Anti-monotheism as a religion

[paarsurrey]

We do not disagree all that often.
It just turns out that we disagree entirely regarding certain things.

I agree with one here.
The contents of my post #157 provide us a sound reason to be specially most respectful to the founders of those revealed religions.
Bahaullah, however, is not included among them as he does not merit to fit with them.
Yet, I will rather cooperate with the Bahaism people in social and humanitarian matters, being common causes.

Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

Fair enough. It still worries me that so much leeway is given so arbitrarily for a few dozen people.

In my experience (and according to history) that leads to a lot of dangerous, catastrophic situations that could be otherwise avoided.

 

[paarsurrey]

Fair enough. It still worries me that so much leeway is given so arbitrarily for a few dozen people.

In my experience (and according to history) that leads to a lot of dangerous, catastrophic situations that could be otherwise avoided.

I don't get one exactly.
Please elaborate.
Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't get one exactly.
Please elaborate.
Regards

I have trouble with the claim that there are specific people that are expected to be reverenced "out of duty" due to a presumed divine message.

People are expected to have legitimate disagreements about that.

All the more so because those people do not even really agree all that often among themselves.

 

[paarsurrey]

I have trouble with the claim that there are specific people that are expected to be reverenced "out of duty" due to a presumed divine message.

People are expected to have legitimate disagreements about that.

All the more so because those people do not even really agree all that often among themselves.

People don't realize that religious realm is different than the secular one.
Nevertheless, there is no compulsion to believe.

Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

People don't realize that religious realm is different than the secular one.
Nevertheless, there is no compulsion to believe.

Regards

I do not fail to realize that. I challenge that claim directly.

Religion is an activity that happens in this world with real people. It can't claim privilege of exception until and unless it somehow insulates itself from this world.

 

[Jim]

I still think that what I was calling a religion has everything that makes a religion a religion, except for people calling it a religion. Now I’m calling it the Popular Science Faith. Two of its names for God are “truth” and “reality.” It substitutes factional interpretations of academic and industry research in the place of factional interpretations of religious scriptures. All the psychological and social dynamics are the same, which makes sense because it’s all part of human nature.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I still think that what I was calling a religion has everything that makes a religion a religion, except for people calling it a religion.

Did you ever actually say what you think "makes a religion a religion?"

 

[Jim]

Did you ever actually say what you think "makes a religion a religion?"

I don’t remember if I did or not. Part of it is sacred scriptures.

 

[Marcion]

Did you ever actually say what you think "makes a religion a religion?"

A religion must have superstitious or irrational beliefs and/or ritualism and/or myths and/or 'geosentiment* or sociosentiment*'.

If it doesn't have any of these characteristics you could better call it a spiritual movement or a spiritual cult.

* Geosentiment means the religion is associated with a certain "sacred" or special country or place(s) (often cause for pilgrimages).
* Sociosentiment means that a certain group of people is given privileges over "outsiders" e.g. on grounds of descent.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don’t remember if I did or not. Part of it is sacred scriptures.

Ah - so atheism doesn't meet the one criteria you've given.

 

[Jim]

Ah - so atheism doesn't meet the one criteria you've given.

Are you equating atheism with anti-monotheism? I’m not. Anyway, I changed the goalposts. The quasi-religion I’m talking about isn’t anti-monotheism any more. It’s popular science worship. Its scriptures are academic and industry research.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are you equating atheism with anti-monotheism? I’m not.

My mistake.

Anyway, I changed the goalposts. The quasi-religion I’m talking about isn’t anti-monotheism any more. It’s popular science worship. Its scriptures are academic and industry research.

Are they now.

 

[paarsurrey]

Hi @LuisDantas

Its hard to drop in on this thread and explain the last few thousand years of religious history leading up to this moment. To complicate matters we speak different languages. I speak the language of an Abrahamic paradigm. I'm also slowly learning the language of a Dharmic paradigm which is the way you tend to think. With these limitations in mind lets consider some key issues.



The Baha'i Faith uses the phrase 'Manifestation of God' in relation to nine known religious revelations:

The nine religions to which you have referred include both the Bábí and the Bahá'í Dispensations, Bahá'u'lláh being the ninth Prophet in the series. The other Prophets included are Zoroaster, Krishna, Moses, the Christ, Muhammad, Buddha, the Prophet of the Sabaeans Whose name is unrecorded

Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster and Related Subjects

Manifestations of God | What Bahá’ís Believe



Each of these Great Beings revealed both eternal truth (Dharma) and transient laws and principles that were only applicable to the age for which they were revealed. We all have some capacity to access some of these truths or spiritual principles but not nearly to the same degree as the Manifestations. That's why we need these Manifestations individually and collectively. Otherwise we can lose our way. So as humans we are expected to recognise the Manifestations, including the most recent One and follow their Teachings.

The implications are enormous as you have quite rightly highlighted.



Hope that helps.

'Manifestation of God' Unquote.

What words did Bahaullah himself use for this term in his original writing, in Arabic or Persian whatever, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Marcion said: ↑
Could it be true that the monotheistic faiths describe their so-called 'messengers', 'prophets' and 'sons of God' mostly in relation to their perceived harmony with the "Will of God"?

