Can you answer this?

[Link]

There is a difference however. A government established by either mutual agreement among people, or imposed by some people on all, are all derived and justified by people themselves. Any laws and regulations can be questioned, re-evaluated, and refined by people as the needs and values of the political body change.

On the other hand, the laws and regulations in a Theocratic government are not created and set down by people themselves, but rather, are set by the God endorsed by the state. These laws and regulations cannot be questioned, re-evaluated, or refined, for to do so would be to question God, or the God of the state. This inability to question or revise leads to stagnation of the body politic, an inability to evolve and improve over time.

Can you appreciate this difference between laws created by people and those created by a specific religion's God?

Everyone can investigate if the religion is from God or not, but people have the right to take what they believe is guidance from God politically and judicially as well. For a people who are certain, who better then God to govern us?

And if the laws have been misinterpreted or misattributed to God, society can investigate it. As well, the whole religion can be put into question.

But to take the right from society to seek guidance from God in government, is insanity.

 

[KerimF]

Can you appreciate this difference between laws created by people and those created by a specific religion's God?

Actually a law is imposed, in every region, by a powerful rich formal system which could be religious or civil (political).
An imposed law, even it is said of a god, could be changed too, while justifying it in one way or another, by its privileged religious supervisors to suit their new interests.

So if I heard Jesus on the Gospel talking about a heavenly law that should be imposed on man, I would have no interest, at all, in hearing more from him. He would be, to me in the least, just another man or man-made character/notion (as the notions of 'We ,The People', 'Freedom', 'Democracy'... for a few) that was made famous globally so that people could be gathered in his name (as people are gathered around a great flag and what it is supposed to mean).

So an atheist is smart enough to just obey and observe the law of his earthly formal system, leaving theists to enjoy being submitted to another law of a certain religious formal system (they choose), said inspired from Heaven.

True Love (as revealed by Jesus) and any imposed Rules cannot coexist for the same person at the same time.

 

[MikeF]

Politically i cant answer for since i am not political

If you live in the society of others, are subject to, and comply with the laws of the state to which you are a member, then you are political.
Whether or not you are an active political participant or a passive political participant, you are still political, part of the body politic.
Being passive is still a political choice and action.

I would hope religious belief lead to a person being good toward others. And that a religious person do not trash others who believe differently.

And hoping has not helped for thousands of years. It involves much more than how we interact with each other, one-on-one. Religious belief does not seem to overcome our innate tribal/group instincts, instead, it strengthens the expression of this instinct. Our religious affiliations get easily intertwined with our instinct for group identity. Despite any religious tenets to the contrary, human beings seem unable to overcome prejudice to those outside of the group they identify with.

It is through understanding human behavior and instincts and developing strategies to mitigate the negative aspects of these inherited instincts that we will begin to get a handle on, and resolve group conflicts, including those centered around religious identity and belief.

 

[Link]

Also, I believe society should follow only knowledge based on signs and proofs. I believe Quran and Sunnah have insights and proofs, but people mixed it up with falsehood and follow some clear signs while mixing it up with what is unclear and false.

Society should only seek what has evidence and proofs, like you said, but I do believe God has the right to provide insights and proofs, and we have the right to take guidance from him.

 

[KerimF]

Also, I believe society should follow only knowledge based on signs and proofs. I believe Quran and Sunnah have insights and proofs, but people mixed it up with falsehood and follow some clear signs while mixing it up with what is unclear and false.

Society should only seek what has evidence and proofs, like you said, but I do believe God has the right to provide insights and proofs, and we have the right to take guidance from him.

I guess you heard that a faithful Muslim is supposed to believe that he is created just to worship his Creator (called in Arabic, Allah). So I am just curious to know... Do you think that this belief is not supposed to be mentioned on Quran? Thank you.

 

[MikeF]

For a people who are certain, who better then God to govern us?

Great. Then who's God, which God? Not all claims of God are the same. You fail to appreciate that simply saying "who better than God" in no way resolves the issue. There is not one God. There are many different ideas of God/Gods/Dieties/Universal Truths etc. etc. etc.

And if the version you choose is actually a myth, then laws that are considered unquestionable are based on a myth.

