Baha'i Totalitarian Oligarchy?

[ppp]

Why would what you consider good be the criteria by which to determine what is good?

We have already covered this ground today.

I say, that right and wrong are in reference to the metrics of fairness, reciprocity, empathy and cooperation, and that the goal is the psychological well-being of thinking beings. When some one tells me that their god wants conflicts with that standard, I call their god's wants immoral.

Why would what you consider moral behaviors be the criteria by which to determine what moral behaviors are?

I care about the demonstrable well-being of thinking beings. If that is not you consider morality, I don't care about your version of morality. Even religious folk, when appealing for justice (interpersonal or judicial), tend to appeal to empathy, fairness, reciprocity and cooperation long before they get around to appealing to the purported authority of their respective gods.

In other words, if God existed, why would God’s standards for “good” and “moral behaviors” necessarily align with your standards?

I don't see any reason that it should conform to human morality. Nor would I expect otter morality or lion morality or Vulcan morality to conform to human morality.

That makes sense but I guess you are out of luck then since there is no evidence that is acceptable to you.

Actually, all of the religious folk who want me to convert. Or to stop pointing out the logical and moral deficits in their beliefs are out of luck.

Sorry, I did not see the word just, my mistake.

No sweat.

An action can be good because God says it is good AND God can will the action because it is good and just.

The question is asking which is foundational. Does God recognize what is moral and relay that information? Or does God serve as the foundation for what is moral? If the former, then morality is simply a feature of reality and can be discovered. If God is the foundation for what is moral, then morality is arbitrary and a matter of God's whim. This is a variation on the Euthyphro Dilemma.

 

[firedragon]

No, thanks.

Great. Cheers.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Rational thinking requires that one be able to explain one's process of ratiocination, provide ways to falsify one's position, and demonstrate that ones premises are true in the real world. Not merely in one's dogma.

The claim, "Rational thought that can discover the secret of all things" does not meet the last two criteria.

The process I use is valid, but you may not see it is. My rational approach found that there was an individual that did have access to all knowledge, through a gift that Faith had given.

I would offer, just because you may see my process is not rational and can not discover the secret of all things, does not mean it is not so.

My rational approach includes determining if a person who tells naught but truth, would lie about what they could offer.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

"To me" tells me how you feel. Nothing about what actually is.

Without 'To me', or 'I see', and saying what actually is, will get a rule 8 violation.

Such is the quandary

Regards Tony

 

[ppp]

The process I use is valid, but you may not see it is. My rational approach found that there was an individual that did have access to all knowledge, through a gift that Faith had given.

This is just more "to me".

 

[Trailblazer]

saying what actually is,

Need I say more?

 

[ppp]

Without 'To me', or 'I see', and saying what actually is, will get a rule 8 violation.

Such is the quandary

Regards Tony

No quandary. Your "to me" is indistinguishable from the "to me" of all the guys claiming to have been cleopatra in their past lives.

 

[Trailblazer]

I care about the demonstrable well-being of thinking beings. If that is not you consider morality, I don't care about your version of morality.

Well-being: the state of being comfortable, healthy, or happy. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=well-being+means'

I believe there is more to life than comfort and physical happiness.

Even religious folk, when appealing for justice (interpersonal or judicial), tend to appeal to empathy, fairness, reciprocity and cooperation long before they get around to appealing to the purported authority of their respective gods.

Those are what I consider moral traits.

I don't see any reason that it should conform to human morality. Nor would I expect otter morality or lion morality or Vulcan morality to conform to human morality.

God's standards would conform to human morality because God created humans so God would know what is moral behavior for humans.
If a car manufacturer designs a car then the manufacturer would know the features of that car and how it is supposed to operate.

The question is asking which is foundational. Does God recognize what is moral and relay that information? Or does God serve as the foundation for what is moral? If the former, then morality is simply a feature of reality and can be discovered. If God is the foundation for what is moral, then morality is arbitrary and a matter of God's whim. This is a variation on the Euthyphro Dilemma.

God knows what is moral because God is All-Knowing. Then God relays that information through His Messengers.

