• 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?

Who was Baha'u'llah?

  • Baha'u'llah claimed to be a Manifestation of God, and truly He was the Manifestation of God.

    Votes: 6 14.3%
  • Baha'u'llah claimed to be return of Christ, but He was a Liar

    Votes: 3 7.1%
  • Bahaullah claimed to be Messenger of God and He was sincere but He was delusional

    Votes: 17 40.5%
  • Baha'u'llah was a good man with good intentions but He knew He is not a Prophet

    Votes: 2 4.8%
  • Bahaullah was a philosopher, and never claimed to be return of Christ

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I don't know and I don't even care

    Votes: 8 19.0%
  • I don't know, because I have not investigated

    Votes: 5 11.9%
  • I don't know for sure, because I cannot figure it out

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • It is not possible to really know

    Votes: 1 2.4%

  • Total voters
    42

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I believe that is what Jesus said would happen. The paraclete would inform the writers. I believe you concept is mere speculation.
John 16:13 is not talking about giving the authors of the gospels, whoever they actually might have been, behind the scenes details of what happened when the disciples weren't there so they could fill in gaps in their narrative stories about Jesus! :) Reading it that way is in fact, total speculation on your part.

To quote that verse you are referring to in full:

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.​

That has to do with being led by the Spirit, listening to the guidance of God in your life and situations, and also in the gift of prophecy looking to future events.

Applying that to try to make your idea that somehow the authors of the gospels got secret information that they were not privy to, so they could write the gospels "as if" they were actually eyewitnesses when they weren't even there, is as a huge stretch of meaning here. It's stretching the meaning of that verse beyond all possible recognition.

You may as well claim you can tell us what Abraham Lincoln said to his mother when he was five years old on one particular Sunday afternoon, because the Holy Ghost told you. :) There's no way you can read that verse to suggest that is what it promises believers.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Reality is what it is, regardless of our beliefs or opinions.
That is true.

I believe that the reality is that God exists and sends Messengers.
You do not believe that the reality is that God exists and sends Messengers.

But if God exists and sends Messengers that is reality.
Conversely, if God does not exist and send Messengers that is reality.

P.S. Whether or not there is evidence that is acceptable to you is completely irrelevant to the point - if God exists and sends Messengers that is reality.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
In my opinion, you were being overly credulous to take the Baha'is word without investigating, then when other religious people told you what they believe your lack of investigating yourself ended up shattering your faith in Baha'i, and after that devastating experience you didn't believe in any faith. Sorry, that's what I see here. Poor guy.:(
But I learned a lot, so no not a "poor" guy. I was ignorant of spiritual and religious truth. It was the late 60's and early 70's. Everybody had some kind of new truth and new spiritual or religious teachings they found. Even the Beatles trusted the Maharishi and later I think it was John that said they were wrong about him.

So, does the Baha'i Faith work well for everybody? Are all people that become Baha'is truly equal and are treated as equals? How is the LSA's in your community working? Are they handling the problems within the community justly and fairly? Is the Faith in your community growing? How many new Baha'is are added each year? How many have become inactive? How many have left the Faith? Was it their fault for not investigating the Faith and maybe joining too soon and becoming disillusioned by how the Baha'i community actually functioned?

Anyway, I know the community isn't perfect and some people will fall through the cracks. But good for you for believing and staying with the Baha'i Faith all these years. And thanks for responding to me. I know you don't jump in very often, so again, thanks.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
What is there to investigate that hasn't been revealed in these debates? I keep hearing Baha'i talk about investigating, but what? There are no facts. There is just the wrtings and claims, and there is nothing that compels a critical thinker to conclude it's likely Baha'u'llah is genuine as a messenger for a God. It's more likley he believed he was, which suggests a sort of delusional mind. There is a lot of example of religious frauds. You reject Joseph Smith, yes? You reject the Urantia Book, yes? Mormons and the Urantia folks are convinced of their revelations, too. Why would any observer be more impressed by your texts and prophet?
Exactly, when I first met a Baha'i, it was the first I heard of the Baha'i Faith. I was a 20 year old hippie. What investigating was I already supposed to have done? The Baha'is told me that all people are one and not to be prejudice towards anyone because of the race, religion or gender. I was told their prophet was sent by God to bring peace and unity to the world.