 

[Link]

Great. Then who's God, which God? Not all claims of God are the same. You fail to appreciate that simply saying "who better than God" in no way resolves the issue. There is not one God. There are many different ideas of God/Gods/Dieties/Universal Truths etc. etc. etc.

And if the version you choose is actually a myth, then laws that are considered unquestionable are based on a myth.

You can believe that, but if I'm required to prove, people are then required to listen to my proofs and show where I go wrong in displaying them. Simply denying the proofs is not fair.

I agree with Atheists the burden of proof for God, Messengers, and the specific messengers we believe in, the burden of proof is upon us to prove. But what Atheists seem not to see, from my experience, they have a duty then to be attentive in ears, accept proofs if shown, and they too have to show why your proofs are lacking, simply denying is not a fair approach.

 

[Trailblazer]

According to Bahaullah, did Jesus die and was he resurrected? That is clearly mentioned in the gospels and requires no interpretation.

I do not believe that everything in the gospels is literally true, and I am not alone in my thinking, as many liberal Christians do not believe that either.

What many liberal theologians believe about Jesus' death

Baha'u'llah did not mention the physical resurrection of Jesus. Baha'u'llah wrote about a resurrection and explained the true meaning of resurrection, which has nothing to do with a body rising from the grave. He wrote that resurrection means the rise of the Manifestation of God to proclaim His Cause. The Day of God’s Revelation is the Day of the most great Resurrection and that was totally missed by Christians because they believe resurrection means that a body rose from a grave.

It is not a Baha'i belief that Jesus rose from the grave, according to the authoritative Baha'i Writings the stories are symbolic:

23: THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST

Every Baha'i is free to take their own position on the resurrection. My position is that what was recorded in the gospels are fictitious stories that men wrote about Jesus long after He walked the earth. Exactly why they were written is anyone's best guess, but I consider it a travesty that they were ever written because it is part of what has destroyed Christianity as a legitimate religion, and the resurrection belief led to other beliefs that I consider false, like the belief that the resurrected body of Jesus ascended into the clouds and will return from the clouds someday. It is because many, perhaps most, Christians believe that that they can afford to be complacent about all the problems in the world today, because they believe that Jesus is going to return and magically fix everything so they won't have to do anything at all. I consider this immoral, but people are entitled to their beliefs.

 

[MikeF]

You can believe that, but if I'm required to prove, people are then required to listen to my proofs and show where I go wrong in displaying them. Simply denying the proofs is not fair.

I agree with Atheists the burden of proof for God, Messengers, and the specific messengers we believe in, the burden of proof is upon us to prove. But what Atheists seem not to see, from my experience, they have a duty then to be attentive in ears, accept proofs if shown, and they too have to show why your proofs are lacking, simply denying is not a fair approach.

My apologies for any misunderstanding, I was not asking you to prove that the God that you identify with is the actual true God. My point was that others with different ideas of what God is are just as confident as you are in your beliefs. A government based on any of these Gods has the disadvantages that I have described, over and above those of the non-theistic variety.

To your comments about atheists, I would certainly agree that, as in any discussion, one should be attentive in ears, accept proofs shown, or explain why proofs are lacking.
Unfortunately there is a lot of psychology and human behavior involved and most people struggle with this, from the least educated to Nobel Laureates. And the greater the interest we may have in finding or supporting a particular conclusion, the harder it is for us to process information that may conflict with that outcome.

And going back to the OP. If you find value and meaning in your religious belief, but it is based on myth, should a non-believer prove to you that it is a myth, or leave you in peace with a belief in a myth that makes you happy?

 

[Link]

My apologies for any misunderstanding, I was not asking you to prove that the God that you identify with is the actual true God. My point was that others with different ideas of what God is are just as confident as you are in your beliefs. A government based on any of these Gods has the disadvantages that I have described, over and above those of the non-theistic variety.

To your comments about atheists, I would certainly agree that, as in any discussion, one should be attentive in ears, accept proofs shown, or explain why proofs are lacking.
Unfortunately there is a lot of psychology and human behavior involved and most people struggle with this, from the least educated to Nobel Laureates. And the greater the interest we may have in finding or supporting a particular conclusion, the harder it is for us to process information that may conflict with that outcome.

And going back to the OP. If you find value and meaning in your religious belief, but it is based on myth, should a non-believer prove to you that it is a myth, or leave you in peace with a belief in a myth that makes you happy?

