How are these Great Beings explained?

[Vinayaka]

Goodness is termed good because it does no harm. That is my understanding. There may be different levels of understanding but goodness is a positive thing as far as I understand it.

Many many people don't know what 'good' is when you dig deeper. A simple example is food. Sugar addicts and children will say, 'Don't you have anything good to eat?' when they mean something sweet.

At one time cigarettes were 'good' for you too.

When proselytising leads to a divorce because half of a couple is switches their faith, causiing too much fighting, and then 3 little kids have a broken home, I presume that's good, because one more person became a Baha'i'.?

I say each case is individual, and you have to weight options carefully ... very carefully.

But in Abrahamism, the ethics are usually seen this way, in very black and white terms.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Times have changed and we live in a very different age so lines have been blurred and to some these things are not clear but to Baha'is , Baha'u'llah has made it very clear what is right and wrong and good and bad and we are very fortunate in that we have God's infallible All Knowing Manifestation to guide us on these matters as well as the Universal House of Justice.

If my good is killing (say in the Sapranos example) and yours is helping others, is my good by a different name and expression or is it a good at all?

That and...

If you value other people's goodness but then don't recognize my goodness in killing, then is that really valuing and respecting my goodness (who I am)?

Can you value and respect what I believe is good (killing) without reflecting it off your own (helping others)?

 

[loverofhumanity]

There is no injunction on birth control in Hinduism. Abortion is considered very unwise.

'Will become vegetarians in the future' sounds like a society of procrastinators, to be honest. The future is now.

“Even without eating meat he would live with the utmost vigour and energy. For example, the community of the Brahmins in India do not eat meat; notwithstanding this they are not inferior to other nations in strength, power, vigour, outward senses or intellectual virtues. Truly, the killing of animals and the eating of their meat is somewhat contrary to pity and compassion, and if one can content oneself with cereals, fruit, oil and nuts, such as pistachios, almonds and so on, it would undoubtedly be better and more pleasing” Abdul-Baha

Excerpt From: Compiled by the Research Department of the Universal House of Justice. “Health, Healing and Nutrition,

 

[Vinayaka]

“Even without eating meat he would live with the utmost vigour and energy. For example, the community of the Brahmins in India do not eat meat; notwithstanding this they are not inferior to other nations in strength, power, vigour, outward senses or intellectual virtues. Truly, the killing of animals and the eating of their meat is somewhat contrary to pity and compassion, and if one can content oneself with cereals, fruit, oil and nuts, such as pistachios, almonds and so on, it would undoubtedly be better and more pleasing” Abdul-Baha

Excerpt From: Compiled by the Research Department of the Universal House of Justice. “Health, Healing and Nutrition,

I'm a vegetarian. Have been for over 40 years. And I agree to all this. But I'm questioning the wording 'in the future' . Sounds to me like just another excuse to put off a decision, based on your prophet's words. Can you answer this instead of avoiding the question this time.

Why did the prophet, his son, his grandson, and the later elected officials make such an ambiguous statement when a more direct edict seems more appropriate? Is is purposefully vague just to be nice to those people with no discipline in regard to diet? Why not just say 'Baha'i's should be vegetarian, rather than all this vagueness. If they can do it for birth control, surely they could have done it for diet.

(I'm not surprised though as vagueness seems to be the order of the day.)

 

[loverofhumanity]

I'm doing alright. How about you?

Very well thanks. It's soon going to be winter here in Australia so I'm keeping warm and snug.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I'm a vegetarian. Have been for over 40 years. And I agree to all this. But I'm questioning the wording 'in the future' . Sounds to me like just another excuse to put off a decision, based on your prophet's words. Can you answer this instead of avoiding the question this time.

Why did the prophet, his son, his grandson, and the later elected officials make such an ambiguous statement when a more direct edict seems more appropriate? Is is purposefully vague just to be nice to those people with no discipline in regard to diet? Why not just say 'Baha'i's should be vegetarian, rather than all this vagueness. If they can do it for birth control, surely they could have done it for diet.

(I'm not surprised though as vagueness seems to be the order of the day.)

