What?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Who was Baha'u'llah?
- Thread starter InvestigateTruth
- Start date
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
When there is no science, there are human social rules to follow. All rules are not scientific, some are social.
We know this. Even when there is science there are still human rules to follow.
Let's note that humans developed the scientific method, and honed the rules to improve reliability and accuracy.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Correct and you can explain using science that there is religion and it is a part of how the universe works.
InvestigateTruth
Veteran Member
You have a point there.
There is also a view that, to search for truth, is better than seating and doing nothing, even if it may take you a thousand years to discover it.
Your choice
We observe that religion exists in many forms. Are you asking for the social sciences to explain why religions formed in the first place? If so, that is work that has been ongoing for some time, and there are many reports available for reading.
Religion is part of human behavior, it doesn't describe how the universe works. The universe works without religions.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
Back in the 70's, in Southern California, and maybe all over, there were lots of ex-hippies that all of a sudden found Jesus. For a lot of them, their search stopped right there. They found the Lord. They found their truth. They found their God. You know, God, the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit. They found their truth that they were born sinners, but God sent his only Son to die on the cross and save them.
Others found their truth in following a Hindu guru. Or following some new age religion. Or some found the Baha'i Faith. With any of them, why would people search for a different truth? Yet, from a Baha'i perspective, are any of those other "truths" the ultimate truth? No, your religion is claiming to be the latest, newest and most necessary truth of all. It is what is needed to bring the world together in peace and love. Or... so says Baha'is. And so says born-again Christians or any other religion group that thinks its beliefs are the best and the truest.
For all these people that believe their religious beliefs are the true ones, then they aren't searching, they are digging in and arguing why their beliefs are true, and why the beliefs of the other religions that claim to be the true ones, are false.
Between Atheists and Baha'is, or Baha'is are some of those other religions, it is a standoff. All of us believe the things we believe as being true are correct and what you and the others believe are wrong somehow. The problem is... How do Baha'is get past that? How do Baha'is become the unifiers? How do Baha'is show how their truth is The Truth without pushing people away and by telling them that the things they believe aren't true?
Here on the forum, it's been more of the pushing away and insisting that the Baha'i beliefs are true, and all other beliefs are lacking in some ways. And, of course, some of us come right back at you and tell you how your Baha'i beliefs are wrong. So, what we gonna do? And, since Baha'is say they are for peace and unity, what are Baha'is going to do to reconcile and bring people together?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
No, I am not saying religion describes how the universe works. I am saying religion as a human behavior is a part of how the universe works.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
A belief and a claim are not the same at all (see definitions below).
A belief in an inner acceptance that something is true whereas a claim is an assertion that something is true.
"X is a fraud" is a claim since you are asserting that X is a fraud.
"I believe X is a fraud" is a belief because you are saying you believe that X is a fraud.
Claim: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.
claim means - Google Search
Claim: to say that something is true or is a fact, although you cannot prove it and other people might not believe it: claim
Belief:
1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"
2. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"a belief in democratic politics"
https://www.google.com/search
Belief:
the feeling of being certain that something exists or is true:
His belief in God gave him hope during difficult times.
Recent scandals have shaken many people's belief in (= caused people to have doubts about) politicians.
belief
An acceptance that my belief is true is not a claim that it is true.
I 'believe' that my belief is true. I never 'claimed' that my belief is true.
As nouns the difference between claim and belief is that claim is a demand of ownership made for something (eg claim ownership, claim victory) while belief is mental acceptance of a claim as truth regardless of supporting or contrary empirical evidence.
What is the difference between claim and belief? | WikiDiff
Last edited:
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I understand what you mean. To say "truly He was the Manifestation of God" sounds like He was the only Manifestation of God, but He wasn't the only Manifestation of God.
Thus I think the poll option should have said: Baha'u'llah claimed to be a Manifestation of God, and truly He was a Manifestation of God.
Truthseeker
Non-debating member when I can help myself
A voice in your head, perhaps? Or some other means?
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
Always interesting to me how one religion, in this case the Baha'i Faith, doesn't believe you could know God personally and have a relationship with him. That your belief must be "in your head". And, no doubt, the things they believe is not just in their heads. All religions are one? That's what Baha'is say, but I think what they really mean is that all religions could be one, once they agree with us, the Baha'is.
