Announcement

Collapse

General Theistics 101 Guidelines

This area is open for nontheists and theists to interact on issues of theism and faith in a civilized manner. We ask that nontheist participation respect the theistic views of others and not seek to undermine theism in general, or advocate for nontheism. Such posts are more suited for and allowable in Apologetics 301 with very little restriction.

The moderators of this area are given great discretion to determine if a particular thread or comment would more appropriately belong in another forum area.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Baha'i Source some call God(s) and why I believe in God.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
    Are the laws of logic valid, yes, can they be used to inform our understanding of other things, yes. There are many others, like, I absolutely know I am typing on my keyboard right now(not by the time you read this post obviously). To know certain things absolutely is not even close to impossible, even for us fallible humans.
    But how is it possible for one to know 'absolute truth' concerning the anecdotal spiritual world where so many people disagree.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      But how is it possible for one to know 'absolute truth' concerning the anecdotal spiritual world where so many people disagree.
      Most people believe in this spiritual world because it was impressed upon them in their youthful naivete, and or because they want to believe it. Some are able to let it go when they realize that there is no evidence of its existence and so no reason to believe in it, other than their hope that it is true. As you are well aware, a negative can not be proven false, but that, and hope alone, is not good reasoning by which to base ones beliefs upon.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        True, from the perspective of God..



        Yes, one ultimately must be true. The pesky question still persists; "Are fallible humans able to resolve the question of absolute truth?"
        Truths have consequences. But not all consequences are really all that consequential as to really make all that much difference. But when they do. Choice matters. It is called risk assessment. And the diversity of competing spiritual claims makes the odds likely one is going to choose wrong. And no choice is still a default choice in and of itself.

        So a method is to take competing beliefs in sets of two. Premise one true and the other being believed. Analyze the believed benefit in what is believed. And the consequence of what is actually true not being believed.
        Reverse the two. And now do the same analysis the other being true, and the one now instead being believed. Then ask the question, if you had to choose and your choice was wrong, which would you rather believe, in the event your choice was wrong. [Not that is what you would want to do, to be wrong of course.] And eliminate the "right" choice for the "wrong" choice. The choice with the least consequence if the other is true. Then the next belief system. Repeat the process. Remember the odds being the choice will be wrong. The objective of course is not to be wrong. Truth being absolute. And there are truths we can actually know. The objective is to believe what is really true.

        Pascal's wager was just between one set of two. All the critics are throwing in variables which are outside the set of the two choices given in his wager.

        So if the Baha'i faith is really true. What is the consequence to others outside that faith? And why does it matter?
        Last edited by 37818; 02-23-2015, 10:30 PM.
        . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

        . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

        Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by 37818 View Post
          Truths have consequences. But not all consequences are really all that consequential as to really make all that much difference. But when they do. Choice matters. It is called risk assessment. And the diversity of competing spiritual claims makes the odds likely one is going to choose wrong. And no choice is still a default choice in and of itself.

          So a method is to take competing beliefs in sets of two. Premise one true and the other being believed. Analyze the believed benefit in what is believed. And the consequence of what is actually true not being believed.

          Reverse the two. And now do the same analysis the other being true, and the one now instead being believed. Then ask the question, if you had to choose and your choice was wrong, which would you rather believe, in the event your choice was wrong. [Not that is what you would want to do, to be wrong of course.] And eliminate the "right" choice for the "wrong" choice. The choice with the least consequence if the other is true. Then the next belief system. Repeat the process. Remember the odds being the choice will be wrong. The objective of course is not to be wrong. Truth being absolute. And there are truths we can actually know. The objective is to believe what is really true.
          The above is very confusing, and does not in reality answer my question. Truth has consequences?!? Every world view believes truth has consequences, so what?!?!?!Factors like odds could not be a viable issue. Regardless, by far most people make the choice based on the cultural and religious paradigm they are raised in. The question as to which 'Truth being absolute' between the many varied choices remains unanswered. Obvious criteria that one does not want to wrong has no meaning since many make very different choices thinking they are not wrong.

          One interesting 'rational objective' criteria is science, which represents a reasonably accurate knowledge of our physical world around use. Which choices are reasonably in harmony with the knowledge of science and the billions of years of history of our physical existence. Ancient religions and paradigms such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam fail. Judaism avoids the conflict with pragmatism and midrash.

