Problems with the Baha'i faith

[Vinayaka]

1)Possibly. I don't see teaching as one who is learned saying something to one who is ignorant. Rather two friends or acquaintances sharing what they care about. Then it is mutual and we learn from each other.

2)I don't think all faiths are wonderful though.

3)Sometimes people end up with the religion they deserve.

Thanks again for the informed and rational response.

1) I tried to see teaching school like that ... a mutual thing. Certainly a few students taught me a lot. I do have moments when I feel compelled to share, but they're always when someone asks, usually at temple, or when I'm asked to host a group there. Some members of my sampradaya have held classes, and they put up a poster to announce it.

2) Certainly I don't think all faiths are wonderful either, but I don't think anyone out there is easily changed, until they have the realisation, 'Uh, oh, what am I doing?" Then they go looking, and yes they end up with the religion they deserve, for the most part. Baha'i' is most certainly a step up from the really dogma based stuff like radical Islam or fundamentalist Christianity. But I don't generalise either. There are many loving and tolerant Christian churches, and Islamic groups who willingly participate in interfaith diuscussions, for example.

 

[paarsurrey]

Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Page 213

I would like the reference of the original book written by Baha'u'llah, with English translation if possible. Please
Regards

 

[Vinayaka]

I would like the reference of the original book written by Baha'u'llah, with English translation if possible. Please
Regards

Paar, you can look these things up on your own. Google is your friend.

 

[paarsurrey]

Paar, you can look these things up on your own. Google is your friend.

If you have googled, then please provide it here.
Regards

 

[Vinayaka]

If you have googled, then please provide it here.
Regards

Yes I did. 'Books written by Baha'ullah'. is what I googled. I think you are capable, Paar.

 

[Windwalker]

Humans are not some monolithic block which all stand of fall together. Few people are completely dominated by their culture but most are influenced. However I still do not see the relevance.

That's like trying to say fish are not dominated by the water they swim in. It defines everything within their experience of being a fish. Have you ever heard of the term consensus trance?

States of consciousness, from altered states to the state earthlings call "normal waking consciousness," have been Charley Tart's specialty for two decades. Surprisingly, Dr. Tart no longer calls it "normal consciousness," and has substituted what he feels to be a more accurate term: consensus trance. To him, the idea of "normal consciousness" is the kind of convenient fiction illustrated by the famous folktale of "the emperor's new clothes." Together, human groups agree on which of their perceptions should be admitted to awareness (hence, consensus), then they train each other to see the world in that way and only in that way (hence trance).​

Charley Tart on Consensus Trance: <SLAP> <SLAP> Wake up!

How it is relevant is that people create in religions agreed upon truths which they then build and support together. What is "actually true" is largely just agreed upon conventions. To say a religion for instance is a "false religion", is not true internally to them if it is functioning for them. It's "false" only relative to another system with its own internal truths.

So when you say, "If a religion is true it comes from a transcendent source so far above ourselves that we must simply accept it as is," this is an illusion. The truth of that religion, comes from its members, and that truth does indeed change and evolve as the cultures they are part of change and evolve. It changes because how people perceive truth, changes as they do. Just because someone attributes their truth to a deity, that's just granting it special status for the power of the symbol.

The sun is spherical in shape and its actual shape is completely independent of what shape I, you, or anyone thinks. Facts don't care about our perceptions, preferences, or feelings. Deny gravity, jump off a cliff, and then we can see whether your assumptions can change the nature of gravity.

And the things we're talking about are not the lowest possible common denominators such as gravity or shapes of objects. I don't think there is one person in any religion that disputes those things with others. But when you step way, way beyond that into things like morality, or value systems, now the level of complexity if vastly more subtle and nuanced than a rock dropping on your foot. You cannot equate these things as some principle in how to find truth on that level.

These sorts of truths are NOT sensorimotor related. They are mental and spiritual in nature, operating at much higher levels than physics. To understand a stove is hot, you only need put your hand on the burner. To understand if someone is an honest and true person, you have to undergo a considerably more complex system of knowing. You have to interview them. Then you have to weigh a host of other factors through all your filters of learned expeirences and cultural norms. Then at best you can trust a certain degree of confidence in your impressions, and so forth. Now when you enter into the spiritual domain, then that's a whole other set of criteria and tools to apprehend truth at that level.

So no, 2+2=4 does not apply. Equating it with higher spiritual truths is a nothing other than a simple category error.

Are you an anti-realist?

Nope. I suppose you could understand me as a critical realist. I understand the complexities of how we come to understand objective truths, and reject what is called the myth of the given. It's an illusion of the mind to think you can just be told by a God just what's what, and that you can actually apprehend that.

How do you know the nature of all the thousands of God's men have believed in? You would literally have to go to every place in the universe and run a God detection test to know what you claimed.

I'd never claim to know all the details of every deity out there, but it is safe to make certain general and categorizations of the many deity forms humans have studied, and see general patterns emerge, which prove to be true when encounter other deity systems. That's science for you. One doesn't need to look at every atom that exists in order to understand atoms.

My God has no physical attributes, is independent of time, and is omnipresent, etc..... so he obviously is not made in my image.

Oh, but you do more than just that when you envision God! If you did nothing more than that, then that description of God could be applied to the vacuum of space. Do you relate to God as a type of force, or do you attribute a mind, a will, a personality, intention, thought, desire, judgement, and all those other things? If you do, then you are projecting human attributes on the Infinite. That is creating God in a projection of our own self-awareness, or own image. You can't deny that.

I am not sure that all religions are God based, depends on how you define religion.

No, it really has more to do with how one defines God. If you understand God as "one's ultimate concern", then all valid religions have God, or Ultimate Concern as Tillich termed it, as their core.