And actually, I believe that is true. If everyone thought, in their heads, that the Baha'i Faith is true, we'd all be one. But I also believe that Christians like you that believe Jesus is in them or that it is the Holy Spirit that's in them, that they have a connection with God and are being guided by God. Maybe it's all in your head, but maybe a belief in the Baha'i Faith or Islam or Buddhism or any other religion is just in the mind of the believer.
Here's something about knowing God personally...
Having a personal relationship with God begins the moment we realize our need for Him, admit we are sinners, and in faith receive Jesus Christ as Savior. God, our heavenly Father, has always desired to be close to us...
Jesus gave us the most amazing gift—the opportunity to spend eternity with God if we trust in Him. “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23). God became a human being in the Person of Jesus Christ to take on our sin, be killed, and then be raised to life again, proving His victory over sin and death. “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1). If we accept this gift, we have become acceptable to God and can have a relationship with Him...
The Holy Spirit has been given to us as our Counselor. “If you love me, you will obey what I command. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you” (John 14:15-17). Jesus said this before He died, and after He died, the Holy Spirit became available to all who earnestly seek to receive Him. He is the one who lives in the hearts of believers and never leaves. He counsels us, teaches us truths, and changes our hearts.
I don't know why some Baha'is wouldn't believe that God is alive and in them and guiding them. Who put it in their heads that God is separate and distant?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I don't have a thousand years. The point exactly. I need a triage to see what is worth investigating and what isn't.
And that triage is based on initial evidence.
I already mentioned the common baseline of religion / supernatural claims.
It doesn't make me closed-minded. I'm willing to listen to anyone to see what they have.
But when the initial general case clearly is the same old hearsay / revelation / faith-based stuff, then we are already done even before we begin.
Bring me something worth looking into (ie: with a single piece of valid evidence) and I'll be happy to do so.
Otherwise... meh.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Yes. To me, it's a semantic difference. A theoretical difference.
There's no real practical difference.
You believe your assertions, don't you?
When you say you believe X, you assert X as true, don't you?
When you assert X, you believe this assertion, don't you?
Please tell me in practical terms: is it possible to assert X without believing it? Is it possible to believe X without asserting it?
Again, consider my example:
"X is true"
"I believe X is true".
What is the practical difference between both?
It seems to me that bickering about this difference, is more then anything else, just an attempt at avoiding a burden of proof by injecting those words "I believe" into it.
But it comes down to the same thing in practice.
Is it possible to assert X without believing it? I guess so. But you'ld be contradicting yourself.
By asserting X, you imply belief.
By expressing belief in X, you imply asserting X.
Imo, you can't have one without the other.
The word "statement" that I bolded and underlined in the second definition, is the claim that is being believed.
Again, I agree there is a semantic difference.
I don't see a practical difference.
InvestigateTruth
Veteran Member
I know you don't have a thousand years.
The idea is to have that spirit of searching for truth. That eagerness to find it. To become attracted to the light. Whether or not you find it is another story.
It is a difference between someone who is hopeful, and someone who gives up.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I have that. But in order to do so, I require something to be able to distinguish truth from sheer fantasy.
And that something, is valid evidence
This is why I don't bother with claims where it is crystal clear right out the gates that I won't be able to distinguish it from sheer fantasy.
Such claims are infinite in number. I'ld even say that for such claims, there isn't even anything to properly investigate to begin with...
Who said anything about "giving up"?
That's also kind of a strange thing to say in this context.
You have just argued against yourself. You place reason and rationality as the pinnacle and guiding light of all truth, and yet you applaud faith that exceeds the limits of what the mind places before it as the boundaries of possibility. Let me explain that.
The rational, logical, analytical, critical thinking mind, as powerful a tool as it is, only functions by places limitations and boundaries between "reality and fiction". It is based on a system of the "known". What can be verified, what can be affirmed, what has supporting evidence that can be measured and tested by anyone. It doesn't deal with things that are intangible and fuzzy, as it has no footholds for rationality to gain a purchase on to pull itself up with. That's why logical positivists balk at things like 'intuition', or gut feelings, or other non-rational human realities, which happen to be where 95% of daily living for everyone occurs.