And yes, I was spiritually gullible and believed them. And yes, when I investigated their claims for myself, I found them lacking... Close, but not exact. Especially with their claims of having fulfilled all the prophecies of every religion and that all religions were part of a progression that Baha'is called "progressive revelation". I don't see it. To me, it's so much more likely that people invented their religions and their Gods. But to quote a wise man here on the forum, "What do I know?"
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Reality is what it is, regardless of our beliefs or opinions.
"Meaning" seems to be what we impose on reality ourselves. And yes, that can change as we grow older, go through new experiences, etc.
But isn't it strange how people in some religions create their own little reality. The Fundy Christians I knew all believed Satan was messing with them and was trying to tempt them into sinning against God. Devils and demons were real to them. But so was Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Who were there to help them and guide them.

Baha'is, I'm sure have their own little world they call "reality". Part of it, I think, is that the old world is crumbling and is being rolled up, and the new world order of the Baha'i Faith is being rolled out. Maybe. I agree that the human world looks like it's crumbling and could fall apart at any time. But is the Baha'i Faith its salvation? I see holes in their plan and problems with some of their claims, so I have my doubts. And Baha'is don't do a very good job and resolving those things that I doubt about their teachings and claims. One Baha'i usually dodges the question by saying, "That's not my job." Which, to me, sounds like they don't have a good answer.
 

freelight

Soul Pioneer
Premium Member
I voted for the first option, with a 'modifier'. All I believe are a manifestation of 'God' :) 'God' being that one omnipresent essence and original reality from which all things and beings spring and inhere within, The Infinite ONE, that is All in all. - so far in my studies in Bahai, its got some great universal principles to live by, religious values and ideals that tend towards unity, justice and compassion for all peoples, a united brotherhood similar to the aims of the Theosophical Society, which are commendable. Instead of only highly praising or demeaning the messenger, lets evaluate the message and then the fruit of the teachings and their principles :)


-----------------o
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
I voted for the first option, with a 'modifier'. All I believe are a manifestation of 'God' :) 'God' being that one omnipresent essence and original reality from which all things and beings spring and inhere within, The Infinite ONE, that is All in all. - so far in my studies in Bahai, its got some great universal principles to live by, religious values and ideals that tend towards unity, justice and compassion for all peoples, a united brotherhood similar to the aims of the Theosophical Society, which are commendable. Instead of only highly praising or demeaning the messenger, lets evaluate the message and then the fruit of the teachings and their principles :)


-----------------o
it's the claim that he alone has that classification of being a "manifestation" of God. He alone was able to communicate with God. And he alone has the spiritual teachings that can unite the world. And, for those that believe he is God's messenger for today, they are expected to accept him and his teachings and join his religion.

But then what do we do about other new religious movements? Accept them all? Like the Mormons, they have some good teachings also, but is the Book of Mormon the truth? Or the Ahmadiyya? Lots of good teachings, but was their prophet the return of Christ?

It is the claim of being God's one and only true messenger for this day and age that is part of the problem. And are the Baha'is really all that accepting of the beliefs and practices of the other religions? The "unity" that they are talking about is leading towards a day they call the "Most Great Peace". It sounds a lot like they expect the Baha'i Faith to be the governing body of the whole world.

Here's a quote..

Baha’u’llah envisioned a time in the future when the peoples of the world will live together in peace and unity as members of one faith. Universal justice will be established based on adherence to the law of God. A new civilization based on spiritual values will come into being. He referred to this as the Most Great Peace.​
 

freelight

Soul Pioneer
Premium Member
it's the claim that he alone has that classification of being a "manifestation" of God. He alone was able to communicate with God. And he alone has the spiritual teachings that can unite the world. And, for those that believe he is God's messenger for today, they are expected to accept him and his teachings and join his religion.

But then what do we do about other new religious movements? Accept them all? Like the Mormons, they have some good teachings also, but is the Book of Mormon the truth? Or the Ahmadiyya? Lots of good teachings, but was their prophet the return of Christ?

It is the claim of being God's one and only true messenger for this day and age that is part of the problem. And are the Baha'is really all that accepting of the beliefs and practices of the other religions? The "unity" that they are talking about is leading towards a day they call the "Most Great Peace". It sounds a lot like they expect the Baha'i Faith to be the governing body of the whole world.

Here's a quote..

