The world being made especially for humans doesn't line up with reality and facts

[LuisDantas]

Even if we stipulate that scripture is of divine origin?!

Of course. That is when it is most important to establish the importance of fact and discernment over scripture, in fact.

I expected that a religion such as the Bahai Faith that claims to inherit the teachings of both Hinduism and Buddhism would have learned a thing or two about Dharma, but I guess not.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Of course. That is when it is most important to establish the importance of fact and discernment over scripture, in fact.

I expected that a religion such as the Bahai Faith that claims to inherit the teachings of both Hinduism and Buddhism would have learned a thing or two about Dharma, but I guess not.

Oh well Baha'is easily excuse themselves from actually having to follow anything in the two by claiming that Hinduism and Buddhism are highly perverted from their original forms. The way they treat Hinduism and Buddhism sickens me.

 

[EverChanging]

I do not believe the universe is tailored for humans. We have existed for a very, very low amount of time in this universe's history, and very soon, conditions will have changed, and we will likely not exist, and if we do persist to exist (like after the sun goes out), we wil exist in a drastically altered form.

I also do not accept the notion of a food chain with some species higher than another. A mountain lion might eat a deer, but without enough deer, the mountain lions may go extinct, which will affect other balances in the ecosystem. Nature is an interconnected web of life, and what affects one species will affect all species in some way, distantly or not. With our particular kind of human intelligence, we have subjugated and dominated other species and the environment itself, which could very rapidly bring on not only the extinction of the human race, but most or all of life on Earth. How could we possibly be on the top of some food chain? The notion just seems ridiculous to me.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Most people who argue humans are somehow at the top of some food chain don't consider how we got there. It isn't because we were created there. Think about how we contain most animals these days. We have only become dominant through use of torture and fear.

 

[EverChanging]

Most people who argue humans are somehow at the top of some food chain don't consider how we got there. It isn't because we were created there. Think about how we contain most animals these days. We have only become dominant through use of torture and fear.

I don't believe in the food chain at all.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Really I don't either

 

[LuisDantas]

Come to think of it, neither do I. Nor do I see why it would prove human superiority over,say, dogs.

 

[fallingblood]

Most people who argue humans are somehow at the top of some food chain don't consider how we got there. It isn't because we were created there. Think about how we contain most animals these days. We have only become dominant through use of torture and fear.

You've never been on a farm have you? No one needs to torture or make chickens fear to lay eggs, or cows to produce milk. In fact, on most farms, both are done without problems.

Even the slaughtering of the animals is done in a way that doesn't make the animal submit to torture or fear.

Really, I have no idea what you are talking about when you say we have become dominant over animals through the use of torture and fear. Because really, it just doesn't happen like that. I had more than one dog who obeyed me, and submitted to what I wanted, without me ever torturing or making it fear.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In part, yes, as well as to promote an ever-advancing, evolving civilization!

That civilization being us, right?

So humanity factors into all of God's purposes for the universe?

Then I suggest you complain to the manufacturer.

I think you may be misunderstanding me. I'm not complaining about God's shoddy workmanship; I'm saying that the facts at hand tell me that your explanation is very implausible.

We've talked about this before:

I've used an analogy in other threads: imagine that you were out walking in London and came across a house with a sprinkler on the lawn. You stop to chat with the owner of the house, and he tells you that he's watering a lawn in Beijing.

You point out that his sprinkler's in London, not Beijing, but he still insists on his initial claim. He goes into great detail about how a non-zero amount of the water emitted by his sprinkler will be taken up by evaporation, how a non-zero amount of this water vapour will be carried in the upper atmosphere as far as Beijing, how a non-zero amount of this vapour will fall as rain on Beijing, and how a non-zero amount of this rain will fall on the particular lawn he's concerned with.

While every step in his argument is literally correct, and while his actions will result in some water falling on that lawn in Beijing, you still can't help but look at the mechanism being used and get the feeling that, in light of its purported goal, it makes no sense at all.

I get the same feeling when someone tells me that this vast universe filled almost entirely with things that have nothing to do with us was designed and constructed specifically for our benefit.

Even if we stipulate that scripture is of divine origin?!

Even in this case, you've still got human opinion in the mix:

- your decision to consider scripture as having a divine origin is a matter of human opinion.

- your interpretation of that scripture is a matter of human opinion.

Human opinion is a necessary part of any human action.

I don't believe in the food chain at all.

Really I don't either

Come to think of it, neither do I. Nor do I see why it would prove human superiority over,say, dogs.

Yeah... in ecological terms, "food web" is a better description of the real situation.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Oh well Baha'is easily excuse themselves from actually having to follow anything in the two by claiming that Hinduism and Buddhism are highly perverted from their original forms. The way they treat Hinduism and Buddhism sickens me.

Well, if you'd prefer we ignore or condemn them like Christianity and Islam do rather than recognize both as legitimate, God-sent religions, . . .

You're a bit too hasty with your put-downs, I suggest.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Well, if you'd prefer we ignore or condemn them like Christianity and Islam do rather than recognize both as legitimate, God-sent religions, . . .

You're a bit too hasty with your put-downs, I suggest.