It's basically left up to the individual however there is very much emphasis placed on being a vegetarian and it is predicted that meat will no longer be eaten throughout all the world.

“41. "What will be the food of the future?" "Fruit and grains. The time will come when meat will no longer be eaten. Medical science is only in its infancy, yet it has shown that our natural diet is that which grows out of the ground. The people will gradually develop up to the condition of this natural food."

('Abdu'l-Bahá, cited in Julia M. Grundy. "Ten Days in the Light of 'Akka",”

 

[loverofhumanity]

If my good is killing (say in the Sapranos example) and yours is helping others, is my good by a different name and expression or is it a good at all?

That and...

If you value other people's goodness but then don't recognize my goodness in killing, then is that really valuing and respecting my goodness (who I am)?

Can you value and respect what I believe is good (killing) without reflecting it off your own (helping others)?

For us Baha'is that which is contrary to the laws and teachings of God is not good or right.

Against what standard do you measure your definition of good? Because you think or feel it is good or say it is? What are your qualifications to define what is good or right or moral?

I do not get my concept of good from my own thoughts or feelings but from the Manifestations of God as I consider only them truly qualified to make such judgements as they are All Knowing and All Wise and I'm just little old me.

 

[Vinayaka]

It's basically left up to the individual however there is very much emphasis placed on being a vegetarian and it is predicted that meat will no longer be eaten throughout all the world.

“41. "What will be the food of the future?" "Fruit and grains. The time will come when meat will no longer be eaten. Medical science is only in its infancy, yet it has shown that our natural diet is that which grows out of the ground. The people will gradually develop up to the condition of this natural food."

('Abdu'l-Bahá, cited in Julia M. Grundy. "Ten Days in the Light of 'Akka",”

Again you avoided the question, reiterating what you said before. It's been a hundred years or so since Baha'u'llah's son said this. In other words, this IS the future. Science has proven definitively that humans can live on a vegetarian diet. If that's what you're waiting for, it is here now. Besides that, living life-long vegetarians from faiths like mine prove it. So why all this stuff about 'in the future'. Did he mean a million years from now? It provides an excuse not to be a vegetarian. and is the same principle as 'when I get around tio it, whern your wife asks you to take the garbage out?

Whay doesn't the House of Justice just make the decision (and the one about women serving on it) and get the darn thing over with. What are you all waiting for. Perhaps it's the new prophet to come? Maybe he will tell you to become a vegetarian, and then finally you can just do it. Apparently it does take a prophet to tell you what to do. Those decisions are just so hard by yourself, no?

 

[Vinayaka]

I do not get my concept of good from my own thoughts or feelings

Are you admitting you have no conscience at all? You can't do anything without the prophet?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Against what standard do you measure your definition of good? Because you think or feel it is good or say it is? What are your qualifications to define what is good or right or moral?

If I used Sapranos example for a minute: Saprano has a family in a huge mansion of a home. He's the boss of an organized crime. All of his money comes from illegal activity. We may think that is bad but in his mind it is good. He tells his daughter that all of her education, food, shelter, everything comes from what he does for a living. It's been like that since he was a kid. That is his good. The business. We may see bad in organized crime but in this fictional series, we need to step away from our definitions and look into the other person's shoes.

The qualifications for his good is loyalty, dedication, and responsibility. If someone asks him for a loan, they will get the interest if they don't pay. If they don't pay in time, they lose a limb or a life. He has love for his children. That love is based on how he takes care of his wife and children. It's not a common foundation unless your love is based on how he makes a living. There are different truths. Different loves. Different goods.

I like this example because what I think is good and what you think is good, you personally may think of a common foundation because it is not illegal. This extreme example does not exclude that Saprano (and people like him) have no good-the killing based on lack of responsibility and your good which, weirdly, excludes the existence of evil. (I don't believe evil exist but I don't justify that with everyone all being good)

What qualifies? Our individual sense of right and wrong. It could be based on how we were raised, our varied expressions, our religion, or so forth. But they are different. No common foundation form morals (example above).

