Atheist, Christian, and Baha'i Cosmologies

[Truthseeker]

Disclaimer: This is the same post essentially as that which started a debate last week, which was titled "Introduction to the Baha'i Faith", but the entire thread was lost. I am starting this again.

This video starts with the atheist “cosmology”. It talks about the big bang, evolution, humans are different only because we have bigger brains, and then goes on to say that atheists don't see any purpose inherent in the Universe but we can make our own individual purposes. There's no objective moral truth. The perspective offered is a generalized simplified version of the atheist perspective. Everybody is different. He says so explicitly in this video that it's over simplified, so it won't be too long.

The Christian cosmology he presents is also a simplification of the Christian perspective. There were prophets before Jesus, who was His only begotten Son. There was the virgin birth, was baptized, saw the Holy Spirit manifested in a dove, and preached the gospel, performed many miracles and eventually was put to death. The only way to the Father is through Him, and He died for our sins on the cross, and was resurrected three days later, and went back up to be with His Father. Some day He will return and take true believers with Him and/or build the kingdom of God on Earth. The Christian view is that salvation of one's immortal soul comes from believing in Christ, being baptized, and that good Christian eventually go to heaven, and most others go to hell. There's more to it than that. Keep in mind this is only one Baha'is perspective also, as he says in the beginning.

I believe he only showed atheism and Christianity perspectives because he is primarily speaking to the Christian world, which this forum is obviously not limited to.

His perspective of the Baha'i Faith is his also. Point number1 is that He taught that there is one God with many names, and all who worship are praying to the same God. An all-loving, all-knowing creative force in us and around us as well as in an infinite number of other worlds beyond this material one. These worlds are spiritual ones we can go to after we die.

The next point is that there is only one religion. Baha'u'llah taught there is one religion ever unfolding under the agency of God. This one faith is gradually revealed and updated by certain divine teachers, who come along over 500 or 1000 years or so. We need to progress spiritually over time as well as materially, socially, and technologically. Over a long period of time, more Divine Teachers will be sent. There is a great of difference between, for instance Islam and Buddhism, but if you look at what the Prophets taught, what they specifically said, or what they are supposed to have said, keeping in mind that sometimes they didn't write down what they said for hundreds of years, there are way more similarities than differences. These similarities are laid out at the 7:49 mark of the video, which goes on until 9:18 approximately.

He presents the Baha'i perspective that what is most needed in today's world is unity which is point 3. He presents the approximation that one billion people go to bed hungry each night and that must be acted upon if we really are to consider each person as good the next person. Racism is brought up, which is a barrier to unity. Economic injustice is another one. In October 2019 when this video was put online 26 men owned half as much as the rest of the planet, he says, which is unsustainable in the long run. Women being treated as second class citizens is another problem. Science and religion must be in harmony. It's a kind of disunity if they are not. We are supposed to fight for the social justice, and live lives of service. I add my thought that this fight for social justice should be from a nonpartisan perspective.

This is something that should be critically examined, and explored in further investigation, not taken at face value, while also keeping in mind this is not the “official” Baha'i position. He says at the end that this does need further exploration to verify all of this. He enters the plea in any case for us to all to work together, whatever your religion, and also if you are an atheist.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

(Part 1 of 2)

Hello Truthseeker,

Thank you for the reintroduction to your religion. This time I am saving what I write to you in Microsoft Word so nothing is lost. I plan on spending an hour writing and editing this one post as I essentially give you the same post I fed into your thread last time, however, I will reveal a few things I decided not to share the first time I discussed this with you.

The first thing that I want to point out is when I was first doing research on new religious movements on Wikipedia, the two religions that stand out to me the most are modern Unitarianism and the Baha’I Faith. Starting at age 19, over ten years ago, I accessed Wikipedia’s list of NRMs and discovered many religions. These two just seemed to be what I consider to be the best ones. Wikipedia’s articles on the Baha’is are extensive and even though it is not flagged for advertisement, it almost reads as if it is.

The way I introduced myself to this fine religion was skimming many Wikipedia articles on this religion. I started with the main page, and then taught myself the stories of The Bab, Baha’u’llah, among other important figures of this religion. Then I started to read and listen to the scriptures in audiobooks. I became intimately involved in this religion. To this day I own Gleanings in hard cover and audiobook formats. But I would like to use this space not just for praise but for constructive criticism of this religion too.

The obligatory prayers, whether they are short, medium or long, do in some ways help shape the fortitude of every Baha’I, however, I get more from praying when it comes from the heart and not from a book. I believe God can hear everything, not just prayers, so whether I’m talking to someone else, or myself, or thinking, God is involved with and understands every part of me either way. Reciting prayers that someone else wrote isn’t nearly as impactful as when I’m doing it because I need to.

The 19-day fast that occurs in the last month of the Baha’I calendar year is a form of asceticism, which ironically is something Baha’u’llah outlawed in the religion. I don’t need to stop eating to be close to God, in fact, when I eat I experience a part of God from the subsistence I receive from the food I eat. I do like the fact that on the first of every Baha’I month, there is a feast for Baha’is, but I have never attended these feasts. As well, there doesn’t seem to be any amount of dietary restrictions on Baha’is except for the fast, which if I practiced this religion, I would be exempt from due to my disability. This is something that should have been changed from Islam and Judaism but sadly never did.