          Pascal's wager was just between one set of two. All the critics are throwing in variables which are outside the set of the two choices given in his wager.
          Critics of Pascal's wager are more then justified in the weaknesses of such a 'fear' based scenario. Limiting the hypothetical choices to two is totally unreal. If the Jews are correct in their belief Christians are condemned eternally as heretics. As a matter of fact virtually every competing belief system can present a wager for their own case. Atheists can claim the consequences of ancient superstitious beliefs condemns humanity to ignorance and suffering for religious conflict.

          So IF the Baha'i faith is really true. What is the consequence to others outside that faith? And why does it matter?
          IF the Baha'i Faith Those that reject the Baha'i Faith will face the judgment and separation from God in the next world. In this world all will suffer from the religious conflict and the rejection of science in the darkness of superstition, myths and past belief paradigms. The sincerity of human choices is part of the judgment humans face in the next worlds.
          Last edited by shunyadragon; 02-24-2015, 09:24 AM.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            The above is very confusing, and does not in reality answer my question. Truth has consequences?!? Every world view believes truth has consequences, so what?!?!?!Factors like odds could not be a viable issue. Regardless, by far most people make the choice based on the cultural and religious paradigm they are raised in. The question as to which 'Truth being absolute' between the many varied choices remains unanswered. Obvious criteria that one does not want to wrong has no meaning since many make very different choices thinking they are not wrong.
            Take any two contrasting beliefs. If one only looks at the perceived benefits of each. Most people take a pro and con approach. But the odds are we will be wrong in our choices, being there are more than just those two belief systems. No choice is still a choice. The view it does not matter is still a choice.
            One interesting 'rational objective' criteria is science, which represents a reasonably accurate knowledge of our physical world around use. Which choices are reasonably in harmony with the knowledge of science and the billions of years of history of our physical existence. Ancient religions and paradigms such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam fail. Judaism avoids the conflict with pragmatism and midrash.
            Please expand on this.


            Critics of Pascal's wager are more then justified in the weaknesses of such a 'fear' based scenario. Limiting the hypothetical choices to two is totally unreal. If the Jews are correct in their belief Christians are condemned eternally as heretics. As a matter of fact virtually every competing belief system can present a wager for their own case. Atheists can claim the consequences of ancient superstitious beliefs condemns humanity to ignorance and suffering for religious conflict.
            Well, is the fear merely a spiritual terrorism tactic or a genuine warning?


            IF the Baha'i Faith Those that reject the Baha'i Faith will face the judgment and separation from God in the next world. In this world all will suffer from the religious conflict and the rejection of science in the darkness of superstition, myths and past belief paradigms. The sincerity of human choices is part of the judgment humans face in the next worlds.
            How do you see the Baha'i Faith view of the Holiness and Rightousness of God better than Biblical Christianity?
            . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

            . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

            Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by 37818 View Post
              Take any two contrasting beliefs. If one only looks at the perceived benefits of each. Most people take a pro and con approach. But the odds are we will be wrong in our choices, being there are more than just those two belief systems. No choice is still a choice. The view it does not matter is still a choice.
              True, but this deflates any merit of the choice other then the perceived benefit of any possible 'genuine warning' from any fallible human perspective.

              Please expand on this.
              Only to say that the scientific view of our physical existence is less egocentric and more universal then the individual religious perspective over the millennia.

              Well, is the fear merely a spiritual terrorism tactic or a genuine warning?
              There is no unbiased view that it is a genuine warning. This would be true from the perspective and one belief one sincerely believes.


              How do you see the Baha'i Faith view of the Holiness and Rightousness of God better than Biblical Christianity?
              'Better' is a very subjective anecdotal trap when comparing religious worldviews. Nonetheless the problem with ancient scripture and the associated worldview is that it describes its position in the cosmos as the egocentric center, which depicts a selective worldview of the nature of our physical existence and an anthropomorphic view of their own importance in God's perspective of Creation and humanity. Each ancient worldview, such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhaism, Taoism and others share the same problems. They only consider their own perspective and relationship to those who believe differently. My assumptions at the beginning of this thread address this issue. The historical and scientific evidence does not support such a view.


              The first assumption is the most important, 'consider the universal' in all things as Aristotle proposed in Physica. This amounts to no a priori assumptions on anything including one's own belief system. This assumption relates to my Buddhist leanings, and the view that we can see more clearly if we wipe the slate clean as humanly possible, and consider all the evidence and possibilities.

              "Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, the universal, then accept it and live up to it." – Buddha

              The second assumption is truth as well as human knowledge is relative and cannot be assumed to be absolute in any way. This assumption is based on the evidence of the nature of human knowledge, and the claims of ‘Truth’ over the millennia.


