What is the universal God or no God?

[Avoice1C]

First, this is an idealist tripping through the pansies and daisies on a warm sunny May day view of Christianity, and not the reality of the whole beliefs, nature and problems with Christianity.

In what way is my statement Idealistic? Can you give me an example of a belief and a nature of the religion I'm missing?

Fact, these principles, 'spiritual bone?', basis of all religions, but when taken into the context of the belief in the exclusiveness of one religion over another the concept of love may be and often is harmful to those beyond the 'chosen sense of community of the claimed one true faith, as for example where it is strongest in Judaism, Christianity and Islam in history. This includes conflict, violence, separation, and exclusion of those who believe differently, which leaves them separated and out of touch with the reality of a more evolving diverse universal relationship between God and Creation.

They are not the spiritual basis of all religions. Most of them have an out for murder; they say if you are badly enough offended it is ok to murder. The only "separation of those who believe differently," I know of is the separation from a believer who chooses to live committing a violation of God's word. Otherwise we'd have no one to witness too. The Greek scriptures give a reasonable way to handle conflict and violence. Our relationship with and unchanging God leaves us separate from murder, fraud, theft, divorce, and want which causes conflict.

There are many spiritual issues in Christianity that lack consistent guidance in an evolving changing world, such as the issue of science, slavery, and the relationship between religions that believe differently. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are based on strong tribal beliefs grounded in the Bible that separate them from others.

The foundation of the belief in salvation in Christianity is grounded in the mythology of Genesis, which in turn divides Christianity in a confusion of literal versus metaphorical interpretations of scripture to address the changing scientific knowledge of our physical existence. The problem is compounded by the fact that the authors of the gospels, and the Church Fathers overwhelmingly by the majority believed in some form of a literal Genesis.

Science is in the Bible. Genesis has the beginning of creation starting with the explosion of light ( this is the only way an ancient people had of describing the release of energy from the Big Bang) Other things like creation of man is likely the manipulation of existing DNA and so on.
It does nothing to interfere with the literality of Genesis. Merely an understanding of how ancient man would understand the power of God to bring about His Plan for man.

...which in turn divides Christianity in a confusion of literal versus metaphorical interpretations of scripture to address the changing scientific knowledge of our physical existence.

Science doesn't change either we just come to a better understanding of it. Can you give me an example of a metaphorical interpretation of scripture?

 

[shunyadragon]

In what way is my statement Idealistic? Can you give me an example of a belief and a nature of the religion I'm missing?

Your statement speaks for itself as an idealistic view of love in Christianity, and my response stands as is.

They are not the spiritual basis of all religions. Most of them have an out for murder; they say if you are badly enough offended it is ok to murder. The only "separation of those who believe differently," I know of is the separation from a believer who chooses to live committing a violation of God's word. Otherwise we'd have no one to witness too. The Greek scriptures give a reasonable way to handle conflict and violence. Our relationship with and unchanging God leaves us separate from murder, fraud, theft, divorce, and want which causes conflict.

You are actually describing the justification for my reasoning concerning the relationship between Christianity and other religions, and the Greek scripture itself in the New Testament justifies violence against non-believers and in particular Jews.

This not true of the different religions. Your bias is over whelming, and the justification of violence against nonbelievers is throughout the Bible, and even the New Testament.

Genesis has the beginning of creation starting with the explosion of light ( this is the only way an ancient people had of describing the release of energy from the Big Bang) Other things like creation of man is likely the manipulation of existing DNA and so on.

It does nothing to interfere with the literality of Genesis. Merely an understanding of how ancient man would understand the power of God to bring about His Plan for man.

Science is not in the Bible! A few vague aspects of the account of Genesis may interpreted to be parallel to scientific events. The literal interpretation of Genesis depicts a 7 day to 7 thousand year Creation even, and a world flood. None of which have any reasonable parallel in Science.

Science doesn't change either we just come to a better understanding of it.

Explain 'science doesn't change either.' The knowledge of science evolved over the millennia with physics, chemistry and biology to describe a universe 13+ billions of years old, and an earth 4.5+ billions of years old, and the billions of years of the evolution of life.

The above are just the tip of the ice berg where Christianity has not adapted to an evolving changing world in part because it's foundation to based to a large extent on the mythology of Genesis.

 

[Avoice1C]

Your statement speaks for itself as an idealistic view of love in Christianity, and my response stands as is.

You have not answered the question I asked. Perhaps you do not have any basis for the statement that prompted the question.

You are actually describing the justification for my reasoning concerning the relationship between Christianity and other religions, and the Greek scripture itself in the New Testament justifies violence against non-believers and in particular Jews.

This not true of the different religions. Your bias is over whelming, and the justification of violence against nonbelievers is throughout the Bible, and even the New Testament.