Baha’is however do have one of the stricter guidelines that most religions don’t have. I understand why Baha’u’llah doesn’t want Baha’is to drink or smoke, although on occasion I do have an alcoholic beverage. However, casual gambling isn’t typically an issue. Sometimes I play a casino game on my Switch and play with virtual money. I wonder what Baha’u’llah would say about that. As well, we live in the age of birth control, and most people have sex before they’re married. It’s just a fact. And while I understand that from the time span Baha’u’llah was creating this religion, gay marriage wasn’t popular, and yet still, gay Baha’is can be married in a secular fashion now, the fact that this religion won’t change for several more hundred years shows just how out of touch it has become. The Universal House of Justice refuses to modernize this religion. In fact, they even restrict Baha’is from joining a political party, which means that the chances of ever seeing a Baha’I as a President or Prime Minister in a country is just about impossible. I understand that Baha’is don’t like party divisions in government, but Baha’is should also learn to respect the separation of religion and politics, and that by getting involved in any party of their government they are in fact encouraging democracy.

Because Baha’u’llah forbids monasticism and asceticism in his religion, the clergy of this Faith looks very different from other religions. I know Baha’is are supposed to vote in elections for their representatives, but they are not united far enough where anyone actually knows who these people are. And let us not forget that while Baha’u’llah stressed equality of men and women, women are not allowed on a seat of the Universal House of Justice. Baha’is do devotionals in homes, libraries and other places, yet I’ve never truly felt comfortable in these environments. I typically disagree with other Baha’is on what the scriptures are trying to say. There are 500 Baha’is in or around Milwaukee and only a tenth of those who participate in the affairs of other Baha’is. I get the fact that with so much scriptures and prayers to remember or recite it’s easy to practice this religion by myself, but it Is significantly more difficult to find community as a Baha’i. There is the national temple about fifty miles south, in Wilmette, Illinois, but I do not have access to transportation that can lead me there.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

(Part 2 of 2)

Shoghi Effendi, who was the religion’s caretaker in the 20th century, while helping out the international community by translating many Baha’I scriptures into English, outright said that pantheism is incompatible with this religion. And while I do believe that Baha’u’llah is a divine figure, in fact so much so that I briefly became Baha’I myself and admitted this fact, I never truly believed in my heart, even as I was trying to force myself to. Upon my admissions process I talked to a Baha’I who encouraged me to tell my other Christian friends that I believe the same as them. I was actually snapped back into reality when one of my friends told me that it was great that I became a Baha’I because that was as close to Christianity as I could become. Also, the person on the phone had already admitted to me that nobody takes religious law seriously and that everybody breaks it, making me question why they have them in the first place. After all, the most important text in this religion is the Kitab-i-Aqdas, the book of religious laws that Baha’is are supposed to follow. When I listened to the Aqdas right from the beginning it is mentioned that these were changes from Islamic law that I did not know or follow, so understanding this became foreign to me, much like how The Bab’s Bayan must feel foreign to many people too.

And that is another issue I have with this religion. Did you know that Baha’u’llah was born before The Bab? Yet, because Baha’u’llah essentially stole so many ideas from this figure, he placed him as one of the prophet-successors to Muhammad. I fundamentally don’t understand why God would make two Messengers of God, The Bab and Baha’u’llah, whose dates of birth are just two years apart, and only allow The Bab’s own message to last eight years, before he was martyred. Although Shoghi Effendi translated many works from Baha’u’llah and Abdul Baha, the Bayan from The Bab, the central scripture that started this whole idea to begin with, remains only partially translated from other sources. And I’ve heard a lot of people say that The Bab wasn’t meant to just be a Gate but to create a new world religion similar to what Baha’u’llah did after he stole many of his ideas after his death. I believe that if we were to translate all of The Bab’s scripture into English it would reveal that The Bab was meant to be this new religious figure and not Baha’u’llah, and that Baha’u’llah essentially stole the divinity of The Bab and his followers.

Do I believe that Baha’u’llah is divine? Yes, of course I do. With that being said however, saying to all the other world religions that they have outdated theology comes off abrasive, especially since many of these denominations, especially that of Christianity, has come to fruition quite recently. It makes Baha’is look awful when they tell others that they have the correct message of God and all the other prophets, while being useful in their ways, were only meant to be viewed metaphorically. The Baha’I Faith has attempted to delegitimize all the other religions by attempting to approach it this way, even though their message is to spread the unity of religion. And the fact is, Buddhism is centrally a nontheistic religion and most sects of Hinduism are polytheistic, so trying to lump dharmic religions into the Baha’I world view is only going to confuse those who try to understand this religion.

I believe that prophets in various religions have divinity and are yet powerless, because the vast majority of their divinity does not come from themselves but from their followers instead. Baha’u’llah’s divinity is the fact that he eventually grew a religion of over five million Baha’is, just like how there are over two billion Christians in the world which has helped strengthen the legacy of the myth of Jesus. These divine messengers are only as powerful as the people who spread the message of their faith, and by saying otherwise, devalues the members of these religions.

To be honest, I never was, nor will I ever truly be a member of this religion. There are too many issues I see with it. I understand what Baha’u’llah was trying to do while he was alive, and I agree with this message. The issue is, I disagree with how he attempts to actually do this. As a pantheist I understand that all people have some amount of both passive and active divinity imbued in their own design. All humans matter. Not just the prophets of popular religions. Let us not forget that for every religion that currently exists on Earth, there was another that stopped existing. I cannot, and will not, ignore everybody else’s input to put Baha’u’llah and his kinship on a pedestal like that.

I understand this religion very well and agree with much of it. The parts that I don’t agree with I can at least say that I understand the principles. And I do hope that this goal of global unity one day is fully achieved. With that being said, how Baha’u’llah is attempting to do this is causing what Muslims consider apostacy in their own religion, something Baha’is have objections to. This religion fascinates me, and I will continue to learn more about it. And I do hope that the people who need it in their lives find this religion comforting for them. I just cannot be one of those people.

 

[Truthseeker]

The first thing that I want to point out is when I was first doing research on new religious movements on Wikipedia, the two religions that stand out to me the most are modern Unitarianism and the Baha’I Faith. Starting at age 19, over ten years ago, I accessed Wikipedia’s list of NRMs and discovered many religions. These two just seemed to be what I consider to be the best ones. Wikipedia’s articles on the Baha’is are extensive and even though it is not flagged for advertisement, it almost reads as if it is.

The way I introduced myself to this fine religion was skimming many Wikipedia articles on this religion. I started with the main page, and then taught myself the stories of The Bab, Baha’u’llah, among other important figures of this religion. Then I started to read and listen to the scriptures in audiobooks. I became intimately involved in this religion. To this day I own Gleanings in hard cover and audiobook formats. But I would like to use this space not just for praise but for constructive criticism of this religion too.

Ten years ago! That's a long time ago. Yes, Wikipedia editors have to cite reliable sources, so it presents a fair assessment of a subject usually. A fair assessment in my opinion would show some good features our Faith has. Thanks for the testimony of your praise of our Faith and showing that through neutral sources a person can independent investigate our faith and come up with an assessment of what our faith is all about. It's very good that that you continued to investigate our faith through scriptures. That shows initiative. I don't mind any criticism you have for our faith because it was arrived with with fairness in mind.

The obligatory prayers, whether they are short, medium or long, do in some ways help shape the fortitude of every Baha’I, however, I get more from praying when it comes from the heart and not from a book. I believe God can hear everything, not just prayers, so whether I’m talking to someone else, or myself, or thinking, God is involved with and understands every part of me either way. Reciting prayers that someone else wrote isn’t nearly as impactful as when I’m doing it because I need to.

I understand. For Baha'is, these prayers are the word of God. As it expresses the truth as I see it, after I investigated, the short obligatory prayer does come from from heart. I don't say the long obligatory prayer, because I have a hard time seeing that all those words apply to me. The short obligatory does apply to me it seems to me. I confess I've never tried the medium prayer as it has to be said three times a day, and when I started the routine of saying obligatory prayers, I did not want to do it three times a day, and I am a night owl that get's up as late as I can to get to work. Besides I liked the short obligatory prayer, and I stuck with it. The times to it are:

"By 'morning,' 'noon' and 'evening,' mentioned in connection with the Obligatory Prayers, is meant respectively the intervals between sunrise and noon, between noon and sunset, and from sunset till two hours after sunset."
(Compilations, Baha'i Prayers, p. v)

Saying the short obligatory prayer during winter was difficult because sunset is maybe 5:15 where I live in December, and at where I worked they would allow me to come to work from 9:00 to 6:00. At that time ablutions were not spiritually required yet, so that made it less awkward, but I was in a room with other people, or I was in a cubicle with other people close around. Yes, for those who are not Baha'is this all seems arbitrary about using these time frames but that's one of the laws I take on faith. One of the reasons for having the choice of three obligatory prayers as my reason tells me is we can then choose the one has the words that we can say from our heart that fits our lifestyle.

I will not debate in this thread with others (I hope), or with you. I hope I am not saying this in a spirit of debate now. I can get flustered and angry. I'm only human. Others can definitely say that I have debated here.

I will address the rest later. I put a lot of thought into this last response. I want to get this right, and I have other things to attend to right now.

 

[ppp]

This is something that should be critically examined, and explored in further investigation, not taken at face value, while also keeping in mind this is not the “official” Baha'i position. He says at the end that this does need further exploration to verify all of this. He enters the plea in any case for us to all to work together, whatever your religion, and also if you are an atheist.

I will not debate in this thread with others (I hope), or with you. I hope I am not saying this in a spirit of debate now. I can get flustered and angry. I'm only human. Others can definitely say that I have debated here.

I asked ChatGPT4, What are the necessary steps in performing a critical examination of a position? It replied as per below.