I believe they should prove if it's a myth, I believe in following truth and not speaking about God without proofs and knowledge.

 

[Trailblazer]

First thing Hinduism and Buddhism are not revealed religions. And do you mean that Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all corrupted? Even if Quran is true, then the interpretations that Muslims make are corrupted? Kudos, that is is a nice way to foster peace and brotherhood.

I believe what I said and I am not going to lie or bend the truth about what I believe, which is according to Baha'u'llah.
Baha'u'llah did not write anything about Hinduism and Buddhism so I have no comment, but I believe that al the Abrahamic religious adherents have misinterpreted many of their scriptures which has led to false beliefs.

 

[MikeF]

Actually a law is imposed, in every region, by a powerful rich formal system which could be religious or civil (political).
An imposed law, even it is said of a god, could be changed too, while justifying it in one way or another, by its privileged religious supervisors to suit their new interests.

So if I heard Jesus on the Gospel talking about a heavenly law that should be imposed on man, I would have no interest, at all, in hearing more from him. He would be, to me in the least, just another man or man-made character/notion (as the notions of 'We ,The People', 'Freedom', 'Democracy'... for a few) that was made famous globally so that people could be gathered in his name (as people are gathered around a great flag and what it is supposed to mean).

So an atheist is smart enough to just obey and observe the law of his earthly formal system, leaving theists to enjoy being submitted to another law of a certain religious formal system (they choose), said inspired from Heaven.

True Love (as revealed by Jesus) and any imposed Rules cannot coexist for the same person at the same time.

Am I correct in assuming that you are saying there is no difference between secular and theocratic government, that any and all governments are simply mechanisms for the wealthy and powerful few to rule and control the many?

 

[Trailblazer]

That is your view and you are transgressing the rules of the forum by making it seem that it is the only truth. There are people who differ with this view. You are aware that among Hindus and Buddhists, there are no messengers of God or Allah, whatever untruth the Bahais may be trying to establish as truth. Why would Hindus and Buddhists want Bahais to follow their view? If very few people believed what Bahaollah said, then perhaps people thought that his message was not worth consideration. He wrote to many heads of States. What happened? Did they respond? Why blame others of not caring for it?

I do not control other people's thoughts so I cannot make anything seem any way to anyone.

I never said that the Baha'i Faith is the only truth. That is not a Baha'i belief, that is a Christian belief and a Jewish belief that they have the only true religion. I only ever said that the older religions have been changed by man from what they originally were and in many cases they have been corrupted by man.

All people are free to believe whatever they want to about Messengers of God.

Very few people believed what Baha'u'llah said because all new religions are rejected by people of the older religions because most people cling to their beliefs like glue; so it does not even matter to them IF the Baha'i Faith is true, they don't even care.

I never blamed anyone for not caring about the Baha'i Faith, that is their choice. I do not expect people to care the way is narrow, as Jesus said.

Matthew 7:13-14 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

In every new age, the religion at the narrow gate is the new religion God wants us to find and follow, and it is the gate that leads to eternal life. But it is not that easy for most people to find this gate because most people are steeped in religious tradition or attached to what they already believe. If they do not have a religion, most people are suspicious of the new religion and the new Messenger. If they are atheists they do not like the idea of messengers of God or they think they are all phonies.

 

[sayak83]

I do not believe that everything in the gospels is literally true, and I am not alone in my thinking, as many liberal Christians do not believe that either.

What many liberal theologians believe about Jesus' death

Baha'u'llah did not mention the physical resurrection of Jesus. Baha'u'llah write about a resurrection and explained the true meaning of resurrection, which has nothing to do with a body rising from the grave. He wrote that resurrection means the rise of the Manifestation of God to proclaim His Cause. The Day of God’s Revelation is the Day of the most great Resurrection and that was totally missed by Christians because they believe resurrection means that a body rose from a grave.

It is not a Baha'i belief that Jesus rose from the grave, according to the authoritative Baha'i Writings the stories are symbolic:

23: THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST

Every Baha'i is free to take their own position on the resurrection. My position is that what was recorded in the gospels are fictitious stories that men wrote about Jesus long after He walked the earth. Exactly why they were written is anyone's best guess, but I consider it a travesty that they were ever written because it is part of what has destroyed Christianity as a legitimate religion, and the resurrection belief led to other beliefs that I consider false, like the belief that the resurrected body of Jesus ascended into the clouds and will return from the clouds someday. It is because many, perhaps most, Christians believe that that they can afford to be complacent about all the problems in the world today, because they believe that Jesus is going to return and magically fix everything so they won't have to do anything at all. I consider this immoral, but people are entitled to their beliefs.