Baha’u’llah envisioned a time in the future when the peoples of the world will live together in peace and unity as members of one faith. Universal justice will be established based on adherence to the law of God. A new civilization based on spiritual values will come into being. He referred to this as the Most Great Peace.​

I hear ya, I dont know about one person alone being the sole representative or avatar of 'God' that is necessarily superior or exclusive as the sole AGENT of Deity (in this or any age),....I think we are all expressions of Source, offspring of Prime Creator, and can serve in various capacities as ministers of Spirit. I think the best way to go about it is considering all paths and wayshowers to see if a truly valuable and meaningful way of life has been expounded and then see if that tree has born any 'fruit' in individual lives and in the world. You judge a tree by its fruit, its essence and form.

I recall doing a commentary on the verses in 'The Hidden Words' by Bahá'u'lláh, wonderful little psalm like passages. The appeal to these devotional poems are essentially the same to the One Universal Deity in any other monotheistic path, so in that sense I see in Bahai writings a call to a universal religion, indeed, even though their tradition will appropriately revere Bahaullah as its chief prophet. On that note, the city of Beaverton, Oregon that I occasionally visit, has a Bahai center,....never been to one yet :)

Still, the Most Great Peace is as the Millennium, Golden Age, new heaven/new earth state, Era of Light and Life, Utopia, etc. presumed by other religions, - many are striving to bring that 'New Age' on earth, as man evolves or ascends in his soul development and consciousness to experience and attain that frequency or vibration to make it SO :) - in the buffet of religious ideas and offerings, the same universals seem to prevail; (I see truth as universal, just as existing in the laws and principles of nature which have correlaries in man's psyche).... some will be inclined to choose one prophet or avatar over another and the religious system or philosophy most cordial to them.



-------------------o
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Since when is love a reasoned conclusion? This is not a sound example.
It isn't. And that was my very point. We are able to gain knowledge of truth, without reliance on the analytic reasoning mind. That was an example of one instance of this, which is frankly more indicitive of how humans operate than relying on reason. Reason only comes in when we occasionally may need to course correct, and that is only brought online because we experience pain or discomfort in the non-rational domains.
How so? In my experience critical thinking is a set of rules that a disciplined mind uses via facts and reliable evidence to sound conclusions.
While this is true, and it has its value, it's a bit of double-edged sword. We need to set the rules in order to determine what will work within that set of predefined parameters. But the downside of that is this. That predefined set of parameters, or the "set of rules", in fact my impose an artificial and undue boundary which will then limit what we believe is possible.

Psychologically, if we tell ourselves something cannot be done, then we will in fact not be able to do that thing because don't open ourselves to the possibility of it happening. We limit ourselves by belief, and we can also exceed those limits by belief, or in this case "faith". "They say it can't be done, but I "feel" in my soul I can do it". That's faith.

This is in fact a very real and recognized phenomena, but of course this doesn't mean you can suddenly belief yourself into doing something you physically cannot, such as flapping your arms and flying up into the air like a bird. But I am not talking extremes like this. I am saying that the mind, or our reason, can also reason us into failure. "It's not possible for me to be anything better than this". Is reason, always reasonable?
I literally never think of limitations in my thinking process. So I'm not sure what you are talking about.
That's the hidden enemy. You don't realize it's there by default. We generally don't recognize the eyes we look through as part of how we see. If we did recognize them, those inherent limitations that result happen because of the nature of how logic and reason need place restrictions on possibility, in order to function. If you could see that, then you'd be seeing what I am seeing. :)
This is absurd. If an athlete shows promise they will likely have the natural ability that is the FACT of their biology.
Maybe yes, and maybe no. Again, if we are working off of certain assumptions of what is possible or not, those assumptions may in fact be in error. Plus, we can also change our biology. We can literally reprogram ourselves. You are familiar with neuroplasticity, for example? Why are we assume a static nature to our biology here? If we simply accept those assumptions, such as the static nature of reality, as FACT based upon whatever the conventional wisdom of the day is, as you put it, then in fact you will create a self-fulfilled prophecy. You create a self-sustaining feedback loop, where self-fulfilled prophecy, confirms that initial assumption as FACT, and then that becomes 'the truth', as it were to us.
Tests can reveal if they have promise, and these tests rely on databases, and these are built on data from other athletes, both good and bad. This is all a scientific process.
And this is one of the downsides of the scientific process. Again though, I am not talking about wild extremes, such as believing the human can fly through the air with nothing but their current biological bodies, like a bird with feathers and hollow bones. I am talking about the more subtle limits placed upon our Freedom, by the limitations imposed by the rational mind processes. If we always believed we 'can't' because our tools of the day say that we can't, where would be historically speaking?
You don't think it ironic that you are trying to argue that humans aren't rational? Argument is a rational process.
I am not arguing that humans don't have rationality as a tool. I am arguing that the majority of how we function however on a daily basis, is not by utilizing that tool actively. My argument is that we use it to problem solve and course correct occasionally, but it is not the apparatus through which we act for the majority of how we function.

