Who was Baha'u'llah?

[Windwalker]

You are distorting my words. I said: Believe it or not, I believe he did know all this, or was connected to the source of all that knowledge, who is God, but it was not his role to reveal all that. Where in that do you get he "should have" but didn't.

I don't think I was distorting your words. What I had said originally that you responded to with the above was this:

But trust what? His knowledge of science and natural history? Or his knowledge of the ways of the Divine? There is a difference in subject matter here. I do not believe Jesus the human who lived two thousand years ago had supernatural knowledge of science and industry. He would not have known about black holes, quantum physics, or even about evolutionary theory. But, when speaking of the timeless nature of the Divine, yes, he had profound and trustworthy insight and knowledge of this.​

​

When I said you are setting yourself up for a crisis of beliefs, is that when you encounter any errors of science or history, you would have to assume he "should have" known better, if in fact you understand his views as "infallible". That was the context I was speaking to, as it applies to all of those who do this, and end up fighting against science and history when they find errors in the Bible or in their teachers or prophets whom they see as divinely infallible. You place yourself into that camp with that belief.

Where in the Gospels did Jesus say anything that was wrong about science and history?

Well, I know it is a very common apologetics argument against evolution because they take Jesus' reference to Adam and Eve and the creation story literal historical people and historical fact. If evolution is true, that there was no two original humans created supernaturally from the dust and the rib of the male, without any natural processes, then Jesus didn't know everything. Since that can't be true, then science must be wrong, according to their line of reasoning.

That is one example. There are many historical errors and scientific inaccuracies in scripture, but to me this doesn't matter, because I don't believe in the doctrine of infallibility and inerrancy. That's unrealistic, and dangerous to faith in a modern age of information and knowledge

Jesus spoke according to that understanding of the people of that time, as Jesus and Baha'u'llah have the same divine reality.

That is my argument, and that having that Divine nature, does not make them immune to human error, or their words to be taken to challenge and dispute science and historical facts. Yet, this is how many of the faithful approach their words. I find a great error in doing that.

I'm not conceding He said anything wrong, but just in case I'm missing something. Another factor to consider that the Writings of Baha'u'llah were not orally remembered decades later.

That still doesn't mean that Baha'u'llah may not have made some errors himself along the way.

You may think that I am stretching things in order to believe, but you have no idea how much evidence there is for Baha'u'llah that I have learned for over 50 years that contain no seeming contradictions.

The fact you say you see no errors or contradictions is suspicious to me. I on the other hand see plenty in the Biblical texts, yet still see the value in them.

Question for you? If you found errors in your scriptures, how would that affect your faith?

 

[Trailblazer]

You missed it. And it's amazing that you can't suggest a means for deciding the matter yourself.

I did not miss anything because there wasn't anything for me to miss. There is NO MEANS for deciding the matter (see below).
It is amazing that you cannot understand that.

Let me give you a hint. Christians say the same about their scripture - that it is evidence of divine communication, but most can't reliably distinguish the King James Bible from Shakespeare quotes.

What Christians can distinguish or what Baha'is can distinguish doesn't have anything to do with whether the Writings of Baha'u'llah were divinely inspired.
Personal opinions about the scriptures are no proof of anything.

Let me give you a hint. The fact that the King James Bible and the Writings of Baha'u'llah sound like Shakespeare quotes does not mean they are not divinely inspired. That is illogical since there is no reason to think that scriptures would not be translated into KJ English. They may or may not be divinely inspired, but for obvious logical reasons there is no way to prove it either way. All we can have are personal opinions.

I've already explained to you that that ship has sailed unless you want to rebut my rebuttal. And yes, unless you do, the case is closed.

There is nothing to rebut became all you have is a personal opinion, which proves absolutely nothing, except that you can have a personal opinion.

I think you're reluctant to try to find it even though it was most recently written only yesterday, because I suspect that you are concerned that you wouldn't be able to recognize it as a means for deciding the matter.

There is no means for deciding the matter. Unless you can prove that the scriptures are not divinely inspired all you have is a personal opinion.

Whether the Writings of Baha'u'llah were divinely inspired or not can never be proven. All we can have are personal opinions or beliefs.
Your personal opinion is not a means for deciding the matter of whether the Writings of Baha'u'llah were divinely inspired or not.
My belief is not a means for deciding the matter of whether the Writings of Baha'u'llah were divinely inspired or not.

Case closed.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There's no way to know for a person if what he experienced was "infinite", or touched the face of the infinite I don't think. Have you considered that you yourself may be deluded on this point?

Now you sound like me responding to a believer who insists that he has first-hand (experiential) "proof" of God.

There are many historical errors and scientific inaccuracies in scripture, but to me this doesn't matter, because I don't believe in the doctrine of infallibility and inerrancy.