Regardless if there is a God similar to mine then his revelations should have completely sovereignty over creation.

These "revelations" are only as valid as the one who holds them as truth. They are not separate from the individual who acts as an interpreter. The best you can ever hope for is a human's understand of truth. Even if you claim to have "God's word", it still has to pass through your digestive system and brings all of that with it as you output it, both to your own mind, and the minds of other.

You can't have Absolute Truth, because you are not Absolute yourself. If it exists outside you independently, then it is meaningless to anyone. It's only when we pick something up and make ourselves part of it, and it part of us, that it has meaning. But since you're now part of it, it's no longer its raw pure form, and in the case of God, no longer Absolute. It's not "God's word", but your idea of God's word. In other words, your word.

Understand?

I'll respond to the rest later on......

 

[paarsurrey]

Yes I did. 'Books written by Baha'ullah'. is what I googled. I think you are capable, Paar.

There are four core kitabs or books of Baha'u'llah:

1. Kitáb-i-Íqán, "The Book of Certitude"
2. Kitáb-i-`Ahdí, "Book of My Covenant"
3. Kitáb-i-Badí', "Wondrous/Unique Book"
4. Kitáb-i-Aqdas, "The Most Holy Book"

I want reference from these books, not from the books written/compiled by the Bahais .
Regards

 

[Vinayaka]

There are four core kitabs or books of Baha'u'llah:

1. Kitáb-i-Íqán, "The Book of Certitude"
2. Kitáb-i-`Ahdí, "Book of My Covenant"
3. Kitáb-i-Badí', "Wondrous/Unique Book"
4. Kitáb-i-Aqdas, "The Most Holy Book"

I want reference from these books, not from the books written/compiled by the Bahais .
Regards

I'm not a Baha'i' so I have no idea. Best wishes.

 

[paarsurrey]

I'm not a Baha'i' so I have no idea. Best wishes.

Thanks and regards, please

 

[1robin]

That's like trying to say fish are not dominated by the water they swim in. It defines everything within their experience of being a fish. Have you ever heard of the term consensus trance?

That would correlate to humans being dominated by air, dirt, or anything else we are in contact with most of the time. So what?

States of consciousness, from altered states to the state earthlings call "normal waking consciousness," have been Charley Tart's specialty for two decades. Surprisingly, Dr. Tart no longer calls it "normal consciousness," and has substituted what he feels to be a more accurate term: consensus trance. To him, the idea of "normal consciousness" is the kind of convenient fiction illustrated by the famous folktale of "the emperor's new clothes." Together, human groups agree on which of their perceptions should be admitted to awareness (hence, consensus), then they train each other to see the world in that way and only in that way (hence trance).

Charley Tart on Consensus Trance: <SLAP> <SLAP> Wake up!

You don't want to start down the road into the hard problem of consciousness. You first must have an objective description for what consciousness is, good luck? Charley Tart's theory would also mean that it its self was a product of culture and should therefor not be believed. Charley should slap himself.

How it is relevant is that people create in religions agreed upon truths which they then build and support together. What is "actually true" is largely just agreed upon conventions. To say a religion for instance is a "false religion", is not true internally to them if it is functioning for them. It's "false" only relative to another system with its own internal truths.

Another poster said Christianity couldn't be true because there are so many disagreements between Christians, your saying the exact opposite. By the law of non-contradiction, either 1 or neither of you can be correct. I know which I am betting on. My religion was recorded over 1800 years and by people from completely different cultures without any connections. Moses and Paul didn't collude on anything, and David and Mathew never heard of each other. 2500 prophecies don't get fulfilled by cultural collusion. The fortress city of Tyre for example was actually wiped off the face of the Earth just as the bible predicted. It isn't some myth a few people invented.

So when you say, "If a religion is true it comes from a transcendent source so far above ourselves that we must simply accept it as is," this is an illusion. The truth of that religion, comes from its members, and that truth does indeed change and evolve as the cultures they are part of change and evolve. It changes because how people perceive truth, changes as they do. Just because someone attributes their truth to a deity, that's just granting it special status for the power of the symbol.

That is 100% baseless presumption. You have all your work before you, you must first show that a God doesn't or can't exist and that he isn't personal. The dead sea scrolls proved that the bible is more textually reliable (unchanged) than any text of any kind in ancient history.

And the things we're talking about are not the lowest possible common denominators such as gravity or shapes of objects. I don't think there is one person in any religion that disputes those things with others. But when you step way, way beyond that into things like morality, or value systems, now the level of complexity if vastly more subtle and nuanced than a rock dropping on your foot. You cannot equate these things as some principle in how to find truth on that level.

God (a disembodied mind and uncaused first cause) is the simplest and most necessary concept possible.

These sorts of truths are NOT sensorimotor related. They are mental and spiritual in nature, operating at much higher levels than physics. To understand a stove is hot, you only need put your hand on the burner. To understand if someone is an honest and true person, you have to undergo a considerably more complex system of knowing. You have to interview them. Then you have to weigh a host of other factors through all your filters of learned expeirences and cultural norms. Then at best you can trust a certain degree of confidence in your impressions, and so forth. Now when you enter into the spiritual domain, then that's a whole other set of criteria and tools to apprehend truth at that level.

What are these levels you refer to? What standard are you using and where did you get it?

So no, 2+2=4 does not apply. Equating it with higher spiritual truths is a nothing other than a simple category error.

The existence of natural laws requires the prior existence of a natural law giver. The modern scientific revolution occurred only in Christian Europe because men who believed in a rational creator believed that he would create a rational (lawful universe) science is how they decoded the rationality found in nature. Every real effect requires an even more certain cause.