I do not get my concept of good from my own thoughts or feelings but from the Manifestations of God as I consider only them truly qualified to make such judgements as they are All Knowing and All Wise and I'm just little old me.

Most god-believers believe this. I'm not asking you to see good differently for yourself but to look in other people's shoes and understand why good is different (not by expression but different as in @Vinayaka example with his guru) different than yours by foundation and expression.

Can you see that?

For us Baha'is that which is contrary to the laws and teachings of God is not good or right.

In one post you said you don't believe in evil. What is the opposite of what god things is good and right?

There are many people like myself who do not believe in god. Therefore, what you define as our good is an illusion. It's thinking that our good comes from a god you believe in when that is simply not true.

Regardless of what you believe, do you understand that your belief doesn't dictate someone else's truth?

Do you understand that that is the key to respecting diversity is accepting what other people say is true about themselves?

Even if you disagree, what is your disagreement based on if there is no such thing as sin/evil/or things that are against god?

 

[loverofhumanity]

Many many people don't know what 'good' is when you dig deeper. A simple example is food. Sugar addicts and children will say, 'Don't you have anything good to eat?' when they mean something sweet.

At one time cigarettes were 'good' for you too.

When proselytising leads to a divorce because half of a couple is switches their faith, causiing too much fighting, and then 3 little kids have a broken home, I presume that's good, because one more person became a Baha'i'.?

I say each case is individual, and you have to weight options carefully ... very carefully.

But in Abrahamism, the ethics are usually seen this way, in very black and white terms.

I think all truth is relative and goodness is relative but there are some broad parameters that the Manifestations set forth in each age.

For physical matters we rely on science mostly but science does need to be ethical enough not to endorse harmful things for us because of profits it may reap.

Why should a change of religion lead to a broken home? Freedom of belief is each individuals universal human right. If everyone respects that right then why would change of religion break up a family?

Each must respect the right of the other to freedom of worship.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Your reasoning?

It's not forbidden to steal or kill in all religions. There are religions that support human sacrifice.

 

[Vinayaka]

Why should a change of religion lead to a broken home? Freedom of belief is each individuals universal human right. If everyone respects that right then why would change of religion break up a family?

Why should people try to convert others when the evidence shows that it can lead to broken homes. Differences in religion, how to raise the children, especially when one person is fanatical about it, does lead to broken homes. Of course the proselytisers can choose to ignore this if they wist to. But many 'religious' groups, including Baha'i' have higher than average divorce rates. This is one of the causes. If my spouse became some preaching zealot nagging at me all the time, I'd divorce her. Nobody needs a life of nagging.

 

[loverofhumanity]

If I used Sapranos example for a minute: Saprano has a family in a huge mansion of a home. He's the boss of an organized crime. All of his money comes from illegal activity. We may think that is bad but in his mind it is good. He tells his daughter that all of her education, food, shelter, everything comes from what he does for a living. It's been like that since he was a kid. That is his good. The business. We may see bad in organized crime but in this fictional series, we need to step away from our definitions and look into the other person's shoes.

The qualifications for his good is loyalty, dedication, and responsibility. If someone asks him for a loan, they will get the interest if they don't pay. If they don't pay in time, they lose a limb or a life. He has love for his children. That love is based on how he takes care of his wife and children. It's not a common foundation unless your love is based on how he makes a living. There are different truths. Different loves. Different goods.

I like this example because what I think is good and what you think is good, you personally may think of a common foundation because it is not illegal. This extreme example does not exclude that Saprano (and people like him) have no good-the killing based on lack of responsibility and your good which, weirdly, excludes the existence of evil. (I don't believe evil exist but I don't justify that with everyone all being good)

What qualifies? Our individual sense of right and wrong. It could be based on how we were raised, our varied expressions, our religion, or so forth. But they are different. No common foundation form morals (example above).



Most god-believers believe this. I'm not asking you to see good differently for yourself but to look in other people's shoes and understand why good is different (not by expression but different as in @Vinayaka example with his guru) different than yours by foundation and expression.

Can you see that?



In one post you said you don't believe in evil. What is the opposite of what god things is good and right?