But do you believe that the god described therein exists? If so, why, given your rejection of its falsified claims?

That's unrealistic, and dangerous to faith in a modern age of information and knowledge

That knowledge is shaping Christianity for believers who don't dismiss it out of hand. An insight I've gained in the last year or two of posting is that my real complaint with religions are limited to those that remove the sacred from the world and transfer it to an imaginary place not of this world, a much better place, and one populated by spirits with moral values and commandments for man. This has been a destructive doctrine, and characterizes the Abrahamic faiths.

But what's encouraging is the effect that humanistic sensibilities are having at bringing these religions back to a more natural relationship with nature. Christians now support democracy and the abolition of slavery because of rational ethics and despite scripture that endorsed or condoned the opposite, and which is tolerant and inclusive.

Hell theology is transforming in reaction to the off-putting claim of a god that set up a torture chamber, staffed it with demons, and sends souls that it keeps conscious there to suffer to the benefit of nobody but sadists. Many people just aren't interested in such a god model. They want a nicer god or no god. So now we often read that perdition is sleep or separation from God, or that God doesn't send us there - we send ourselves - none of which is the stick that this religion has depended on for so long to force compliance using fear. The carrot is also wilting. Who feels disappointed about missing out on heaven if one can have an afterlife separated from gods and their needs, demands, and expectations?

what Baha'is can distinguish doesn't have anything to do with whether the Writings of Baha'u'llah were divinely inspired.

Yet you call that writing evidence of divine provenance anyway.

The fact that the King James Bible and the Writings of Baha'u'llah sound like Shakespeare quotes does not mean they are not divinely inspired.

Correct. I guess you didn't understand the significance of the comment.

That is illogical since there is no reason to think that scriptures would not be translated into KJ English

It is illogical, but not for that reason.

They may or may not be divinely inspired, but for obvious logical reasons there is no way to prove it either way. All we can have are personal opinions.

It is easy to demonstrate that the words are mundane language indistinguishable from human other human language.

There is nothing to rebut became all you have is a personal opinion, which proves absolutely nothing, except that you can have a personal opinion

Then you are conceding the opinion.

Whether the Writings of Baha'u'llah were divinely inspired or not can never be proven.

It can be demonstrated that they are indistinguishable from mundane anthropogenic text.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yet you call that writing evidence of divine provenance anyway.

It is part of the evidence, but it is not the first thing we look at to determine the truth of Baha'u'llah's claims.
We look at the Writings only after we have looked at the other evidence (character and deeds), if those were insufficient.

It is easy to demonstrate that the words are mundane language indistinguishable from human other human language.

No, that is only your personal opinion, it cannot be demonstrated.
In my personal opinion the words are divinely inspired. Part of the reason I believe that is what the words actually say, not how they sound.
It makes no sense to me that anyone who was not a Messenger of God could make all that stuff up about God, and it makes no sense that Baha'u'llah would make it all up, as there would be no motive for doing so.

Then you are conceding the opinion.

No, I am not conceding to your opinion as I have my own opinion which differs.

It can be demonstrated that they are indistinguishable from mundane anthropogenic text.

They are indistinguishable by YOU.
They are distinguishable by ME.
But these are just our personal opinions.

It cannot be demonstrated that they are divinely inspired.
It cannot be demonstrated that they are not divinely inspired.
Are you getting the picture?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It is part of the evidence, but it is not the first thing we look at to determine the truth of Baha'u'llah's claims. We look at the Writings only after we have looked at the other evidence (character and deeds), if those were insufficient.

These are the kinds of vague answers I'm accustomed to. There's never been an evidenced argument from you, just these vague kinds of statements.

that is only your personal opinion, it cannot be demonstrated.

No, THAT is only your (unsupported and contradicted by reason) opinion. My opinion is correct. It can be easily demonstrated that what you call evidence for a god is indistinguishable from the mundane lives and words of ordinary people.

In my personal opinion the words are divinely inspired. Part of the reason I believe that is what the words actually say, not how they sound.

Does that mean something to you? Not to me, unless you mean that you are not influenced by all of the flowery King James English. If so, did you think that's what I was saying is mundane? I'm talking about the semantic content, not the poetry and prosody.

It makes no sense to me that anyone who was not a Messenger of God could make all that stuff up about God, and it makes no sense that Baha'u'llah would make it all up, as there would be no motive for doing so.

But earlier you were implying that the words were not something that a man could have made up. That's what it means to call them evidence of a message from a god (please write that down this time so you don't have to keep asking me what constituted evidence for a god for me).

No, I am not conceding to your opinion as I have my own opinion which differs.

But you didn't rebut mine. I told you what that means. It's concession. It says that you can't or won't rebut my position, and that you can't or won't defend whatever that. Those may not be your values, but like them or not, they are the ones by which critical thinkers judge these things. That doesn't seem to matter to you, and if it doesn't matter to you, that's fine. We're done with that subthread. The issue is resolved.

They are indistinguishable by YOU.
They are distinguishable by ME.

I don't believe you.

It cannot be demonstrated that they are divinely inspired.
It cannot be demonstrated that they are not divinely inspired.
Are you getting the picture?

It can be demonstrated that they are indistinguishable from what thousands or millions of people could have written, been, and done, and unsurprisingly, you seem uninterested in how that can be done.

 

[Windwalker]

But do you believe that the god described therein exists? If so, why, given your rejection of its falsified claims?

That's a tricky question to answer. First, I saw Reality as Divine through experience, prior to encountering religious descriptions or depictions of that. So my view does not come from the writings, but from experience. Therefore, I said in an earlier post to another member, what I read in the Bible is read through that lens of experience. I don't subscribe to the "authority" of those who interpret the Bible through their own lenses. But that itself is not a hard fast black and white matter either. What resonates as Truth to me, carries significant weight over claims of infallibility and absolute authority. That is why I left fundamentalist Christianity. For that very reason.

Now then to your question about accepting or rejecting how God is described within it. It's the same thing. I see in scripture a variety of human perceptions about the Divine, and I hear both transcendent Truth, and I hear their very human natures and personalities and cultural influences colorizing their portraits of God. I see in scripture a collection of these perceptions, that we can relate to ourselves, in both the good and the bad. I see in the Bible both the God of Love, and the God of Fear. I see the God of distributive justice, and I see the God of retributive justice. Both are reflective of our own humanity expressed through cultural differences throughout human history.

For me, what speaks to me is the God of Love. Not the God of us vs. them, smite thy enemies, give victory to us who are the obedient ones, and so forth. That I find to be less than spiritually nourishing. But there is plenty that is. And that is what I find helpful. A good book I would recommend for anyone who should feel so inclined is by John Dominic Crossan, titled, How to Read the Bible and Still be a Christian: Is God Violent? A very aptly titled book for those who are not in denial of it's very human origins. Here's video of him discussing this to a group of people, if you care to just skim some of his points without committing to a book read:

That knowledge is shaping Christianity for believers who don't dismiss it out of hand. An insight I've gained in the last year or two of posting is that my real complaint with religions are limited to those that remove the sacred from the world and transfer it to an imaginary place not of this world, a much better place, and one populated by spirits with moral values and commandments for man. This has been a destructive doctrine, and characterizes the Abrahamic faiths.

This is all part of a much larger conversation I've been trying to have with you. It is my view that the Christian faith can in fact evolve to fit the times, where believers are not required to commit intellectual suicide in service of faith. But you need to first be able to recognize more than just a "facts" based approach to truth defined by scientific scrutiny. I find that approach to be just as out of step with reality as the mythic-literal believers are in denying rationality. These are complex issues that need to rise above "Now I really DO have the truth" and everyone else has it wrong views. My core and guiding philosophy is simple. Everyone has a piece of the Truth.

But what's encouraging is the effect that humanistic sensibilities are having at bringing these religions back to a more natural relationship with nature.

I rather see it that humanism is an expression of that level of consciousness itself that is evolving religion as well, albeight more slowly because of being tied into traditional systems, which have to accommodate a wider spectrum of consciousness stages. It's easy enough to break off into something new, but when talking about society at large, there has to be something that speaks to all levels. Not an easy thing. But I do see that in an ideal version of religion, it would do that. What we have right now is largely broken, being co-opted by the magic and mythic levels. The more fundamentalist voices.

Christians now support democracy and the abolition of slavery because of rational ethics and despite scripture that endorsed or condoned the opposite, and which is tolerant and inclusive.

You've had Christians support these all along. But it's really a matter of which voices of the whole tend to dominate the conversation. Just look at the news cycles the MAGA nutheads get. The crazier and more threatening they are, the larger they appear. Think of it like animals who inflate their size by making their hair stand up and making horrible screeching noises. Think of MTG watching this:

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That's a tricky question to answer. First, I saw Reality as Divine through experience, prior to encountering religious descriptions or depictions of that. So my view does not come from the writings, but from experience. Therefore, I said in an earlier post to another member, what I read in the Bible is read through that lens of experience. I don't subscribe to the "authority" of those who interpret the Bible through their own lenses. But that itself is not a hard fast black and white matter either. What resonates as Truth to me, carries significant weight over claims of infallibility and absolute authority. That is why I left fundamentalist Christianity. For that very reason.

Now then to your question about accepting or rejecting how God is described within it. It's the same thing. I see in scripture a variety of human perceptions about the Divine, and I hear both transcendent Truth, and I hear their very human natures and personalities and cultural influences colorizing their portraits of God. I see in scripture a collection of these perceptions, that we can relate to ourselves, in both the good and the bad. I see in the Bible both the God of Love, and the God of Fear. I see the God of distributive justice, and I see the God of retributive justice. Both are reflective of our own humanity expressed through cultural differences throughout human history.

I'm taking this to mean no, you don't accept the god of the Christian Bible as real. I'd describe you as more of a freethinker than an orthodox Abrahamist, although I still don't see the benefit of adding a God to nature in one's worldview. Why call that God?

For me, what speaks to me is the God of Love. Not the God of us vs. them, smite thy enemies, give victory to us who are the obedient ones, and so forth. That I find to be less than spiritually nourishing. But there is plenty that is. And that is what I find helpful. A good book I would recommend for anyone who should feel so inclined is by John Dominic Crossan, titled, How to Read the Bible and Still be a Christian: Is God Violent? A very aptly titled book for those who are not in denial of it's very human origins. Here's video of him discussing this to a group of people, if you care to just skim some of his points without committing to a book read:

Thanks, but I didn't look at the video because I'm not interested in putting more than a few seconds into anything in the dark, and I'm not really interested in people's conceptions of what "God" means to them except in broad strokes just to get a sense of the distribution of god beliefs and their evolution over time. I'll skim an article or a transcript in the blind, but not watch an hour-long video on theological topics. My principle interests are philosophy, physical and life science, and psychology.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I didn't say that. I said I had an experience of the Infinite, or the Absolute Reality, which I will justifiably call "God", and Christians see the Christ as God. But Jesus was the human being who lived 2000 years ago. He was both "man and God". The man part died.

Think about it like the Apostle Paul on the road to Damascus. He was struck down by a white light brighter than the noon day sun. To him, he encountered the Christ. That was not a body of a man. It was Spirit. I had a similar white light experience myself. So, when I said I did not experience the man, a human being, I meant just that. I experienced Spirit.

Paul identified that as the risen Christ for himself. I could say the same thing through that symbolic lens, though at that time it was just what it was, which was nameless to me. When humans experience Transcendence, it is common for them to translate and interpret that through the symbolic lens of their religious systems.

Since I had that experience prior to be a part of a religion, it was just Infinite, with no name. But theologically, that is what the "Christ" symbolizes. So I could call it that, sure.

I believe you can find eternal timeless Truth within it. However, I do not understand it in a magical way, that every single word of it was a direct dictation from God with infallible and inerrant facts in all directions. It simply can't be understood like that under the lens of a critical analysis.

And nor does it need to be in order to have value spiritually. God can still "speak" through it Truth, without it needing to fit our flawed expecations of it being "without error".

No. I listen to and seek out others for their own experiences and thoughts to help illuminate my own and guide my thinking and practices all the time.

But what I do not do, is just let them tell me what they think the truth is and say my thoughts and experiences are not valid because their "prophet" has the final authority on these matters. I more than find massive flaws in that, and typically recognize all of that as coming from the ego, rather than inspired Truth.

I will take what I hear, and run it through my own experiences to see if it speaks the truth to me, even if it is something I've never been aware of before. Discerning truth from error, is something that can't be told in black and white "authoritative" answers with a capital A. It is something which must be cultivated through practice. It's the difference between dancing, and counting steps.

Let me answer this by explain a few things first. It is such that it is literally beyond belief. Belief is something we hold in our minds mentally, in terms of concepts and ideas which we deem to be likely true.

Faith is something of an intuition of our hearts that feels into something that is true, when we don't have any direct confirmation of it. Even if our beliefs fall apart, our faith keeps us searching for better beliefs to support what that intuition pulls or draws us towards.

Experience is beyond beliefs into a direct evidential encounter with a reality. It no long needs to be 'thought' to be true. It is real. Experience replaces faith, it replaces an intuition or sensing of that higher reality, with an actual apprehension of it. And finally...

Adaptation is when when we have integrated that experience into informing all parts of our life and it becomes what guides and informs everything we think, feel, and do. I'm still working on that part of it.

So to answer your question with reference to the above explanation of these terms in order to avoid confusion. My experience does more than allow me to believe it is real. It convinces me of its reality, without needing to believe it. I don't believe I know what an orange tastes like. I know what an orange tastes like because of have a direct experience of tasting oranges. That's not a belief anymore. It's direct experience, or an apprehension of orange tastes.

So it definitely tells me about the Divine. Just like tasting an orange tells me about an orange. But, does it, "knowing the Divine and receiving messages and knowledge from the divine?, as you asked?

Knowing the Divine is a constant exploration and growth, the same as you would have in understanding and growing into anything of great depth. You could think of it in terms of a relationship with a spouse. As you grow, so does the depth of your relationship and knowledge of that "other" to you in your life, and you become more and more apart of each other. That's one way to talk about it.

But the idea of "receiving messages", is something I wince at. It's not hearing voices. It's not communications from the great beyond, like hearing grandmother tell you truths from the grave during a seance, or something. It's not like that. God is within you, and hearing that "voice" is much more an inner truth that is more of a realization than a "message".

The term I use which is much more accurate is an illumination of the mind. Like pulling the blinders back and seeing what was obstructed from view before. It's not "messages", but Truth that is always there, but merely obstructed from view.
It's a process of removing obstacles and seeing Truth, rather than "messages".

I don't believe in those in that way that those who are seeing for Answers to be handed to them hope for. It is much, much, much more of a participatory reality, than a passive householder waiting for the mail to be delivered by the postman.

When you say, Jesus was God and man, what do you mean exactly? Like the Spirit of God was inside His body? And when He died, His spirit went to heaven?
But the Father was the God in heaven. There is only one God according to Scriptures. If we say, the Spirit of God was in Jesus, and also the Father in heaven, how is that only one God?

 

[Windwalker]

I'm taking this to mean no, you don't accept the god of the Christian Bible as real.

Not what I said. I believe that anything anyone says about God is a perception of something real. They are fingers pointing to the moon, but not the moon itself. What I subscribe to is what it says in the Tao De Ching. "The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao". But that does not mean pointing fingers have no value whatsoever.

I'd describe you as more of a freethinker than an orthodox Abrahamist, although I still don't see the benefit of adding a God to nature in one's worldview. Why call that God?

True that I'm not a traditionalist to be sure. I am a rational, critical thinker, who is able to see the world symbolically as well as analytically. As such, I don't stumble over an overly-analytical mindset that can't dance because I am too busy analyzing where the feet should go all the time. Missing the forest for the trees, in other words.

Thanks, but I didn't look at the video because I'm not interested in putting more than a few seconds into anything in the dark, and I'm not really interested in people's conceptions of what "God" means to them except in broad strokes just to get a sense of the distribution of god beliefs and their evolution over time. I'll skim an article or a transcript in the blind, but not watch an hour-long video on theological topics. My principle interests are philosophy, physical and life science, and psychology.

First off, I did say you could skim over bits and pieces of it. I did not suggest you spend a whole damned hour on it! And it is in fact very philosophical, and psychological what I am and always having been exposing you to in talking about how I see things. I tend to see that you are rather more stuck at the mythic-literal understanding as not being rational, and therefore there is nothing else to than just that. But yet, then there is me. Clearly, I am quite rational, and well-informed scientifically as well as philosophically. If I recommended Crossan, you should be assured this is not some "theological" thing. He is a modernist, or rather postmodernist scholar who takes a multidisciplinary approach to understanding the nature of scripture. He specifically states he avoids looking at theological implications of what his scholarship has shown.

As I said, I wouldn't recommend some silly apologist. But then again, I find the whole so-called "skeptics" and so-called "freethinkers" that are specialists in Bible debunking to be apologists in their own right. I find that boring at his point. That has its place, but it's not adding anything beyond simply tearing something old down. I'm interested in seeing what can be said positively about something, beyond just merely deconstructing it. That has its place, but it's far too simple, relatively speaking. I prefer the great challenge to build a new understanding.

 

[Windwalker]

When you say, Jesus was God and man, what do you mean exactly? Like the Spirit of God was inside His body? And when He died, His spirit went to heaven?
But the Father was the God in heaven. There is only one God according to Scriptures. If we say, the Spirit of God was in Jesus, and also the Father in heaven, how is that only one God?

I can try to explain this, but it will require to direct your thinking here for a minute. First off all, do you believe God is Infinite? I'll assume you'll answer yes to that. If God is Spirit, and God is Infinite, that means there is no place where God is not. If there were an edge to God, or a boundary around God where God does not exist, then God cannot be Infinite, correct? He would have to be finite, limited, like a creature, like a dog or a cat, or an angel or a people.

But if God is Infinite, then that means God has to be in each and everything in the universe, including inside of you and me, in every atom and molecule, in our hearts, in our very beings themselves. If not, then there are holes in God, and God looks more like a block of Swiss cheese. Surely you don't imagine God is like that, do you?

So yes, the Spirit of God was in Jesus, just as much as it is in all living things. The difference between someone like Jesus, is that he was fully aware of and operating out of that Spirit as the center of his being, unlike the average person who operates in his ego. But we too can be fully Realized, when we too die to the egoic self and know that "Christ" in us. That is the nature of mystical Realization. Awakening to the Divine in us.

So yes, it is only one God. And God is Spirit. And there is nowhere that that Spirit is not. It doesn't come and go. It isn't any place, but all places. It isn't anywhere but always present. So when Jesus dies, his Spirit went where it always was - everywhere. In other words, it didn't change location, because its location is Infinite, without boundaries.

If you think of God however as a creature that has a body and sits in some place, like a human being does, the way Mormons think of God living on a planet near the star Kolob in the Orion constellation (true fact), and that that God has a wife and has baby Gods, which Jesus was, then you can start thinking of God "up there" somewhere, as a finite created creature. But I don't think that's how you see God, is it?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I can try to explain this, but it will require to direct your thinking here for a minute. First off all, do you believe God is Infinite? I'll assume you'll answer yes to that. If God is Spirit, and God is Infinite, that means there is no place where God is not. If there were an edge to God, or a boundary around God where God does not exist, then God cannot be Infinite, correct? He would have to be finite, limited, like a creature, like a dog or a cat, or an angel or a people.

But if God is Infinite, then that means God has to be in each and everything in the universe, including inside of you and me, in every atom and molecule, in our hearts, in our very beings themselves. If not, then there are holes in God, and God looks more like a block of Swiss cheese. Surely you don't imagine God is like that, do you?

So yes, the Spirit of God was in Jesus, just as much as it is in all living things. The difference between someone like Jesus, is that he was fully aware of and operating out of that Spirit as the center of his being, unlike the average person who operates in his ego. But we too can be fully Realized, when we too die to the egoic self and know that "Christ" in us. That is the nature of mystical Realization. Awakening to the Divine in us.

So yes, it is only one God. And God is Spirit. And there is nowhere that that Spirit is not. It doesn't come and go. It isn't any place, but all places. It isn't anywhere but always present. So when Jesus dies, his Spirit went where it always was - everywhere. In other words, it didn't change location, because its location is Infinite, without boundaries.

If you think of God however as a creature that has a body and sits in some place, like a human being does, the way Mormons think of God living on a planet near the star Kolob in the Orion constellation (true fact), and that that God has a wife and has baby Gods, which Jesus was, then you can start thinking of God "up there" somewhere, as a finite created creature. But I don't think that's how you see God, is it?

I don't understand it because, if you say Spirit of God does not come and go, and at the same time When Jesus died, He went up to heaven, even as He had come down from heaven. I don't understand how it can be said the Spirit does not come and go, and then say, when Jesus dies He went up to heaven.
Do you mean to say, Spirit is something like air that is everywhere literally?

 

[Truthseeker]

All the rest of what you say about how others promoted him, and whatnot, that's fine. I wasn't debating that. I was debating her argument that there was no other way for people to know about him unless he wrote about himself. That was her argument. Therefore your argument is with her. Not with me.

I agree with @Trailblazer concerning most people. How would the people who never met Him back in the day know what His station was? By the way they didn't promote Him before He declared Himself, they were not allowed to. Not that that is part of my argument, just a point of information.

ou told me what you experienced, and I related to it with experiences of my own. But I did not tell you what I experienced, and you automatically said I was delusional. Why is that?

Because it doesn't accord with what I understand the nature of human beings to be. I don't believe that people can experience God's infinity directly. God is infinite, but we are not. This is derived from the Baha'i Writings.

Exalted, immeasurably exalted, art Thou above the strivings of mortal man to unravel Thy mystery, to describe Thy glory, or even to hint at the nature of Thine Essence. For whatever such strivings may accomplish, they never can hope to transcend the limitations imposed upon Thy creatures, inasmuch as these efforts are actuated by Thy decree, and are begotten of Thine invention. The loftiest sentiments which the holiest of saints can express in praise of Thee, and the deepest wisdom which the most learned of men can utter in their attempts to comprehend Thy nature, all revolve around that Center Which is wholly subjected to Thy sovereignty, Which adoreth Thy Beauty, and is propelled through the movement of Thy Pen.
Bahá’u’lláh, "Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh", 1.3

Nay, forbid it, O my God, that I should have uttered such words as must of necessity imply the existence of any direct relationship between the Pen of Thy Revelation and the essence of all created things. Far, far are They Who are related to Thee above the conception of such relationship! All comparisons and likenesses fail to do justice to the Tree of Thy Revelation, and every way is barred to the comprehension of the Manifestation of Thy Self and the Dayspring of Thy Beauty.
Bahá’u’lláh, "Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh", 1.4

Far, far from Thy glory be what mortal man can affirm of Thee, or attribute unto Thee, or the praise with which he can glorify Thee! Whatever duty Thou hast prescribed unto Thy servants of extolling to the utmost Thy majesty and glory is but a token of Thy grace unto them, that they may be enabled to ascend unto the station conferred upon their own inmost being, the station of the knowledge of their own selves.
Bahá’u’lláh, "Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh", 1.5

So it is not that I doubt you have a soaring spiritual experience, but I don't think it is possible for humans to reach the infinite. There is a gulf of what we think we both understand about God and man. Since you do not believe in what Baha'u'llah says, and I don't agree with your thinking, I see no reason to discuss this particular point further, unless you want to argue endlessly, which I don't want to.

 

[Truthseeker]

So yes, the Spirit of God was in Jesus, just as much as it is in all living things. The difference between someone like Jesus, is that he was fully aware of and operating out of that Spirit as the center of his being, unlike the average person who operates in his ego. But we too can be fully Realized, when we too die to the egoic self and know that "Christ" in us. That is the nature of mystical Realization. Awakening to the Divine in us.

That goes against Baha'i belief also, in the sense that we can be equal to a Christ no matter how long we develop.

Know that the conditions of existence are limited to the conditions of servitude, of prophethood, and of Deity, but the divine and the contingent perfections are unlimited. When you reflect deeply, you discover that also outwardly the perfections of existence are also unlimited, for you cannot find a being so perfect that you cannot imagine a superior one. For example, you cannot see a ruby in the mineral kingdom, a rose in the vegetable kingdom, or a nightingale in the animal kingdom, without imagining that there might be better specimens. As the divine bounties are endless, so human perfections are endless. If it were possible to reach a limit of perfection, then one of the realities of the beings might reach the condition of being independent of God, and the contingent might attain to the condition of the absolute. But for every being there is a point which it cannot overpass; that is to say, he who is in the condition of servitude, however far he may progress in gaining limitless perfections, will never reach the condition of Deity. It is the same with the other beings: a mineral, however far it may progress in the mineral kingdom, cannot gain the vegetable power; also in a flower, however far it may progress in the vegetable kingdom, no power of the senses will appear. So this silver mineral cannot gain hearing or sight; it can only improve in its own condition, and become a perfect mineral, but it cannot acquire the power of growth, or the power of sensation, or attain to life; it can only progress in its own condition.

For example, Peter cannot become Christ. All that he can do is, in the condition of servitude, to attain endless perfections; for every existing reality is capable of making progress.
(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 328)

It seems there are impasses between us that are not very probable to bridge. That is why I said earlier it is useless to talk about things further. We just have to agree to disagree. This seems to be true about a lot things.

 

[Trailblazer]

That goes against Baha'i belief also, in the sense that we can be equal to a Christ no matter how long we develop.

Did you mean to say:
That goes against Baha'i belief also, in the sense that we can't be equal to a Christ no matter how long we develop.
Sorry I keep catching your typos.

 

[Trailblazer]

For example, Peter cannot become Christ. All that he can do is, in the condition of servitude, to attain endless perfections; for every existing reality is capable of making progress.
(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 328)

For once, I agree with Abdu'l-Baha.

 

[Windwalker]

I don't understand it because, if you say Spirit of God does not come and go, and at the same time When Jesus died, He went up to heaven, even as He had come down from heaven.

These are figures of speech. They can be understood metaphorically, but not literally. Literally they make no sense. Take for instance saying to someone, "I send to you my love". Try understanding that literally instead of metaphorically. Did you surgically remove your love, put it in a box, mail it to them, and have them open it to receive it? Of course not. So likewise, "he came from above", is a symbolic way to talk about a transcendent nature, seemingly to come "out of nowhere", or "down from heaven".

Think of it like speaking of "heaven above". Is that literal? Is it above us vertically? How many miles above us is heaven? And what if you lived in the Northern hemisphere of earth? Is it up from you? If it is, then that is "down" from those living in Australia. Clearly, these are not to be understood literally, but figuratively.

These are ways in which we try to relate to abstract concepts, using concrete language. That's all it is. People use language like this to trying to find ways to try to relate to what is difficult to express otherwise. "Up in heaven", "down on earth", and such, are "as if" language. These are effectively metaphors.

I don't understand how it can be said the Spirit does not come and go, and then say, when Jesus dies He went up to heaven.
Do you mean to say, Spirit is something like air that is everywhere literally?

We yes. To quote Paul, "In him we live and move and have our being". That is very much more aptly stated.

There is this ancient story that comes out of Taoism, trying to explain what the Tao is. It directly applies to your question about Spirit, or God, which is all saying the same thing:

Once upon a time, a young fish asked an old fish: "Everyone talks about this thing called 'ocean.' What exactly is it?"​

​

The older and wiser fish answered: "The ocean is that which surrounds you on all sides."​

​

The younger fish didn't understand: "What do you mean? There is nothing around me! If the ocean surrounds me on all sides, why can I not see it?"​

​

"Of course you cannot," the old fish said patiently. "The ocean is both inside and outside of you. When you move, it moves with you; when you stop, it stops as well. You were born in the ocean and you will die in it. It wraps itself around you, just as your own skin does."​

​

"But how can I tell it exists, if I cannot see it?"​

​

"You must use more than your eyes. We may not be able to see the ocean, but we can definitely feel it. Trust your feelings - they are the key".​

"In him we live and move and have our being". "Where can I flee from your presence?", to quote from two Biblical references. I hope this helps?

 

[Muffled]

As per usual you are splitting the "no" vote, which doesn't make this an informative poll in my view.

In my opinion.

The concept of delusional seems to have a large majority.

 

[Muffled]

So are we voting for Baha'u'llah's final status? If he is voted off the island will all Baha'i reject him and his claims? So far he is a fraud by 2-1. That's a bad start to the trend.

I believe some delusions are harmful and some are harmless. The way I see it he still has value as a religious philosopher. One just has to measure what he says against more reliable sources

 

[Muffled]

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

Although that may be true in a way it is nevertheless misleading. I am a manifestation of God also as is everyone on this planet including Hitler but not everyone speaks the word of God and the B man does not appear to do that.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

These are figures of speech. They can be understood metaphorically, but not literally. Literally they make no sense. Take for instance saying to someone, "I send to you my love". Try understanding that literally instead of metaphorically. Did you surgically remove your love, put it in a box, mail it to them, and have them open it to receive it? Of course not. So likewise, "he came from above", is a symbolic way to talk about a transcendent nature, seemingly to come "out of nowhere", or "down from heaven".

Think of it like speaking of "heaven above". Is that literal? Is it above us vertically? How many miles above us is heaven? And what if you lived in the Northern hemisphere of earth? Is it up from you? If it is, then that is "down" from those living in Australia. Clearly, these are not to be understood literally, but figuratively.

These are ways in which we try to relate to abstract concepts, using concrete language. That's all it is. People use language like this to trying to find ways to try to relate to what is difficult to express otherwise. "Up in heaven", "down on earth", and such, are "as if" language. These are effectively metaphors.

We yes. To quote Paul, "In him we live and move and have our being". That is very much more aptly stated.

There is this ancient story that comes out of Taoism, trying to explain what the Tao is. It directly applies to your question about Spirit, or God, which is all saying the same thing:

Once upon a time, a young fish asked an old fish: "Everyone talks about this thing called 'ocean.' What exactly is it?"​

​

The older and wiser fish answered: "The ocean is that which surrounds you on all sides."​

​

The younger fish didn't understand: "What do you mean? There is nothing around me! If the ocean surrounds me on all sides, why can I not see it?"​

​

"Of course you cannot," the old fish said patiently. "The ocean is both inside and outside of you. When you move, it moves with you; when you stop, it stops as well. You were born in the ocean and you will die in it. It wraps itself around you, just as your own skin does."​

​

"But how can I tell it exists, if I cannot see it?"​

​

"You must use more than your eyes. We may not be able to see the ocean, but we can definitely feel it. Trust your feelings - they are the key".​

"In him we live and move and have our being". "Where can I flee from your presence?", to quote from two Biblical references. I hope this helps?

But Bahai Faith scriptures describes these concepts more clearly in my view.
When it is said Spirit of God comes down, it means All attributes of God is Mirrored Perfectly in a Person.
It is like the Sun in Sky, and a Perfectly clean Morror on earth. When this Morror is place toward the Sun, you can see the image of the Sun in the Mirror Perfectly.
In this way, while the Sun is still in the Sky, but a perfect image of it is in the Mirror.

Same is with Jesus. He was like a Perfectly clean Mirror facing the Sun of Reality (God), and reflecting God's image. In that way, the Father is in Heaven, and Jesus was on earth, but showing exactly the image of God fully. So, we could say there is only one God, not more. At the same time we say Jesus is also God, because He was fully reflecting same image.
Now, all of us are in a way manifestations of God. The difference between us and Jesus, is, He was a Perfectly Clean Mirror facing the Heaven, whereas the Mirror of our soul has become dirty with dust of earth, because we are after worldy things. We are not facing to the Sun of Reality in heaven. We are facing toward the earth. We are focused too much on worldly things. This is why Jesus was a Pefect image of God in fullness, where as we are reflecting an extremely limited attributes of God. This why, Jesus could reveal the words of God, whereas we cannot!