Nope. I suppose you could understand me as a critical realist. I understand the complexities of how we come to understand objective truths, and reject what is called the myth of the given. It's an illusion of the mind to think you can just be told by a God just what's what, and that you can actually apprehend that.

Again this is a conclusion that is missing a premise. You must first know, then show that no personal God does or can exist. Until you demonstrate your premise your conclusion is just white noise.

I'd never claim to know all the details of every deity out there, but it is safe to make certain general and categorizations of the many deity forms humans have studied, and see general patterns emerge, which prove to be true when encounter other deity systems. That's science for you. One doesn't need to look at every atom that exists in order to understand atoms.

No science must assume that atoms are lawful to believe that they understand them all. BTW laws are descriptive not prescriptive. 2 + 2 never created 4 of anything.

Oh, but you do more than just that when you envision God! If you did nothing more than that, then that description of God could be applied to the vacuum of space. Do you relate to God as a type of force, or do you attribute a mind, a will, a personality, intention, thought, desire, judgement, and all those other things? If you do, then you are projecting human attributes on the Infinite. That is creating God in a projection of our own self-awareness, or own image. You can't deny that.

No, that is the description of the ontology of the God I believe in. The only uncertainty is whether that God exists or not.

No, it really has more to do with how one defines God. If you understand God as "one's ultimate concern", then all valid religions have God, or Ultimate Concern as Tillich termed it, as their core.

I didn't define God, I found his description preexisting, and to learn that a being of that description is exactly what you need to sufficiently explain reality.

These "revelations" are only as valid as the one who holds them as truth. They are not separate from the individual who acts as an interpreter. The best you can ever hope for is a human's understand of truth. Even if you claim to have "God's word", it still has to pass through your digestive system and brings all of that with it as you output it, both to your own mind, and the minds of other.

The bible is basically a treasure map. I followed it and found the treasure and so my interpretation of it must have been correct.

You can't have Absolute Truth, because you are not Absolute yourself. If it exists outside you independently, then it is meaningless to anyone. It's only when we pick something up and make ourselves part of it, and it part of us, that it has meaning. But since you're now part of it, it's no longer its raw pure form, and in the case of God, no longer Absolute. It's not "God's word", but your idea of God's word. In other words, your word.

I know with absolution that I think. Show that to be false. Your like a tautology machine, is the claim that I can't have absolute truth absolutely true or not?

Understand?

I'll respond to the rest later on......

Not really, your response seems to be all conclusion and no arguments or premise'

 

[Windwalker]

...finishing my response....

Following your logic to it's inevitable conclusion would mean that even if God exists, even if he communicated to us, he and what he has said should be ignored.

Why? Why would you ignore texts that have meaning on a religious level, even knowing they are products of human beings? That's like saying you should ignore the Mona Lisa because it's the work of a human, not a God. Humans produce many inspiring and meaningful works, and it brings about good in others through these.

Why do you have to hold against reason that it has magical origins in order to accept the Divine? Was Leonardo Davinci a performer of supernatural art? Did an invisible hand take over his arms and paintbrushes? Do you need to believe he was in order to be inspired and find truth and value in his works?

The bible says that theopneustos is GOD breathed and that the Holy Spirit was sent to the apostles and others to instruct them on how to communicate God's will. You must demonstrate that those two things are false before your conclusions are relevant.

You need to demonstrate it's true. You may wish to begin by understanding the nature of inspiration. Inspiration is not some supernatural thing where you become possessed and start levitating and speaking from the spirit-world. You also need to understand that 1 Timothy is not written by the Apostle Paul, but some person in the 2nd century. These things don't hold up to critical analysis.

I have been a prayer councilor for years and spend hours almost daily reading theological scholars. You have not provided anything to disbelieve what I have observed.

I think you mean to say a prayer counselor? A councilor is someone who serves on a council. A counselor is someone who gives advice about problems. That you read various scholars doesn't mean that much if they are not looking into the sorts of things I do from other scholars.

I was just talking about modern times, Christianity certainly has it's blemishes but if you want to identify the real horror stories look at the modern atheist utopias like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. They have killed tens of millions of their own people.

Humans kill people, and it doesn't matter if they hide it behind their religion or politics to justify themselves. There are plenty of Christians who do great harm to other regardless of whether or not it's sanctioned murder. And that is in modern times.

In the words of an atheist:

Nietzsche predicted that the twentieth century man would come of age. By this he meant that the atheist of the twentieth century would realize the consequences of living in a world without God, for without God there are no absolute moral values.

There are no absolute moral values even within religion. They just call their current ones absolute as a hammer to smash others in the heads with, all the while they are hypocrites, and historically these "absolutes" have in fact changed.

Man is free to play God and create his own morality. Because of this, prophesied Nietzsche, the twentieth century would be the bloodiest century in human history.
Approaching the 21st Century: The Death of God, Truth, Morality, and Man

However the reality is we are per-capita the least violent time in all of history! You should watch this. It's quite educational: The surprising decline in violence

Only he wasn't pessimistic enough, the 20th century was bloodier than all previous centuries combined.

No it wasn't. If you're talking sheer numbers, that's one thing. If you're talking percentages then that's another. Per-capita, we are radically less violent than any century in history. You need to talk not in raw numbers, but percentages. That's where you get to see the reality of what's going on.

Another?
If god does not exist everything is permitted – Dostoevsky

I completely disagree with this notion that if someone doesn't believe in God they have no reason not to just kill you. That's nonsense. Is that the only thing that keeps you from murder??? If so, you should get some help.

I did not say it was free of outside influence, I said it was resistant to it more than most faiths.