There are many people like myself who do not believe in god. Therefore, what you define as our good is an illusion. It's thinking that our good comes from a god you believe in when that is simply not true.

Regardless of what you believe, do you understand that your belief doesn't dictate someone else's truth?

Do you understand that that is the key to respecting diversity is accepting what other people say is true about themselves?

Even if you disagree, what is your disagreement based on if there is no such thing as sin/evil/or things that are against god?

I can only tell you what I know is truth or goodness. You may have your own version and that's fine. But you're speaking mainly hypothetically and in the realm of thought you can think what you like but in the real world there are basic laws and boundaries and parameters that don't allow for such a diverse form of 'good'.

Killing and murder is forbidden in all nations as is stealing and many other crimes. In the real world your hypothesis if carried out in practice will put you in a prison cell.

Speculate all you want in the realm of thought but as soon as you step into the real world you will find good and bad and right and wrong quite clearly defined within laws and boundaries that no human is permitted to overstep and if they do they are punished.

In your mythical world and maybe soap operas there are all these things but in the legal world of laws and consitituions they don't exist. You kill or murder you go to jail or hang.

There is a basic acceptance of behaviour common to all nations based upon a common understanding of right and wrong.

I believe there have always been Manifestations even millions of years ago before Hinduism - so right and wrong, good and bad were defined by them before we even knew civilisation existed.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Are you admitting you have no conscience at all? You can't do anything without the prophet?

On the contrary I have consulted the most accurate source and gone with it instead of relying on my limited, fallible human knowledge.

There are times like when we are ill that turning to a specialist is much more plausable than self diagnosis.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Again you avoided the question, reiterating what you said before. It's been a hundred years or so since Baha'u'llah's son said this. In other words, this IS the future. Science has proven definitively that humans can live on a vegetarian diet. If that's what you're waiting for, it is here now. Besides that, living life-long vegetarians from faiths like mine prove it. So why all this stuff about 'in the future'. Did he mean a million years from now? It provides an excuse not to be a vegetarian. and is the same principle as 'when I get around tio it, whern your wife asks you to take the garbage out?

Whay doesn't the House of Justice just make the decision (and the one about women serving on it) and get the darn thing over with. What are you all waiting for. Perhaps it's the new prophet to come? Maybe he will tell you to become a vegetarian, and then finally you can just do it. Apparently it does take a prophet to tell you what to do. Those decisions are just so hard by yourself, no?

I think future is referring to the gradual education of people and the need for time to adjust from a meat eating diet to a vegetarian one and so no hard and fast laws were laid down.

Baha'is are free to become vegetarian or not. These decisions are left to the individual.

I can't second guess why it wasn't made law. Perhaps because it's inevitable as the sun rises so there was no need to legislate.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I have to use extreme examples because if I used mine or refer to @Vinayaka you'd continue to find similarities in our goodness/truths as if our foundations are the same and our expressions are different. Mind you, that is your belief but you do tell me your belief often but I don't know if you understand I-language. I understand we-language because I was a part of the Church. However, that doesn't mean I can't think on my own without a prophet and/or god. That's me. I'm hoping you understand.

I can only tell you what I know is truth or goodness. You may have your own version and that's fine. But you're speaking mainly hypothetically and in the realm of thought you can think what you like but in the real world there are basic laws and boundaries and parameters that don't allow for such a diverse form of 'good'.

Many people think killing is good. It's not a far fetch hypothetical other than I don't know if many organized crime members see a psychiatrist.

Killing and murder is forbidden in all nations as is stealing and many other crimes. In the real world your hypothesis if carried out in practice will put you in a prison cell.

Actually, law and morals are totally different. There are many children who grow up thinking murder is alright regardless of how they are raised. Something in their predisposition makes them feel a disregard to human life. It's called Antisocial Personality Disorder. They call it a disorder but they call anything they can't explain some type of disorder. It is just as normal as anything else. The only problem is does this person who lack empathy for others go about killing others. That's a legal issue not a moral one.

