The Bahai theology may sound like a good alternative to Christianity or Islam to some, but it has a major theological problem.
It simultaneously claims that Bahá'u'lláh was a prophet of God as was Muhammad, but the issue is that Islam teaches that Muhammad was the final prophet sent to all of mankind, based upon a verse from the Qur'an.
In order to take the Bahai faith as theologically credible, you have to take that Qur'anic teaching as figurative, and to be consistent, you pretty much have to take everything else in the Qur'an to be figurative, to be consistent.
But if that teaching is figurative, then why should any of the Bahai teachings be taken literally?
Charlie made the claim that it's no big deal that Newton was a Christian, saying he was also allegedly homosexual, so that him being Christian is no more relevant to him being a scientist as being homosexual.
In that I disagree. It is very significant that he was a Christian. The main issue there is that post-1950s scientists have generally been openly and virulently anti-Christian with Richard Dawkins and James Watson being two poster boys for that, as well as several Jewish "atheist" scientists like Lawrence Krauss.
These people betray their unscientific approach, because they are hostile to Christianity not because many of its teachings can't be scientifically verified, but because of past history of Roman Catholic Church limitations on freedom of expression and research.
Some of the top string theorists are a bunch of total phoneys, in rejecting any creator of the universe, yet talking out of the other side of their mouths about a hypothetical multiverse that just came into existence through chance.
It has rightly been pointed out that string theory involves approximations of approximations, and some quantum physicists don't even accept string theory as valid.
2 comments:
The Bahai theology may sound like a good alternative to Christianity or Islam to some, but it has a major theological problem.
It simultaneously claims that Bahá'u'lláh was a prophet of God as was Muhammad, but the issue is that Islam teaches that Muhammad was the final prophet sent to all of mankind, based upon a verse from the Qur'an.
In order to take the Bahai faith as theologically credible, you have to take that Qur'anic teaching as figurative, and to be consistent, you pretty much have to take everything else in the Qur'an to be figurative, to be consistent.
But if that teaching is figurative, then why should any of the Bahai teachings be taken literally?
Charlie made the claim that it's no big deal that Newton was a Christian, saying he was also allegedly homosexual, so that him being Christian is no more relevant to him being a scientist as being homosexual.
In that I disagree. It is very significant that he was a Christian. The main issue there is that post-1950s scientists have generally been openly and virulently anti-Christian with Richard Dawkins and James Watson being two poster boys for that, as well as several Jewish "atheist" scientists like Lawrence Krauss.
These people betray their unscientific approach, because they are hostile to Christianity not because many of its teachings can't be scientifically verified, but because of past history of Roman Catholic Church limitations on freedom of expression and research.
Some of the top string theorists are a bunch of total phoneys, in rejecting any creator of the universe, yet talking out of the other side of their mouths about a hypothetical multiverse that just came into existence through chance.
It has rightly been pointed out that string theory involves approximations of approximations, and some quantum physicists don't even accept string theory as valid.
Post a Comment