Based on what, do you claim this? Just look at Catholicism and how eclectic it is. Just look at over 40,000 different little Christian denominations. Holy cow! That's a lot of diversity there! How do you figure they are so impervious to influences?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Would you say that when you began this that you had in mind that they had the answers, and that if you could find those then you would find peace? But then as time went on the nature of that changed for you, that you no longer saw answers at the end, that the prophet held the answers if you could just rise to that level, and discovered instead that answers are not a fixed point but unfolding truth?

In discussions such as these I assume we are all intelligent beings with the capacity to investigate reality and grasp certain truths. As humans we all have limits, no matter how keen our intellect. The reality of the human soul and the worlds of God beyond this one are beyond our comprehension. An analogy is that of a carpenter and the table he builds. The table can not possibly grasp the reality of the carpenter, and so it is with our capacity the grasp the Infinite. As the baby grows in the womb of its mother it can not comprehend life outside the womb as we can. The baby grows arms and legs which prepare it for the world beyond this one. In a similar manner we are here to develop spiritual qualities and attributes that assist us, both in this world and the world beyond.

Once I was arrogant, then I became humble. There was a time when I believed I could intellectually grasp realities and concepts that I would now consider beyond my capacity. The awareness of our powerlessness and insignificance in the grand scheme of the entire creation, marked the painful but ultimately joyous birth of a new spiritual life for me. I became born again (metaphorically of course).

The realisation that the Manifestations of God represent an incomparable and unattainable state of being beyond ordinary humans such as ourselves was another milestone. No doubt we hold different positions as you seek to find fault with the such people and prove them to be no better or worse than us. The question of evolution appears to be a weakness or inconsistency in the prophets own words. The OP for this thread viewed a similar weakness in regards to the Baha'i position towards Hinduism.

The problem with criticising Baha'u'llah in regards to Hinduism and evolution is to assume too much. Baha'u'llah has said little in regards to either evolution or Hinduism and we are free to let the truth unfold, whether that be through science or the spiritual path.

If so, which I suspect is your answer at this stage, how does the model of a prophet in that framework, the one who holds the answers, fit into a dynamic reality for you? It seems a prophet is model of reality with fixed points of truth. Rather than an injunction to look within to discover truth, it is an injunction to look to the prophet to be told truth. Those are very different frameworks.

I wonder if the problem here is misunderstanding of the nature of religion and the Abrahamic Faiths, based on how far the adherent of such religions have strayed from the original truths taught. At some point religion becomes an empty shell devoid of spirit and we must abandon it for the sake of spiritual growth. Jesus Himself talked about how old wineskins can not hold new wine.

So you were part of an evangelical church trying to find fault with them as an apologist trying to win souls, but instead found fault with your own beliefs and converted to them?

I was part of an evangelic church trying to find fault with everything and everyone apart from those who believed as my congregation did. It took a matter of months to feel a profound disease with this belief. I stepped back and considered the words of Jesus deeply. Those words were "the truth shall set you free" and "seek and ye shall find." That journey led to the Baha'i faith.

My very long discussion with Loverofhumanity in that other thread had him quoting from Baha'i teachings things which were in direct conflict with accepted biological evolution. I could go and dig those all up if necessary. We discussed those at length, namely that when man was created it was a "man" species from the beginning, and did not evolve from an earlier 'non-man' species such as a fish, or a rodent. That is completely not in harmony with accepted science, and lacks any sort of scientific proof.

We are free to explore the words of Abdu'l-Baha as are scholars. It is not as clear cut as you believe. It is a matter largely for scientists to explore the mysteries of our origins. They should be free to do so.

Also, I do assume you understand that a scientific theory is not just some hypothetical speculation about things? A scientific theory is not an opinion or a guess. A theory in scientific terms is a highly tested and verified model of how things work. It is anything but "just a theory", that comes and goes. Rather it takes a considerable amount of moving heaven and earth to unseat a standing theory. You do understand this, I assume?

There are various models that assist us understand the nature of atoms and molecules. They all have explanatory power. None has captured the true essence of such particles. The are simply models and hypotheses to assist us grasp the phenomenal world. It takes us back to the limits of the human mind to grasp the infinite.

Now what I find telling, is this assumption by Baha'u'llah, or others, that for science to say we evolved from non-human species, and that humans are part of the animal kingdom (something I've been told Baha'is reject as true), that this means, or suggests we are not unique or have a soul? Why? Why does saying all life on this planet, included our own, evolved from a single source, "Eve" if you will, the great ancient sea sponge, mean we are not 'made in the image of God', or a have a soul? Why does this devalue humanity and their soul in the eyes of the prophet, to where he, or others would reject science?

Can science prove or disprove the existence of an eternal soul or God? I don't believe it can. Everything else is a matter for scientific exploration and discovery. I work in the field of medicine, and applying scientific knowledge to making a practical difference in the lives of others. Most of the suffering I see in my patients has little to do with their understanding about our evolutionary origins. On the other hand to be able to reflect in wonder about our ancestry and ancient history is excellent though and scientists provide great insights and truths.

I can tell you quite clearly that I have no issue embracing our biological evolution, while at the same time exploring the depths of my own human soul! In fact, understanding the truth of our biological evolution, is a glorious celebration of my humanity and my human soul! To deny the facts, and facts they are, is to ignore the reality of God's creation and ourselves, the glorious nature of our own being on this planet. That's why I said, science-denial is a tragedy and harms spiritual growth.

I see no contradiction between understanding our biological evolution and our spiritual nature. I agree that we should not distort science to fit religion.