You may disagree with their goodness; but, if they attended a Bahai event, how much respect would you give them without reflecting your morals on them? Would the respect be more surface level or would you get to know them for who they are even in their definition of good and act thereof?​

Speculate all you want in the realm of thought but as soon as you step into the real world you will find good and bad and right and wrong quite clearly defined within laws and boundaries that no human is permitted to overstep and if they do they are punished.

This is the real world. For example, if I found goodness in death and killing, would you consider that not the real world all because you disagree with it? Movies are not thought up out of mid-air. When I write and do poetry, the concept, context, and ideas have already been thought of. I'm not an alien nor are the writers of these scripts.

It will be hard to talk with me if you can't find truth in hypotheticals. I'm a artist.

In your mythical world and maybe soap operas there are all these things but in the legal world of laws and consitituions they don't exist. You kill or murder you go to jail or hang.

You're mixing fiction, morals, myths, and law. Actively read what I say. Myths are stories that aren't prove by facts. Morals are what we consider right and wrong by social and upbringing standards. Law is what society considers right and wrong to the people's well being. Myths can be used to explain truth and logic. Morals are individual or by community. Law is societal.

You can't disregard myths (nor call them myths-that is disrespect) if I'm trying to make a point unless you are not willing to understand it.

There is a basic acceptance of behaviour common to all nations based upon a common understanding of right and wrong.

If you like. In parts of Africa, killing animals for ritual practice is the norm. In America, the animal rights will get on that. In some countries, killing is a form of capital punishment. In America, all states used to have that moral but some are relaxing in it. Some people see murder as good others as bad. You're living in a mythological world; if you want to add that criticism in. Not everything has a common denominator.

I believe there have always been Manifestations even millions of years ago before Hinduism - so right and wrong, good and bad were defined by them before we even knew civilisation existed.

I wouldn't agree unless a Hindu agrees with it. It's a healthy belief but you are not Hindu. I don't understand how you don't get that.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Why should people try to convert others when the evidence shows that it can lead to broken homes. Differences in religion, how to raise the children, especially when one person is fanatical about it, does lead to broken homes. Of course the proselytisers can choose to ignore this if they wist to. But many 'religious' groups, including Baha'i' have higher than average divorce rates. This is one of the causes. If my spouse became some preaching zealot nagging at me all the time, I'd divorce her. Nobody needs a life of nagging.

I know Baha'is who are married to members of other Faiths and it hasn't ended up in divorce or broken the home up. And I'm happily married soon 40 years to a Baha'i. A lot of marriages break down that have nothing to do with religion at all.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I have to use extreme examples because if I used mine or refer to @Vinayaka you'd continue to find similarities in our goodness/truths as if our foundations are the same and our expressions are different. Mind you, that is your belief but you do tell me your belief often but I don't know if you understand I-language. I understand we-language because I was a part of the Church. However, that doesn't mean I can't think on my own without a prophet and/or god. That's me. I'm hoping you understand.


Many people think killing is good. It's not a far fetch hypothetical other than I don't know if many organized crime members see a psychiatrist.



Actually, law and morals are totally different. There are many children who grow up thinking murder is alright regardless of how they are raised. Something in their predisposition makes them feel a disregard to human life. It's called Antisocial Personality Disorder. They call it a disorder but they call anything they can't explain some type of disorder. It is just as normal as anything else. The only problem is does this person who lack empathy for others go about killing others. That's a legal issue not a moral one.

You may disagree with their goodness; but, if they attended a Bahai event, how much respect would you give them without reflecting your morals on them? Would the respect be more surface level or would you get to know them for who they are even in their definition of good and act thereof?​

This is the real world. For example, if I found goodness in death and killing, would you consider that not the real world all because you disagree with it? Movies are not thought up out of mid-air. When I write and do poetry, the concept, context, and ideas have already been thought of. I'm not an alien nor are the writers of these scripts.

It will be hard to talk with me if you can't find truth in hypotheticals. I'm a artist.



You're mixing fiction, morals, myths, and law. Actively read what I say. Myths are stories that aren't prove by facts. Morals are what we consider right and wrong by social and upbringing standards. Law is what society considers right and wrong to the people's well being. Myths can be used to explain truth and logic. Morals are individual or by community. Law is societal.