Where does the Greek or Aramaic scripture justify violence against anyone? I've been reading the Bible through since I was 16 and all I've learned from it is witnessing no violence.

Science is not in the Bible! A few vague aspects of the account of Genesis may interpreted to be parallel to scientific events. The literal interpretation of Genesis depicts a 7 day to 7 thousand year Creation even, and a world flood. None of which have any reasonable parallel in Science.

Quote me a scripture that I cannot translate to science! And I don't mean about ostriches.

Explain 'science doesn't change either.' The knowledge of science evolved over the millennia with physics, chemistry and biology to describe a universe 13+ billions of years old, and an earth 4.5+ billions of years old, and the billions of years of the evolution of life.

The Science hasn't changed. The facts are the facts. Our knowledge or understanding of nature and Science has improved and become more correct which is what I said.

The above are just the tip of the ice berg where Christianity has not adapted to an evolving changing world in part because it's foundation to based to a large extent on the mythology of Genesis.

Only in your mind not in mine.

 

[Ra Daughter]

The claim to "know" God from the human perspective remains anecdotal and subjective without convincing information that may be called evidence.

. . . and you are still faced with the issue of many many people coming up with many conflicting views of God and claiming to know. Which reflects the greater universal of the diverse history of the millennia of the human relationship with the Divine, and reflects the natural history of humanity, life, our planet, solar system, galaxy and our universe.

I am not claiming this from a human perspective at all, nothing in this physical world can truly make anyone know God personally. People merely get a glimpse of something about God as they would anyone from the past that has died and left us their artwork, or writings. There is life and knowing outside of this physical world that one must be welcomed into by God that is totally separate from the demonic world.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am not claiming this from a human perspective at all, nothing in this physical world can truly make anyone know God personally. People merely get a glimpse of something about God as they would anyone from the past that has died and left us their artwork, or writings. There is life and knowing outside of this physical world that one must be welcomed into by God that is totally separate from the demonic world.

All fallible humans will see our physical existence, and how we comprehend God from the human perspective. Your claim of knowing God is no different from other claims to know, they are all anecdotal subjective claims without evidence, and too variable and conflicting to verify in a convincing way.

I do not believe there is a demonic world, and this belief is also a product of mythology.

 

[shunyadragon]

You have not answered the question I asked. Perhaps you do not have any basis for the statement that prompted the question. Where does the Greek or Aramaic scripture justify violence against anyone? I've been reading the Bible through since I was 16 and all I've learned from it is witnessing no violence.

The New Testament did not always speak of love for non- believers, and the result over the millennia is persecution of non-believers. These are the facts of history.


Paul presents a mixed view of Jews, but the following does not reflect love for the non-believing Jews.

1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
"14 For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you suffered the same things from your own compatriots as they did from the Jews, 15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out; they displease God and oppose everyone 16 by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. Thus they have constantly been filling up the measure of their sins; but God’s wrath has overtaken them at last."

Quote me a scripture that I cannot translate to science! And I don't mean about ostriches.

There is, of course, no rules anywhere as to how translate or interpret the Bible, and that is part of the problem other than a vague interpretation involving the Big-Bang cosmology you have presented nothing concerning whether you accept science as science concerning the age of the universe, the earth and evolution.

The problem is up to 40%+ Christians do not accept the the science of evolution nor the cosmology ages of our physical existence. By the way science does not presently consider the Big Bang as the beginning of our physical existence. It is simply one beginning of many.

The Science hasn't changed. The facts are the facts. Our knowledge or understanding of nature and Science has improved and become more correct which is what I said.

Not clear. Do you accept the science of evolution and physics and cosmology of a universe billions of years old.

Only in your mind not in mine.

Not an adequate response.

 

[shunyadragon]

What is the universal?

The dictionary offers a good beginning point for understanding what is the universal on the greatest scale we can imagine and beyond.

Universal - of, affecting, or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases.

Over the millennia each culture and tribe beginning with the Neolithic and Bronze defined the universal in terms of their own culture. From the Bronze into the Iron Age this trend continued on the level of Kingdoms. In this period, Bronze to the Iron Age, most foundations of the religions formed and writing began based on the view of the universal from the perspective of the culture of the kingdoms. This perspective of the religions formed in this period remains today.

To consider what is universal you have to be willing ask the question; What applies to all cases? What you get is the universal of what is common to all humans, and not individual cultures, tribes or kingdoms all over the earth. The most important common aspect the cultures of tribes

One of the important aspect what is applicable to all cases is that they evolve in a natural pattern of diversity in all the cultures with common aspects at the foundation of all cultures.
this what I call the universal aspects of human nature.