Ok.

 

[John1.12]

If you discuss against a religious belief that you do not hold/follow your self, how can you be sure you are correct and the actual believers and followers of the belief in discussion is wrong?

Maybe listening is better than claiming to know

Its a good question. Trying to articulate is tricky. I believe the bible to be from God . Not just propositional ' knowing ' but I've experienced it . participatory knowing.
. Then its The question can God make it so that we ' know ' its true , through 'revelation ' . I believe so .
Romans 8:16

“The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.

So I would say this is how I can say i know its true . Maybe there's a better way to explain, but thats the best for now.

 

[KerimF]

Am I correct in assuming that you are saying there is no difference between secular and theocratic government, that any and all governments are simply mechanisms for the wealthy and powerful few to rule and control the many?

You got it well.
The only difference is just the notion on which a law is supposed being based.

With time, the evolved rulers realized that it was time to replace the notion of 'a ruling god' with the notion of 'a ruling people'; very clever indeed.
Now, one can choose to which law he prefers be submitted; god's law or people's law.
For instance, many people don't mind being submitted to both; mainly when those who run their secular ruling system claim being believers of a certain ruling god.

Anyway, every person is free to believe in the existence of 'A united People ' even if his own family is divided

 

[Aupmanyav]

Baha'u'llah did not write anything about Hinduism and Buddhism so I have no comment, but I believe that al the Abrahamic religious adherents have misinterpreted many of their scriptures which has led to false beliefs.

If Bahaollah did not say anything about Hinduism and Buddhism then who was the fool who talked about them (going beyond the words of your 'manifestation of Allah)? Do not ever mention Hinduism / Krishna or Buddhism / Gautama when you talk about your religion. Take them off from your phony list of manifestations because they were never that. Lastly, ask your 'House of Justice' to express regret for spreading false information.

 

[MikeF]

..... follow only knowledge based on signs and proofs. .... provide insights and proofs

When evaluating and discussing whether or not an idea or belief is a myth, the evidence presented has to meet some standard of accuracy or validity.
When you use terms like "signs" and "insights", you have dramatically dropped the bar on what qualifies as evidence to support an argument. In fact, the use of such terms means there is essentially no bar or standard that is being used.

By this standard, the hallucinations of a schizophrenic person would qualify as evidence.

If you sincerely wish to evaluate whether or not a belief is a myth, any evidence presented must meet modern scientific standards.

 

[KerimF]

If you sincerely wish to evaluate whether or not a belief is a myth, any evidence presented must meet modern scientific standards.

I wonder who has the right to set an old or modern scientific standard.

If someone takes for grant that some chosen people (not him) have this right, then science would represent for him just another god's imposed law and those chosen people are its prophets. But everyone has also the right to fool himself by having two different eyes while looking at the world.

 

[MikeF]

Mike. I can't present any statistics on how much influence religions have on a secular society, secular laws, etc, or the flip side on how much influence secular philosophy has on religious societies, but it is only most probable that both influence each other.

You are broadening the scope of what was being discussed. The point being debated was the difference between a theocratic government in which religious law is directly codified into the laws and statutes of the government and a secular government in which the laws and statutes are created by members of society. I am arguing that although all forms of government have problems, a theocratic form of government is more resistant to change and improvement.

And certainly, in a purely secular government, the values and religious beliefs of society members will inform and affect the laws that they create, but it is clear that throughout history, the values shared by a society change and evolve and can move beyond stagnant, unchanging religious scripture.

Think of the scientific method. A lot of people have this idea that religion and religious thought is against science and scientific thought. But that's wrong.

I find that these statements are in no way supported by the historical record. That people who hold religious beliefs contribute to the advancement of science in no way means that religion drives scientific discovery or is compatible with it.

Science advances despite religion, not because of it.

As long as religion creates myths about the unknown, that which lies beyond our understanding, science cannot help but clash with those myths as our scientific understanding continually expands into the unknown.