 

[ppp]

Well-being: the state of being comfortable, healthy, or happy. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=well-being+means'

I don't find going to the dictionary for complex topics to be an particularly honest approach. Or can I reduce Baha'i to only what I find in Google dictionary; tossing out the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, your beliefs, and anything written by your governing bodies or other MoGs?
"A monotheistic religion founded in the 19th century as a development of Babism, emphasizing the essential oneness of humankind and of all religions and seeking world peace." There. Nothing more need be said regarding Baha'i.

I believe there is more to life than comfort and physical happiness.

If you need a single sound bite try:
Physical heath. positive relationships with others, personal mastery, autonomy, a feeling of purpose and meaning in life, and personal growth and development. Plus the same for the people who directly matter to you, and to a lesser extent, indirectly matter.

Those are what I consider moral traits.

Those are the moral metrics. What ethnologists and behavioral psychologists use to measure moral tendencies.

God's standards would conform to human morality because God created humans so God would know what is moral behavior for humans.

That does not follow. All actions are taken to fulfill one's wants. if one has no wants then there is nothing to change and no impetus to act. A god's morality would be about what that god wants. There is no reason to think that a god wants what best contributes to the well-being of humans.

If a car manufacturer designs a car then the manufacturer would know the features of that car and how it is supposed to operate.

The car manufacturer's opinion does not matter.

Reference for photo

I am building a mini kiln. Just did a test firing this afternoon. The shell is a 40qt stock pot. The lid is a 15" cake pan. The Pyrometer tap is a bulkhead through-bolt. All of the purposes to which O am using those objects are mine. None of those things is what the manufacturer intended. If the manufacturers don't like it, too damn bad.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't find going to the dictionary for complex topics to be an particularly honest approach. Or can I reduce Baha'i to only what I find in Google dictionary; tossing out the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, your beliefs, and anything written by your governing bodies or other MoGs?
"A monotheistic religion founded in the 19th century as a development of Babism, emphasizing the essential oneness of humankind and of all religions and seeking world peace." There. Nothing more need be said regarding Baha'i.

Point well taken, but we have to start somewhere.
Before I found the definition online I was going to ask you how you would define well-being, but how would that be any better?

If you need a single sound bite try:
Physical heath. positive relationships with others, personal mastery, autonomy, a feeling of purpose and meaning in life, and personal growth and development. Plus the same for the people who directly matter to you, and to a lesser extent, indirectly matter.

That is fine for a nonbeliever, but ideally a believer would be thinking more about God and service to others than about self. That is what matters to me. That is what gives me a feeling of purpose and meaning in life.

A believer also believes in an afterlife so what we do in this life always with that in mind.
In fact, Baha'is believe this life is only a very small part of our total existence, the afterlife is where we will spend eternity, so the primary purpose of this life is to prepare for the afterlife.

Obviously, this is a completely different point of view than atheists have, since they believe this life is all we have.

Those are the moral metrics. What ethnologists and behavioral psychologists use to measure moral tendencies.

Again, thus excludes religion altogether. There is some overlap, but religion has additional moral requirements.

That does not follow. All actions are taken to fulfill one's wants. if one has no wants then there is nothing to change and no impetus to act.

Everything people want is not good for them, that is the essential problem.
There are wants and there are needs, we do not need everything we want.
I might want to go out drinking but that is not what I need.

A god's morality would be about what that god wants. There is no reason to think that a god wants what best contributes to the well-being of humans.

God wants is what is best for humans, God wants nothing for Himself.
You are shooting in the dark if you know nothing about God's attributes.
God is a lot more than just omnipotent.
God is loving and benevolent, so of course God wants what is best for humans.

The car manufacturer's opinion does not matter.

I guess you missed my point.

 

[Spirit of Light]

"Basically councils of nine Baha’is would run everything in a totalitarian democracy with voting limited to Baha’is. All nations would be either principalities (under a Baha’i prince) or electorates (under a Baha’i elector)." -- Source

Is this true?

Sound just like a form of government system, so basically the same as any country with a democracy, what is wrong with that? Religioues society do need a form of leadership, and Baha'i chose this.

I have never come across baha'i's who has done me anything wrong.