In terms of science the foundation of science requires that ALL the objective evidence must be considered to determine what is applicable to all cases to be considered universal without selectivity and claiming 'special case,' This is how Methodological Naturalism works.

 

[Avoice1C]

The New Testament did not always speak of love for non- believers, and the result over the millennia is persecution of non-believers. These are the facts of history.

I'm not talking church history with you; I'm talking Bible. Some churches actually do what it says. The RCC and any others who committed violence against either erring believers or non believers were not going by the Book. They were going by their evolved views.

Paul presents a mixed view of Jews, but the following does not reflect love for the non-believing Jews.

Perhaps I'm different, but I come away from Paul's writings with great respect for Jews who are Jews in fact. I do not deny that Jesus and Paul came across Jews who did not obey the intent of the Torah. Paul's reaction to Jews who were not Jews in fact.

1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

"14 For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you suffered the same things from your own compatriots as they did from the Jews, 15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out; they displease God and oppose everyone 16 by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. Thus they have constantly been filling up the measure of their sins; but God’s wrath has overtaken them at last."

Are you referring to "God's wrath" overtaking those who did harm to burgening and established Christians? I'm not sure what your point is in posting this scripture. It is speaking of leaving the vengeance to God who is Spirit.

There is, of course, no rules anywhere as to how translate or interpret the Bible, and that is part of the problem other than a vague interpretation involving the Big-Bang cosmology you have presented nothing concerning whether you accept science as science concerning the age of the universe, the earth and evolution.

Since you were kind enough to ask: I believe in God guided "evolution". Even pure science says we came from one woman.
I presented the Big-Bang as a direct extrapolation of light to energy since the Big-Bang filled the vacuum with invisible energy.
As for the age of the universe, I believe that the day of God treated as if it were 1000 years has the same difficulty as the Big-Bang imagery. The God I know is immortal, therefore 1000 years (which seemed like an eternity to the men who wrote the Bible.) is merely the way the writers of the Bible had of saying a very long time. Also, as I understand the Hebrew of Genesis 1 the first day is better translated as "span of years" or something like that. It can be any amount of time passing not just 1000 years,

The problem is up to 40%+ Christians do not accept the the science of evolution nor the cosmology ages of our physical existence. By the way science does not presently consider the Big Bang as the beginning of our physical existence. It is simply one beginning of many.

We do not exist without the systems God put into our universe which eventually created our world and from which we were created.
Now will you answer the questions I've asked you?

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm not talking church history with you; I'm talking Bible. Some churches actually do what it says. The RCC and any others who committed violence against either erring believers or non believers were not going by the Book. They were going by their evolved views.

This a cope out, and does not address the reality of scripture, and the history. Every religion can make this claim, and avoid being responsible for their ancient scripture and guidance. You have specific examples where God ordered ethnic cleansing and violence against non-believers.

This relates directly to the fact that the scripture and guidance of the Bible and the nature of the history of Christianity as NOT evolving to address the universal concerning the relationships to other religions. Your statements on 'love' and other religions reflect this one sided biased view prevalent in Christianity.

Perhaps I'm different, but I come away from Paul's writings with great respect for Jews who are Jews in fact. I do not deny that Jesus and Paul came across Jews who did not obey the intent of the Torah. Paul's reaction to Jews who were not Jews in fact.

It it is not a matter of you being different it is a FACT of scripture that the 'love' you claim does not necessarily extend to non-believers. The actual scripture of the Bible answers your question where the over simplification you describe as Christianity being a religion of 'love' is a naive view and out of touch with reality.

Are you referring to "God's wrath" overtaking those who did harm to burgening and established Christians? I'm not sure what your point is in posting this scripture. It is speaking of leaving the vengeance to God who is Spirit.

Actually if you read the scripture entirely, NO, the wrath of God is NOT left to God alone.

Since you were kind enough to ask: I believe in God e came from one woman.guided "evolution". Even pure science says we came from one woman.

First there is no such thing as pure science, and no, the science of the "Eve" described by some does not claim that all humans descended from one woman.

I presented the Big-Bang as a direct extrapolation of light to energy since the Big-Bang filled the vacuum with invisible energy.

This is a simplistic misguided view of the physics and cosmology around the Big Bang.

As for the age of the universe, I believe that the day of God treated as if it were 1000 years has the same difficulty as the Big-Bang imagery. The God I know is immortal, therefore 1000 years (which seemed like an eternity to the men who wrote the Bible.) is merely the way the writers of the Bible had of saying a very long time. Also, as I understand the Hebrew of Genesis 1 the first day is better translated as "span of years" or something like that. It can be any amount of time passing not just 1000 years,

This view presents a confusing view of the interpretation of Genesis and hedging trying to compromise with science, which reflects the fact that Christianity does not offer consistent guidance for dealing with science where ~40% Christians believe in some form of literal Genesis, and a failure to address an evolving human world that has left Christianity in a conflicting inconsistent world view of dealing with science.

