Godless is lack of Virtues.

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The OP is not saying what you offered. It offered a metephor about virtues and vices also being known as light and darkness or Godliness or Godless.

Maybe you don't know what metaphor is. It is a symbol that has a characteristic similar to that which it symbolizes. If I say that she is the apple of his eye, she is being equated with an object of desire. If I say that she is a thorn in his side, she is being compared to something unpleasant. Equating virtue with light is a reasonable metaphor. Comparing lack of virtue and darkness to godlessness is simply offensive. You have been told that repeatedly, and all you have to say is that you are being misunderstood, but without a hint of remorse

I'm sorry amigo, but your doubling down and entrenching yourself in the innocence of your position in the face of widespread disapproval is not a good look, nor is it believable. Your stock is plummeting again, like it did the last time you made this tactical error. I just don't trust that your intentions are kind or constructive when dealing with the dark, virtue-free godless.

Would you like to have a go at the question the OP asked, in the light if virtue?

"how do we promote virtues over vices, to an extent that war is no longer considered or tolerated?"

No. I am not interested in having that discussion with you. I don't trust you or your agenda, and I seriously doubt that we agree about what is virtuous and what is not. I've already told you that I don't consider either theism or faith virtuous. This thread reinforces that for me.

 

[Sheldon]

You're basically saying anyone who doesn't share your belief in some deity is immoral,

No, I did not say that, neither did the OP.

You may not have meant that, but it is what you said:

That is the way you have read it. But sure keep going with it, even when I have told you that is not what was said.

Fine I will take another look, and instead of waving the evidence away maybe you can clarify:

Here:

light of God which is all the virtues.

Reasonably clear there, all the virtues in the "light of god". Again you may not have meant it, but this reads like virtues are only to be found in the light of god, which of course does not sound like atheism does it?

Then in the OP there is this:

Godless is the exact opposite, it is darkness and death.

Again it's hard to misinterpret that? No need for any subjective creative interpreting is there?

 

[Sheldon]

It says what it says. No matter how often i read it

How about the title.
"Godless is lack of Virtues"

Unequivocal to me as well, and the only defence offered is that I am misinterpreting it. Which is never going to fly sorry.

 

[Sheldon]

The OP just offers a metephor which shows that both believer's and unbelievers are on the same earth with the same decisions and it is not what they call themselves that defines a person.

Your title is "Godless is lack of virtues", and I've already quoted two assertions in your OP in the same vein.

So, do you want to have a go at answering the question the OP asked?

I already answered actually in my first response, here is your question:

So how do we promote virtues over vices, to an extent that war is no longer considered or tolerated?

Virtues and vices are subjective, so it's hard to see what you mean by promote virtues, not tolerating war won't stop war clearly, since if one side wants to attack another, as Putin has attacked Ukraine, then the rest of the world can "not tolerate it" all they want, how does that prevent it?

I can offer only subjective hypothetical ideals, it's my opinion that the best way is universal and inalienable human rights for everyone. However I am dubious that this can be achieved with the world as it stands.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

QUOTE the OP where it is said an athiest is not virtuous

The very OP title.

 

[Vitality]

Why semantics matter 101

 

[TransmutingSoul]

It says what it says. No matter how often i read it

How about the title.
"Godless is lack of Virtues"

Everyone, including you has to choose for themselves, believ in a bronze age superstition does not give you a get out of jail free card

Why do you think people you insult would want to answer any question yoy pose?

That is the title of the Metephor, explained I the OP.

Regards Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

God is likened to the Sun, the source of light and life.

Thus Godless is the exact opposite, it is darkness and death.

So from a faith perspective, Godliness is being made alive in the light of God which is all the virtues.

Since most people don't use the word, "likened", I assumed this was based on something Baha'u'llah said. Was it?

I've also heard Baha'is say that Baha'is are "followers of the light." And I've heard lots of religious people use "light" for doing good and following God, and "darkness" for doing evil and going against what God wants.

So, a "Godly" person is following the "light", the teachings of God. Which includes that a person should be kind, humble, loving and all the rest of the virtues.

Problem is... nobody is totally in the "light" or totally in the "dark". People in lots of religions have done some very "dark" things. And the average religious person, the nominal believer, isn't necessarily any more virtuous than other anybody. So, because of those "religious" people, those that do evil, "darkness" and those that are nominal believers, those with not much light shining... lots of us find it hard to believe in the various religions and the Gods they claim to exist.

But then we have people like you. You're trying to be virtuous. You're trying to do as your God and religions has commanded... to go out and "teach" others, that the Promised One has come. And what happens? Not very many believe you. They see your "light" as nothing more than your belief in a bunch of teachings from a man who claimed to be from God. They don't see the "virtue" of truthfulness and honesty. They see someone that has fallen for the teachings of some new religion. Whose God and prophet they doubt. And, every once in a while, a Baha'i calls them "blind"... that they can't see the "light."

In that context, a person of faith is to look for the light, from no matter where it shines, but most importantly become the light that is life itself and build lasting connections in family communities and Nations.