              The worldview of the Baha'i Faith takes a more universal and less egocentric view of our physical and spiritual existence without the assumptions of rigid religious truth from any one of the ancient religions, acknowledging a more realistic evolving nature of the fallible human evolving knowledge of both our physical and spiritual existence.
              Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-01-2015, 11:02 AM.
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Robrecht
                I merely thought you were appealing to the truth of revelation throughout human history and that still seems to be what you are doing here as well.
                Actually I do not appeal to some 'standard of Truth nor falsehood' in the nature of Progressive Revelation from my fallible human perspective. I do not believe the fallible human perspective is capable of judging any absolute 'standard of Truth. See below for a more realistic view of how I believe, and of course, the posts in this thread as a whole.

                You did not merely discount some choices or claims as viable but all other forms of theism. If it were not for Baha'i revelation, you would be an agnostic or atheist. To discount all other forms of theism as false and your own theistic belief as the only form of theism that is true is indeed exclusivist.
                The reasons for the rejection of other ancient religions as viable choices is their ancient Doctrine, Dogma, guidance and spiritual laws are no longer adequate as a stand alone belief for today's world. I did NOT say that other Theistic beliefs are false, nor did I say that the Baha'i Faith is the only True Theism. Please cite me correctly.

                Originally posted by Robrecht

                Having studied theology for many years, I am not naive about this. Indeed, many people are not exclusivist in their theistic beliefs, but rather believe that they only see a part of the truth, and even that as through a glass darkly, and that others see other parts of a larger truth. You and I both share an appreciation of atheism, but it is not clear to me that you share a genuine appreciation of other forms of theism, even though you include them in your view of evolving revelation.
                What 'many people' believe is not a realistic way to evaluate the beliefs of any given religion church or belief system. 'Many people' can believe many different things regardless of what religion, church or belief system they belong. IT is the actual Doctrine, Dogma, teachings, guidance and spiritual laws of ancient religions that represents problems that I consider them not viable choices for me today.

                The strong agnostic/weak atheist world view does have a real, viable relevant guidance for the modern world as the foundation principles of UU as described in the Humanist Manifesto. That is why I consider them a viable choice.

                Actually before I became a Baha'i I was what you would call a 'non-temple disciple of Buddhism,' because of the wisdom and non-violent compassion for the world I found in the teachings of Buddhism. Buddhism in history is probably the least violent of any other ancient religion, and more compassionate to those who do not believe in their way. I am still very much a student of Buddhism. The reason I moved on is no because I believed Buddhism true nor false, but like other ancient religions and beliefs it was incomplete.

                My consideration of what is a viable choice of religion or belief is related to the following.

                (1) Does the religion provide uniform guidance and spiritual laws for today's world? I do not find ancient world views able to provide this guidance in what they teach concerning the Doctrine, Dogma, guidance and spiritual laws regardless of how I view them as far as their validity as a theist belief. They are not True nor False, they are incomplete in terms of the Progressive nature of Revelation.

                (2) Do they provide the guidance for change over time as our spiritual nature changes and evolves.

                (3) Do they provide the guidance to understand the changing and evolving knowledge of science. The Baha'i Faith has the principle that scientific knowledge is a form of Revelation, and all scripture, including Baha'i scripture, must be understood and interpreted in the light of scientific knowledge. The role of religion is in the guidance of how science and technology is applied for the benefit of humanity.

                I do consider all the revealed religions as sources of guidance, spiritual teachings, and spiritual inspiration in the scripture, but incomplete, in part because of their ancient message addressing the world they were revealed in. Progressive Revelation demonstrates the evolving changing nature of God's Revelation.
                Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-05-2015, 08:06 AM.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • #83
                  I thought it is worth while to post my first post in this thread concerning my foundation assumptions of belief.

                  The first assumption is the most important, 'consider the universal' in all things as Aristotle proposed in Physica. This amounts to no a priori assumptions on anything including one's own belief system. This assumption relates to my Buddhist leanings, and the view that we can see more clearly if we wipe the slate clean as humanly possible, and consider all the evidence and possibilities.

                  "Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, the universal, then accept it and live up to it." – Buddha

                  The second assumption is truth as well as human knowledge is relative and cannot be assumed to be absolute in any way. This assumption is based on the evidence of the nature of human knowledge, and the claims of ‘Truth’ over the millennia.