By the way the link is so onesided that it is funny.
Baha'i teaching is not the only one who reject LGBTQ as a good thing. But it is only the act done by those LGBTQ people who are immoral, the people in them self is just people

 

[danieldemol]

If morality is what God arbitrarily says it is then there is no way to tell a messenger who is an imposter from a true messenger since you can't independently measure the morality they hand down against goodness to determine which messages/moralities are aligned with goodness and thereby conclude they are Godly.

Therefore a measure of goodness independent of arbitrary thoughts of a messenger is required.

I think this is true regardless of whether one believes in a God or not (ie the need for an independent yardstick).

 

[danieldemol]

Sound just like a form of government system, so basically the same as any country with a democracy, what is wrong with that? Religioues society do need a form of leadership, and Baha'i chose this.

I have never come across baha'i's who has done me anything wrong.

By the way the link is so onesided that it is funny.
Baha'i teaching is not the only one who reject LGBTQ as a good thing. But it is only the act done by those LGBTQ people who are immoral, the people in them self is just people

Nope, in democratic countries everyone gets to vote, there is no guarantee of that in any sort of theocracy that I'm aware of.

 

[ppp]

By the way the link is so onesided that it is funny.
Baha'i teaching is not the only one who reject LGBTQ as a good thing. But it is only the act done by those LGBTQ people who are immoral, the people in them self is just people

Don't worry. Your beliefs are also morally bankrupt on that subject. And if your god were to actually exist, the same would go for him, her, they or it. Egalitarian enough for you? Good.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Nope, in democratic countries everyone gets to vote, there is no guarantee of that in any sort of theocracy that I'm aware of.

Well, God is the one who truly know and as far as i know baha'i belief is in God, and since God is not on eRth in person its good to have someone to lead, right?
Or should it be everyone for them self to find out what is good or bad to do in life?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Don't worry. Your beliefs are also morally bankrupt on that subject. And if your god were to actually exist, the same would go for him, her, they or it. Egalitarian enough for you? Good.

I did not expect anything less in your reply @Joe W you do not seem to understand what religioues morality is and why one must apply it in to once life.

But its your free choice to have your opinion, just like i have too

 

[danieldemol]

Well, God is the one who truly know and as far as i know baha'i belief is in God, and since God is not on eRth in person its good to have someone to lead, right?
Or should it be everyone for them self to find out what is good or bad to do in life?

Depends, if it is genuinely God who is leading, assuming God wants what's best for humanity no problem.

However what we typically find in theocracy is that far from being God who is leading us, it is typically a few or less (9 in this case) men leading who have usurped God's position by confirming our biases to us and claiming our biases are of God when they are merely originating in our own imperfections.

 

[ppp]

That is fine for a nonbeliever, but ideally a believer would be thinking more about God and service to others than about self. That is what matters to me. That is what gives me a feeling of purpose and meaning in life.

Ideally a person, believer or not, would understand that service to another person must place the agency of that person above any other. If you don't, then the service is to someone or something else.

Again, thus excludes religion altogether. There is some overlap, but religion has additional moral requirements.

No. It doesn't. It excludes specific doctrines of specific religions. It is entirely compatible with Wicca, which is one reason that I was able to stay with it as along as I did.

God wants is what is best for humans, God wants nothing for Himself.

Even if I believed that there were a god, I wouldn't care. What a god wants is not germane to what I want, what I should want, or to my purpose. There is no inherent virtue in a god's opinion, no matter what he knows or what he wants. If your god doesn't like it, tell him to get off the couch, and go live his own life.

 

[ppp]

I did not expect anything less in your reply @Joe W you do not seem to understand what religioues morality is and why one must apply it in to once life.

Good. I am happy to meet expectations. And religions morality is not morality. It's a set of rules that mimic morality. Like the scripts that customer service reads through when you call the Help Desk. A decision tree is not moral agency.

 

[Trailblazer]

Even if I believed that there were a god, I wouldn't care. What a god wants is not germane to what I want, what I should want, or to my purpose. There is no inherent virtue in a god's opinion, no matter what he knows or what he wants. If your god doesn't like it, tell him to get off the couch, and go live his own life.

My God could not care less what you think of Him, because He knows He is All-Knowing and All-Wise.
You are not All-Knowing or All-Wise so you cannot possibly know more than God or be wiser than God...
yet you talk as if you do and you are....

It never ceases to amaze me that some atheists do not understand such simple logic.