The star athletes go further, specifically because they believe in something that goes further than "what works best and most reliably", as you said. They are mocked by the statistics and facts crowd, who applaud themselves for their rationality and critical thinking skills. In other words, they believe in something for which there is no evidence.
They trust their own instincts and intuitions. They act upon faith, not evidence of "what works best and most reliably". And then, critical reasoning tries to play catch up to how that could possibly have worked, and then congratulates itself for its intellectual prowess and superiority in human achievements.
Last edited:
And it's not like there is only one set of religious folks making the same or similar claims, there are conflicting claims out there and there is no way for observers to determine one is more credible thsn the others. They are all equally fantastic given their base God claim, and then all the various, conflictiong details of God and ritual that have no reliable evidence. To my mind the theists shouldn't bother trying to convince non-believers, but should debate other theists and figure out what "truth" actually is, then they can get back to us with the one Truth. The "new and improved" claims are not convincing.
Reasoning is reliable and orderly, and it is the best method we humans have to determine what is true.
Where do I appaud faith? Faith is notoriously unreliable for we humans, and we should avoid it.
Right, it can be fuzzy, like growing up in a society where black people are considered less than white people, or Jews are considered the enemy of the state. Do we ponder our discomfort with these beliefs, and examine them in a more objective set of parameters? There are other fuzzy concepts we encounter in our social experience. I was told by adults that Santa exists and i had to behave myself to get more toys at Christmas. I was also told that a God exists, and we go to church to worship the sacrifice of Jesus. I was later told that Santa is just mom and dad, and not real. The same with the Tooth Fairy which meant that I had nothing more to do with my lost teeth. But the God thing is still real? I got to tell you, I had doubts even as a kid. What I observed about Christians in my own family did not match up with the ideals these adults talked about, so something was fishy. If I relied on faith, how would i arrive at any conclusion that wasn't just more confusion and fuzziness?
They do balk as a MEANS to making conclusions, but not as a trust in the self's own ability to discern what is true about what otehrs say, whether it's that blacks should be slaves , or Jews exterminated, or that a God exists. The initial impulse to not accept these social constructs comes from a moral intuition. It is just the first step to investigate, and that investigation is reason via facts and open mindedness.
How we humans conduct ourselves in socety are often subconscious lessons, and we adopt the language, laws, traditions, and beliefs of those around us. It's how our social brains work. But some will stop and consider what we are doing, and this may be learned, or something the self just happens to have as a natural trait. I think I had a natural skepticism about claims in my life experiences that no one else in my family does. I'm an outcast in that I see no reason to conclude that any gods exist. Everyone else around me believes in some sort of God, and they don't even agree with each other. There's New Age, Catholicism, Southern Baptist, presbyterian.
This is sports psychology, which includes visualization. I'm a competitive cyclist and I have had many occassions to push myself beyond what is comfortable. But no matter how hard I push I can never be as good as a professional cyclist in the USA. and especially not in Europe. and sure as hell not the top tier cyclists who compete at the pro tour level. Many athletes, like me, dream about racing the grand tours, but just don't have the biology. So no matter how much faith an athlete has reality is still there. No athlete can delude their way to performance. You have to use nutrition, a sound training program, and taking data from your body and bike to plot progress. That means reality.
Not necessarily. Not in all things. It really depends on what you are trying to understand. When it comes to things like love, you'll find reasoning might actually work against you. That is just one example of many where reasoning fails to produce fruit.
You said athletes should avoid focusing on limitations, and rather on what they can achieve. I explained that reason and rationality and critical thinking is based upon limitations. The athlete achieves because they believe they can do something that logic and facts tell them they can't. Faith, in other words is what led to breaking the limitation, or the 'records'.
Let's make it more basic that social injustice here. 98% of how we function as humans is in the fuzzy, non-rational, intangible space. Reality is vastly too complex to be able to reduce down to logical equations that the rational mind can process. We just "do it", we don't reason it. And when it comes to human relations, even in just societies where everyone is treated fairly, interacts are all done through 'fuzzy logic", not binary equations of true/false statements.
