Spiritual v. Religious?

[Windwalker]

Each particular Prophet had no beginning according to our teachings, and also creation existed forever according to my understanding of the teachings, and on other planets they existed before this planet existed. The big bang was the beginning of this particular universe, to be sure, but what about other universes, the multiverse? The multiverse is my own individual reading of the situation. As you say this is a belief, but is one arrived at by looking to see if Baha'u'llah was a Prophet first independently of other influences as far as we can.

So prophets in your religion are supernatural beings, like angels, it sounds like? Do you consider them actual human beings, or incarnate celestial entities, like an archangel made flesh, a theophany of sorts, not actual humans who sin like the rest of us?

Yes, one can be spiritual, but not religious. I define religious as believing in a Prophet, not organized religion, as I have seen many define religion here.

I'm glad to hear you acknowledge this. This other poster who is a Bahai'i has explicitly said that she doesn't not consider anyone who does not accept Bahaullah to be spiritual. That's unfortunate. That's the same thing as many Christians who seem to feel that if you don't believe in the Trinity, you aren't saved. That has nothing to do with actual spirituality and the fruits of the spirit. It's faith centered around beliefs, not spirituality.

But there is great potential in spirituality in believing a Prophet. I stress the potentiality here. Too many people believe in a Prophet, but are not very spiritual at all. Believing in a Prophet is a guidepost to spirituality, and believe it or not there is a spiritual power in Baha'u'llah's revealed prayers. There is a power in His words.

I can recognize the value in having a guide, of course. Great gurus can help people come to Self realization. But of course, not all students are actually on that path of spirituality. Like the story of this great Zen master who had 10,000 students at his monastery, and the king came and asked him what the number of disciples he had there was. The master answered, "Four, maybe five at most".

As you can see, it's really not a matter of having the "best" teacher that makes you spiritual at all. And not having that one teacher in particular is not necessary either. To quote another Zen saying, "There are many paths that lead from the foot of mountain, but at its peak we all gaze at the single bright moon".

It's unfortunate there are those who think we can't be spiritual without Bahaullah. They are quite mistaken. They do themselves a disservice.

I haven't been saying that you can't be spiritual if you don't accept Baha'u'llah. If I understand your last question correctly, you are asking if I believe in the Baha'i faith with my heart. I'm not sure. I wish it was more with my heart, but I am part way there, though only God can say how far I am on the path of believing with my heart.

It's the other poster who has explicitly denied me and all others legitimate spirituality for not being a Baha'i and accepting Bahaullah as the prophet for the current age. My question wasn't about what you answered, but that's fine. I appreciate your response regardless, and your honesty. For myself, as an SBNR, I've learned that beliefs are good, but that are not the foundation for spirituality. They are supports, but not its source. And the "best" supports, are the ones that work for you. If they don't work, then they aren't the best.

Another Buddhist saying, "To insist upon a spiritual practice [or belief] that served you in the past, is to carry the raft upon your back after you've already crossed the river".

 

[ppp]

This might throw some light on the topic of behaviour you speak of. It is not denied but instead reinterpreted.

I don't do euphemisms. Call a spade, a spade. Speak plainly without avoiding unpleasant or embarrassing issues. And plainly speaking, you dismissed my statement as historical speculation, And You did immediately after making a far more speculative statement based on fallacious reasoning. That specific fallacy being a variation on the continuum fallacy.

Your position is that because our communities have increased over the past 10k years to the size of nations that they will necessarily continue to increase to 8 billion people, or more. Whether or not it actually happens, that is faulty thinking. You are essentially saying that because we have gone thru 5 stages of complexity, that we will necessarily reach the sixth. That is akin to claiming that because I can juggle 5 balls, that I will inevitably be able to juggle 6 balls. Or that because I can lift 100 more kilograms this year than last, that I will eventually be able to lift a 1000. You are not justified in reaching your conclusion, even should it happen that your conclusion turn out to be accurate.

