Awareness of existence

[Trailblazer]

Hi @Paul65
Since you seem to express an interest in the Baha'i teachings there is some things i feel you should be informed about;
1. Baha'i teachings do contradict science in certain instances in my view, for example Baha'u'llah says that copper left molten in its mine for 70 years will become gold:

'For instance, consider the substance of copper. Were it to be protected in its own mine from becoming solidified, it would, within the space of seventy years, attain to the state of gold'

Source: Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Íqán, Pages 121-160

"Consider the doubts which they who have joined partners with God have instilled into the hearts of the people of this land. “Is it ever possible,” they ask, “for copper to be transmuted into gold?” Say, Yes, by my Lord, it is possible. Its secret, however, lieth hidden in Our Knowledge. We will reveal it unto whom We will. Whoso doubteth Our power, let him ask the Lord his God, that He may disclose unto him the secret, and assure him of its truth. That copper can be turned into gold is in itself sufficient proof that gold can, in like manner, be transmuted into copper, if they be of them that can apprehend this truth. Every mineral can be made to acquire the density, form, and substance of each and every other mineral. The knowledge thereof is with Us in the Hidden Book."
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 197-198

Also where the results of the scientific method contradict Baha'i teachings Baha'i are instructed by Shoghi Effendi to choose the Baha'i teachings over science in my view:

'You see our whole approach to each matter is based on the belief that God sends us divinely inspired Educators; what they tell us is fundamentally true, what science tells us today is true; tomorrow may be entirely changed to better explain a new set of facts.'

Source: Bahá'í Reference Library - Arohanui: Letters from Shoghi Effendi to New Zealand, Pages 85-86

In my view, Shoghi Effendi was not saying to choose religion over science, and he certainly was not saying to choose the Baha'i Teachings over science. He was referring to the divinely inspired Educators (Messengers of God) collectively.

In my view, he was saying that religion contains eternal truths that never change whereas science is always evolving and changing over time.https://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/ARO/aro-75.html.utf8?query=Whole|approach&action=highlight#gr2

Then there is a matter of God revealing Godself to a person through any other means than through Baha'u'llah for the next 840 or so years;

'Whoso layeth claim to a Revelation direct from God, ere the expiration of a full thousand years, such a man is assuredly a lying impostor.'
Source:

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, Pages 19-34

You got me on that one, but I see nothing wrong with that. Actually in my view it is a positive since it prevents claims from false prophets.

 

[Trailblazer]

But I have a cat question for you. My daughter has 3 cats, and one is a selfish aggressive pig, eating wise, and is getting rather fat. So now she (my daughter) is trying to find a way to feed all of her pets fairly so they all get food. Have you ever had a really dominant cat that tried to hog all the food, and what did you do about it, if anything.

Yes, I have the same problem with certain cats, one male cat in particular called Carl who is a fat cat. He is always the first one to the plate as soon as I put the food down. To resolve the issue and make sure all the cats get enough food I put down enough food for everyone, although that doesn't solve his overweight issue. He was that way when I adopted him several years ago but he seems to be healthy.

Then there is another male cat, Atticus, who always tries to get the baby food I put down for my oldest cat, Silky. Atticus is not fat at all, he's rather petite and all muscle. Silky will not always eat canned food and she has early stage kidney disease so she cannot afford to lose any weight so the baby food is only for Silky. Do you know how much one small jar of Gerber baby food costs nowadays? It has gone from 1.00 to 1.39, so I cannot afford to feed it to Atticus. As soon as I open the jar to feed Silky Atticus comes running. He normally stands by and gawks as long as he knows I am watching, but as soon as I leave the room he moves in and tries to get the baby food. I have learned that the best way to deal with this is to put him in he bathroom and close the door if I don't know I will be watching. Then if there is any baby food left over I give it to him. It is never very much but he is so happy!

 

[Vinayaka]

Yes, I have the same problem with certain cats, one male cat in particular called Carl who is a fat cat. He is always the first one to the plate as soon as I put the food down. To resolve the issue and make sure all the cats get enough food I put down enough food for everyone, although that doesn't solve his overweight issue. He was that way when I adopted him several years ago but he seems to be healthy.

Then there is another male cat, Atticus, who always tries to get the baby food I put down for my oldest cat, Silky. Atticus is not fat at all, he's rather petite and all muscle. Silky will not always eat canned food and she has early stage kidney disease so she cannot afford to lose any weight so the baby food is only for Silky. Do you know how much one small jar of Gerber baby food costs nowadays? It has gone from 1.00 to 1.39, so I cannot afford to feed it to Atticus. As soon as I open the jar to feed Silky Atticus comes running. He normally stands by and gawks as long as he knows I am watching, but as soon as I leave the room he moves in and tries to get the baby food. I have learned that the best way to deal with this is to put him in he bathroom and close the door if I don't know I will be watching. Then if there is any baby food left over I give it to him. It is never very much but he is so happy!

Thanks.

 

[danieldemol]

In my view, Shoghi Effendi was not saying to choose religion over science, and he certainly was not saying to choose the Baha'i Teachings over science. He was referring to the divinely inspired Educators (Messengers of God) collectively.

In my view, he was saying that religion contains eternal truths that never change whereas science is always evolving and changing over time.https://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/ARO/aro-75.html.utf8?query=Whole|approach&action=highlight#gr2

In my view the writings of the apologist in denial of the evident are a sign of serious comprehension issues at best, and laughable either way.

To claim that he was talking about messengers being fundamentally true seperately to saying science teaches us temporary truths is to decontextualise two halves of the one sentence and more or less implies that he strung irrelevant words together in my view.

 

[Trailblazer]

In my view the writings of the apologist in denial of the evident are a sign of serious comprehension issues at best, and laughable either way.

To claim that he was talking about messengers being fundamentally true seperately to saying science teaches us temporary truths is to decontextualise two halves of the one sentence and more or less implies that he strung irrelevant words together in my view.

'You see our whole approach to each matter is based on the belief that God sends us divinely inspired Educators; what they tell us is fundamentally true, what science tells us today is true; tomorrow may be entirely changed to better explain a new set of facts.'
Source: Bahá'í Reference Library - Arohanui: Letters from Shoghi Effendi to New Zealand, Pages 85-86

* God sends us divinely inspired Educators; what they tell us is fundamentally true,

That means that the spiritual truths contained in all religions are fundamentally true.

Fundamentally
You use fundamentally to indicate that something affects or relates to the deep, basic nature of something.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/fundamentally

* what science tells us today is true; tomorrow may be entirely changed to better explain a new set of facts.'

That means that science has theories that are considered true today but tomorrow scientists may make discoveries that cause them to formulate a new theory.

 

[danieldemol]

'You see our whole approach to each matter is based on the belief that God sends us divinely inspired Educators; what they tell us is fundamentally true, what science tells us today is true; tomorrow may be entirely changed to better explain a new set of facts.'
Source: Bahá'í Reference Library - Arohanui: Letters from Shoghi Effendi to New Zealand, Pages 85-86

* God sends us divinely inspired Educators; what they tell us is fundamentally true,

That means that the spiritual truths contained in all religions are fundamentally true.

In my view he doesnt refer to "spiritual" truths, the context is in regard to a scientific enquiry concerning Abdul-Baha's statement that man was always man. It has nothing to do with spirituality.

In my view you are reading what they tell us *spiritually* is fundamentally true when Shoghi Effendi used no such qualifier nor was the context with regard to anything other than science.

Fundamentally
You use fundamentally to indicate that something affects or relates to the deep, basic nature of something.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/fundamentally

* what science tells us today is true; tomorrow may be entirely changed to better explain a new set of facts.'

That means that science has theories that are considered true today but tomorrow scientists may make discoveries that cause them to formulate a new theory.

Precisely, he is saying what the divine educators tell us is always true unlike science to which it is being compared in my opinion. How you leapt from man was always man to spirituality is really amazing to me.

 

[shunyadragon]

No, not more insults. A description of the reality. If an atheist (random choice) told you that your understanding of Bahai was wrong would you say oh cheers for that I don't know what I was thinking. No, if it was relentless "explaining" most would likely eventually consider it patronising, arrogant and insulting.

Not from me, nit yes your posts to ,e have been aggressive and insulting

Strewth, as the Aussies say. Tribal religions? Not heard that one before. One significant possibility is that (for Buddhism as an example) it is not a revealed religion to be taken literally. There are many paths (between and within religions and none), some suit some travellers, some suit others. This does not have to mean they are wrong. There are, for instance, considerable differences between Theravada and Zen. This means they are significantly likely "wrong" then? No, it does not.

That is your view of course. Differences indeed do not make them wrong. As with all ancient religions without scripture that has provenance to the authorship for the one supposed to have written them, differences sort of preclude that any one is right.

 

[Trailblazer]

Precisely, he is saying what the divine educators tell us is always true unlike science to which it is being compared in my opinion. How you leapt from man was always man to spirituality is really amazing to me.

Sorry, I did not know that the context was in regard to a scientific inquiry concerning Abdu'l-Baha's statement that man was always man.

Yes, he is saying that what the divine educators tell us will always be true unlike science to which it is being compared.
I agree with him

 

[danieldemol]

Sorry, I did not know that the context is in regard to a scientific inquiry concerning Abdu'l-Baha's statement that man was always man.

Yes, he is saying that what the divine educators tell us is always true unlike science to which it is being compared.
I agree with him

Thats where the scientific method departs from the Baha'i method, because in the scientific method there is no reason to assume anything outside a few axioms are true, and in my view it is not axiomatic to say man was always man, nor is it axiomatic to say that copper will turn to gold if left molten in its mine for seventy years, so to assume whatever alleged messengers said is true with respect to scientific matters to the contrary of what science tells us is to depart from the scientific method as I see it. Hence it is not true in my view to say there is no contradiction between Baha'i and science as even the methodology is contradictory - assumption on the Baha'i side and testing of assumptions where possible on the scientific side.

 

[Paul65]

So, you're saying that it's possible for people to originate from the Sun?????

I am a god there.

 

[Secret Chief]

As with all ancient religions without scripture

I wouldn't know. Buddhism has the Tripitaka and many Mahayana Sutras and poems.

Tell you what - let's agree: I won't misrepresent Bahai and you won't misrepresent Buddhism.

 

[Twilight Hue]

You also claimed your religion to be the ultimate religion. I think this is primarily what was being questioned.

That in particular.

Ultimate is fine for individuals. Not so for the masses.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I wouldn't know. Buddhism has the Tripitaka and many Mahayana Sutras and poems.

Tell you what - let's agree: I won't misrepresent Bahai and you won't misrepresent Buddhism.

Scriptures help, but they are not the focus in Buddhism unless it's Hinduism gussied up in Buddhist drag.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Not from me, nit yes your posts to ,e have been aggressive and insulting

You're projecting.

It is you who became aggressive in telling people what their own religion teaches, accusing people of having some sort of agenda, and telling them to go talk to themselves.

You made claims about "ultimate goals" of other religions than your own, when when questioned, built a straw man instead of answering the question, and when that straw man was shut down, became aggressive, and when the aggression was responded to, accused others of being insulting.

Please don't accuse others of what you are doing yourself. That, in and of itself, is insulting.

 

[Eddi]

I am a god there.

How and when did you first learn you are a God?

What does it mean to be a God?

What's your story?

 

[shunyadragon]

I wouldn't know. Buddhism has the Tripitaka and many Mahayana Sutras and poems.

You can know if you wish, Buddhist scripture like the other scripture of other ancient religions has no provenance of original authorship, and Buddhism like all ancient religions is grounded over the millennia in the culture of its Vedic origins, and the superstitions of the culture. Like all ancient religions it is an assumption not grounded that Buddhism today is the original to the teachings of its founder.

I believe much of the superstitions, adornments, and statues of Buddha would be abhorrent to the simpler teaching of Buddha,

We can disagree to disagree on the relationship between the religions of the world, but this is nothing new. Christian accepts Judaism, but Judaism rejects Christianity. Islam accepts Judaism and Christianity, but Judaism and Christianity and Islam. All the ancient religions believe the other religions misrepresent them because they believe differently

We can disagree, but your anger and aggressive attitude is not different from the tribal views of f different ancient religions toward other religions that believe differently.

It is a given you do not accept the progressive spiritual unity of humanity and your religion is distinct, separate and above other religions, and that is where we disagree,

Tell you what - let's agree: I won't misrepresent Bahai and you won't misrepresent Buddhism.

It is not a misrepresentation by Baha'i. It is a matter of differences of belief where you reject any universal relationship in the progressive revelation and the progressive unity just like other ancient religions reject others.

 

[shunyadragon]

You're projecting.

It is you who became aggressive in telling people what their own religion teaches, accusing people of having some sort of agenda, and telling them to go talk to themselves.

You made claims about "ultimate goals" of other religions than your own, when when questioned, built a straw man instead of answering the question, and when that straw man was shut down, became aggressive, and when the aggression was responded to, accused others of being insulting.

Please don't accuse others of what you are doing yourself. That, in and of itself, is insulting.

Well, I guess nothing has changed you continue to talk to yourself and not address the substance of my posts.

Please continue as you wish, but again you are being selective based on your agenda.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Well, I guess nothing has changed you continue to talk to yourself and not address the substance of my posts.

Please continue as you wish, but again you are being selective based on your agenda.

And again, you're projecting.

 

[shunyadragon]

And again, you're projecting.

Not addressing my posts and, of course, selectively projecting your agenda. It is a fact that like all ancient religions your beliefs are separate and distinct from other reliigions concerning the nature of beliefs beyond this world, which is the foundation of all religions.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Not addressing my posts and, of course, selectively projecting your agenda. It is a fact that like all ancient religions your beliefs are separate and distinct from other reliigions concerning the nature of beliefs beyond this world, which is the foundation of all religions.

Another straw man. This isn't even remotely what we were discussing.

Again, I'll refer you back to post #65 where you brought up "ultimate goals" and how they were different in each religion. You were asked in post #67 what you perceive the "ultimate goals" of each of these religions to be. You chose to ignore the question, build a straw man, and then accuse me of narrowing the discussion to fit my agenda.

Stop playing games by building straw men and shifting the goal posts.