Performing a critical examination of a position involves several necessary steps. While the exact process may vary depending on the context and complexity of the position, the following steps provide a general framework:​

​

1. Understand the position: Gain a thorough understanding of the position's central claims, underlying assumptions, and key arguments.​

​

2. Gather relevant information: Collect a broad range of reliable and credible information related to the position, including academic articles, research studies, expert opinions, data, and real-life examples.​

​

3. Evaluate evidence and reasoning: Analyze the quality, relevance, and reliability of the evidence and reasoning presented in support of the position. Consider factors such as the source, methodology, potential biases, logical consistency, and coherence of the arguments.​

​

4. Identify strengths and weaknesses: Objectively assess the strengths and weaknesses of the position based on the evaluation of the evidence and reasoning. Consider the validity and reliability of the supporting evidence and identify any logical fallacies or gaps in reasoning.​

​

5. Consider alternative perspectives: Explore alternative viewpoints, counterarguments, or competing theories related to the position. Engage with differing opinions, research contrasting viewpoints, and evaluate how well the position addresses or responds to these alternatives.​

​

6. Examine underlying assumptions: Identify and critically examine the underlying assumptions that the position relies upon. Question the validity and implications of these assumptions based on analysis, logical reasoning, and available evidence.​

​

7. Assess implications and consequences: Consider the broader implications and consequences of accepting or rejecting the position. Evaluate how the position aligns with ethical, societal, or practical considerations. Reflect on the potential short-term and long-term effects of adopting the position.​

​

8. Seek diverse perspectives: Engage with individuals who hold different viewpoints or expertise related to the position. Seek out varied sources, read contrasting works, and consider their critiques and insights to broaden your understanding.​

​

9. Formulate a well-reasoned evaluation: Synthesize your findings into a well-reasoned evaluation of the position, articulating its strengths, weaknesses, and overall merit. Support your evaluation with evidence, logical reasoning, and a comprehensive analysis.​

​

10. Be open to revising your evaluation: Maintain intellectual humility and remain open to revising your evaluation as new evidence or perspectives emerge. Continuously refine your analysis and conclusions based on further examination and critical thinking.​

How does one perform steps 3-8 of an honest critical examination without engaging in debate?

 

[Truthseeker]

How does one perform steps 3-8 of an honest critical examination without engaging in debate?

A lot of what you list in those steps can be done without talking to Baha'is. My wife Sara, in fact, essentially believed in Baha'u'llah before she even met a Baha'i, though frankly I'm sure she do those steps. Of course, discourse with Baha'is in the end will probably be needed, but debate is not how it is done in the Baha'i Faith. We do recognize there will a clash of different opinions, but we don't believe in a clash of egos. In other words, the goal is not to win the argument, but to get to the truth. The opinion you express is not some thing you should be attached to, you should be detached from your opinion. We call this process consultation. I've seen it at work in LSA meetings, and sometimes it is successful. When it is not successful, it has been because someone insists that they must get their own way and their idea is of course right. This is self and ego at work. Also when you discourse with each other it is important to frankly acknowledge the possible weaknesses of your case. What should be said should be said frankly and openly, but as lovingly as possible. If you get upset you need to hold your tongue for awhile and carefully consider your response and calm down.

When I initially became a Baha'i I unwisely didn't do those steps above. I was attracted by what the Baha'i Faith said, and one day I was reading the Seven Valleys of Baha'u'llah, and I felt a spiritual response to those words. It seemed to me that these had to be the words of God. I jumped the gun too fast. Soon I encountered a Christian friend who had read an unfavorable account of Baha'i history. He flatly said to me that Baha'u'llah was a killer. I was naive about what he said to me and believed what he said at the time. I was only 19 at time, and not a critically thinking person at the time, and was not critical about the Baha'i Faith and also what this Christian told me.

Later I was thinking, if this religion was false why did I have such a strong spiritual response to the words of Baha'u'llah? That's when the real critical examination began. I had learned from these two poles of my reactions that I had to look at both sides. Since then I have probed for weaknesses in the Baha'i Faith and also on the other hand find reasons why this didn't destroy the basis of the Baha'i Faith. Today after over 50 years of this, while there are still some things I don't understand about the Baha'i Faith, and possible problems, the evidence in favor of it greatly outweighs all of that. Most of that process I am talking about for myself was done without discourse with other people. I'm a reserved kind of person orally. I find forums online to be a boon to me, because here I can express myself a lot better than I can in person orally. There has always in my life been a big gap between my oral abilities and my writing abilities.

There is a spiritual component to my investigation also that the steps above don't address. There is inner evidence as well as outer evidence. In other words, the spiritual response to the Writings, and the spiritual heights that that it raises me up to sometimes. I also have experienced an improvement in character also as a result of these teachings.

I say frankly in conclusion that all along I wanted to believe, that I didn't want it not to be true. There was an emotional aspect to this examination.

 

[ppp]

A lot of what you list in those steps can be done without talking to Baha'is. My wife Sara, in fact, essentially believed in Baha'u'llah before she even met a Baha'i, though frankly I'm sure she do those steps. Of course, discourse with Baha'is in the end will probably be needed, but debate is not how it is done in the Baha'i Faith. We do recognize there will a clash of different opinions, but we don't believe in a clash of egos. In other words, the goal is not to win the argument, but to get to the truth.

My experience with Baha'i, as well as many other religious sects, does not bear that out. Truth tends to be defined as that which comports with doctrine (or whatever you call your statements of belief). As opposed to that which comports with reality.

Also, you did not answer my question. I asked for a methodology. You gave me a series of folksy anecdotes.

Ah well.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

How does one perform steps 3-8 of an honest critical examination without engaging in debate?

I see steps 1 to 4 and maybe 6 is the gathering of the evidence and an individual examination of the evidence which will be influenced by one's own perceptions, limited by their own nature and nurture.