Your second mistake is not a fallacy, but a simple false claim. There is not unity at the nation level.

You seem to be saying that man’s past proves we cannot have peace or unity.

Not at all. I am saying that you do not see humans as they are, but as you want to them for the purpose of meeting your religious goals. Which is cathartic in inspirational literature and cinema, but the truth of the matter is that in order to make things better you have to see things as they are. This is not a story. We can destroy ourselves. I hope you know that.

Indeed, so much have aggression and conflict come to characterize our social, economic and religious systems, that many have succumbed to the view that such behaviour is intrinsic to human nature and therefore ineradicable.

It is intrinsic to human nature and therefore ineradicable. That is just the way it is and the way it is going to be until we are sufficiently deft at genetics to manipulate our biology and psychology. We are still the same people we were 200 million years ago. We haven't changed ourselves, but our environments. We use technology to hack our behaviors and urges to mitigate the inputs that lead to our more unsavory habits. If society collapses and we revert to preindustrial technology, within two generations, we will reinstitute slavery and women will once more be subjugated.

I don't know about Australia, but in the US, we are sliding towards feudalism, and all of its nasty trappings. Feudal lords with nukes. The rest of the world should be changing into their brown pants..

With the entrenchment of this view, a paralyzing contradiction has developed in human affairs. On the one hand, people of all nations proclaim not only their readiness but their longing for peace and harmony, for an end to the harrowing apprehensions tormenting their daily lives.

This is not new. This has been the case for all of our written history. Probably longer.

On the other, uncritical assent is given to the proposition that human beings are incorrigibly selfish and aggressive and thus incapable of erecting a social system at once progressive and peaceful, dynamic and harmonious, a system giving free play to individual creativity and initiative but based on co-operation and reciprocity.

I do not doubt that we are capable of living together peacefully, so long as we have adequate resources and can find the right social constructions to leverage and redirect our biological urges. But I seriously doubt that unity is a useful goal. It is far too iron grip. I suspect that we should be heading towards smaller groups under some sort of Constitutional Anarchy.

As the need for peace becomes more urgent, this fundamental contradiction, which hinders its realization, demands a reassessment of the assumptions upon which the commonly held view of mankind’s historical predicament is based. Dispassionately examined, the evidence reveals that such conduct, far from expressing man’s true self, represents a distortion of the human spirit. Satisfaction on this point will enable all people to set in motion constructive social forces which, because they are consistent with human nature, will encourage harmony and co-operation instead of war and conflict.

I don't agree. I think that we are exactly as we appear. And that claiming otherwise is an exercise in a grandiose self-love. We have constructive and destructive qualities, and the only way to promote the welfare of our species is to deal directly with both. No euphemisms. No looking away. A spade is a spade.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I don't do euphemisms. Call a spade, a spade. Speak plainly without avoiding unpleasant or embarrassing issues. And plainly speaking, you dismissed my statement as historical speculation, And You did immediately after making a far more speculative statement based on fallacious reasoning. That specific fallacy being a variation on the continuum fallacy.

Your position is that because our communities have increased over the past 10k years to the size of nations that they will necessarily continue to increase to 8 billion people, or more. Whether or not it actually happens, that is faulty thinking. You are essentially saying that because we have gone thru 5 stages of complexity, that we will necessarily reach the sixth. That is akin to claiming that because I can juggle 5 balls, that I will inevitably be able to juggle 6 balls. Or that because I can lift 100 more kilograms this year than last, that I will eventually be able to lift a 1000. You are not justified in reaching your conclusion, even should it happen that your conclusion turn out to be accurate.

Your second mistake is not a fallacy, but a simple false claim. There is not unity at the nation level.


Not at all. I am saying that you do not see humans as they are, but as you want to them for the purpose of meeting your religious goals. Which is cathartic in inspirational literature and cinema, but the truth of the matter is that in order to make things better you have to see things as they are. This is not a story. We can destroy ourselves. I hope you know that.


It is intrinsic to human nature and therefore ineradicable. That is just the way it is and the way it is going to be until we are sufficiently deft at genetics to manipulate our biology and psychology. We are still the same people we were 200 million years ago. We haven't changed ourselves, but our environments. We use technology to hack our behaviors and urges to mitigate the inputs that lead to our more unsavory habits. If society collapses and we revert to preindustrial technology, within two generations, we will reinstitute slavery and women will once more be subjugated.

I don't know about Australia, but in the US, we are sliding towards feudalism, and all of its nasty trappings. Feudal lords with nukes. The rest of the world should be changing into their brown pants..


This is not new. This has been the case for all of our written history. Probably longer.


I do not doubt that we are capable of living together peacefully, so long as we have adequate resources and can find the right social constructions to leverage and redirect our biological urges. But I seriously doubt that unity is a useful goal. It is far too iron grip. I suspect that we should be heading towards smaller groups under some sort of Constitutional Anarchy.


I don't agree. I think that we are exactly as we appear. And that claiming otherwise is an exercise in a grandiose self-love. We have constructive and destructive qualities, and the only way to promote the welfare of our species is to deal directly with both. No euphemisms. No looking away. A spade is a spade.

First I think that there's a difference between unity at a national level and the establishment of a nation. There are signs of world solidarity wherever we look. These need to be mentioned to make the point that peace is not just wishful thinking. So the argument that nationhood does not necessarily preceded word unity is false because steps are being taken towards unity in concrete terms.

The tentative steps towards world order, especially since World War II, give hopeful signs. The increasing tendency of groups of nations to formalize relationships which enable them to co-operate in matters of mutual interest suggests that eventually all nations could overcome this paralysis. The Association of South East Asian Nations, the Caribbean Community and Common Market, the Central American Common Market, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, the European Communities, the League of Arab States, the Organization of African Unity, the Organization of American States, the South Pacific Forum—all the joint endeavours represented by such organizations prepare the path to world order.

With a world parliament things like racism and religious animosity will still exist not that there will be perfection immediately. Just like we have established nations with imperfect people, we can also create a world community with these same people. It’s just a wider embrace.

Yes we can annihilate ourselves that is the choice. The Baha’i definition of a human is that
We are spiritual beings capable of creating a just order based on humanitarian principles and human rights. We believe with education or after an enormous calamity we will unite.

Our early history, when we couldn’t read and write reflects a docile spoon fed human as compared to this age when most are educated and we question anything and everything. We have changed with new tools to enable our intellectual abilities. So anything’s possible now as we develop our powers and abilities to consult, reflect and question.

 

[ppp]

First I think that there's a difference between unity at a national level and the establishment of a nation. There are signs of world solidarity wherever we look. These need to be mentioned to make the point that peace is not just wishful thinking. So the argument that nationhood does not necessarily preceded word unity is false because steps are being taken towards unity in concrete terms.

This is not an argument for nationhood or world unity. This is not an argument at all. It's just four separate statements that have no logical connection.

The tentative steps towards world order, especially since World War II, give hopeful signs. The increasing tendency of groups of nations to formalize relationships which enable them to co-operate in matters of mutual interest suggests that eventually all nations could overcome this paralysis. The Association of South East Asian Nations, the Caribbean Community and Common Market, the Central American Common Market, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, the European Communities, the League of Arab States, the Organization of African Unity, the Organization of American States, the South Pacific Forum—all the joint endeavours represented by such organizations prepare the path to world order.

That is so vague to be meaningless. Simply naming organizations does not make a point. Organizations and coalitions exist before every conflict. They are the ones who got to war. World War I was caused by a cascade of mutual defense alliances.

Merely citing the existence of organizations and alliances does not point to some sort of world organization. Such things have been happening since the dawn of our species.

I'm going to stop reading your post now. Because you haven't thought this through at all.

 

[Truthseeker]

I'm glad to hear you acknowledge this. This other poster who is a Bahai'i has explicitly said that she doesn't not consider anyone who does not accept Bahaullah to be spiritual.

By the way, and I know this isn't relevant, but @loverofhumanity is a man.

And the "best" supports, are the ones that work for you. If they don't work, then they aren't the best.

In other words it's like whether you like spaghetti or ice cream for you. I hope I'm not misrepresenting you.

Another Buddhist saying, "To insist upon a spiritual practice [or belief] that served you in the past, is to carry the raft upon your back after you've already crossed the river".

That's very interesting. I do recognize some validity for that. Baha'u'llah revealed a Tablet called the Seven Valleys, where there are different levels you ascend to.

 

[loverofhumanity]

This is not an argument for nationhood or world unity. This is not an argument at all. It's just four separate statements that have no logical connection.

That is so vague to be meaningless. Simply naming organizations does not make a point. Organizations and coalitions exist before every conflict. They are the ones who got to war. World War I was caused by a cascade of mutual defense alliances.

Merely citing the existence of organizations and alliances does not point to some sort of world organization. Such things have been happening since the dawn of our species.

I'm going to stop reading your post now. Because you haven't thought this through at all.

Thats disappointing because the document I quoted was presented to the UN and world leaders who did see merit in it.

Of course I’ve thought it through. I just think the concept of world unity is beyond your capacity to grasp especially with a religion and God being involved.

I am always happy to read your posts and without being judgemental. Your journey is where you’re at and it’s right for you now. Just as it’s right for me to be in the space I’m in.

Take care.

 

[loverofhumanity]

So prophets in your religion are supernatural beings, like angels, it sounds like? Do you consider them actual human beings, or incarnate celestial entities, like an archangel made flesh, a theophany of sorts, not actual humans who sin like the rest of us?


I'm glad to hear you acknowledge this. This other poster who is a Bahai'i has explicitly said that she doesn't not consider anyone who does not accept Bahaullah to be spiritual. That's unfortunate. That's the same thing as many Christians who seem to feel that if you don't believe in the Trinity, you aren't saved. That has nothing to do with actual spirituality and the fruits of the spirit. It's faith centered around beliefs, not spirituality.


I can recognize the value in having a guide, of course. Great gurus can help people come to Self realization. But of course, not all students are actually on that path of spirituality. Like the story of this great Zen master who had 10,000 students at his monastery, and the king came and asked him what the number of disciples he had there was. The master answered, "Four, maybe five at most".

As you can see, it's really not a matter of having the "best" teacher that makes you spiritual at all. And not having that one teacher in particular is not necessary either. To quote another Zen saying, "There are many paths that lead from the foot of mountain, but at its peak we all gaze at the single bright moon".

It's unfortunate there are those who think we can't be spiritual without Bahaullah. They are quite mistaken. They do themselves a disservice.


It's the other poster who has explicitly denied me and all others legitimate spirituality for not being a Baha'i and accepting Bahaullah as the prophet for the current age. My question wasn't about what you answered, but that's fine. I appreciate your response regardless, and your honesty. For myself, as an SBNR, I've learned that beliefs are good, but that are not the foundation for spirituality. They are supports, but not its source. And the "best" supports, are the ones that work for you. If they don't work, then they aren't the best.

Another Buddhist saying, "To insist upon a spiritual practice [or belief] that served you in the past, is to carry the raft upon your back after you've already crossed the river".

Windwalker I didn’t mean to be harsh so I apologise if it caused you unease. I know today many consider spirituality as separate from religion and believe it is so. You’re an equal fellow human being regardless of what you believe. This is just regarding the link of spiritual life to the Manifestation.

Baha’u’llah in this passage distinguishes between those who possess spiritual or divine knowledge from those He considers who do not.

“Consider, how can he that faileth in the day of God’s Revelation to attain unto the grace of the “Divine Presence” and to recognize His Manifestation, be justly called learned, though he may have spent aeons in the pursuit of knowledge, and acquired all the limited and material learning of men? It is surely evident that he can in no wise be regarded as possessed of true knowledge. Whereas, the most unlettered of all men, if he be honoured with this supreme distinction, he verily is accounted as one of those divinely-learned men whose knowledge is of God; for such a man hath attained the acme of knowledge, and hath reached the furthermost summit of learning.”


The Book of Certitude
Bahá’u’lláh

 

[Windwalker]

In other words it's like whether you like spaghetti or ice cream for you. I hope I'm not misrepresenting you.

You are, and you missed the point. It's a matter of what works, not what tastes good. In other words, if you give me a size 8 shoe to wear on my size 11 foot, that is not going to work. It fails in its basic function for a size 11 foot. However, for a size 8 foot, a size 8 shoe is a good fit.

Same thing when it comes to types of religious practices. Some things are great for novices, but not great for those who are not novices.

That's very interesting. I do recognize some validity for that. Baha'u'llah revealed a Tablet called the Seven Valleys, where there are different levels you ascend to.

Certainly there are different stages and different levels. That's kind of my point here.

 

[Windwalker]

Windwalker I didn’t mean to be harsh so I apologise if it caused you unease.

Believe me, I know you are incorrect in what you say. What I find unfortunate is that you believe it, without regard for what your heart may know.

Let me give you a perfect example. Back in my early days joining a church that claimed it was the latest revelation from God, restored for the "last days" (insert a special prophet for the current age in here), they taught that anyone who do not have the truth as they knew it from scripture, was going to hell. So that meant, my parents who did not believe the things I was believing, were not saved (sound familiar here?). I actually told them I was worried for them that if they died they would go to hell, unless they got baptized and joined the church.

Fast forward a number of years after I came to realize the naivete of such views, views which teach that unless someone embraced your ideas of what God's will is, who his prophets are, what scriptures to believe in, etc, that they are not spiritual, or saved, or on the right path. I remember my parents saying to me that they were worried for me back in those days of my naive zeal, that I would believe that they were going to hell. Those poisonous beliefs, led me to deny what my heart knew, in order to be true to what I was taught was the truth of God. It was in fact, that very battle between what my beliefs, my head was telling me, and what my heart and soul were telling me, that led to me leaving that religion. Love saved me, in other words.

Religions that cannot see that others are good, or see God in others lives who are not of your own religion, is poison to the soul. If that is how you hold it, and deny me and all others valid and true and deep spiritual connections in our lives, than like my parents who worried for me, I worry for you.

Your Bahi'i friend in this discussion does not deny my spirituality, yet you do. Is this what your heart tells you about everyone in the world who don't believe as you do, or is this what your head tells you because you are afraid of not having answers that agree with your beliefs?

I know today many consider spirituality as separate from religion and believe it is so. You’re an equal fellow human being regardless of what you believe. This is just regarding the link of spiritual life to the Manifestation.

Baha’u’llah in this passage distinguishes between those who possess spiritual or divine knowledge from those He considers who do not.

“Consider, how can he that faileth in the day of God’s Revelation to attain unto the grace of the “Divine Presence” and to recognize His Manifestation, be justly called learned, though he may have spent aeons in the pursuit of knowledge, and acquired all the limited and material learning of men? It is surely evident that he can in no wise be regarded as possessed of true knowledge. Whereas, the most unlettered of all men, if he be honoured with this supreme distinction, he verily is accounted as one of those divinely-learned men whose knowledge is of God; for such a man hath attained the acme of knowledge, and hath reached the furthermost summit of learning.”


The Book of Certitude
Bahá’u’lláh

Yes, head knowledge is not heart knowledge. Spirituality is heart knowledge. Religion is head knowledge. Which do you have?

 

[loverofhumanity]

Believe me, I know you are incorrect in what you say. What I find unfortunate is that you believe it, without regard for what your heart may know.

Let me give you a perfect example. Back in my early days joining a church that claimed it was the latest revelation from God, restored for the "last days" (insert a special prophet for the current age in here), they taught that anyone who do not have the truth as they knew it from scripture, was going to hell. So that meant, my parents who did not believe the things I was believing, were not saved (sound familiar here?). I actually told them I was worried for them that if they died they would go to hell, unless they got baptized and joined the church.

Fast forward a number of years after I came to realize the naivete of such views, views which teach that unless someone embraced your ideas of what God's will is, who his prophets are, what scriptures to believe in, etc, that they are not spiritual, or saved, or on the right path. I remember my parents saying to me that they were worried for me back in those days of my naive zeal, that I would believe that they were going to hell. Those poisonous beliefs, led me to deny what my heart knew, in order to be true to what I was taught was the truth of God. It was in fact, that very battle between what my beliefs, my head was telling me, and what my heart and soul were telling me, that led to me leaving that religion. Love saved me, in other words.

Religions that cannot see that others are good, or see God in others lives who are not of your own religion, is poison to the soul. If that is how you hold it, and deny me and all others valid and true and deep spiritual connections in our lives, than like my parents who worried for me, I worry for you.

Your Bahi'i friend in this discussion does not deny my spirituality, yet you do. Is this what your heart tells you about everyone in the world who don't believe as you do, or is this what your head tells you because you are afraid of not having answers that agree with your beliefs?


Yes, head knowledge is not heart knowledge. Spirituality is heart knowledge. Religion is head knowledge. Which do you have?

Hi Windwalker.

1. Lets try to get some definitions of spiritual because in a few dictionaries I’ve read just now it refers to spirituality as being religious. That’s one of the definitions. So I don’t believe I have erred in that respect as a religious belief involves acceptance of a religion and a Prophet.


relating to deep feelings and beliefs, especially religiousbeliefs: (Cambridge dictionary)

Relating to religion or religious belief (Oxford)

concerned with religious values (Merrium Webster)

2. so what then is spirituality to you?

Would you include in spirituality ‘to know and worship God’?

I am trying to learn what you mean so we can work it out together.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Believe me, I know you are incorrect in what you say. What I find unfortunate is that you believe it, without regard for what your heart may know.

Let me give you a perfect example. Back in my early days joining a church that claimed it was the latest revelation from God, restored for the "last days" (insert a special prophet for the current age in here), they taught that anyone who do not have the truth as they knew it from scripture, was going to hell. So that meant, my parents who did not believe the things I was believing, were not saved (sound familiar here?). I actually told them I was worried for them that if they died they would go to hell, unless they got baptized and joined the church.

Fast forward a number of years after I came to realize the naivete of such views, views which teach that unless someone embraced your ideas of what God's will is, who his prophets are, what scriptures to believe in, etc, that they are not spiritual, or saved, or on the right path. I remember my parents saying to me that they were worried for me back in those days of my naive zeal, that I would believe that they were going to hell. Those poisonous beliefs, led me to deny what my heart knew, in order to be true to what I was taught was the truth of God. It was in fact, that very battle between what my beliefs, my head was telling me, and what my heart and soul were telling me, that led to me leaving that religion. Love saved me, in other words.

Religions that cannot see that others are good, or see God in others lives who are not of your own religion, is poison to the soul. If that is how you hold it, and deny me and all others valid and true and deep spiritual connections in our lives, than like my parents who worried for me, I worry for you.

Your Bahi'i friend in this discussion does not deny my spirituality, yet you do. Is this what your heart tells you about everyone in the world who don't believe as you do, or is this what your head tells you because you are afraid of not having answers that agree with your beliefs?


Yes, head knowledge is not heart knowledge. Spirituality is heart knowledge. Religion is head knowledge. Which do you have?

Hi Windwalker this seems to say we are both partially right!

The Concept of Spirituality

Indeed, since the Manifestations constitute such a unique link between man and the unseen world of spiritual reality, knowledge of the Manifestations is the foundation of the whole process of spiritual development. This is not to say that real spiritual progress cannot take place before one recognizes and accepts the Manifestation.5 However, the Bahá'í Writings do affirm that in order to progress beyond a certain level on the path of spirituality, knowledge of the Manifestation is essential. Sooner or later (in this world or the next), knowledge and acceptance of the Manifestation must occur in the life of each individual.

