siti
Well-Known Member
And here's a picture of itNo, it is the same Divine Elixir that is sent in every age, in a new bottle.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
And here's a picture of itNo, it is the same Divine Elixir that is sent in every age, in a new bottle.
I had a feeling there would be retribution for that passage,And here's a picture of it
And here's a picture of it
He seems a bit fixated on this transmutation of elements thing doesn't he?The first sign of the coming of age of humanity referred to in the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh is the emergence of a science which is described as that "divine philosophy" which will include the discovery of a radical approach to the transmutation of elements.
Well they tried that and it didn't catch on - I wouldn't be holding my breath on that one if I were you.O members of parliaments throughout the world! Select ye a single language for the use of all on earth, and adopt ye likewise a common script.
@Tony Bristow-Stagg - why do you keep tagging my posts "optimistic"?
He seems a bit fixated on this transmutation of elements thing doesn't he?
Well they tried that and it didn't catch on - I wouldn't be holding my breath on that one if I were you.
Its not that I don't like it - its fine for anyone to assess any of my posts as they see it - no problem at all with that. I just didn't understand what you meant since I did not think I had posted anything that seemed to me to be 'optimistic'. Anyway, its all good.I see that someone that once had faith, that to now discount any possibly that the greatest advice that has ever been given to humanity as a whole, in favour of ones own view, is a very optomistic choice in life.
If you are not happy for me to do that, then I will not.
But I will still see it as very optomistic.
I agree with a lot of what you said, except the "Baha'u'llah's is not" part... but I can understand why you think that.Its not that I don't like it - its fine for anyone to assess any of my posts as they see it - no problem at all with that. I just didn't understand what you meant since I did not think I had posted anything that seemed to me to be 'optimistic'. Anyway, its all good.
FWIW though, I don't see my viewpoint as 'optimistic' (i.e. the belief that things will get better) so much as 'melioristic' (i.e. the belief that things can get better, but only by our own efforts)...but mostly I think I'm rather 'pessimistic' - especially about the future of humankind...it seems to me it will be much worse for my grandchildren than it was for our generation - and I hope against hope that it will get better. But I certainly don't expect any miraculous divine interventions - its up to us and we're making a lousy job of it - and, often, excusing ourselves in the name of religion. In that sense, not only do I reject the religious notion of 'infallibility' - but I actually hold the prophets responsible for keeping the masses in unrealistic expectation instead of prompting them to meaningful action in defense of the future of humanity and the habitat we share with the rest of the living things that share our home. Even if we do - as promised - succeed in turning base metals into precious gold - we'll almost certainly waste it on fripperies and continue with mindless abandon to destroy our own home and imagine that there's another one awaiting us as a reward for believing the right things even though we persist in doing all the wrong things.
As far as I can tell, Baha'u'llah has little, if anything, meaningful to say about any of that and yet purports to have prescribed the panacea for all the ills of the world with his divinely inspired pen.
Baha'u'llah's is not, it seems to me, an infallible revelation for a new age - its more like the last of a dying breed of imagined supernatural revelations that humanity will - if it knows what's good for itself - dispense with altogether before too long in favour of a genuinely workable solution 'revealed' by nature and humanity's deeper understanding of its embedding therein. That, in itself, will not be 'infallible' either because nature is not infallible - but if it follows nature's pattern, it will evolve as needs change...and that is what religion based on 'infallible' revelations cannot do.
FWIW though, I don't see my viewpoint as 'optimistic' (i.e. the belief that things will get better) so much as 'melioristic' (i.e. the belief that things can get better, but only by our own efforts)...but mostly I think I'm rather 'pessimistic' - especially about the future of humankind...it seems to me it will be much worse for my grandchildren than it was for our generation - and I hope against hope that it will get better. But I certainly don't expect any miraculous divine interventions - its up to us and we're making a lousy job of it - and, often, excusing ourselves in the name of religion. In that sense, not only do I reject the religious notion of 'infallibility' - but I actually hold the prophets responsible for keeping the masses in unrealistic expectation instead of prompting them to meaningful action in defense of the future of humanity and the habitat we share with the rest of the living things that share our home. Even if we do - as promised - succeed in turning base metals into precious gold - we'll almost certainly waste it on fripperies and continue with mindless abandon to destroy our own home and imagine that there's another one awaiting us as a reward for believing the right things even though we persist in doing all the wrong things.
I was just pointing out the use of negatively charged descriptors, by which one can demean their ideological enemies.shakes head back. Obviously, you aren't interesting in thinking about these things. Yet, you feel a need to display this for some reason?
What offends me is your behaviors. On to ignore you go.I was just pointing out the use of negatively charged descriptors, by which one can demean their ideological enemies.
Does that offend you?
Why do you feel the need to project opon my desires, thinking, and motives? Does that refute my point, somehow?
My behaviors?What offends me is your behaviors. On to ignore you go.
and I hope against hope that it will get better. But I certainly don't expect any miraculous divine interventions - its up to us and we're making a lousy job of it
Baha'u'llah's is not, it seems to me, an infallible revelation for a new age - its more like the last of a dying breed of imagined supernatural revelations that humanity will - if it knows what's good for itself - dispense with altogether before too long in favour of a genuinely workable solution 'revealed' by nature and humanity's deeper understanding of its inextricable embedding therein.
In regards to "papal infallibility", here: Papal infallibility - Wikipedia
I gotta go for now, but let me just say that I have always had some trouble with this concept, therefore I cannot take it at face-value.
That! That's the 'unrealistic hope' I'm talking about. It takes different forms in different religions but that's it in a nutshell - that without God we can't do it - but don't worry, God will make it happen. Well that's not going to happen - the only way that human society can improve is if humans improve it. God - at least any conception of God that is not of this generation - this time - this particular set of human needs and aspirations - is not going to do anything. That is the lesson we need to learn from religion.There will be no other force found that can make this happen, other than Faith in God
God we can't do it - but don't worry, God will make it happen. Well that's not going to happen - the only way that human society can improve is if humans improve it.
But the point is that attempting to do it in a way prescribed by an ancient man who reportedly imagined himself to have been in touch with God centuries ago is counterproductive. Human society has moved on in giant leaps since the mid-19th century - you may have noticed - what was suggested then is certainly not a good match for what is needed now...and that gap is only going to get wider as time and humanity 'progresses'.It is man that has to do it. In that process they find that they ended up doing what God had asked us to do in the first place. When they find that to be so, they then also embrace Faith in God.