10 of 11 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Bad choice - even for Christians, September 28, 2000
By A Customer
This review is from: Baha'i: A Christian Response to Baha'ism (Paperback)
For those who pointed out that the Bahai reviewers did not site specific details, go to http://bci.org/prophecy-fulfilled/pterry.htm
It should be noted that Dr Beckwith has repeatedly quoted or paraphrased individual Bahai's with the intention of claiming this is what all Bahai's believe.
If you are looking for arguments to use against Bahai's, this is not a good book, since most Bahai's would question some of the assumptions made about Bahai beliefs, including the assumption made right on the title. Bahai's never use the word "Bahai'ism" Why should you? It would just make you look ignorant.
I'm sure you could investigate the Bahai beliefs on your own and come up with your own conclusions. Your arguments would have more weight, because they would be your arguments, not parroted half-truths.
If you are looking for information about what Bahai's believe, this is also not a good book, because the views presented by Dr Beckwith are not always accurate. If you want non-biased information, there are many sources written by non-Bahai's, and those sources are frequently much more accurate.
Read the websites opinion on the so-called "conspiracy" to edit out a prophesy... I think you'll se that this just illustrates my point.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
6 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Christian writer on the attack, October 25, 2002
By A Customer
This review is from: Baha'i: A Christian Response to Baha'ism (Paperback)
This small book is a presentation of the Baha'i faith (or some aspects of it) from the viewpoint of an evangelical writer - one of those who fortifies his faith and thinks he shows his love for Jesus by attacking the beliefs of others. Eevn the attacks are unoriginal. There is nothing here that hasn't been written elsewhere. More to the point, there is nothing here that hasn't been refuted elsewhere.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
16 of 20 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
A Unitarian Defence of Baha'i Discourse, July 4, 1999
This review is from: Baha'i: A Christian Response to Baha'ism (Paperback)
I acknowledge that Beckwith's fundamentalist critique of Bahai teachings is intended as a piece of fundamentalist Christian apologetics, which intends to advance the propositional claims of his version of Christianity. Still, let's have a look at some of his points.
Beckwith's main argument seems to be that Baha'i teachings are syncretist,and lack logical coherence. However, I would argue that many Orthodox Jewish logicians might respond that the same is true about Christianity, and suggest that the particular interpretative community and hermeneutic strategies that are deployed are inconsistent with their interpretation of Jewish religious tradition. In several places, Beckwith seems to plead a priori inferences as substantive propositions about human comprehension of the trinity. As a Unitarian, I would respond that Baha'i may well practice value pluralism and syncretism, so how is an anti-syncretist claim illegitimate?
Beckwith exposes the limitations of his position when he makes a third a priori claim about the sole legitimacy of his specific fundamentalist Christian interpretative community and its own hermeneutics of biblical interpretation, against Bahai interpretations, yet he has previously admitted that some elements of the trinity may be beyond rational comprehension.
Moreover, Beckwith runs into some trouble himself when he takes Baha'i selective literalism to task. I might say the same about conservatively correct fundamentalist proof texts that refer to homosexuality, and an anti-abortion stance is not defensible from any interpretation of biblical content. Fundamentalists are as guilty of selective biblical intepretation to serve their own ideological ends as Beckwith accuses Baha'i.
I suspect Beckwith's real beef is a question of open versus closed hermeneutics. Baha'i belief seems to be syncretist, and Beckwith argues that his particular closed fundamentalist hermeneutic interpretative community is better than Baha'i equivalents, while he resorts to analogy and ropes in the Reverend Moon as a corollary for his purposes. That's all very well, but both fundamentalism and the Unification Church are closed and authoritarian interpretative communities -which may explain their convergent political conservatism and collaboration. In a subsequent version of this book, Beckwith also made the arrogant assertion that the Bible predicted the divinity of Christ, and that first- century Jews expected a triumphalist Messiah. I find this utterly obnoxious as well as historically inaccurate, and it shows the limits of fundamentalist Christian apologetics as an academic discipline. He then refers to some divergent Baha'i schools- I find this amusing, considering the extreme fissaparous nature of fundamentalist Protestantism.
I deplore the ethics of this project. Beckwith compares Baha'i to Jews in some places. It is precisely because Baha'i refused to abandon their veneration for Baha'u'llah that they suffered religious persecution in Iran during the eighties. I am not a Baha'i, but I gladly defend these peaceful and humanitarian people against proponents of an exclusivist worldview. I applaud their resistance to Beckwith, and urge them to stand fast in their faith, for it is certainly worthy of respect.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