Rationality is something that we have to actively bring online. And even then, it never functions without influence of the non-rational aspects of our being.
I suggest you read Daniel Goleman's Emotional Intelligence. He outlines how the human brain evolved to reason but still has a very active emotion center, and without mental discipline we default to acting and reacting like other animals. It is certain skills of mind that help humans behave rationally versus impulsively and irrationally.
I have no problem with any of this of course. I agree that emotional intelligence is developed to help restructure our natural habits formed through simply instincts and impulses. I think rather though it has more to do with being able to see ourselves objectively through a matter of more highly evolved perspectives, rather than simply a matter of reason. If one's perspective is trapped into a particular shape, then no matter how intelligent and reasoned you may be, you simply don't have the proper distance outside of that subjectivity. You may have a perfectly reasonable logic about something, but it is all operating from within that framework itself.

This is where transcending reason comes in. It grants you a new awareness or perspective, with which then to use reason to help figure things out with that new perspective. There is a saying I heard that makes perfect sense to me. "The subject of one level, becomes the object of the subject of the next level". That shift in levels does not come by reasoning your way to them. It's growth. That's a natural, non-rational process. Think of saying to your bones, "grow!", and trying to reason them to take a new configuration. That doesn't work. But once they have grown of their own accord, then you are now taller and can see naturally from a new higher perspective.

I'm trying to put reason and intelligence into a proper "perspective' here.
Logic is a set of rules, and critical thinking is a learned and practiced skill.
Yes, all operating within that set of defined rules. But what if you change the rules?
One reason many people struggle in life and living in balance is because they live impulsively and without adequate maturity.
I agree. There is the prerational mode of functioning in life, with is all driven by impulse and emotion. There is the rational mode where reason helps to guide and reign in impulse and emotion dominating everything. And there is the transrational mode, where reason is recognized as not the all-powerful Light of the World it tends to see itself as, but as inherently limited, despite its genuine power to reign in the lower levels. In the transrational, reason is brought forward and integrated, but tempered in its expectation to bring us to the next levels of awareness.

This is where intuition and sensitivity and insight come online more, and reason serves as an certain checksum, to help keep us grounded, without domination as "The Way, the Truth, and the Life", deciding all things through itself in a self-referential feedback loop, overlooking that is itself has inherent limitations.
I don't see many people who can reason well. One part of Emotional Intelligence is being able to monitor emotions and being able to learn how to reason so the person can make responsible decisions in life.
I agree. They need to move from the prerational to the rational. This is a step forward. But it not the final step forward by any means.
In what way is faith a better option than reasoning if you need to make important decisions?
If we reject this mistaken and limited idea of faith as "bad reasoning", and instead understand it in terms of an intuition or sense of draw to what is not apparent to the mind's reason, yet is felt as deeply true nonetheless, then the answer should be obvious. Yes, sometimes we need to go with what our guts tells us, even though rationally we might box ourselves into a corner of inaction.

Reason can easily be a tool of fear too, you know? Rationalizing with logic why not to do something we fear. There needs to be more than just reason, in order for reason to sometimes see itself.
If you have reasoning skill, why need faith? It's like you have to get to work 8 miles away and it's raining, do you take the car or a skateboard?
It's too easy to find extreme examples. But extreme examples are not good examples of what reality actually looks like. It's the 99.8% of everything in between that is more subtle and nuanced that I am talking about.

But obviously, if you're goal is to get to work quickly and avoid getting wet, the car is the better choice. But what if your goal is to train to use a skateboard in all weather conditions, and the time of getting to work is flexible for you? Well, then the skateboard is the obvious choice.

It's all relative. Truth is in fact largely relative.
How does this "sense" get developed, and is reliable? Explain, and use facts.
Internal awareness practices, such as meditation. Is it reliable? Yes. You can train that as much as you can train anything else. But if your rationality says "Don't trust it!!!!", then this is prime example of where you will in fact never be able to develop it, based solely on reason and logic with the "set rules" you have established for it to operate within. "Faith is bad", and therefore, that is all you can see and all you can reason.