So it would seem.

Islam is against the term "Son of G-d" in literal and physical sense.
The term "Manifestation of G-d" is coined by Bahai religion, it has also not been used in Quran.
If yes, please quote the verse of Quran with the verses in the context for correct understanding of such verses.

Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

Islam is against the term "Son of G-d" in literal and physical sense.

That it is. The reasons why are not particularly clear, and the choice feels rather arbitrary, though.

Personally, I don't think that has any discernible benefit to a doctrine that is so emphatically monotheistic and that takes as a given that there is perfect and eternal value in the Qur'an.

The term "Manifestation of G-d" is coined by Bahai religion, it has also not been used in Quran.

Indeed.

If yes, please quote the verse of Quran with the verses in the context for correct understanding of such verses.

Regards

The Qur'an is just scripture. As such, it could never, even hypothetically, have much of an impact in any religion.

The context, however, that is very much significant. A religion - or even a doctrine such as Islaam - is no more and no less than what its adherents make of it.


Shia Islaam, I have learned, hold the Al-Bayt and the Twelve Imams in a regard that seems to me to be fairly comparable to the idea of a Son of God. Of course, it is very easy indeed to simply point out that there is no clear support for such an idea in the Qur'an.

In that sense, Sunni and Ahmadiyya Islaam have somewhat better cases for arguing that they do not idolatrize their prophets and their scripture. But still not much of one, mainly because they still saddle themselves with a lot of focus on God-concepts and not nearly enough on actual religious practice.

 

[paarsurrey]

I do not fail to realize that. I challenge that claim directly.

Religion is an activity that happens in this world with real people. It can't claim privilege of exception until and unless it somehow insulates itself from this world.

Please give one's reasons and arguments, and I will give mine, no harm. And we both understand that on most occasion we agree with on-another and on some we don't, in a friendly way. Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

That it is. The reasons why are not particularly clear, and the choice feels rather arbitrary, though.

Personally, I don't think that has any discernible benefit to a doctrine that is so emphatically monotheistic and that takes as a given that there is perfect and eternal value in the Qur'an.

Indeed.

The Qur'an is just scripture. As such, it could never, even hypothetically, have much of an impact in any religion.

The context, however, that is very much significant. A religion - or even a doctrine such as Islaam - is no more and no less than what its adherents make of it.

Shia Islaam, I have learned, hold the Al-Bayt and the Twelve Imams in a regard that seems to me to be fairly comparable to the idea of a Son of God. Of course, it is very easy indeed to simply point out that there is no clear support for such an idea in the Qur'an.

In that sense, Sunni and Ahmadiyya Islaam have somewhat better cases for arguing that they do not idolatrize their prophets and their scripture. But still not much of one, mainly because they still saddle themselves with a lot of focus on God-concepts and not nearly enough on actual religious practice.

"there is perfect and eternal value in the Qur'an" Unquote.

Yes, Quran has, but there is not compulsion to believe in it.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

That it is. The reasons why are not particularly clear, and the choice feels rather arbitrary, though.

Personally, I don't think that has any discernible benefit to a doctrine that is so emphatically monotheistic and that takes as a given that there is perfect and eternal value in the Qur'an.

Indeed.

The Qur'an is just scripture. As such, it could never, even hypothetically, have much of an impact in any religion.

The context, however, that is very much significant. A religion - or even a doctrine such as Islaam - is no more and no less than what its adherents make of it.

Shia Islaam, I have learned, hold the Al-Bayt and the Twelve Imams in a regard that seems to me to be fairly comparable to the idea of a Son of God. Of course, it is very easy indeed to simply point out that there is no clear support for such an idea in the Qur'an.

In that sense, Sunni and Ahmadiyya Islaam have somewhat better cases for arguing that they do not idolatrize their prophets and their scripture. But still not much of one, mainly because they still saddle themselves with a lot of focus on God-concepts and not nearly enough on actual religious practice.

"Of course, it is very easy indeed to simply point out that there is no clear support for such an idea in the Qur'an." Unquote.

The verses they quote has "no", repeat "no" support in the context verses. Therefore, it is not based in Quran.
Islam is not a racial religion.
But, then, there is no compulsion to believe it or not to believe in it.
Islam is not a racial religion.
Regards

 

[SomeRandom]

I still think that what I was calling a religion has everything that makes a religion a religion, except for people calling it a religion. Now I’m calling it the Popular Science Faith. Two of its names for God are “truth” and “reality.” It substitutes factional interpretations of academic and industry research in the place of factional interpretations of religious scriptures. All the psychological and social dynamics are the same, which makes sense because it’s all part of human nature.

Well truth and reality are certainly better than fiction and make believe.
Religious scripture is at best wisdom wrapped in literary devices.
Academic research by definition is a rather more accurate way to view the world. How dare people see reality as it is?
I say this as someone who is somewhat theistically inclined, I'd rather facts over feelings. At least debate over scientific discoveries hasn't claimed anyone's literal life. Can't say the same for religious conflicts though.