A person with no faith must then choose virtue over vice for their own reasons, but there is no disputing, virtues make the person and create harmony, whereas vices tear apart people, families, communities and Nations.

In that way, humanity can find a unity in its diversity.

A person of "faith"? I'd imagine lots of them, the nominal believers, aren't looking for any other light. They're barely believing and following the one they've got. Then the "true-believers". Some of them are out arguing why their religion is right and all the others are wrong. They see the "darkness", the falseness and delusion in the other religion and some say that even Satan can appear as the light.

So, all this about seeing the "light" no matter where it shines, and all that about building communities and nations? That's all Baha'is stuff. Knowing a little about the Baha'i Faith, I'd say that is saying that "true seekers" of the light should see that the Baha'i Faith is the truth. And we should all join together as one, virtuous, "light" or God following people.

A person with "no" faith? Yeah, who is that Atheists? Again, nobody is perfect, all light or all darkness. We all got our vices. In that way we can find "unity" in our diversity? More Baha'i stuff. So... if the "Godly" and the "Godless" become virtuous, we can become unified? As if we can do that or even want to do that? Because, to me, what the virtues are and how to apply them are part of the teachings of the Baha'i Faith. The other religions might be close, but Baha'is believe they have the new teachings for today... which includes how to unify all people and all the religions.

Just a few "vices"... things that are "dark" that Baha'is believe should not be done. No drugs, alcohol and no sex before marriage, even with yourself, and once married only with your spouse. Oh, and no sex with someone from the same sex. I think these "vices" will continue. How about hate, anger, greed and all those kinds of things? I think they're going to continue. Sure, unity sounds great. But what do you do with all these people that continue living in the "darkness" of their vices?

So how do we promote virtues over vices, to an extent that war is no longer considered or tolerated?

That's the problem. We're just people. Baha'is say that we must elect a world government... a tribunal that all the nations must listen to. All the nations are to give up most of their arms. Will those leaders be perfect? So virtuous that they never lie, cheat, or steal? How about the leaders in every nation?

I'd imagine the only way to "promote" virtues, the light, over the darkness is through a belief in a higher power. A belief that some higher power will reward the virtuous and punish the evil doers. But who's going to fall for that? As if some unknowable, invisible spirit-being is real?

Unfortunately, that's what the Baha'i Faith is trying to do... convince people that this invisible God is real and that we should do what he says. And, of course, the only way we can know what he says is by listening to his messenger, Baha'u'llah.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

The very OP title.

Maybe one needs to understand that a person can say they believe in God, but also be Godless, dark and lack virtues.

So it is applicable to choices, no matter what people call themselves.

All the best, Regards Tony

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Maybe one needs to understand that a person can say they believe in God, but also be Godless, dark and lack virtues.

No, a person is godless when they don't have belief in a god.
And what of those who have gods that are of death and darkness?

 

[danieldemol]

Let me quote from a Baha'i source what is "ungodly":

M E M O R A N D U M

To: The Universal House of Justice
Date: 10 September 2001

From: Research Department

Definition of the Word "Ungodly"

In their letter dated 1 June 2001 to the Universal House of Justice, Miss … and Miss … enquire about the meaning of the word "ungodly" as it is used in the following passage from the Hidden Words, and more generally in the Bahá'í Writings:

O Son of Dust!

Beware! Walk not with the ungodly and seek not fellowship with him, for such companionship turneth the radiance of the heart into infernal fire.1

Specifically, Miss … and Miss … seek clarification concerning "who and what is considered ‘ungodly'". The Research Department has studied these issues, and we provide the following comments.

By way of introduction, we wish to note that the Research Department has not, to date, been able to locate in the Writings of the Faith either an authoritative interpretation of the verse cited above, or a detailed definition of the Bahá'í concept of "ungodliness". We note, however, that Bahá'u'lláh appears to link the decline of religion to the rise in the influence of the "ungodly". He states, for example:

Religion is verily the chief instrument for the establishment of order in the world and of tranquillity amongst its peoples. The weakening of the pillars of religion hath strengthened the foolish and emboldened them and made them more arrogant. Verily I say: The greater the decline of religion, the more grievous the waywardness of the ungodly. This cannot but lead in the end to chaos and confusion.

The Universal House of Justice in a letter dated 10 March 1983 written on its behalf to an individual believer seeking a definition of "ungodliness" relates the concept of "ungodliness" to the Persian Hidden Words number 3 and quotes Shoghi Effendi's interpretation of this particular verse:

In response to your letter received on 6 March seeking from the Universal House of Justice a definition of "ungodliness", we have been directed to quote the following passage found on page 200 of "Dawn of a New Day", a compilation of letters written on behalf of the beloved Guardian to the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of India:

In the passage "eschew all fellowship with the ungodly", Bahá'u'lláh means that we should shun the company of those who disbelieve in God and are wayward. The word "ungodly" is a reference to such perverse people.

With reference to Shoghi Effendi's clarification quoted above, it may also be helpful to note that dictionary definitions of "wayward" include "childishly self-willed or perverse, capricious" and "unaccountable"; and the definition of "perverse" includes "stubbornly departing from what is reasonable", "persistent in error", "perverted" and "wicked". In the context of the Persian Hidden Words, number 3, then, the phrase "ungodly" apparently refers to a broad range of behaviors including those associated with Covenant-breaking.