There is no contradiction between true religion and science. When a religion is opposed to science it becomes mere superstition: that which is contrary to knowledge is ignorance.
Abdu'l-Baha

Bahá'í Reference Library - Paris Talks, Pages 141-146

And if you held that your prophet is infallible and he was wrong in what he said about evolution, you end up having no prophet? Or have you found a way to reject what the prophet said, and yet still embrace the faith? (Hence why talking about the Stages of Faith, as I did. Some can, others can't.)

I googled Baha'i Faith and evolution.

A Baha'i Take on the Creation/Evolution Debate | HuffPost

I hope that helps. I see no contradiction or problem but wonder if some including Baha'is have read too much into some the words of Abdu'l-Baha to the detriment of others.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God. For many false prophets have gone out into the world.

Hi Robin. It works both ways of course. You appear to be misunderstanding your own scripture and turning it into something it isn't. The words had context nearly two thousand years ago. The word Gnosticism comes to mind amidst other false doctrines of the time.

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this …

What does testing mediums have to do with the Baha'i faith?

I do what the bible says I should do, compare all revelations to the bible. If they contradict the bible they are to be rejected. I have seen much in Baha'ism that contradicts the bible.

The fundamental problem I see is an over reliance of ancient sacred scripture to make sense of a world that is very different now, than it was. If Christians were true reflections of the teachings they espoused then your argument would have more credibility. The reality of my life is Christians do not distinguish themselves from peoples of other faiths. In fact to the contrary, conservatives appear deeply concerned with the perceived faults of others and neglect their own.

I do what the bible says I should do, compare all revelations to the bible. If they contradict the bible they are to be rejected. I have seen much in Baha'ism that contradicts the bible.

I see much in the position of conservative Christians that contradicts the bible, science, and the reality of modern life.

I am not talking about any specific person having any specific experience with God. I am talking about doctrines, there are no guarantees to supernatural experiences promised to every believer in any religion outside Christianity.

Its an untestable hypothesis.

Look up divine command theory. I do not think one exists but there is no reason a perfectly evil God could not exist.

Divine Command Theory | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

I'm unsure of your point.

There is only One God, not two and certainly not three.

My car is exclusive, there is one and only one car that is mine. Saying get in my car excludes all other cars as the object of that statement. Almost all truth statements are exclusive, they rule out everything except themselves. How many answers does 2 + 2 have? It excludes every other number except 4.

Religions transcends the sound of words and syllables. Philosophers have debated for centuries without agreement.

When basically the vast majority of believers deny the interpretations made by Baha'i's concerning their own texts, your position is vanishingly improbable.

Christianity is hopelessly divided. Its adherents no longer distinguish themselves from the rest of humanity. The words of God have been used to justify all manner of evil in the past and continues to do so. I don't look to Christians for guidance, but to God.

See, your doing exactly what I said here only in reverse. It is Islam's teachings that your distorting here.

1. It wasn't talking about his spirit because the verse says that it appeared to them that they had killed him.
2. The death of a soul or spirit is not something that we can view so it could not have appeared to anyone.
3. Spiritual death is separation from God (the father), this is what Christ actually saved us from. He was separated from the father so we will not have to be. He wasn't saving us from physical death, we still physically die. Spiritual death (the bible calls it the second death) is what Christ suffered so we will not have to.
4. However Christ could rejoin his father (God) on the third day because he had no sins of his own which prevented re-union with the father.
5. Muhammad wasn't there and therefore contradicts the bible quite often.

Both Christianity and Islam have become corrupt.

Natural laws are descriptive not prescriptive. Natural laws necessarily do not bind supernatural events. How can the natural govern the trans-natural?

When Christians try to make science fit literal accounts in Genesis such as the story of Noah's Ark it becomes a problem for many of us.

I deeply love and respect the teachings of Jesus, but Christianity has lost its way. Criticising all the religions including the Baha'i faith, and claiming the superiority of the Christian faith lacks intellectual and moral credibility.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I would like the reference of the original book written by Baha'u'llah, with English translation if possible. Please
Regards

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Tabernacle of Unity, Pages 3-13

 

[Dawnofhope]

There are four core kitabs or books of Baha'u'llah:

1. Kitáb-i-Íqán, "The Book of Certitude"
2. Kitáb-i-`Ahdí, "Book of My Covenant"
3. Kitáb-i-Badí', "Wondrous/Unique Book"
4. Kitáb-i-Aqdas, "The Most Holy Book"

I want reference from these books, not from the books written/compiled by the Bahais .
Regards

Writings of Bahá’u’lláh | Bahá’í Reference Library

 

[Windwalker]

That would correlate to humans being dominated by air, dirt, or anything else we are in contact with most of the time. So what?

No it does not correlate. Culture is the atmosphere in which we live and breath, eat and sleep, and perceive and hold our ideas. It's very much as the Apostle Paul quoting the Greeks said, "In him we live and move and have our being". It is invisible to you, yet it is everywhere and in you, and you in it. Don't mistake seeing the artifacts of culture, such as dress and trends, with culture as a thing in itself. Until you become self-aware enough, you can't see it. And even then, when you can see it, it's still there in areas you don't even know about yet. To imagine your thoughts and ideas exists entirely independent of culture, is a signal of being completely asleep in its arms.

You don't want to start down the road into the hard problem of consciousness.

What on earth makes you think I am? Why would I need to?

You first must have an objective description for what consciousness is, good luck?

No we don't need to look at that. I think we can just called it modes of awareness and be safe here. I think most anyone can agree on that. What Charles Tart is examining as a researcher are states of consciousness. It's not grappling with the "hard question" at all, but simply examining the various states of consciousness we all know that humans inhabit, such as a dreaming state, a waking state, and the various stages of higher states of consciousness that we can experience through meditation practices, peak experiences, and the like.