We do not exist without the systems God put into our universe which eventually created our world and from which we were created.
Now will you answer the questions I've asked you?

As far as your question that follows:

In what way is my statement Idealistic? Can you give me an example of a belief and a nature of the religion I'm missing?

I believe I have answered the question that you are idealistically and in a biased way describing Christianity as a religion of 'love' and other religions are not, which reflects your selective view of history and scripture, and the failure to address the greater universal that I described in the post concerning 'What is the universal?'

 

[Avoice1C]

This a cope out, and does not address the reality of scripture, and the history. Every religion can make this claim, and avoid being responsible for their ancient scripture and guidance. You have specific examples where God ordered ethnic cleansing and violence against non-believers.

What I said is hardly a cop-out. I said : “The RCC and any others who committed violence against either erring believers or non-believers were not going by the Book.” Actually, the RCC went after those who practiced what the Bible taught too. I’m hardly ignorant of church history. I just understand the incursion of the “world” on it.

This relates directly to the fact that the scripture and guidance of the Bible and the nature of the history of Christianity as NOT evolving to address the universal concerning the relationships to other religions. Your statements on 'love' and other religions reflect this one sided biased view prevalent in Christianity.

I’m glad for this. I’d have lost my eldest Nephew to the fires, if God had let the Jews adapt to that religion.
The Bible says God (the Father) is Love. His commandments of what to avoid doing prove it.
The motive for obeying the commandments, that God gave Jesus to give to us makes those commandments a pleasure to obey. It requires Love to reach that attitude. The church has missed it frequently in the past.

It it is not a matter of you being different it is a FACT of scripture that the 'love' you claim does not necessarily extend to non-believers. The actual scripture of the Bible answers your question where the over simplification you describe as Christianity being a religion of 'love' is a naive view and out of touch with reality.

The love I claim extends, particularly, to the unbelievers out there in the Church I go to. I see it in action frequently. As intended the Greek scriptures temper what I read in the Hebrew Scriptures. The history thereis, is of a people reclaiming the land they had settled from those who worshiped and sacrificed to statues.

Actually if you read the scripture entirely, NO, the wrath of God is NOT left to God alone.

It is; in the Greek scriptures.

First there is no such thing as pure science, and no, the science of the "Eve" described by some does not claim that all humans descended from one woman.

Using evolution, it only makes sense that there was one man and one woman that started the human-race. Assuming we are descended from apes that is. A mutation had to happen in the Apes that survived to breed. Likely, the apes would reject a human for breeding, therefore the mutation had to be spread to at least one other of the ape descendants. The Bible takes that into account as a mate for Cain as well as those who might kill him without the mark.

Pure Science in my book is science guided only by the scientific principle.

This view presents a confusing view of the interpretation of Genesis and hedging trying to compromise with science, which reflects the fact that Christianity does not offer consistent guidance for dealing with science where ~40% Christians believe in some form of literal Genesis, and a failure to address an evolving human world that has left Christianity in a conflicting inconsistent world view of dealing with science.

Long years ago, I started reading the holy book of an eastern religion. I don’t seem able to find the book in my collection. It sounded fine to my Christ centered mind. One day the book blue open and I started reading the passage it opened to. That passage said if the offense was harsh enough, murder of the offender would make it to Nirvana (I think). I never got back to that book and I’ve no idea where it has gotten to or I’d give you more information on it. My judgement of that religion and those like it stands.

 

[shunyadragon]

The love I claim extends, particularly, to the unbelievers out there in the Church I go to. I see it in action frequently. As intended the Greek scriptures temper what I read in the Hebrew Scriptures. The history there is, is of a people reclaiming the land they had settled from those who worshiped and sacrificed to statues.

You may claim this, but it does not reflect history nor the Bible scripture as a whole.

It is; in the Greek scriptures.

No it is not.

Using evolution, it only makes sense that there was one man and one woman that started the human-race.

Using evolution?!?!?! This does not remotely make sense based on the current science of evolution. The evolution of any species including humans is the result of the evolution of populations over time.

Assuming we are descended from apes that is. A mutation had to happen in the Apes that survived to breed. Likely, the apes would reject a human for breeding, therefore the mutation had to be spread to at least one other of the ape descendants.

Nothing here represents the science of evolution. Humans did not evolve from apes, humans have common ancestors with the different species called apes today.

[quote\
The Bible takes that into account as a mate for Cain as well as those who might kill him without the mark. [/quote]

Nothing in the science of evolution equates to the mythological Biblical accounts.

