teaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ, His teachings…One apparently, John the Apostle son of Zebedee died in exile and others were martyred. Many of the early Christians were martyred because they refused to give offerings to the Emperor. I think it’s likely PGmerger that you have heard many of these stories where the early Christians refused to renounce Christ.

Baha’is also have had martyrdoms not unlike those recorded of the early Christian martyrs… Marcus Bach wrote:

“Ten thousand were killed between 1850 and 1860. Never since the time of the early Christians had followers of a new religion been so persecuted.”
Source:

bahai-library.com/bach_they_found_faith

For some background on this see:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%ADs

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statements_about_the_persecution_of_Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%ADs

God bless you PG!

 

[Sen_McGlinn]

One thing I still do not quite understand, … is why Shoghi Effendi used the word “theocracy” at all when he must have known, that in the popular imagination and cultural usage of this term, it has the meaning of clerics or indeed any religious establishment possessing direct power over the affairs of civil government as happened in the Papal States and the various Caliphates?

I believe that if he had simply referred to the Catholic Church government, as “episcopal government” or “clerical government” or indeed “ecclesial government” then it would have avoided unneccessary confusion, as on my part - do you not agree?

So far as I know, Shoghi Effendi himself does not apply the word theocracy or theocratic to the Catholic Church. That link is made in a letter written on his behalf (he did not, normally, dictate these letters, their words are not his own choices). That letter is wrtten in response to a question, and I do not know what the question was. Perhaps the question asked something about the Catholic church and caliphate.

In Shoghi Effendi’s own letters, he uses the word theocracy where he is talking about the fundamental principles that underlie systems of governance – whether it be political government or church government. In ‘The Dispensation of Baha’u’llah,’ he refers to:

… the recognized types of theocracy, whether it be the Hebrew Commonwealth, or the various Christian ecclesiastical organizations, or the Imamate or the Caliphate in Islam …

and in God Passes By:

… any system, whether theocratic or otherwise, which the minds of men have devised for the government of human institutions. … or to any of the various theocracies, whether Jewish, Christian or Islamic which mankind has witnessed in the past.

He’s talking about issues that apply both in politics and in religion (although the answers in the two spheres are different): does the majority rule? are the rulers responsible to those who elect them? is there are written rule that binds the rulers, or can everything in principle be changed? Hereditary rule, rule by majority vote, rule by the majority constrained by a constitution, rule by the nobility, etc are options for human governance that can be applied in politics and in religion, and this is a different question to whether the state should rule religion (caesaropapism) or religion should rule the state (theocracy) or the two should be separate and competing (religion as a check on the state), or separate and cooperative.

I think Shoghi Effendi’s use of theocracy to refer to "the Hebrew Commonwealth, or the various Christian ecclesiastical organizations… " (that is, to forms of ordering the religious community) was not very unusual in his time. Theocracy entered English as a term describing the Hebrew Commonwealth, that is the period of judges. Henry Hart Milman, who edited Gibbon’s Decline and Fall and added copious footnotes to it (1838 edition) uses theocracy to refer to the whole period up to the monarchy. He writes that Moses’ “primary object was to establish a firm theocracy, to make his people the conservators of the divine Unity, the basis upon which Christianity was hereafter to rest.” and that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul was “by no means necessary for the establishment of the theocracy.” This is not a tight political-science use of the term. Shoghi Effendi read Gibbons closely – he’s reputed to have liked to have a volume of Decline and Fall by his bed.

That leads to a general point when reading Shoghi Effendi’s English: his usage is British, and from the 1920’s, and modeled on authors who were stately and old-fashioned even then. “Commonwealth” for example changed its meaning after WW2, when the fate of the British Commonwealth was the big topic in the English press. That’s quite a different commonwealth to the commonwealth under Cromwell, or the Hebrew Commonwealth (or for that matter in Massachusetts, but Shoghi Effendi is not likely to have been much influenced by American usage).

This is not all that helpful, to my mind, especially since the eyes of the Western world are today directed towards what is quite possibly the most theocratic of 21st century forms of government, the Islamic Republic of Iran which gives “theocracy” a most alarming and disturbing application in most peoples minds that is far removed from the spiritual, episcopal government of the Catholic Church or indeed the relatively tolerant (in Islamic terms) civil and spiritual government of the Ottomans.

Agreed. When the basic model of “theocracy” was the Hebrew theocracy, it had positive connotations, including endorsement by God and the absence of an absolute monarch. Shoghi Effendi’s use is generally neutral: when he disapproves he uses an adjective, as in “the effete theocracy” (of the declining Ottoman empire). And in that case, 'theocracy" does have a political-science meaning, for (as Shoghi Effendi hints in the reference), the institutions of Caliphate and Sultanate were combined. The last Sultans claimed religious authority over all Muslims, as well as being temporal rulers of the Ottoman empire.

Today, “theocracy” popularly has pejorative connotations as you say. But when the secretary referred to the Catholic Church as a theocracy (1949) it was not in a pejorative sense, but quite positive: a recognition of the scriptural mandate of the Papacy, which, with the Caliphate is:

“partly derived from the teachings of Christ and Muhammad [and therefore], in a sense, theocracies.”

 

[Sen_McGlinn]

So the high comma in Baja’i represents a glottal stop sound?

Yes, a soft one. Which Bahais in the west do not pronounce, so I generally leave it out.