Charley Tart's theory would also mean that it its self was a product of culture and should therefor not be believed. Charley should slap himself.

Don't be ridiculous. He is a researcher using scientific methods of inquiry. He, and other researchers like him, have produced maps of human consciousness which prove to be consistent when examining people of any culture. These are states of the mind itself he is looking at where culture is not a factor.

Where culture is a factor in these ASCs (altered states of consciousness), is for example someone having a subtle level state experience such as a religious vision, that experience will manifest for that particular person with the images and symbols of his culture. For instance, a devout Christian believer may experience an encounter with the risen Jesus Christ, or the Virgin Mary, or one of the saints. A Buddhist practitioner may experience a thousand-armed Avalokiteshvara, a Bodhisattva, etc. A Hindu, the Lord Krishna, and so forth. Even at these levels of consciousness, culture is in fact there. But what Tart and others are examining are the types of experience, and the things experienced are recognized as cultural artifacts.

It's fascinating and highly informative to look into these. If you wish to expand your knowledge here, this might be a good read for you to : https://s3.amazonaws.com/cttart/art...me+kind+of+(self)hypnosis+-+a+deeper+look.pdf

Another poster said Christianity couldn't be true because there are so many disagreements between Christians, your saying the exact opposite.

I wouldn't say that, I would say it's true in a great many differering ways to a great many people. It's true for them even when it contradicts its truth for other people. Heck, I'll bet you bottom dollar we disagree with what it teaches. Yet's is true for you in your way, and true for me in my way. Isn't it fun that way?

By the law of non-contradiction, either 1 or neither of you can be correct.

And this is a law of the universe? In my understanding this is a rule of formal logic. But you know that logic has its limits, don't you? As many have said similar things, "...logic, the refuge of fools. The pedant and the priest have always been the most expert of logicians—and the most diligent disseminators of nonsense and worse," ~ H. L. Mencken.

When it comes to things like "truth", while they have logical consistency, that is typically internally true, not universally true. Within a particular culture, they will hold certain truths to be valid for themselves, and they develop systems of logic to bolster and support that for themselves. But that same system of logic won't work in another culture with another system of truth. Yet, they are holding truth for themselves.

Truth, in cultural contexts, is a functional focal point of mutual agreement. They are not "laws" of the universe. They are not cosmic laws. And as I have said before, since humans live in a relative plain of existence because of the limits of the human mind, we are not capable of holding a truth absolutely.

Now, you're going to make a big deal of me saying that as some "absolute", and thus falling into a performative contradiction. And I'll answer that this way. There is nothing in our experience to indicate our minds are capable of knowing absolutes as propositional truths. Every indication based on our knowledge of how our minds work, and due the fact that language itself is a dualistic construct artificially imposed on reality itself which would inherently limit absolute understanding, it is entirely safe to say there is virtually no hope whatsoever of that being possible.

So virtually impossible, I can just shortcut a full paragraph explanation as say, "It's not possible", even though I understand I cannot make absolute statements, absolutely. Sure, it's "possible", but given the facts we know about the human mind in this day and age, it's infinitesimally improbable, or "impossible" to just shortcut that. Ok? I wouldn't resort to semantics to make a case against what I am arguing.

I know which I am betting on.

I don't view one's religion as a "bet". God is a lot bigger than our mythologies about him. I view religion as a tool to help us. The truth of these are gauged not in logic arguments, such as you present, but in the functionality of them. Do they produce good fruit? If the answer is yes, then they serve us in knowing God. Jesus argues this himself. "By their fruit you shall know them," not by their arguments based on the law of noncontradiction.

... I finish my response later.....

 

[Windwalker]

My religion was recorded over 1800 years and by people from completely different cultures without any connections. Moses and Paul didn't collude on anything, and David and Mathew never heard of each other.

But the people who redacted the texts, and those who gathered them together in collections, and those who taught from them, all layered their own understandings of these into them. How the Bible came to be is a fascinating topic of study of modern scholarship. There are many texts that hit the cutting room floor because it didn't fit the theme these folks were trying to teach. And those people were not the apostle and the prophets, but members of much later church councils. What you read and understand as "God's word" is the product of humans trying to produce the message they though you should hear and believe.

2500 prophecies don't get fulfilled by cultural collusion.

They all got fulfilled by someone reading meaning back into the texts to make them fit. Or, they were written after the facts themselves, such as Jesus "predicting" the temple would be torn down.

I don't need to believe in magic, to believe in Jesus. I don't need to "believe in the Bible", in order to believe in God. To make those a requirement, would destroy faith for a great many. Why do you suppose there is such a steep rise in atheism these days?

That is 100% baseless presumption.

It is entirely supportable. I have been presenting the reasons why in all of these posts, and there is a lot more I haven't yet.

You have all your work before you, you must first show that a God doesn't or can't exist and that he isn't personal.

Why? I believe God exists, and I believe God is personal. I don't believe that truth negates anything I am saying whatsoever. Why do you believe it would? How does it negate what I'm saying?

The dead sea scrolls proved that the bible is more textually reliable (unchanged) than any text of any kind in ancient history.

Are we talking about believing in the Bible, or believing in God? Those are two entirely different things. As for the scholarship about the Bible, I'd recommend exposing yourself to the works of modern scholars, and not rely on what some apoligist says about them trying to dismiss them. But aside from that, I can very comfortably hold that the Bible is not a work of perfect dictation from God, and still fully believe in God.

Why do you make belief in the Bible the same as belief in God? Humans wrote their beliefs about God on the pages. I have beliefs about God too. Do you have to accept my beliefs as a requirement for your faith in God? To put it simply, God, literally, is a reality, beyond belief. If you tie your beliefs about God, to God himself, then at best you will only know your beliefs, not God. How can you possible hope to grow or learn when you insist you know already?

God (a disembodied mind and uncaused first cause) is the simplest and most necessary concept possible.

I don't have a problem defining God that way, but here is the problem with how you are applying that to what I said. I was talking about the complexities of knowledge and knowing at the various levels of reality. Understanding where a moon of jupiter will be in the night sky a thousand years from now is easily predictable because orbits are relatively stable systems and follow predictable patterns. Now while someone at Nasa could accurately do that for you, that same person could not predict where he dog might go 10 seconds from now! Why? because of dog is considerably more complex that a rock in motion in space!

To understand more complex systems, such as the human mind and behavior, you cannot apply math principles to it! If you could, someone would use that to own all the money in the world, precisely predicting where stocks would make them money tomorrow.

Now while God is "simplicity" itself, while God is the Ground of all Being, God is not system which is either simple or complex. God is both the Ground, and the Goal. God is the Alpha, and the Omega. God is the foundation, and the height of all being. God is the Source, and the Summit. God is both outside, and inside. You don't measure God using math or logic or beliefs, or any such thing. God is as simple as a flow, yet holds the entire universe in a single thought. That's God, not your formulas you think proves God.

So what you are stuck with then is exactly what I said that when it comes to things like morality, that is vastly more complex that citing math formulas to show how simple it really is. It isn't simple, and saying God "tells" you things like this in a book, is quite naive and inaccurate. These are social rules and norms put into the mouth of a tribe's deity to give them force and importance. Some are valid today, some are not. It's that simple, really. And knowing that, does not equate to not believing in God. Faith is far larger and not based on that sort of thing. It's based on what transcends it, and comes before it. The Ground, and the Goal. That's faith.

What are these levels you refer to? What standard are you using and where did you get it?

Developmental theory from many different developmentalists. It also is looking at knowledge acquisition, some of which I was touching on relates back to: Jürgen Habermas - Wikipedia It also follows the great chain of being, from matter, to body, to mind, to soul, to spirit, and so forth. Each of these are different levels of complexity, from atoms to molecules, to cells, to bodies, to mind, etc. The more complex something is, the different modes of knowing, such as the complexity sciences, hermeneutics, and not to omit, mystical states of awareness. If you want to really crack the nut on some of this stuff I could recommend some books for you. But in the meantime, just understand that this is all very well researched by a great many researchers in a great many fields, such as Lawrence Kohlberg in this one area alone: Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development - Wikipedia

The existence of natural laws requires the prior existence of a natural law giver.

While I believe in God as the Source of all that is and ever will be, I have a real problem injecting human standards as "laws" that come from Him. I can dispute that on many levels, not the least of which is understanding God as an anthropomorphic projection of ourselves to that which wholly transcends our very finite and relative existence.

The modern scientific revolution occurred only in Christian Europe because men who believed in a rational creator believed that he would create a rational (lawful universe) science is how they decoded the rationality found in nature.

We've learned quite a lot more since that time. There are things that violate these "rational laws" we assumed were there, such as Quantum Theory. It's all very vastly more "fuzzy" that what we first presumed based on what we imagined about God.

One quick example of that would be Copernicus. He had the orbit of mars doing a retrograde loop to explain why some times of the year it would be ahead of us, and other times behind us. Why was he doing that? Because he believe since God created the planets He would have placed them in perfect circles. God would not create imperfect orbits. But once he allowed himself to imagine God may be doing something different than following the perfect "laws" he projected on to Him, and he created imperfect, elliptical orbits, voila, the orbits made sense!

So guess what? Science revealed something new about God to him! It's too bad Christians wish to bury their heads in the sand and deny science today, rather than learn about God. It all begins by setting aside what you think you know about God and being open to knowledge.

Every real effect requires an even more certain cause.

You should study some of the complexity sciences. Sometimes an effect precedes causes.

Again this is a conclusion that is missing a premise. You must first know, then show that no personal God does or can exist. Until you demonstrate your premise your conclusion is just white noise.

I believe God exists. My conclusion is not white noise. It's has substantial depth and support to it. That you can't hear it because it's too more detail for you to take in, might explain why what hear is just noise. I'd suggest maybe taking in smaller amounts of data, and give me the benefit of the doubt that I'm really informed about this stuff I'm presenting?

No science must assume that atoms are lawful to believe that they understand them all.

What science really does is looking at patterns of repeatability. The simpler the object, the simpler the pattern. More complex objects, more complex patterns. But patterns still emerge and can be mapped out and modeled, useful in making predictions. So when I say it's not necessary to understand the details of every deity form out there in order to make good maps and models about gods in religion, you only need a sufficient sample, not every single bit of data there is possible to know.

If the model is good based upon that sample, it will bear up when you find new examples and the model works to explain what you see. So, no, I don't know every god out there, but I don't need to in order to have something to say to the subject. I know more than enough to have a lot to say to about this.

No, that is the description of the ontology of the God I believe in. The only uncertainty is whether that God exists or not.

So you don't believe God has human emotions, like jealousy? I thought you said you believed the Bible is 100% literally factual? The Bible is full of anthropomorphic images of God. And what do you mean the only uncertainty is where God exists or not? Do you believe your ideas about God are 100% certain??? Please answer that for my understanding.


more....

 

[Windwalker]

I didn't define God, I found his description preexisting, and to learn that a being of that description is exactly what you need to sufficiently explain reality.

I have a problem referring to God as "a being". That assumes God is an object like a dog or a yeti or something. That language can be quite misleading in how we think of God.