I'll probably add some more thoughts later to the rest of your posts as time permits.
 
Last edited:

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I disagree. I remember asking my grandmother why we went to church, and her answers were not rational, or just begged more questions.
But what made you ask that question, rather than just simply go along with it? My point is most people go along and not question their religious faith, until something changes for them. They didn't suddenly become rational one day and say this doesn't add up. Rather something came up, then they began to examine it using rationality as a tool. It wasn't reason that led the way. It was something else.
Like questioning any religious person there is no rational answer to be had, and this was my approach.
I make a distinction between non-rationality, and irrationality. I would expect the reason for any sincere religious person would be for non-rational reasons, such as a sense of connection and wellbeing. One could say those are rational, but the nature of them is not based on cognitions, but non-rational feelings.

Irrational on the other hand is a outright violation of good rationality, calling it say rationality. So when someone says the reason they believe is because they rationally deduced that science is wrong about the age of the earth, and the Bible is the word of God, that's irrationality.

I tested as having a very high IQ in school and I think it was just natural ability that made me ask questions and be skeptical. I saw a lot of inconsistency, and that is definately putting pieces of evidence together.
How long did you go along with it, until you started trying to scrutinize what was being told to you?
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
It isn't. And that was my very point. We are able to gain knowledge of truth, without reliance on the analytic reasoning mind.
Well if you are referring to feeling that it is true (truth) that someone loves us that understanding still has to undergo some level of reasoning and definitions so we know WHAT we are feeling. It may not be that I have to think about love and feeling love when I feel loved by my girlfriend and that's because I have already had life exveriences where I thought about love and reasoned conclusions about whjat love it, and now it's just knowledge, and I recognize it without too much thought.
That was an example of one instance of this, which is frankly more indicitive of how humans operate than relying on reason. Reason only comes in when we occasionally may need to course correct, and that is only brought online because we experience pain or discomfort in the non-rational domains.
I see you point, but as I noted we have life experiences that give us knowledge already. A lot of things we don;t have to think too much about now, but we did at one time. That's the advantage of age and wisdom.
While this is true, and it has its value, it's a bit of double-edged sword. We need to set the rules in order to determine what will work within that set of predefined parameters. But the downside of that is this. That predefined set of parameters, or the "set of rules", in fact my impose an artificial and undue boundary which will then limit what we believe is possible.
Reasoning is about understanding what is true, not pondering attractive ideas we think might be possible.
Psychologically, if we tell ourselves something cannot be done, then we will in fact not be able to do that thing because don't open ourselves to the possibility of it happening. We limit ourselves by belief, and we can also exceed those limits by belief, or in this case "faith". "They say it can't be done, but I "feel" in my soul I can do it". That's faith.