Pure Science in my book is science guided only by the scientific principle.

This is clearly a reinforcement of your misunderstanding of science.

Long years ago, I started reading the holy book of an eastern religion. I don’t seem able to find the book in my collection. It sounded fine to my Christ centered mind. One day the book blue open and I started reading the passage it opened to. That passage said if the offense was harsh enough, murder of the offender would make it to Nirvana (I think). I never got back to that book and I’ve no idea where it has gotten to or I’d give you more information on it. My judgement of that religion and those like it stands.

Long long ago I read the Bible and read about the ethnic cleansing of tribes of non-believers by Hebrews on God's orders and . . .

I think?!?!?! wowsers!!!!

Not only is the above inaccurate and down right wrong concerning Buddhism (Nirvana), it is a superficial understanding of any religion and meaningless in any dialogue. This nonetheless clearly demonstrates the unwillingness of many if not most Christians do not even make an effort to understand other religions. This supports the failure of Christianity to represent a dynamic changing world of diverse religions.

Your responses are classical of misinformation concerning science and other religions, which reinforces the view that Christianity cannot represent a universal perspective in a contemporary world. It is probably the case that many if not most Christians do not claim a universal position as I described in a previous post.

 

[siti]

What is the universal?

The dictionary offers a good beginning point for understanding what is the universal on the greatest scale we can imagine and beyond.

Universal - of, affecting, or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases.

Over the millennia each culture and tribe beginning with the Neolithic and Bronze defined the universal in terms of their own culture. From the Bronze into the Iron Age this trend continued on the level of Kingdoms. In this period, Bronze to the Iron Age, most foundations of the religions formed and writing began based on the view of the universal from the perspective of the culture of the kingdoms. This perspective of the religions formed in this period remains today.

To consider what is universal you have to be willing ask the question; What applies to all cases? What you get is the universal of what is common to all humans, and not individual cultures, tribes or kingdoms all over the earth. The most important common aspect the cultures of tribes

One of the important aspect what is applicable to all cases is that they evolve in a natural pattern of diversity in all the cultures with common aspects at the foundation of all cultures.
this what I call the universal aspects of human nature.

In terms of science the foundation of science requires that ALL the objective evidence must be considered to determine what is applicable to all cases to be considered universal without selectivity and claiming 'special case,' This is how Methodological Naturalism works.

This is correct (more or less) and so the question now becomes "what is applicable to all cases in a globalized world with a 21st century cosmological outlook on the greater reality?" - I'll offer you two possible answers - 1. physics, 2. evolution.

If you choose 1, then you have to accept an essentially dualistic worldview in which ideal mathematical laws govern everything that happens in the real world and God (if there is one) has nothing to do except light the blue touch paper and retire - this is the absquatulating and disinterested god of Deism.

If you choose 2, then you have the confusing situation of God (if there is one) evolving along with "his creation" - or not if you wish but you certainly cannot deny evolution "down here" so God then becomes a complete counterpoint to all human experience - how could there be any genuine relationship between an all-knowing, eternal and unchanging deity and humans who can't even make it to the car without losing the keys or forgetting their hat (for example)?

Of course the Baha'i faith is really neither more reasonably and scientifically deistic nor more ecologically organic in its view of deity - it is rather a curious admixture of Christian and Islamic mythology and 19th century social reform ideas that had already been in circulation for a century or so before Baha'u'llah adopted them as religious tenets. Baha'i has the weird distinction (IMO) of being at one and the same time ahead of its time and anachronistic. It is quite different from any other religion without having anything at all new in it. To me, that's not evolution at all - its just clever repackaging.

If you want a new religion that puts God in a more tenable position to command the respect of a 21st century global 'flock', I reckon you have to incorporate process theology and you have to make God the subject as well as the author of evolution. That, and abandon the preposterous idea that God reveals himself exclusively to certain individuals at particular times for the purpose of reaching out to the whole of humanity eternally. If God were really what you claim him to be, he would have no problem letting us all know about himself in unmistakable terms. He don't because he ain't - if you see what I mean.

 

[shunyadragon]

This is correct (more or less) and so the question now becomes "what is applicable to all cases in a globalized world with a 21st century cosmological outlook on the greater reality?" - I'll offer you two possible answers - 1. physics, 2. evolution.

I agree that physics and evolution are a part of the evolving knowledge of science and part of the universal knowledge, but I do not consider them answers? in and of themselves.

If you choose 1, then you have to accept an essentially dualistic worldview in which ideal mathematical laws govern everything that happens in the real world and God (if there is one) has nothing to do except light the blue touch paper and retire - this is the absquatulating and disinterested god of Deism.

Absquatulating? please define and clarify,

Math is a descriptive discipline developed by humans to provide tools for human use and science that reflects reality, but is not reality and of themselves govern everything. I believe there are ultimate laws of nature that govern our existence that our natural laws and our math are descriptive of this reality that evolve over time.

You have presented an awkward unrealistic view of Dualism. The Baha'i Faith would propose that the ultimate reality of our physical existence would not be dualistic, and from the human perspective there is no objective evidence to justify your claim

If you choose 2, then you have the confusing situation of God (if there is one) evolving along with "his creation" - or not if you wish but you certainly cannot deny evolution "down here" so God then becomes a complete counterpoint to all human experience - how could there be any genuine relationship between an all-knowing, eternal and unchanging deity and humans who can't even make it to the car without losing the keys or forgetting their hat (for example)?

Here is an effort to define and limit God, and what God could be the relationship between God and Creation. Creation would reflect the attributes of God, and not God reflecting the attributes of Creation.

Of course the Baha'i faith is really neither more reasonably and scientifically deistic nor more ecologically organic in its view of deity - it is rather a curious admixture of Christian and Islamic mythology and 19th century social reform ideas that had already been in circulation for a century or so before Baha'u'llah adopted them as religious tenets. Baha'i has the weird distinction (IMO) of being at one and the same time ahead of its time and anachronistic. It is quite different from any other religion without having anything at all new in it. To me, that's not evolution at all - its just clever repackaging.

Of course? You are assuming your extremely accride biased view reflects the reality of what the Baha'i Faith is and what it believes. This thread does not assume that the Baha'i Faith is the true religion or not, but the Baha'i Faith does embrace the reality of the knowledge of science and the evolving spiritual diversity of humanity.

If you want a new religion that puts God in a more tenable position to command the respect of a 21st century global 'flock', I reckon you have to incorporate process theology and you have to make God the subject as well as the author of evolution. That, and abandon the preposterous idea that God reveals himself exclusively to certain individuals at particular times for the purpose of reaching out to the whole of humanity eternally. If God were really what you claim him to be, he would have no problem letting us all know about himself in unmistakable terms. He don't because he ain't - if you see what I mean.

The Revelation of God would not be what humans want. First you have not accurately presented the Baha'i Faith believes. Second, if God exists as the Baha'i Faith cannot describe God as subject to evolution, and no the Baha'i Faith does not support process theology. Third, the evolving cyclic nature of our physical existence would reflect the attributes of God and not what God is in the view of the Baha'i Faith. Attributes of God are not God.

No, I do not know what you mean, because you you have not presented an unbiased assessment what the Baha'i Faith believes regardless of whether it is true or not. Nor have you presented alternate belief systems nor scenarios that reflect the universal.

Do you consider philosophical naturalism to explain the universal?

 

[dfnj]

Nature is the executor of God's laws (Galileo)

The more interesting question is God too busy to think about anything else.

 

[shunyadragon]

Nature is the executor of God's laws (Galileo)

Therefore you admit you believe in God as Galileo did!

 

[Avoice1C]

You may claim this, but it does not reflect history nor the Bible scripture as a whole.

According to the Bible all the tribes, the Israelites sometimes extinguished as commanded, worshiped statues. Some sacrificed their children to those statues. God did not want the Israelites exposed to the like.

No it is not.

Out of context.

Using evolution?!?!?! This does not remotely make sense based on the current science of evolution. The evolution of any species including humans is the result of the evolution of populations over time.

Evolution is frequently based on mutations in the genes that create a viable offspring. Evolution is also furthered by the bringing forth of recessive genes in the pool. Both are needed to bring about changes in the descendent line.

Nothing here represents the science of evolution. Humans did not evolve from apes, humans have common ancestors with the different species called apes today.

Fine then, from a common ancestor. The process remains the same. We can breed animals for certain types so also did God's hand guide our evolution.

Nothing in the science of evolution equates to the mythological Biblical accounts.

How do you think a person from somewhere around 4,000 years ago would communicate anything akin to evolution? The would put the creation account into concepts and words that they could understand not for us in 2018 C.E..

This is clearly a reinforcement of your misunderstanding of science.

What does

TLong long ago I read the Bible and read about the ethnic cleansing of tribes of non-believers by Hebrews on God's orders and . . .

I think?!?!?! wowsers!!!!

While the books of some of those eastern religions are not easy to find or passages well marked, the Bible is available to all in some cases for free and the passages have chapter and verse noted. It makes itself easy to understand if one has the "ear" to hear it.

Not only is the above inaccurate and down right wrong concerning Buddhism (Nirvana), it is a superficial understanding of any religion and meaningless in any dialogue. This nonetheless clearly demonstrates the unwillingness of many if not most Christians do not even make an effort to understand other religions. This supports the failure of Christianity to represent a dynamic changing world of diverse religions.