 

[Vouthon]

Sen McGlinn, my dear chap, you have answered my question perfectly. I now have complete understanding where before I was deeply confused. What a brilliant scholar you are. A credit to your faith. You have a fantastic knowledge of your religion’s sacred scriptures and official statements from the Guardian. I am impressed

I have never heard of this other etymological origin and use of the word “theocracy” by Gibbon in reference to the Hebrew Commonwealth. Fascinating.

 

[Singapore_Nick]

Other than JESUS, there is NO other way which men can be saved…therefore having nothing to do with Bahai

its founder claimed to be “jesus”

 

[arthra]

Other than JESUS, there is NO other way which men can be saved…therefore having nothing to do with Bahai

its founder claimed to be “jesus”

Thanks for your post Singapore!

Baha’is do accept that Jesus was a Manifestation of God and therefore Mediator between God and HIs creation.

 

[PRmerger]

Thanks PGmerger for your post,

PGmerger wrote:

I appreciate your comments. Could you please address my question below, and fill in the blank as to what happened after the disciples experienced this vision of Christ returning?

To be honest PG I thought you had some kind of glitch in your computer…

LOL!

And speaking of glitches, could you please learn to use the quote feature properly? It will make it a lot easier for you to respond, instead of cutting and pasting, and much prettier for us to read.

See this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=19771

I had no idea you wanted me to fill in the missing word(s) for you… I would suggest you refer to the Transfiguration of the Mount story for some hints… or you might refer to the story of Paul on his way to Damascus… or another story…

 

[arthra]

PR merger,

Sorry…I have a feeling that you want me to tell you more about your religion and argue with you so if you have questions about Baha’i Faith I can answer for you that will be sufficient… for now…as you already know we accept the resurrection of Jesus as a spiritual rather than a literal physical one.

God bless you!

 

[PRmerger]

PR merger,

Sorry…I have a feeling that you want me to tell you more about your religion and argue with you so if you have questions about Baha’i Faith I can answer for you that will be sufficient… for now…as you already know we accept the resurrection of Jesus as a spiritual rather than a literal physical one.

God bless you!

Oh, no. I don’t want to argue. :nope:

I do want to know what the Bahai’s believe about Christ’s resurrection. But I also want you to think it through, so you don’t just accept what someone has told you without considering the logic of it.

So, it would be helpful to me (and, I believe, to you) if you could explain what the Bahai’ faith says (in your own words) about how and why the disciples believed that the Lord’s resurrection was merely a spiritual one. And what they did with this info the next day (metaphorically speaking.)

But, no, I don’t wish to argue. Only to posit things, and perhaps offer objections (I hope you’re ok with that?) and make you think about what it is that you’ve accepted.

 

[arthra]

Thanks again for your post!

PGmerger wrote avove:

“I don’t think you’ve really thought it through. I think you’ve just believed something that another man/woman told you: the resurrection was a spiritual one and not a corporeal one. That sounded good to you and you ended your thought process right there…But I also want you to think it through, so you don’t just accept what someone has told you without considering the logic of it.”

My reply:

I assure you PG I have thought it through and haven’t ended my “thought process” and I don’t “just accept what someone has told” me…

It may be turning your statement around could suggest a few things if you asked:

Whether many people have accepted the “physical resurrection” of Jesus just because someone told them over the centuries that Jesus rose physically from the dead repeatedly and ended their thought processes…”right there” …without considering the logic of it.

but I have no desire to engage with you here about it or enter a long discussion as it is a doctrinal matter that was decided a long time ago for your church.

 

[PRmerger]

Thanks again for your post!

PGmerger wrote avove:

“I don’t think you’ve really thought it through. I think you’ve just believed something that another man/woman told you: the resurrection was a spiritual one and not a corporeal one. That sounded good to you and you ended your thought process right there…But I also want you to think it through, so you don’t just accept what someone has told you without considering the logic of it.”

My reply:

I assure you PG I have thought it through and haven’t ended my “thought process” and I don’t “just accept what someone has told” me…

It may be turning your statement around could suggest a few things if you asked:

Whether many people have accepted the “physical resurrection” of Jesus just because someone told them over the centuries that Jesus rose physically from the dead repeatedly and ended their thought processes…”right there” …without considering the logic of it.

but I have no desire to engage with you here about it or enter a long discussion as it is a doctrinal matter that was decided a long time ago.

I think it’s quite telling that you have been unable to answer the question, arthra, that I have posed to you, at least 4 times here.

If you cannot engage in a dialogue with someone who is asking you to take it one step further, that is, of course, your choice.

But it speaks volumes about what you have accepted as truth.

 

[PRmerger]

Whether many people have accepted the “physical resurrection” of Jesus just because someone told them over the centuries that Jesus rose physically from the dead repeatedly and ended their thought processes…”right there” …without considering the logic of it.

Fair enough.

But you will find thousands of witness proclaiming that they saw Jesus physically resurrected.

Not a single document claims that it was merely a vision.

Now, if there were some evidence that this was the belief proclaimed by the witnesses, and that they DIED for this belief, that would be a little more convincing that the Baha’i position ought to be considered.

As it is, there appears to be no logic to embrace this Baha’i paradigm.

 

[arthra]

I think it’s quite telling that you have been unable to answer the question, arthra, that I have posed to you, at least 4 times here.

If you cannot engage in a dialogue with someone who is asking you to take it one step further, that is, of course, your choice.

But it speaks volumes about what you have accepted as truth.

And also indeed what you have accepted as truth…let it be.