The question naturally arises as to what step or steps follow the recognition of the Manifestation. Here again Bahá`u'lláh is quite clear and emphatic:`The first duty prescribed by God for His servants is the recognition of Him Who is the Day Spring of His Revelation and the Fountain of His laws, Who representeth the Godhead in both the Kingdom of His Cause and the world of creation. Whoso achieveth this duty hath attained unto all good; and whoso is deprived thereof, hath gone astray, though he be the author of every righteous deed. It behoveth every one who reacheth this most sublime station, this summit of transcendent glory, to observe every ordinance of Him Who is the Desire of the world. These twin duties are inseparable. Neither is acceptable without the other.'6

 

[Aupmanyav]

And when people say "I'm spiritual, but not religious", what do they actually mean? I assume they mean they're religious, but not part of an organised religion, but it's all so vague.

My def. for spiritual: Not concerned only with one's life, but also to the situation of living beings (including humans) and nature.
1. One can be spiritual without subscribing to any religion. (Atheists, generally. Many examples in RF)
2. One can be spiritual while subscribing to a religion with deity/deities (the majority).
3. One can be spiritual while subscribing to a religion without accepting existence of any deity/deities (my case, I am spiritual and Hindu, though the religious belief that I follow does not accept existence of any God or Goddess. Jainism falls in this category, and Buddhism in some cases)

 

[Aupmanyav]

Indeed, since the Manifestations constitute such a unique link between man and the unseen world of spiritual reality, knowledge of the Manifestations is the foundation of the whole process of spiritual development.
VS.
This is not to say that real spiritual progress cannot take place before one recognizes and accepts the Manifestation.

Is that not a contradiction??
So what exactly are you saying?
Another normal contradictory Bahai statement??
Pulling out statements from ...

 

[Aupmanyav]

Thats disappointing because the document I quoted was presented to the UN and world leaders who did see merit in it.

What is the value of UN? It is a failed money gorging organization which no one cares about. The document was presented to some section of the UN and the committee said 'Oh, that is nice. File it'. And that was the end of it.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Is that not a contradiction??
So what exactly are you saying?
Another normal contradictory Bahai statement??
Pulling out statements from ...

I think it’s the same as what I first said.

We are born with spiritual ‘potential’ to develop spiritual qualities and the best spiritual Educator is the Manifestation of God.

 

[lukethethird]

I think it’s the same as what I first said.

We are born with spiritual ‘potential’ to develop spiritual qualities and the best spiritual Educator is the Manifestation of God.

What is a spiritual quality?

 

[Aupmanyav]

We are born with spiritual ‘potential’ to develop spiritual qualities and the best spiritual Educator is the Manifestation of God.

Quote "This is not to say that real spiritual progress cannot take place before one recognizes and accepts the Manifestation."
What if someone completes the spiritual journey without accepting the fakes who provide no evidence of what they claim? Or accepting the fakes is necessary because you think so?

 

[loverofhumanity]

Quote "This is not to say that real spiritual progress cannot take place before one recognizes and accepts the Manifestation."
What if someone completes the spiritual journey without accepting the fakes who provide no evidence of what they claim? Or accepting the fakes is necessary because you think so?

I’m still of the opinion that one begins spiritual life from being ‘born again’, that is, believing in the latest manifestation of God then depending on your level of obedience your spirituality will grow.

According to Baha’u’llah, only good deeds or only belief aren’t enough for spiritual growth. Both believing and obeying must go hand in hand for the soul to progress.

 

[loverofhumanity]

What is a spiritual quality?

One of the most important spiritual qualities is the love of God and the love of all humanity. That’s two actually.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I’m still of the opinion that one begins spiritual life from being ‘born again’, ..

IMHO, one is 'born again' when one abandons all falsehood, abandons the belief that snake-oil is the only remedy for all ills.