Regarding a criteria for determining "who and what is considered ‘ungodly'", Miss … and Miss … are encouraged to reach their own understanding based on the guidance in the verses from the Hidden Words and other statements in the Writings of the Faith. To assist them in thinking about this issue, we provide, below, the following extract from a letter dated 5 April 1995 written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer:

… in choosing one's close companions, one is advised that one should not include among them those individuals who are "ungodly"—that is to say whose attitudes and lives are directed in a way that is contrary to God and His Teachings—or, as indicated in the Kitáb-i-Íqán, those people who are boastful and worldly.

Sorry, this is harder to understand outside a Baha'i context. In other words to me word "ungodly" is hard to define. This does not deny that atheists can have virtues in my view. The words "disbelieve in god" are not really addressed directly, but in light of the further words "and are wayward" this casts a different light on those words, as does also the words "boastful and worldly" This reference is from this:

He should treasure the companionship of them that have renounced the world, and regard avoidance of boastful and worldly people a precious benefit.
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 265)

This is the equivalent to this to me:

Treasure the companionship of the righteous and eschew all fellowship with the ungodly.
(Baha'u'llah, The Persian Hidden Words)

I think I can see what has happened here, Baha'u'llah came from a culture that considered non-belief equivalent to unvirtuous, and when Shoghi Effendi realised that wasn't going to fly amongst a more virtuous honest population Shoghi Effendi tried to semantically redefine the word ungodly.

The problem with this is, if we should shun people for being utterly deprived of virtue, we should do it regardless of whether they have a faith or not, so Shoghi Effendi has made the same mistake in using an "and" statement.

In other words we should not shun the virtue deprived who dont have faith while seeking the company of the virtue deprived who do have faith.

So now Baha'u'llah and Shoghi Effendi have made it part of the so called "word of God" in the Bahai faith to "shun the ungodly" Bahai's will have to play all sorts of silly semantics to try and get the words to not mean exactly what they mean for apologetic purposes.

In my opinion.

 

[Truthseeker]

Ditto.

Also

No need to clear anything up for me, I know I was offering metephor and then followed up with and explanation of what that means.

Regards Tony

Yes, but they didn't know, and did they all stay around?

 

[Truthseeker]

And many who follow no source are equally good.

Yes, of course.

 

[Truthseeker]

No assumption required, both the title and OP are saying that.

Of course he has backpedaled quite a lot but that does not change the wording of the title and the OP.

I wish people would pay attention to whole thread sometimes. He was speaking in metaphor, he doesn't believe that atheists are godless. Neither do I, he has said that in this thread.

 

[Truthseeker]

Then Tony should be more clear

Yes, he should. He is using metaphor from our religion and fuzzily so.

 

[Truthseeker]

I think I can see what has happened here, Baha'u'llah came from a culture that considered non-belief equivalent to unvirtuous, and when Shoghi Effendi realised that wasn't going to fly amongst a more virtuous honest population Shoghi Effendi tried to semantically redefine the word ungodly.

The problem with this is, if we should shun people for being utterly deprived of virtue, we should do it regardless of whether they have a faith or not, so Shoghi Effendi has made the same mistake in using an "and" statement.

In other words we should not shun the virtue deprived who dont have faith while seeking the company of the virtue deprived who do have faith.

So now Baha'u'llah and Shoghi Effendi have made it part of the so called "word of God" in the Bahai faith to "shun the ungodly" Bahai's will have to play all sorts of silly semantics to try and get the words to not mean exactly what they mean for apologetic purposes.

In my opinion.

I won't answer this. There is no way to say anything that is possible to alter your perception.

 

[ChristineM]

That is the title of the Metephor, explained I the OP.

Regards Tony

Wow. Not sure you know the meaning of a metaphor, it isn't an excuse to cover yourself with.

So if i wrote "Baha'i is lack of Virtues" would that be ok with you?

 

[ChristineM]

I wish people would pay attention to whole thread sometimes. He was speaking in metaphor, he doesn't believe that atheists are godless. Neither do I, he has said that in this thread.

Was he?, Only after being pulled up about his abuse. Why should i or others read a whole thread when the title and op is an insult?

Actually he has said that often in several threads he has created. Of course may have been using his personal definition of metaphor.

I have always been of the opinion that the first thing someone says or does is the truth, digging foxholes after the fact to me shows a defect in personality

 

[Sheldon]

QUOTE the OP where it is said an athiest is not virtuous.

Already done more than once, lets start with your unequivocal thread title.

Godless is lack of Virtues.

Godliness is being made alive in the light of God which is all the virtues.

There is little room for equivocation here.

 

[Sheldon]

Maybe one needs to understand that a person can say they believe in God, but also be Godless, dark and lack virtues.

So it is applicable to choices, no matter what people call themselves.

All the best, Regards Tony

All atheists are godless by definition, again your OP title unequivocally is asserting atheists lack virtue, or are immoral.