Peace,

Bruce

Bruce the way you ignore what they say and claim that they're so perverted nothing they teach is relevant to you, you may as well ignore them. It'd do you just as much good.

 

[LuisDantas]

See, that is the point, Bruce. There are better approaches towards other religions than attempting to condemn or somewhat forcefully claim inheritance from them.

Ignoring might in fact be one of them, when it comes to the Bahai Faith and Dharmic religions.

Although I'm not sure on how widespread this Abrahamic approach towards Hinduism and Buddhism is among Bahais, to be honest.

It is weird to see literalists claim inheritance from those faiths, that much I assure you. Literalism is fairly incompatible with Dharmas of most kinds.

 

[BruceDLimber]

That civilization being us, right?

Essentially, though the degree to which we can be considered "civilized" is open to some debate.

So humanity factors into all of God's purposes for the universe?

I never said "all" of them, but we appear to be of major concern in a number of them, yes.

[/quote]I'm saying that the facts at hand tell me that your explanation is very implausible.

As always, you are most welcome to your opinion!

Even in this case, you've still got human opinion in the mix.

Your decision to consider scripture as having a divine origin is a matter of human opinion.

As to each person's decision to accept or reject it, of course!

But not, IOV, as to its origin.

And this was, at least in my case, a heavily-researched and thoroughly thought out one. (I can't speak for how others may or may not have done it.)

Peace,

Bruce

 

[BruceDLimber]

PB, I neither claimed anyone was "perverted" (your term) nor did I say those teachings were irrelevant! In fact, we quote from them, too.

See, that is the point, Bruce. There are better approaches towards other religions than attempting to condemn or somewhat forcefully claim inheritance from them.

Although I'm not sure on how widespread this Abrahamic approach towards Hinduism and Buddhism is among Bahais, to be honest.

The Baha'i Faith fully and officially recognizes Hinduism AND Buddhism AND Zoroastrianism--as well as other faiths--as being legitmate, God-sent religions, and has no hesitation is stating this!

Nor are we "literalists." Quite the opposite, in fact!

Peace,

Bruce

 

[LuisDantas]

You seem quite literalism to me, Bruce. You love scripture a bit more than I personally find healthy.

And I still don't see the point of recognizing Dharma religions yet failing to understand what Dharma is all about. Maybe it is different with, say, Bahais from India?

 

[Vansdad]

Lol nitpicky. Like I said, this god you believe in SHOULD be able to create life anywhere if all powerful. Guess that ain't the case.

I think you are applying your standards of what God should be like, but not mine.

 

[EverChanging]

You've never been on a farm have you? No one needs to torture or make chickens fear to lay eggs, or cows to produce milk. In fact, on most farms, both are done without problems.

Even the slaughtering of the animals is done in a way that doesn't make the animal submit to torture or fear.

Really, I have no idea what you are talking about when you say we have become dominant over animals through the use of torture and fear. Because really, it just doesn't happen like that. I had more than one dog who obeyed me, and submitted to what I wanted, without me ever torturing or making it fear.

You apparently aren't familiar with modern factory farming.

 

[fallingblood]

You apparently aren't familiar with modern factory farming.

I'm familiar enough with it. The key though, it's not how everything is done. More so, the animals are not dominated through fear or weapons.


There are some bad example of factory farming. However, that is not the standard. The reason being that well taken care of animals produce better products, which can fetch higher prices. The higher prices being the driving factor.

And still, slaughtering is done through fear or threat of weapons. Laying of eggs is not done so either. The only thing that I can even think of that would be close is using a cattle prod. And it's not fear or the weapon that motivates the animal, it is the annoyance.

 

[EverChanging]

And still, slaughtering is done through fear or threat of weapons. Laying of eggs is not done so either. The only thing that I can even think of that would be close is using a cattle prod. And it's not fear or the weapon that motivates the animal, it is the annoyance.

How could you know if they were afraid or not? It's not like you're telepathic. And I'm also thinking of how small the cages often are that chickens are stuffed into or milk cows that are kept pregnant constantly so they can be pumped by machines in a tiny space until they are exhausted nearly to death and then slaughtered. Even if this is a rare occurrence, and I don't think that, it shouldn't be acceptable even once.

And that's not even to mention the environmental consequences of factory farming.

 

[fallingblood]

How could you know if they were afraid or not? It's not like you're telepathic. And I'm also thinking of how small the cages often are that chickens are stuffed into or milk cows that are kept pregnant constantly so they can be pumped by machines in a tiny space until they are exhausted nearly to death and then slaughtered. Even if this is a rare occurrence, and I don't think that, it shouldn't be acceptable even once.

And that's not even to mention the environmental consequences of factory farming.

You slap a cow with a cow prod, then show them the prod, and they don't act in fear, that's a pretty good signal. You can tell when a cow is afraid. Working on a farm, you need to know something like that.

The extremes that are shown are rare. And yes, they shouldn't be acceptable, and most don't. One reason, it gives a less of a quality product. A stressed out cow, that nearly dies from exhaustion does not give a quality product. And that means less money. Farms are a business.

What exact environmental consequences are you referring to?