The bible is basically a treasure map. I followed it and found the treasure and so my interpretation of it must have been correct.

Correct, versus it worked for you are two different things. It may not work for someone else. That's like saying my Tai Chi classes I just started taking has really worked to help my sense of balance, therefore it's right for you too. It may not be right for you. Something else may work better. Same thing with different spiritual paths and traditions. Christianity can be perfectly valid and useful for you, while Buddhism might be better suited or your friend. It's all relative that way. But we like to think what worked for us, proves it's right for everyone else. That's a mistake in thinking, that's all.

I know with absolution that I think. Show that to be false. Your like a tautology machine, is the claim that I can't have absolute truth absolutely true or not?

So you're devolving into personal insults now? When this happens, it tells me the person is in over their heads and is too prideful to admit it. Maybe I'm saying the same things in multiple ways because you're having a hard time following it, and I'm trying to give a different angle so you might begin to get it?

Not really, your response seems to be all conclusion and no arguments or premise'

You don't see the myriad supporting arguments in all of my posts? Why are they so damned long then?

 

[1robin]

Hi Robin. It works both ways of course. You appear to be misunderstanding your own scripture and turning it into something it isn't. The words had context nearly two thousand years ago. The word Gnosticism comes to mind amidst other false doctrines of the time.

There is no doubt that I will have accept the outcome of my interpretative choices. I am always open to claims that run counter to my own, and at times have changed my mind about a few verses. However between your interpretations and mine I find fault with yours. I concluded the bulk of my core biblical doctrine in a vacuum. It was just me, the bible, the Holy spirit, Christ, and the father. I spent a year established me core beliefs and to my surprise they were almost exactly the same as mainstream Christianity. I find very few disagreements between my understanding of the bible and the great Christian theologians and commentators, but I find almost universal disagreement between Baha'ism and those same sources.

What does testing mediums have to do with the Baha'i faith?

If what they teach is consistent with the scriptures then they are from God, if not then they are not.

The fundamental problem I see is an over reliance of ancient sacred scripture to make sense of a world that is very different now, than it was. If Christians were true reflections of the teachings they espoused then your argument would have more credibility. The reality of my life is Christians do not distinguish themselves from peoples of other faiths. In fact to the contrary, conservatives appear deeply concerned with the perceived faults of others and neglect their own.

The bible concerns things that change little over time. It is concerned mainly with heaven, hell, sin, morality, salvation, meaning, purpose, origins, destinations, etc..... not technology, fashion, or anything that is opinion or preference based.

I see much in the position of conservative Christians that contradicts the bible, science, and the reality of modern life.

No, you just see that it contradicts your own interpretations of the bible. It's just one subjective opinion versus another. The weight of numbers is overwhelmingly on the side of my own interpretations but that doesn't make them right. We each have to do the best we can and live with the result.

Its an untestable hypothesis.

Then why do billions claim to have received exactly what the bible promised in response to faith? We can't test each other, but we must each test our faith. God says that anyone who diligently seeks him will find him. I diligently sought him and actually found him. How is that untestable?

Divine Command Theory | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Why did you post a link to the thing I asked you to look up? I already know what divine command theory is, I do not need a link.

I'm unsure of your point.

There is only One God, not two and certainly not three.

1. The point was that whatever God's nature is would determine what moral ontology would be by necessity.
2. If Allah exists I would consider him evil, yet Allah would exist just the same. There is no reason to suggest a God that we would consider evil couldn't exist. I just do not see any evidence that one does.

Religions transcends the sound of words and syllables. Philosophers have debated for centuries without agreement.

Yet there was only one philosopher's position that was actually right if they contradicted each other. There is only one true answer for each theological question, regardless of how many religions exist.

Christianity is hopelessly divided. Its adherents no longer distinguish themselves from the rest of humanity. The words of God have been used to justify all manner of evil in the past and continues to do so. I don't look to Christians for guidance, but to God.

Yeah, were so hopeless we grow by the population of Nevada annually. We are also so much like everyone else we gather in exclusive groups between 1 and 3 times per week. We also compose the most generous demographic on Earth. You might as well have stated that bamboo is hopelessly stunted.

Both Christianity and Islam have become corrupt.

If so I know which group corrupted them the most.

When Christians try to make science fit literal accounts in Genesis such as the story of Noah's Ark it becomes a problem for many of us.

For pity's sake 78% of Nobel Laureates are Christian and much of the rest are Jews, science and the bible do quite well together.

I deeply love and respect the teachings of Jesus, but Christianity has lost its way. Criticising all the religions including the Baha'i faith, and claiming the superiority of the Christian faith lacks intellectual and moral credibility.

That must be why we are the largest religion in human history then.

 

[paarsurrey]

There are four core kitabs or books of Baha'u'llah:

1. Kitáb-i-Íqán, "The Book of Certitude"
2. Kitáb-i-`Ahdí, "Book of My Covenant"
3. Kitáb-i-Badí', "Wondrous/Unique Book"
4. Kitáb-i-Aqdas, "The Most Holy Book"

I want reference from these books, not from the books written/compiled by the Bahais .
Regards

1.4
As to thy question concerning the heavenly Scriptures: The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and centre your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements.

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Tabernacle of Unity, Pages 3-13

Thanks for providing the reference.
I agree with the argument given in the passage given above.
But it is from a tabernacle not from a Kitab/book written by Baha'u'llah.
My question is/was about the "Manifestations of God" which is a term used by Bahais, often. Baha'u'llah has not reflected on this in the passage.
Please quote from a Kitab/book written by Baha'u'llah on this or where he has claimed of himself being a prophet/messenger of God, and not a god per se, in unequivocal terms.
Regards