This is in fact a very real and recognized phenomena, but of course this doesn't mean you can suddenly belief yourself into doing something you physically cannot, such as flapping your arms and flying up into the air like a bird. But I am not talking extremes like this. I am saying that the mind, or our reason, can also reason us into failure. "It's not possible for me to be anything better than this". Is reason, always reasonable?
What does any of this have to do with the reliability of reasoning?
That's the hidden enemy. You don't realize it's there by default. We generally don't recognize the eyes we look through as part of how we see. If we did recognize them, those inherent limitations that result happen because of the nature of how logic and reason need place restrictions on possibility, in order to function. If you could see that, then you'd be seeing what I am seeing. :)
I notice you don't describe these limitations, just refer to them. I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say limitations. I know there's low intelligence and low skill, is that it? Many smart people learn to reflect and check the self's mental processes, like feelings and reasoning. This is a useful set of skills. I have limitations in my knowledge base, and that's why the internet is useful.
Maybe yes, and maybe no. Again, if we are working off of certain assumptions of what is possible or not, those assumptions may in fact be in error. Plus, we can also change our biology. We can literally reprogram ourselves. You are familiar with neuroplasticity, for example? Why are we assume a static nature to our biology here? If we simply accept those assumptions, such as the static nature of reality, as FACT based upon whatever the conventional wisdom of the day is, as you put it, then in fact you will create a self-fulfilled prophecy. You create a self-sustaining feedback loop, where self-fulfilled prophecy, confirms that initial assumption as FACT, and then that becomes 'the truth', as it were to us.
I don't think neuroplacticity is going to make a mediocre athlete a world champion. I don't know your experience in sports but a person's physiology is only going to capable of so much, and I have never heard of any process that can change a body's capacity. Drugs can do this in certain ways, and that is why they are banned.
And this is one of the downsides of the scientific process. Again though, I am not talking about wild extremes, such as believing the human can fly through the air with nothing but their current biological bodies, like a bird with feathers and hollow bones. I am talking about the more subtle limits placed upon our Freedom, by the limitations imposed by the rational mind processes. If we always believed we 'can't' because our tools of the day say that we can't, where would be historically speaking?
How does this suggest a downside to sports science? It seems like you are going back and forth between sports psychology and physiology.
I am not arguing that humans don't have rationality as a tool. I am arguing that the majority of how we function however on a daily basis, is not by utilizing that tool actively. My argument is that we use it to problem solve and course correct occasionally, but it is not the apparatus through which we act for the majority of how we function.
It's known that as we humans gain experience in life our brains use shortcuts and function more efficienty.
Rationality is something that we have to actively bring online. And even then, it never functions without influence of the non-rational aspects of our being.
How so?
I have no problem with any of this of course. I agree that emotional intelligence is developed to help restructure our natural habits formed through simply instincts and impulses. I think rather though it has more to do with being able to see ourselves objectively through a matter of more highly evolved perspectives, rather than simply a matter of reason. If one's perspective is trapped into a particular shape, then no matter how intelligent and reasoned you may be, you simply don't have the proper distance outside of that subjectivity. You may have a perfectly reasonable logic about something, but it is all operating from within that framework itself.
You are talking about bias, and I am aware I have it. I do have a bias against religion in general, and I have it since it since it is very popular yet seems to be more of a liability for people and society than is understood. When I debate I do work to keep emotions and bias out of it. It's OK to have bias. It's not OK to allow bias to be too evident in reasoning and debate. This is discipline and skill.
This is where transcending reason comes in. It grants you a new awareness or perspective, with which then to use reason to help figure things out with that new perspective. There is a saying I heard that makes perfect sense to me. "The subject of one level, becomes the object of the subject of the next level". That shift in levels does not come by reasoning your way to them. It's growth. That's a natural, non-rational process. Think of saying to your bones, "grow!", and trying to reason them to take a new configuration. That doesn't work. But once they have grown of their own accord, then you are now taller and can see naturally from a new higher perspective.

I'm trying to put reason and intelligence into a proper "perspective' here.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, but it seems you are referring to symbilisms. I'm not sure how that transcends reason. To say "bones growl" is meaningless to a person who can't think rationally. Being skilled at reasoning allows a person to do what's called lateral thinking, and that means thinking outside the box, looking at possible meanings in what is objectively nonsense. None of this is new.
Yes, all operating within that set of defined rules. But what if you change the rules?
Then you run the risk of being incoherent to those who do follow the rules. Is that the intent? Since language is used to be comprehensible to each other why sabotage the rules?
I agree. There is the prerational mode of functioning in life, with is all driven by impulse and emotion. There is the rational mode where reason helps to guide and reign in impulse and emotion dominating everything. And there is the transrational mode, where reason is recognized as not the all-powerful Light of the World it tends to see itself as, but as inherently limited, despite its genuine power to reign in the lower levels. In the transrational, reason is brought forward and integrated, but tempered in its expectation to bring us to the next levels of awareness.
I don't think it's as much a problem as you think. If you want to eat a salad you aren't going to use a hammer. You select the right tool, a fork. We learn this, and then it's knowledge. We apply reasoning when it's appropriate (assuming a person has that skill).
If we reject this mistaken and limited idea of faith as "bad reasoning", and instead understand it in terms of an intuition or sense of draw to what is not apparent to the mind's reason, yet is felt as deeply true nonetheless, then the answer should be obvious. Yes, sometimes we need to go with what our guts tells us, even though rationally we might box ourselves into a corner of inaction.

Reason can easily be a tool of fear too, you know? Rationalizing with logic why not to do something we fear. There needs to be more than just reason, in order for reason to sometimes see itself.
I wouldn't call faith "bad reasoning". To even suggest it is reasoning, good or bad, is incorrect. Faith is just unskilled abstract thinking. Reasoning is a correct process that follows evidence to sound conclusions. This doesn't mean mistakes aren't made, but once an error is realized it is corrected for the sake of understanding what is true.