It is a verse in the eastern religion it represents. If I could find the book, I'd give you the quote.

Your responses are classical of misinformation concerning science and other religions, which reinforces the view that Christianity cannot represent a universal perspective in a contemporary world. It is probably the case that many if not most Christians do not claim a universal position as I described in a previous post.

Perhaps we must agree to disagree on this point. The laws of the Bible are to prevent bitterness, guilt, loss of life, and the like. They are to promote peace among people in all cases.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

A rather mythical anthropomorphic view of nature.

I believe you are quoting Hoyle on the Big Bang again?

 

[siti]

I agree that physics and evolution are a part of the evolving knowledge of science and part of the universal knowledge, but I do not consider them answers? in and of themselves.

They are - jointly - the best answers we have. I doubt there can be any serious question about that.

Absquatulating? please define and clarify

Oh my! This is perhaps the best American coinage ever in my opinion - it basically means to get up and leave abruptly - as the Deist god apparently did immediately after creation.

Math is a descriptive discipline developed by humans to provide tools for human use and science that reflects reality, but is not reality and of themselves govern everything. I believe there are ultimate laws of nature that govern our existence that our natural laws and our math are descriptive of this reality that evolve over time.

I agree with this but if you take the laws of physics as the fundamental description of reality that makes math the ultimate.

You have presented an awkward unrealistic view of Dualism.

No I haven't, I have presented a deliberately glib version (because the basic idea is very simple) of Platonic dualism in which the immaterial and unchanging (mathematical/divine - take your pick) laws are insulated from the "leaky pots" of Heraclitean change that characterizes the real (physical/mundane - take your pick again) world that humans inhabit. This is the same dualism that gave rise to the notion of an almighty creative deity so fundamentally aloof and fenced off from its creation that it was not only infinitely above and beyond the physical creation but entirely inaccessible and past any possibility of comprehensibility except by divine grace and miraculous revelation. For most of humanity's religious or spiritual past, it seems to me, people were far more "in touch" with their deities - they inhabited the trees and streams. Even the God of the Baha'i faith began as the God of Horeb (Mount Sinai). But that tribal deity who inhabited a part of the same real world as his bronze age subjects has been abstracted so far into unreality that by the dawn of the age of enlightenment he was nowhere to be seen - hence the rise of deism along with science in the 18th century - and atheism hot on the heels of the deism a century later.

Creation would reflect the attributes of God, and not God reflecting the attributes of Creation.

Well I beg to differ and I would argue that the evidence of history is that deities tend to reflect the intellectual attributes of the human creation as history unfolds. Again, I doubt you would seriously argue against that. The difference is you attribute this reflection to the kindly wisdom of an ineffably wise deity, whereas I attribute it to the best we could come up with at the time.

You are assuming your extremely accride biased view reflects the reality of what the Baha'i Faith is and what it believes..you have not accurately presented the Baha'i Faith believes...

I said the Baha'i faith is "a curious admixture of Christian and Islamic mythology and 19th century social reform ideas" - would you care to present any key aspect of the Baha'i faith that is not found either in the earlier Christian/Islamic traditions or 19th century social reform ideas?

the Baha'i Faith does not support process theology.

That is one of my points - if it did, it would IMO be more relevant to the 21st century.

the evolving cyclic nature of our physical existence would reflect the attributes of God and not what God is

Again I beg to differ.

you have not presented an unbiased assessment what the Baha'i Faith believes...Nor have you presented alternate belief systems nor scenarios that reflect the universal.

I was not intending to do either.

Do you consider philosophical naturalism to explain the universal?

What is "philosophical naturalism"? I mean that as a rhetorical question. But yes I do believe the answers are to be found in naturalism - i.e. we look at what is and try our best to explain it without complicating the issue by imagining what is not and inventing explanations that only end up in even deeper unexplainable mysteries. IOW I believe the partial explanations of naturalism are preferable to the non-explanations of theistic supernaturalism. And the sooner 'religion' gets that, the better its chances of avoiding sliding into the abyss of eternal irrelevance - if it hasn't already.

Ultimately, the universe has to be its own best explanation, just as the reality of @shunyadragon 's life or @siti 's life (for example) is the best possible explanation of itself - don't you think? So perhaps - I am suggesting - "god" is ultimately nothing more and nothing less than "the life of the universe" - and to us - at any point in time - "God" is the best explanation of that "life of the universe" we can come up with...but right now, Abrahamic monotheism simply doesn't cut the mustard - its too tribal, too earth-bound to be at once sufficiently inclusive and sufficiently expansive for the post-post-modern world of connected humanity. And simply repackaging Yahweh/Allah and dressing him up in modern (without the posts) social notions (universal suffrage and all that) will not do. At least not for me at any rate.