                  The third assumption is that the physical existence we perceive through our senses is real, and our reason and logic, though fallible, is sufficiently reliable to trust in our relative knowledge of the objective knowledge of this physical existence. Math is a reliable construct of human logic as a tool to understand our physical existence. This assumption is based on the evidence of reliability of our senses, human reasoning and logic in understanding the nature of our physical existence over the millennia.

                  The fourth assumption is our understanding of the subjective world beyond the objective physical nature of our existence is limited by our fallible nature, and human understanding of the subjective. Philosophy and logic are useful in exploring the subjective, and understanding our human nature, but remain human constructs of the subjective world of the mind only. This assumption is based on the diversity, and often conflicting and inconsistent subjective beliefs and logical arguments over the millennia.

                  The fifth assumption is science is the present knowledge we have of our physical existence which evolves with time, and is reliable. It has priority over the understanding of our physical existence over any religious belief including my own. Actually, the Baha'i Faith recognizes this necessary of considering science on the level of Revelation in its own right, and reveals Creation as it is created, and gives it precedence over the interpretation of the Baha'i writings concerning the nature of our physical existence. This relies on the first, second and third assumptions.

                  The sixth assumption is that IF God exists, God is universal and unknowable in the absolute sense. Doctrines and beliefs of individual religions cannot define the absolute nature of the Divine. The scriptures of the religions of the world reflect a human view of Revelation, and the relationship between humanity, Creation and the Source some call God(s). This is related to the first, second, third and fourth assumptions.
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Here is the main point that I am still trying to understand:

                    "Actually if it were not for the Baha'i Faith, my only other reasonable belief would be strong agnosticism to weak atheism."

                    Why wouldn't it be reasonable for you to merely advance your own theological interpretation of reality, including belief in God? It seems like Bahá'u'lláh was a good theologian, just as Jesus was a good theologian. Aside from Baha'i revelation, why would your only other reasonable belief be strong agnosticism or weak atheism?
                    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                      Here is the main point that I am still trying to understand:

                      "Actually if it were not for the Baha'i Faith, my only other reasonable belief would be strong agnosticism to weak atheism."
                      I believe I have explained this the best I could. Individual ancient religions only represent an 'incomplete' view of God and Revelation from an ancient perspective. They are also heavily burdened by the culture today in which they were revealed.

                      By analogy, I view the Baha'i Faith like a prism, where the pure white light enters, and is than displayed as the different colors of the spectrum, where the different part of the spectrum represent the different colors, ranging across the visible spectrum from the invisible on both ends of the spectrum. All represent part of the spectrum

                      Why wouldn't it be reasonable for you to merely advance your own theological interpretation of reality, including belief in God? It seems like Bahá'u'lláh was a good theologian, just as Jesus was a good theologian. Aside from Baha'i revelation, why would your only other reasonable belief be strong agnosticism or weak atheism?
                      If I advanced my own theological interpretation of reality, it would be a philosophical 'manmade' interpretation, and not a truly Theist interpretation where God Reveals the Revelation. I am definitely not comfortably in making my own religion. I believe it would be a dishonest concoction. I do not believe I have received a Revelation from God that would warrant this, and I believe too many people have made this unwarranted claim. If by chance all their claims are unwarranted including Jesus and Baha'u'llah than my default position of strong agnosticism and weak atheism becomes more appealing. Being good theologians does not have much authority concerning Revelation. Neither Jesus nor Baha'u'llah had any academic training, other than being home and temple schooled on the Theology of their time.

                      Since Thomas Jefferson and Albert Einstein were my teachers early on ( . . . and Alan Watts, but that is another story), I considered some sort of Deism as a possibility, but concluded a God not involved in Creation in a significant way is not a meaningful God, and no different from atheism. They both contributed to my skepticism of traditional religion. Einstein's 'Spinosa's pantheistic God is a materialist view that is the same as no God exists at all.

                      IF in my investigations reveal any other possible alternatives for belief, I will let you know. At present my search is over 40 years in progress, and nothing else has 'revealed an alternative' that I would consider viable.
                      Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-05-2015, 03:39 PM.
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        I believe I have explained this the best I could. Individual ancient religions only represent an 'incomplete' view of God and Revelation from an ancient perspective. They are also heavily burdened by the culture today in which they were revealed.