I wouldn't consider rationalization as reasoning either since what you describe is more abstract thinking that is trying to manage fear. Let's say you have a cruch on someone at work and want to ask them out on a date, but you afraid of rejection. You can't talk yourself out of it, or talk yourself into taking the chance. Is that reasoning? No, it is the mind using abstract thinking to manage the fear, and make a decision to act or not.
It's too easy to find extreme examples. But extreme examples are not good examples of what reality actually looks like. It's the 99.8% of everything in between that is more subtle and nuanced that I am talking about.

But obviously, if you're goal is to get to work quickly and avoid getting wet, the car is the better choice. But what if your goal is to train to use a skateboard in all weather conditions, and the time of getting to work is flexible for you? Well, then the skateboard is the obvious choice.

It's all relative. Truth is in fact largely relative.
Well, it would be the obvious choice if you can show up to work all wet and that not be a problem. That wouldn't be my conclusion. But I don't like being wet.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
Internal awareness practices, such as meditation. Is it reliable? Yes. You can train that as much as you can train anything else. But if your rationality says "Don't trust it!!!!", then this is prime example of where you will in fact never be able to develop it, based solely on reason and logic with the "set rules" you have established for it to operate within. "Faith is bad", and therefore, that is all you can see and all you can reason.

I'll probably add some more thoughts later to the rest of your posts as time permits.
I don't see rationality causing fear. As you frame it rationality is justifying the fear that is felt. Fear tends to be a natural reaction to some idea, and how our minds process the feeling to what we want to do, or should do, is just a consequence.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
We didn't say that as far as replacing the teachings of all those other religions. The social teachings were changed, but the eternal truths did not change is our position. I guess you misspoke.
What were the "social" teachings that were changed in the progression from one religion to the next? To me, social teachings changed within a religion as it was introduced to a different people and culture. But the social teachings of some religions didn't necessarily replace any of the other pervious religions. And some religions didn't get established in very many other areas outside of where they began.

Then with trinitarian Christianity, either Protestant or Catholic, it did go out and replace old religions, completely. It replaced social teachings and the Gods of those other religions. But what did it replace them with? A concept the Baha'is say is false, the trinity.
 
Last edited:

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The more a God becomes an abstration the less likely it's real, and believers have a hard time managing their claims of God existing, and then explaining it's more symbolic or some abstraction of mind.
Why does something being abstract make it less likely to be real?
It's depends on the believer, and many haven't really thought it out very well.
That's very true.
they have adoted an easy belief, and they haven't subjected their decision to much critical analysis.
Unless they have good reason to most people don't question most anything they've been programmed with through culture.
That's where debate forums are good for them. Do they listen? Not really. Their option. They don't seem ti understand themselves doing it, like animals who fight or flee.
I think everyone comes to debate forums for different reasons. Often times those who fight to defend their beliefs, are actually just testing them because they have doubts. We do a lot of things that we aren't really aware of consciously.
It offers a set of practices that help me maintain balance. It's also an approach to thinking that is consistent with critical thinking, namely remaining detached.
I'm probably going to say more about this in the posts that you just added today, before I had finished this response. But briefly, I would agree that one of the side benefits of meditation to our reasoning minds is in fact a more "detached", or dispassionate mind. It makes for greater clarity of thought. And that comes to underscore one of my main points about the relationship between reason and passion.

Just having a highly rational mind, does not mean it is free from the influences of that other 95% of our makeups that shape the lens through which we are looking. Reason and logic doesn't fix that problem, but stepping outside of reason and logic, stilling the mind and raising awareness on the mind itself, does. That's non rationality being much more the master, than the servant reason is.
As to emptiness being "real", it's not a thing to possess, it's whether the self has attained that state, and if so it is a real state, even if momentary.
So then we agree that Emptiness is really real.
No one reaches Nirvana and then that's where they stay. The mind is always in motion and in flux, and the curent state is where the mind focuses.
I have a different way of understanding this. That Nirvana is in fact the core of who and what we are already. The experience of that is simply a removal of the rubble that gets heaped upon it in our lives and allows it to be experienced, often in glimpses. But can one remain there?

I believe the answer is yes, but not in a state of being "blissed out", where you can't function in the world. I believe the goal is the be able to integrate that state as the core out of which we operate and function in the world, as opposed to operating and functioning out of the egoic or small separate self mistaken as the truth of who and what we are. That is what I consider Enlightenment to be. Not just having a Oneness experience.
Discipline can manage the mind, and allow the self to be the best athlete he/she is capable of being, but it isn't going to make my body perform at a professional level. That is the same story with the vast majority of amateur racers all over the world. The genes count. It still takes a lot of work, but genes count.
Again to reiterate, I'm not talking about extremes. It's not just a matter of mind over matter to the point where someone who never weighlifts to suddenly bench press 1000 lbs, because they "believed they could". However, I'm saying that the mind does in fact have a lot more power to transform what we mentally believed we couldn't. There is a balance to be had. But saying "I can't because I'm just not wired that way," for instance, is not balance either.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
We do a lot of things that we aren't really aware of consciously.
Most things that we think come from the unconscious mind. That includes beliefs and values and cognitive biases.
Because most thoughts are in the unconscious mind, we are not consciously aware of them.

Current scientific estimates are that some 95 percent of brain activity is unconscious, says Emma Young in New Scientist magazine. These include habits and patterns, automatic body function, creativity, emotions, personality, beliefs and values, cognitive biases, and long-term memory.Oct 9, 2018

Strange but true: 95 percent of brain activity is unconscious

 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Most things that we think come from the unconscious mind. That includes beliefs and values and cognitive biases.
Because most thoughts are in the unconscious mind, we are not consciously aware of them.

Current scientific estimates are that some 95 percent of brain activity is unconscious, says Emma Young in New Scientist magazine. These include habits and patterns, automatic body function, creativity, emotions, personality, beliefs and values, cognitive biases, and long-term memory.Oct 9, 2018

Strange but true: 95 percent of brain activity is unconscious

Exactly.
 

Truthseeker

Non-debating member when I can help myself
What is there to investigate that hasn't been revealed in these debates? I keep hearing Baha'i talk about investigating, but what? There are no facts. There is just the wrtings and claims, and there is nothing that compels a critical thinker to conclude it's likely Baha'u'llah is genuine as a messenger for a God. It's more likley he believed he was, which suggests a sort of delusional mind. There is a lot of example of religious frauds. You reject Joseph Smith, yes? You reject the Urantia Book, yes? Mormons and the Urantia folks are convinced of their revelations, too. Why would any observer be more impressed by your texts and prophet?
There's plenty to investigate, if a person wants to do it. I realize that not many will, because like you said, there are other claims out there in recent history. There more Mormons I think than Baha'is. To just about everybody, we're just another claim, and they don't have the time.
 

Truthseeker

Non-debating member when I can help myself
What were the "social" teachings that were changed in the progression from one religion to the next? To me, social teachings changed within a religion as it was introduced to a different people and culture. But the social teachings of some religions didn't necessarily replace any of the other pervious religions. And some religions didn't get established in very many other areas outside of where they began.

Then with trinitarian Christianity, either Protestant or Catholic, it did go out and replace old religions, completely. It replaced social teachings and the Gods of those other religions. But what did it replace them with? A concept the Baha'is say if false, the trinity.
Social teachings have nothing to with beliefs. They have to with laws the believer has to do, if they are to please God in their religion. Also there may be different emphasis on what virtues should be practiced most of all. Then in the case of Baha'i Faith, for instance, we emphasize the oneness of mankind today, because the time has come for that. Independent investigation of truth was at the top of the list of what Abdu'l-Baha advocated when He came to the West in His travels. In Muhammad's time because He was in the midst of polytheists God warned through Him not to "join other gods with God".
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
There's plenty to investigate, if a person wants to do it.
Like what? We have seen the texts which it the most important elelment to your beliefs and claims as a Baha'i, and they have a lot of problems. The problems are not resolved in the texts, so what else is there? What gets investigated?
I realize that not many will, because like you said, there are other claims out there in recent history. There more Mormons I think than Baha'is. To just about everybody, we're just another claim, and they don't have the time.
Baha'i are not the best spokespeople for their religion. You accuse others of some deficiencies you can't name, but the actions of the Baha'i do not present an image of people who have some unique wisdom. Quite the contrary.

I think many believers are so absorbed in their beliefs that they lack the realization that these debates are not just about the ideas, but who the claimants are. Theists lack evidence, so they would be smart to act in such a way that implies they are wise and have learned something special and unique. Believers tend to act in a fairly uniform manner, and this is a liability for any of them claiming their view is special and rises above all others.
 
Top