Steps 5 and 8 can be more research as to what is already available, weighing it all against what has been determined by what one has discovered in the examination, analysis and determination of the evidence.

Steps 7, 9 and 10 then flow in sequence and at no time did one need to debate any other person.

It can be a personal journey where one only has to ask questions.

The debate is with our own nature, nurture, education and perceptions, as we are looking for something way bigger than our own selves.

Regards Tony

 

[Truthseeker]

The 19-day fast that occurs in the last month of the Baha’I calendar year is a form of asceticism, which ironically is something Baha’u’llah outlawed in the religion. I don’t need to stop eating to be close to God, in fact, when I eat I experience a part of God from the subsistence I receive from the food I eat. I do like the fact that on the first of every Baha’I month, there is a feast for Baha’is, but I have never attended these feasts. As well, there doesn’t seem to be any amount of dietary restrictions on Baha’is except for the fast, which if I practiced this religion, I would be exempt from due to my disability. This is something that should have been changed from Islam and Judaism but sadly never did.

The fast is supposed to be in our faith to be symbol of detachment from material things. Ascetism is not that, it is a mortification of oneself in a material sense. In a way, in my opinion, mortification of oneself is a kind of attachment(to mortification). Ask the Buddha whether ascetism works. He found it didn't work, and he advocated the middle way between ascetism and indulgence. While we fast we are supposed to pray, meditate, or whatever we need to re-adjust our spiritual life, which I didn't do when I was fasting. I was a poor faster. It is different for different people. For me I would get hungry when I was younger before lunch on a normal day when I wasn't fasting, and I would devour the lunch my wife Sara had packed for me before lunchtime. When I was fasting I wasn't spiritual at all, I was thinking of my hunger. This is not how I should have approached this. I should have been re-adjusting my spiritual life and using the fast as a tool for detachment. A factor in all this is that I may have been more prone to hunger than others also. I also have attention deficit, and I couldn't concentrate on work because of my hunger was consuming my mind. Finally I gave up on fasting a long time ago. Really after I wasn't working anymore I should have tried again, but I coasted along doing what I had been doing before. I was diagnosed later with diabetes, and those who have diabetes don't have to fast. I am now 72, and those who are 70 or over don't have to fast as a spiritual obligation.

Baha’is however do have one of the stricter guidelines that most religions don’t have. I understand why Baha’u’llah doesn’t want Baha’is to drink or smoke, although on occasion I do have an alcoholic beverage. However, casual gambling isn’t typically an issue. Sometimes I play a casino game on my Switch and play with virtual money. I wonder what Baha’u’llah would say about that. As well, we live in the age of birth control, and most people have sex before they’re married. It’s just a fact. And while I understand that from the time span Baha’u’llah was creating this religion, gay marriage wasn’t popular, and yet still, gay Baha’is can be married in a secular fashion now, the fact that this religion won’t change for several more hundred years shows just how out of touch it has become. The Universal House of Justice refuses to modernize this religion. In fact, they even restrict Baha’is from joining a political party, which means that the chances of ever seeing a Baha’I as a President or Prime Minister in a country is just about impossible. I understand that Baha’is don’t like party divisions in government, but Baha’is should also learn to respect the separation of religion and politics, and that by getting involved in any party of their government they are in fact encouraging democracy.

Gambling can develop into an addiction. You never know when you start to gamble if you will get addicted to the excitement of gambling. It gives some people kicks. There was a British series called Cracker where the lead character's biggest problem was addiction to gambling. This is fictional of course, but it is a real life problem. I did myself bet $5 a week in a football pool for a while where I worked, and it was no problem for me. Betting with bigger money would be a problem. Playing with virtual money like you did is not a problem at all, it wouldn't develop into an addiction, at least I don't think so.

Yes, just about everyone has sex before marriage these days. Back in the late seventies there was a Baha'i woman I knew who got pregnant when she had sex before marriage, and her boyfriend wouldn't marry her. To her credit she didn't have an abortion to conceal her secret, and didn't want to kill a fetus. She had to raise a child without a husband. She did get married a couple of times after that. There was birth control back then. These things can happen even in an age of birth control. I suspect the reason for this prohibition might go beyond the practical. After all the same applies to gay people having sex, and they can't get pregnant. Sorry have to go. I have a Zoom meeting right now. I'm 4 minutes late to it.

Anyway, it could have practical implications for gay people also, because they can get sexually transmitted diseases. The same is true of straight people. Two people married who've never had sex with anyone else, won't get sexually transmitted diseases.

The House of Justice can't change what Baha'u'llah ordained, they don't have that power. Blame that on Baha'u'llah if you want to. That's just the way it is.

The world problems will never be solved with partisan politics. Just look at what America has become, very divided. As you are not a Baha'i, you don't have the faith in the Baha'i Faith as ii do, so it would be unfair of me to ask you to believe that the problems of the world will be greatly ameliorated sometime in the distant future without Baha'is being engaged in partisan politics.

You made your independent investigation and came to your own conclusion, and I accept that in all the things I am discussing with you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Disclaimer: This is the same post essentially as that which started a debate last week, which was titled "Introduction to the Baha'i Faith", but the entire thread was lost. I am starting this again.

This video starts with the atheist “cosmology”. It talks about the big bang, evolution, humans are different only because we have bigger brains, and then goes on to say that atheists don't see any purpose inherent in the Universe but we can make our own individual purposes. There's no objective moral truth. The perspective offered is a generalized simplified version of the atheist perspective. Everybody is different. He says so explicitly in this video that it's over simplified, so it won't be too long.
...

Well. an atheist is nothing but a person with a disbelief/lack of belief in gods.
You are talking about philosphical naturalists/physicalists/materialsts and moral reletavists, but you don't have to be that to be an atheist.

 

[Truthseeker]

Well. an atheist is nothing but a person with a disbelief/lack of belief in gods.
You are talking about philosphical naturalists/physicalists/materialsts and moral reletavists, but you don't have to be that to be an atheist.

Yes, that's true.

 

[Truthseeker]

My experience with Baha'i, as well as many other religious sects, does not bear that out. Truth tends to be defined as that which comports with doctrine (or whatever you call your statements of belief). As opposed to that which comports with reality.

You are saying specifically that it doesn't comport with reality. That's an opinion, not a fact.

Also, you did not answer my question. I asked for a methodology. You gave me a series of folksy anecdotes.

No, you asked this:
How does one perform steps 3-8 of an honest critical examination without engaging in debate?

I answered that it these steps can be achieved without debate, by using consultation instead. In a lot of this process you outlined it can be done independently of taking to someone. I didn't reference each step 3-8 specifically, for that I'm sorry.

3. Evaluate evidence and reasoning: Analyze the quality, relevance, and reliability of the evidence and reasoning presented in support of the position. Consider factors such as the source, methodology, potential biases, logical consistency, and coherence of the arguments.

I did analyze the reasoning by the central figures of the Baha'i Faith. This process didn't involve talking to anyone most of the time. The rest is a mouthful. There was good quality and reliability of the historical evidence about the Baha'i Faith that I examined, and I did this without debating anyone. It is all very relevant to the world today whether this is true or not I do think. The quality and relevance of the Writings of the Baha'i Faith were very good I found in the end, and I determined this without debating anyone. I consulted about some things. There really a word salad there by the chat program for which I won't answer to every word.

4. Identify strengths and weaknesses: Objectively assess the strengths and weaknesses of the position based on the evaluation of the evidence and reasoning. Consider the validity and reliability of the supporting evidence and identify any logical fallacies or gaps in reasoning.

I do try to achieve objectivity, but that is impossible to completely achieve by anyone, even about science. I remember Bohr and Einstein disagreeing about Quantum Mechanics. "God does not play dice with the Universe" said Einstein. He seems to have been wrong. There are still a few disputing that. Religion is a lot harder to be objective about. Agreement on religion cannot be achieved with debate.

5. Consider alternative perspectives: Explore alternative viewpoints, counterarguments, or competing theories related to the position. Engage with differing opinions, research contrasting viewpoints, and evaluate how well the position addresses or responds to these alternatives.

That is done with research, not debate. At least that was the case with me, at least the alternate viewpoint part. This is about religion, not theories, so that doesn't apply, in my opinion. This chatbox seems to be focused on scientific theories, not religion.

Excuse me, but I'm exhausted with answering all of this stuff. I'm sorry. There's a lot more to attend to besides this. I'm quitting here.

 

[ppp]

My experience with Baha'i, as well as many other religious sects, does not bear that out. Truth tends to be defined as that which comports with doctrine (or whatever you call your statements of belief). As opposed to that which comports with reality.

You are saying specifically that it doesn't comport with reality.

Nope. I am saying that religions tend to test propositions against doctrine (text about the phenomenon), as opposed to testing propositions against the phenomenon, itself.

This is like trying to verify that there is a light bulb in the closet by looking at a book, instead of opening the closet. The book *might* be right, but the real test is looking on the closet shelf.

 

[ppp]

No, you asked this:
How does one perform steps 3-8 of an honest critical examination without engaging in debate?

That is asking for a methodology.

 

[Trailblazer]

I see steps 1 to 4 and maybe 6 is the gathering of the evidence and an individual examination of the evidence which will be influenced by one's own perceptions, limited by their own nature and nurture.

Steps 5 and 8 can be more research as to what is already available, weighing it all against what has been determined by what one has discovered in the examination, analysis and determination of the evidence.

Steps 7, 9 and 10 then flow in sequence and at no time did one need to debate any other person.

It can be a personal journey where one only has to ask questions.

The debate is with our own nature, nurture, education and perceptions, as we are looking for something way bigger than our own selves.

Regards Tony

Welcome back Tony! I like your new avatar.

 

[Truthseeker]

And while I do believe that Baha’u’llah is a divine figure, in fact so much so that I briefly became Baha’I myself and admitted this fact, I never truly believed in my heart, even as I was trying to force myself to.

You did the right thing to quit the faith. No one should force themselves to believe something.

Also, the person on the phone had already admitted to me that nobody takes religious law seriously and that everybody breaks it, making me question why they have them in the first place.

Yes, people break the law sometimes, that is true. But to say "nobody takes religious law seriously" would be a turn off if I heard that. Not exactly a good introduction to the Baha'i Faith. I didn't fast after a while, and I did $5 football bets at work, but I do however believe in Baha'i law, I do take them seriously.

And that is another issue I have with this religion. Did you know that Baha’u’llah was born before The Bab? Yet, because Baha’u’llah essentially stole so many ideas from this figure, he placed him as one of the prophet-successors to Muhammad.

It is well known by Baha'is that Baha'u'llah was born two years before the Bab. But as we see it Baha'u'llah didn't "steal" his ideas, he built upon them. I was surprised to learn that many of the concepts that Baha'u'llah spoke of were already in the Bab's Writings, and Baha'u'llah developed them further. But There were many more ideas that the Bab never revealed in His Writings in Baha'u'llah's Writings. The Bab was born over 1300 years after Muhammad, but likewise he built upon Muhammad's revelation just as Baha'u'llah built upon the Bab's revelation. There was more similarly between the Bab's revelation and Baha'u'llah's revelation because less time had passed than between that revelation and the next, so the cultural and material conditions changed less, so there was more similarity between those Writings than between the Bab's revelation and that of Muhammad. The revelation of each Manifestation is revealed in such a way as to suit the conditions of His time. I think you know that already.

I fundamentally don’t understand why God would make two Messengers of God, The Bab and Baha’u’llah, whose dates of birth are just two years apart, and only allow The Bab’s own message to last eight years, before he was martyred.

Well, okay. That is unusual. That has never happened before. But there is always a first time. To me it shows that this the time is ripe for the maturity of mankind. It needs a great spiritual impetus. The added spiritual forces of two revelations so close together is needed.

I'm sure the question will arise in your mind if a lot of spiritual forces were released, why is the world in such a rotten condition? Why are the number of Baha'is only several million? Why so many inactive Baha'is so the several is actually an overcount. Your number of inactives is not typical in the United States, but look at this statistic:

177,880 total Baha'is in 2023
74,933 with good addresses in 2023
In other words there are over 100,000 without good addresses. They don't know what their addresses are.

Baha'u'llah said this:

The world is in travail, and agitation waxeth day by day. Its face is turned towards waywardness and unbelief. Such shall be its plight, that to disclose it now would not be meet and seemly. Its perversity will long continue. And when the appointed hour is come, there shall suddenly appear that which shall cause the limbs of mankind to quake. Then, and only then, will the Divine Standard be unfurled, and the Nightingale of Paradise warble its melody.
(Gleanings, pages 118-119)

Look at this prophecy, " Such shall be its plight, that to disclose it now would not be meet and seemly. Its perversity will long continue." is a key phrase Sounds like today to me in broad terms.

seemly:
1a: GOOD-LOOKING, HANDSOME

b: agreeably fashioned : ATTRACTIVE

2: conventionally proper : DECOROUS
not seemly to brag about oneself


3: suited to the occasion, purpose, or person : FIT

the definition seems to indicate that to disclose it now is not seemly in this context is it is not not conventionally proper to say anything about this. In other words it should not be said. My feeling is this means that things will get so bad that to mention it would perhaps depress us. that could also look like a person without faith in these words that this is too vague. However what about "Its perversity will long continue." Isn't the world in a perverse state today? "its agitation waxeth day by day.". The agitation is still waxing.

"And when the appointed hour is come, there shall suddenly appear that which shall cause the limbs of mankind to quake.". No one has no idea when this would come. "Then, and only then, will the Divine Standard be unfurled, and the Nightingale of Paradise warble its melody.". Mysterious sentence. It does give the general sense that wonderful times will come in the wake of the wake of whatever caused "the limbs of mankind to quake.'.

My analysis is that things are going as God ordained, and things will fall into place eventually. Baha'u'llah said in the Aqdas:

The world's equilibrium hath been upset through
the vibrating influence of this most great, this new
World Order.
(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 85)

The spiritual forces released by these revelations are driving this agitation and perversity that is increasing is my understanding.

My point should be here that Baha'u'llah was not expecting quick positive results, but a long downslide of humanity first, not to prove that this prophecy is correct.

Although Shoghi Effendi translated many works from Baha’u’llah and Abdul Baha, the Bayan from The Bab, the central scripture that started this whole idea to begin with, remains only partially translated from other sources.

Those revelations were only meant to relevant only to the Muslim world, as the time was shortened for the Bab, by God's inscrutable decree. Under Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi, and the House of Justice the scope was greatly widened. Most Baha'is couldn't relate to many of the Bab's Writings that were must more embedded in the Muslim culture.

And I’ve heard a lot of people say that The Bab wasn’t meant to just be a Gate but to create a new world religion similar to what Baha’u’llah did after he stole many of his ideas after his death.

Look at both sides. I've presented my side already, in part. It would take long time to present both sides.

I believe that if we were to translate all of The Bab’s scripture into English it would reveal that The Bab was meant to be this new religious figure and not Baha’u’llah, and that Baha’u’llah essentially stole the divinity of The Bab and his followers.

That's a theory that has no evidence to back it up, in my opinion, because you don't know those scriptures. I do know some of those scriptures, and there is evidence from his Writings and also from history that I know of that indicate that there was going to be a new Manifestation within the lifetime of many people.

Do I believe that Baha’u’llah is divine? Yes, of course I do. With that being said however, saying to all the other world religions that they have outdated theology comes off abrasive, especially since many of these denominations, especially that of Christianity, has come to fruition quite recently.