You can't disregard myths (nor call them myths-that is disrespect) if I'm trying to make a point unless you are not willing to understand it.



If you like. In parts of Africa, killing animals for ritual practice is the norm. In America, the animal rights will get on that. In some countries, killing is a form of capital punishment. In America, all states used to have that moral but some are relaxing in it. Some people see murder as good others as bad. You're living in a mythological world; if you want to add that criticism in. Not everything has a common denominator.



I wouldn't agree unless a Hindu agrees with it. It's a healthy belief but you are not Hindu. I don't understand how you don't get that.

In the realm of thought there are varying understandings of goodness but in society I am saying that it's different. You can't do everything you think and feel. Do you understand?

When I say people basically have one common goodness I am referring to the practice of it not what is imagined by people.

You can think and imagine anything you like and my thoughts may be opposite to yours but in the real world there's a common understanding in all societies that you can't murder people so however much a person may belive its good, it's unacceptable to society.

Maybe what I'm trying to say is what we think only matters when we try to act on it. When we act on it and the thought becomes a deed that's where we will find that there's a common consensus in the world of reality and practical application judging that deed to be good or not.

In the world of imagination one can imagine anything they want and it's fine and in their imahpgination they may think it right for thrm but in the real world on cannot always translate these thoughts into deeds without consequences.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

In the realm of thought there are varying understandings of goodness but in society I am saying that it's different. You can't do everything you think and feel. Do you understand?

No. I don't understand. Everything I do is what I think and feel. My thoughts and feelings aren't based nor reflective of a higher power. My morals are not prophet nor god basis and I have yet to understand how another person can base their morals on god and/or a prophet.

Goodness is different for everyone. Each person has their own foundation of goodness. There is no common foundation.

When I say people basically have one common goodness I am referring to the practice of it not what is imagined by people.

I don't understand. You are belittling people by putting down the goodness they feel and think in place of the goodness someone else defines. You are saying there is a common goodness and ignoring the fact that to have something in common everyone has to agree.

You have an individual belief. It isn't in common with other people. We are telling you it is not. Agreement makes what we have in common. When you do not agree, it is your opinion but there is no common denominator. Understand?​

If I said it more bluntly, the common denominator you're seeing is an illusion because if you assume everyone agrees when they tell you they do not, it's not just your belief and opinion, it is also belittling what they say is true about themselves.

You can think and imagine anything you like and my thoughts may be opposite to yours but in the real world there's a common understanding in all societies that you can't murder people so however much a person may belive its good, it's unacceptable to society.

The real world is polytheistic. People like to think everyone has something in common. It's a dominate way of thinking. It's been repeated through many religions: Muslim, Christianity.

Unacceptable to society has to do with the law. It is not a common denominator. If you look at history, you would see this is true.

People can think murdering is good regardless of what the law thinks. If you have ever been part of religions that value sacrifice you will understand why this is true.

To be blunt, I feel you are in an illusionary world. If you don't see differences and the different ways people define goodness outside of your prophet's teachings, then you put yourself in a mythological world.

Nothing wrong with that morally. Just I don't understand it. It's not just you.

Maybe what I'm trying to say is what we think only matters when we try to act on it. When we act on it and the thought becomes a deed that's where we will find that there's a common consensus in the world of reality and practical application judging that deed to be good or not.

That's wishful thinking. I won't ever agree with a christian to build common consensus in thought. A christian wouldn't agree with a bahai. Most people understand this. Universalist do not. Dont understand why.

In the world of imagination one can imagine anything they want and it's fine and in their imahpgination they may think it right for thrm but in the real world on cannot always translate these thoughts into deeds without consequences.

Why do you think what we want, think, and feel is a bad thing? Should we not want, think, and feel? That's an insult to me and a lot of people who value their desires, thoughts, and feelings.

I have desires. Why are they considered bad because I have them. I have thoughts. I have feelings. Is it because they aren't based on god that it is wrong?

Again, I asked you, since my goodness is not your goodness (not expression but completely different) is my goodness not real?

I can't remember the actual question. You never answered it.