Mr. Spock is a parody of that human/rational paradox. We are human also, and the pure rational Vulcan mind is a fictional reality for the human being. His whole character is based on pointing out this fallacy of logical positivism. This is what the whole Existentialist movement was about. Humans are not rational beings. They are irrational, or rather non-rational in how they actually live. And they seem to do just fine for the most part.
As I've said, logic and reason and critical thinking are fine and powerful tools. But that's all they are. Tools. They are not our go-to, modus operandi de facto mode for how we function as human beings.
We use logic and reason to resolve a discomfort with these beliefs. Discomfort is emotional. There is something non-rational that informs us of an issue that need some assistance to resolve. Like finding a tweezers as a tool to pull out of splinter in the skin, we reach for the tool of critical thinking to help fix a non-rationally based discomfort. But sometimes, that tool can't get that splinter removed, and that is when nature herself, the body, uses its own non-rational means to resolve the issue itself over time, non-rationally.
All I am saying, is 'faith' is not the same thing as bad logic. It's more that intuitive, non-rational 'sense', or knowing beyond reason, that 'trusts' in a system beyond its ability to understand. "Things will work themselves out, even though I don't know how. I just trust they will". This is faith.
This is tangibly real, and can in fact be developed sense to become a very reliable and very trustworthy thing. But wishful, imaginative guessing, is not that. That is not faith. That's wishful thinking. That's magical thinking.
That example is not a valid example. That's just teaching fantasy symbols to children to give a tangible figure for a concrete literal mind to embody happiness in a magical character for them. What I am talking about is adult interactions at the subtle level, that the rational mind doesn't even begin to attempt to reason, and yet we all 'get it' anyway.
And why do they stop to consider what we are doing? The answer to that is that something non-rationally, something intutitively 'felt' wrong to them. Then, and only then, does logic and reason come online to serve as a problem solving tool.
Point being, as human beings, non-rational means of living is the primary mode of functionality. We "feel" our way through life, and when we need to problem solve because we feel something is off, then we are "rational" creatures. Once we problem solve, and create a better system, then we non-rationally feel our way through that system.
You had a feeling something was wrong, and you had a mind that could use reason to examine what was wrong. I'd first congratulate yourself for your intuitive sense on that, rather than being able to deduce the issues. Rationally, I'd bet dollars to donuts I could offer better understandings of the 'why' it didn't work, and later in life, you probably could as well.
But the point being, it was not reason that made you question. It was your feelings, your non-rational intuitive knowing something wasn't right. You sensed there was a splinter in your skin.
Reason has limitations. As a Buddhist, you should know this.
Buddhism does not deny God. It simply avoids the mind getting embroiled in that question. My view is that that which is called God by some, actually exists. But it is also known as Emptiness. Nirvana. The Void. The Abyss. Nothingness. The Ground of Being. The Source. The Causal domain. Etc.
The theistic personalized God as a deity form, is simply a Face we place upon the Infinite, which actually exists. I am fond of Meister Eckhart's, "God beyond God" to express that. God as an idea, is just that. And idea of the mind, an image for the mind. But what lays beyond that, is Formlessness or Emptiness itself, as the Buddhist calls it.
Now, you may not believe that Emptiness or the Formless or Nirvana is anything real, but then I'd be puzzled why you consider Buddhism your religion of choice? Do you accept that as something tangible and real and the Goal of your meditation practices?
Yes, visualization. "Imagination becomes reality", as Master T.T. Liang who was my Tai Chi teacher's teacher used to say. I practice the internal martial arts, and to be sure, imagination does create reality, or rather, unlocks it.
While I do accept some physicals limitations, most of our limitations are simply because we tell ourselves we cannot do something. I can tell you of my own personal experience of practicing Tai Chi and the internal energy work its is based upon of qigong and neigong, that I physically feel and move, and have energy of 30 years younger than when I began practicing it around 7 years ago.
This is a tangible, real transformation of the body, though the mind, through visualization and imagination and practice. Not through reading about it, and thinking about it, and reasoning about it, and critically analyzing it. But by simply doing it. And it is not just subjective, but others who see me are shocked by how much younger I look, saying spontaneously, "you look 30 years younger". "imagination becomes reality".
That's not true at all.
As a Buddhist, do you not understand the power of the mind to transform?
Last edited: