Baha'i and Messengers

[Trailblazer]

There are no facts as concerning Gods which is why there are no ways of knowing about Gods, God is a faith belief, and no one is obliged to believe anything on faith.

There are no facts concerning God but does not mean there are no ways of knowing about God.

God is a faith belief because there is no way to prove that God exists.
Nobody is obliged to believe in God, that is a choice we can make.

 

[Vinayaka]

That's what's needed, and I think it should be extended to Atheists also. If science and religion should agree, then Baha'is and Atheists aren't that far apart.

Of course it has to be extended to atheists. They are human too, after all, lol. But if you're not in, you're not in. I'm out too, because I don't believe in any manifestation, or the concept of avatar I'm afraid the out side is composed of far more than just atheists. I thing the 'them' outnumber the 'us' thought so maybe there's hope after all.

 

[lukethethird]

What reason do you have to conclude that there is no God, in face of the overwhelming evidence?
I do not see that as reasonable.

All that overwhelming evidence is just like your God, invisible and unknowable.

 

[lukethethird]

There are no facts concerning God but does not mean there are no ways of knowing about God.

God is a faith belief because there is no way to prove that God exists.
Nobody is obliged to believe in God, that is a choice we can make.

No facts means no knowledge.

 

[Trailblazer]

All that overwhelming evidence is just like your God, invisible and unknowable.

No, the evidence is not invisible or unknowable, it is all over the internet to read about. God is knowable, but only to a very limited extent.

 

[Lazy Old Devil]

No, the evidence is not invisible or unknowable, it is all over the internet to read about.

If it's on the Internet, it must be true!

 

[lukethethird]

No, the evidence is not invisible or unknowable, it is all over the internet to read about. God is knowable, but only to a very limited extent.

So you claim.

 

[Trailblazer]

No facts means no knowledge.

Nope, factual knowledge is not the only kind of knowledge.

knowledge;

1. facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.

2. awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=knowledge+means

 

[Trailblazer]

If it's on the Internet, it must be true!

That is a straw man. I never said that EVERYTHING on the internet is true.
I only said that the evidence is on the internet to read about.

 

[Trailblazer]

So you claim.

So I believe.

 

[lukethethird]

So I believe.

Of course you believe, that much is evident.

 

[lukethethird]

Nope, factual knowledge is not the only kind of knowledge.

knowledge;

1. facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.

2. awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=knowledge+means

Thank you for making my point, no facts, no knowledge.

 

[F1fan]

Faith and Reason are as solid as Science and Reason.

Not at all as we observe in these discussions daily. Religious faith is typically and consistently the antithesis of reason.

But science and reason are essentially synonymous.

Faith is a reasoned approach to knowing God.

False and misleading. There is no reasoning that concludes any gods exist. Reason relies on facts and evidence and uses an objective process that links evidence to a sound conclusion. There are no facts for a supernatural.

Faith covers a number of human decisions that self-validates beliefs, and does rely or use evidence. Belief is uncertain, and faith is unreliable.

The opposite of that, is the lack of belief in God.

A propaganda claim. This is desperation.

No. Lacking belief in any given claim, whether religious or not, is what reason and logic defaults to as a rule. No one is obligated or required to believe anything a priori.

 

[Sundance]

From your understanding, what is the definitive list of manifestations during the last cycle, which, as I understand it, Baha'is call the "Adamic" cycle. Right off, I question why Krishna, and not any of the several other avatars in Hinduism, was chosen to represent all of Hinduism.

It’s funny you ask about Hinduism, CG!

To answer your first question, the Adamic Cycle was not the first cycle of Revelation. There were many before that. The definitive list of Manifestations from this cycle, from my understanding, would include (in no particular order) Adam, Abraham, Moses, Zarathustra, Shakyamuni Buddha, Jesus Christ, and Muhammad.

You’ll notice that I left out Krishna. This segues into my answer to your question as to why Krishna (and not any other avatara) is counted among the Manifestations. To speak to Hinduism in general, we Bahá’ís do not teach that Krishna, the Mahabharata, the Bhagavad Gita, Vaishnavism, or the like is representative of all of Hinduism. We recognize that what’s known as “Hinduism” is actually a vast array of local religious traditions centered around various deities and practices, so we try not to generalize here. Or, really, with any religion. No religion is a monolith.


Krishna in His original context — from what I understand — is actually as being one of a number of avataras that Bahá’ís recognize. He was not the first, nor the only one. There were (to name just two) Rama and Narasimha. The reason as to why Krishna was chosen is, perhaps, because of the wide-reaching influence of His Name (being one of Hinduism’s most popular deities), with the Mahabharata and the Bhagavad Gita as widely familiar texts. This is entirely independent of the Bahá’í Faith.


So, when the Central Figures speak on Krishna or on Hinduism, they speak from a general awareness of it, not from anything really detailed that They knew. Shoghi Effendi encourages Bahá’ís to learn more about Hinduism (and, indeed, all religions) and in their own understandings, account for scholarly developments. Such references in the Writings are not for the purpose of saying that Bahá’ís believe that Krishna is the only avatara in Hinduism, or that Vaishnavism is the only legitimate Hindu sect, or anything of that sort, or that Krishna is somehow the “Founder of Hinduism” (whatever this means). What the inclusion of Krishna specifically is designed to say is that Hinduism in general is recognized by Bahá’ís as having survived and are given supreme legitimacy (not that other religions unmentioned are not legitimate, except for a few). All of these accusations are incorrect.

Coming from all of this, I’ll end off by saying that the criticisms leveled of how various Bahá’ís relate to Hinduism based on only a small handful of references to Hinduism in our Texts is unfair.

 

[F1fan]

There are no facts concerning God but does not mean there are no ways of knowing about God.

How?

There are no facts concerning Hobbits, but we can know about them due to fiction.

God is a faith belief because there is no way to prove that God exists.
Nobody is obliged to believe in God, that is a choice we can make.

Also in logic and reason the default is that claims by others are not accepted without evidence of truth. Theists fail this because, as you admit, they believe on faith and not on reason via facts.

 

[Truthseeker]

Note how i didnt say you were guessing.

There's your guess that threre is a spirit,
that " humbling " yourSELF will have
some benefit to - yourself. - Audie

 

[Trailblazer]

How?

Revelations of God through Messengers.

Also in logic and reason the default is that claims by others are not accepted without evidence of truth. Theists fail this because, as you admit, they believe on faith and not on reason via facts.

I never said that I do not believe on reason via facts. I believe what I believe based upon facts about Baha'u'llah and I apply my reason to those facts.

How important are facts within your religious beliefs?

 

[Truthseeker]

On top of this, other holy Teachers, philosophers, and sacred souls — along with various other Books — have been written about God and how to know Him. I classify this threefold: Revelation, Inspiration, and Individual Experience.

This is a refreshing point of view I don't hear from other Baha'is much. I agree with this point if view. I'm not saying that other many other Baha'is don't think this.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Only if you ignore all the scientific explanations for such things. You need to be more open-minded and seek knowledge rather than rejecting it.

As I stated, one requires intellectual abilities to learn the sciences but spiritual senses to know God. When one acquires the spiritual faculties then and only then one can see God.
That can be best attained through prayer, meditation and reading the Words of God which in this day are the Writings of Baha’u’llah.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Bare question begging. We know there are certain laws of physics, etc, - but we made up those laws to describe what we observe.
If you are claiming that those observations are the way they are because a god made them like that then you first need to show such a god exists in the first place, because science has no need for any such god in order to come up working explanations and predictions.

No they don't. The body works according to well understood, physical principles and processes. No magic required.

Only if you have very limited knowledge and imagination.

Which is why all the greatest scientific minds today agree that there is a god who designed everything.
Oh....
(Just to be sure you understood the irony, around 95% of the members of the Royal Institution and the American Academy of Science do not believe in a creationist god)

Neither we nor the universe created itself.