If Baha'u'llah is divine, He wouldn't be usurping the Bab's rightful place. That's against the character of a divine person. Baha'is can be abrasive sometimes about the theology of other religions. Anyhow, we don't disagree with what Jesus for instance said. Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha gave fresh interpretations of what He meant. We shouldn't be abrasive about that. Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha didn't give interpretations about everything from the past so Baha'is have their own interpretations about a number of scriptures from the past. The Baha'i revelation does give interpretations, but essentially it is moving on to new topics a lot.

The Baha’I Faith has attempted to delegitimize all the other religions by attempting to approach it this way, even though their message is to spread the unity of religion.

No way. The Baha'is are in the vanguard of interfaith groups way out of proportion to our numbers. I do an interfaith devotional every week. I love scriptures of the past.

Buddhism is centrally a nontheistic religion and most sects of Hinduism are polytheistic, so trying to lump dharmic religions into the Baha’I world view is only going to confuse those who try to understand this religion.

It is inclusive. It does confuse people, I agree. I see the Dharrnic religions as a response to different mind set that is complementary to Abrahamic religions. They enrich the other by seeing truth from different perspectives. I won't get into the theologies right now. The whole thing is complex, and I couldn't possibly address them in this post anywhere close to a complete examination of this.

To be honest, I never was, nor will I ever truly be a member of this religion. There are too many issues I see with it.

Well, Iam not trying to convert you now, just telling it as I see it to dispel perhaps some misconceptions in a dialogue that is hopefully respectful to each other. To approach this with as little ego as I can, so my motive won't be to win.

All humans matter. Not just the prophets of popular religions.

Yes. All have the spark of divinity:

11. O SON OF BEING!
Thou art My lamp and My light is in thee. Get thou from it thy radiance and seek none other than Me. For I have created thee rich and have bountifully shed My favor upon thee.

12. O SON OF BEING!
With the hands of power I made thee and with the fingers of strength I created thee; and within thee have I placed the essence of My light. Be thou content with it and seek naught else, for My work is perfect and My command is binding. Question it not, nor have a doubt thereof.
(Baha'u'llah, The Arabic Hidden Words)

 

[danieldemol]

This video starts with the atheist “cosmology”. It talks about the big bang, evolution, humans are different only because we have bigger brains, and then goes on to say that atheists don't see any purpose inherent in the Universe but we can make our own individual purposes. There's no objective moral truth. The perspective offered is a generalized simplified version of the atheist perspective.

Whenever people describe the scientific perspective as the "atheist" perspective it seems to me to lend credence to the view that their religion is unscientific superstition.

 

[HonestJoe]

This video starts with the atheist “cosmology”...

And that is where it looses me. It doesn't matter how many conditions you put on it being generalised or simplified, it is clear that the only reason he chose to label that as "atheist" was to present the entire topic as being a simplistic question of "God or no God" (before moving on to Christianity to talk about the type of god).

The fact is that 99% of what is described in that section has absolutely nothing to do with atheism at all. It is simply our current best understanding of how the universe, world and life actually is. It doesn't even automatically dismiss or contradict the idea of there being some kind of god or gods.

What it does do is contradict, or at least raise difficult questions around, many of the specific beliefs, claims and assertions made by all sorts of religions, including Baha'i (though it certainly isn't among the worst offenders). By lumping all of that under the label of "atheist" though, the clear intention is to allow it to be dismissed out of hand. If a god exists, anything identified as atheist is false.

If you want to promote a particular worldview, I think you need to be able to do that entirely on it's own merits rather than just in contrast with flaws (perceived or actual) in any others.

 

[Truthseeker]

Whenever people describe the scientific perspective as the "atheist" perspective it seems to me to lend credence to the view that their religion is unscientific superstition.

It's just a simplified view of atheists by one person. I do believe in the scientific perspective, as do other Baha'is. Science and religion go hand-in-hand. He did say that in effect later in the video. Of course, you can interpret the Baha'i Writings to pick this apart. A lot of people do. Baha'is can struggle with this. I have, on more than than one issue. I've seen some Baha'is interpret the Writings in such a way that they say science will catch up in the future with what they believe the Writings say, as science is an ongoing revision of itself. That is their right, but I don't hold to such views myself.

 

[Truthseeker]

And that is where it looses me. It doesn't matter how many conditions you put on it being generalised or simplified, it is clear that the only reason he chose to label that as "atheist" was to present the entire topic as being a simplistic question of "God or no God" (before moving on to Christianity to talk about the type of god).

You've got a good point.

The fact is that 99% of what is described in that section has absolutely nothing to do with atheism at all. It is simply our current best understanding of how the universe, world and life actually is. It doesn't even automatically dismiss or contradict the idea of there being some kind of god or gods.

Yes, our current scientific understanding of how the Universe works doesn't preclude scientists believing in God. I had a course with at the Wilmette Institute online course with two scientists with a PHD in Physics who believed in the Baha'i Faith.

What it does do is contradict, or at least raise difficult questions around, many of the specific beliefs, claims and assertions made by all sorts of religions, including Baha'i (though it certainly isn't among the worst offenders). By lumping all of that under the label of "atheist" though, the clear intention is to allow it to be dismissed out of hand. If a god exists, anything identified as atheist is false.

Here's where I disagree. I don't believe that was the intention. I didn't detect disrespect for atheists in the video. It was just matter of fact.