 

[shunyadragon]

They are - jointly - the best answers we have. I doubt there can be any serious question about that.

I am not sure what you are considering what there can be any serious question about. About what?!?!? Math remains simply a tool developed by humans in theory 'pure math,' and for practical uses tools 'applied math,' for everyday use and science. Physics is simply one of the sciences based on Methodological Naturalism. To put it bluntly from a scientist's perspective you are not making sense.

Oh my! This is perhaps the best American coinage ever in my opinion - it basically means to get up and leave abruptly - as the Deist god apparently did immediately after creation.

Your extreme bias and sarcasm does not pass muster. Do you believe in a Deist God?

I agree with this but if you take the laws of physics as the fundamental description of reality that makes math the ultimate.

Again no as above, from the perspective of a scientist with a good background in math. The human philosophy of math, and the descriptive tools of math

Math defined from: math defined - Google Search

the abstract science of number, quantity, and space. Mathematics may be studied in its own right ( pure mathematics ), or as it is applied to other disciplines such as physics and engineering ( applied mathematics ).

Nothing more and nothing less. Nothing ultimate here from the human perspective.

No I haven't, I have presented a deliberately glib version (because the basic idea is very simple) of Platonic dualism in which the immaterial and unchanging (mathematical/divine - take your pick) laws are insulated from the "leaky pots" of Heraclitean change that characterizes the real (physical/mundane - take your pick again) world that humans inhabit. This is the same dualism that gave rise to the notion of an almighty creative deity so fundamentally aloof and fenced off from its creation that it was not only infinitely above and beyond the physical creation but entirely inaccessible and past any possibility of comprehensibility except by divine grace and miraculous revelation. For most of humanity's religious or spiritual past, it seems to me, people were far more "in touch" with their deities - they inhabited the trees and streams. Even the God of the Baha'i faith began as the God of Horeb (Mount Sinai). But that tribal deity who inhabited a part of the same real world as his bronze age subjects has been abstracted so far into unreality that by the dawn of the age of enlightenment he was nowhere to be seen - hence the rise of deism along with science in the 18th century - and atheism hot on the heels of the deism a century later.

Well I beg to differ and I would argue that the evidence of history is that deities tend to reflect the intellectual attributes of the human creation as history unfolds. Again, I doubt you would seriously argue against that. The difference is you attribute this reflection to the kindly wisdom of an ineffably wise deity, whereas I attribute it to the best we could come up with at the time.

'Ineffable and wise' are human attributes. No your assumptions do not reflect how the Baha'i Faith nor I consider God.

You are real heavy in telling other what and how they believe. No meaningful dialogue here.

I said the Baha'i faith is "a curious admixture of Christian and Islamic mythology and 19th century social reform ideas" - would you care to present any key aspect of the Baha'i faith that is not found either in the earlier Christian/Islamic traditions or 19th century social reform ideas?

That is one of my points - if it did, it would IMO be more relevant to the 21st century.

Yes you did, so what !?!?!!?

Again I beg to differ.

Beg all you want, It is understood that we differ, and no objective reasonable dialogue her as you are trying vainly to tell others what they believe.

I was not intending to do either.

The clarifies your biased aggressive manner.

What is "philosophical naturalism"? I mean that as a rhetorical question. But yes I do believe the answers are to be found in naturalism - i.e. we look at what is and try our best to explain it without complicating the issue by imagining what is not and inventing explanations that only end up in even deeper unexplainable mysteries. IOW I believe the partial explanations of naturalism are preferable to the non-explanations of theistic supernaturalism. And the sooner 'religion' gets that, the better its chances of avoiding sliding into the abyss of eternal irrelevance - if it hasn't already.

Ultimately, the universe has to be its own best explanation, just as the reality of @shunyadragon 's life or @siti 's life (for example) is the best possible explanation of itself - don't you think? So perhaps - I am suggesting - "god" is ultimately nothing more and nothing less than "the life of the universe" - and to us - at any point in time - "God" is the best explanation of that "life of the universe" we can come up with...but right now, Abrahamic monotheism simply doesn't cut the mustard - its too tribal, too earth-bound to be at once sufficiently inclusive and sufficiently expansive for the post-post-modern world of connected humanity. And simply repackaging Yahweh/Allah and dressing him up in modern (without the posts) social notions (universal suffrage and all that) will not do. At least not for me at any rate.

Long drawn out wordy description of pantheism. Just 'Metaphysical (philosophical) Naturalism' in a fancy dress.

 

[shunyadragon]

I believe you are quoting Hoyle on the Big Bang again?

I do not quote Hoyle he is dead and not particularly meaningful today. the same for your ancient world view based on Galileo.