                        By analogy, I view the Baha'i Faith like a prism, where the pure white light enters, and is than displayed as the different colors of the spectrum, where the different part of the spectrum represent the different colors, ranging across the visible spectrum from the invisible on both ends of the spectrum. All represent part of the spectrum

                        If I advanced my own theological interpretation of reality, it would be a philosophical 'manmade' interpretation, and not a truly Theist interpretation where God Reveals the Revelation. I am definitely not comfortably in making my own religion. I believe it would be a dishonest concoction. I do not believe I have received a Revelation from God that would warrant this, and I believe too many people have made this unwarranted claim. If by chance all their claims are unwarranted including Jesus and Baha'u'llah than my default position of strong agnosticism and weak atheism becomes more appealing. Being good theologians does not have much authority concerning Revelation. Neither Jesus nor Baha'u'llah had any academic training, other than being home and temple schooled on the Theology of their time.

                        Since Thomas Jefferson and Albert Einstein were my teachers early on ( . . . and Alan Watts, but that is another story), I considered some sort of Deism as a possibility, but concluded a God not involved in Creation in a significant way is not a meaningful God, and no different from atheism. They both contributed to my skepticism of traditional religion. Einstein's 'Spinosa's pantheistic God is a materialist view that is the same as no God exists at all.

                        IF in my investigations reveal any other possible alternatives for belief, I will let you know. At present my search is over 40 years in progress, and nothing else has 'revealed an alternative' that I would consider viable.
                        But exegetes and theologians have nonetheless continued to translate and interpret what they see as most valuable in ancient scriptures and doctrines for centuries, just as Bahá'u'lláh himself did. Of course they are giving their own 'man-made' interpretation, just as I believe Moses, Jesus, and Bahá'u'lláh gave their own man-made theological interpretations of reality. Your need to appeal to authoritative revelation is, I believe, much more likely to be corrupted by distortion than the recognition and acceptance of human theologizing and philosophizing. You agree that too many people have made unwarranted claims to having received revelation, and I believe that too many more, yourself included, have relied upon the interpretation that what others have said were authoritative revelations from God. You like to critique other people's religions but do not subject your own religious beliefs to any meaningful criticism. This is why some in the past consider your view to be Baha'i boosterism and I similarly call you out, when appropriate, for engaging in religious polemics instead of discussion of thoughtful theology.
                        Last edited by robrecht; 09-06-2015, 01:36 PM.
                        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                          But exegetes and theologians have nonetheless continued to translate and interpret what they see as most valuable in ancient scriptures and doctrines for centuries, just as Bahá'u'lláh himself did. Of course they are giving their own 'man-made' interpretation, just as I believe Moses, Jesus, and Bahá'u'lláh gave their own man-made theological interpretations of reality.
                          I acknowledge their 'manmade' interpretations of Baha'u'llah as well as other Manifestations of God including Jesus, Muhammad concerning their commentaries on science. Yes, there are continued efforts to translate and interpret scripture over the centuries and Millennia. Your the one that often pressed for a literal interpretation of some of Baha'u'llah's and Abdul'baha's commentary on science. I on the other hand rely on the principle of the Baha'i Faith that commentaries in all scripture be understood and interpreted in the light of the evolving knowledge of science, which is the flexible perspective for ALL scripture throughout the Millennia.

                          Your need to appeal to authoritative revelation is, I believe, much more likely to be corrupted by distortion than the recognition and acceptance of human theologizing and philosophizing. You agree that too many people have made unwarranted claims to having received revelation, and I believe that too many more, yourself included, have relied upon the interpretation that what others have said were authoritative revelations from God.
                          The italicized needs more explanation. At present it represents a mindless rant. I do not rely, nor ever have for the past 50 years+ relied on the Traditional Christian interpretations of the Bible for my understanding of the Bible, nor the Traditional Jewish view. In fact I consider them an ancient Old world view of God and Revelation.

                          Careful I have been more flexible and not demanding 'authoritative' then most other people particularly conservative evangelical Christians, and many others in ALL religions that insist on considering past doctrine, Dogma and foundation beliefs cannot change.. You asked something different in the previous post that amounts to 'creating my own religion,' by advancing my 'own' interpretation of reality. including my belief in God. I do constantly study and interpret to some extent all the scripture of all the religions I am able to study.

                          The highlighted above is a gross misinterpretation and misrepresentation of how I view ALL scripture, including the Baha'i scripture.

                          Actually Thomas Jefferson with 'snip' edited Bible was in essence trying to come up with his own religious form of Deism, which he kept mostly to private correspondence to maintain his political stature in society and government.

                          You like to critique other people's religions but do not subject your own religious beliefs to any meaningful criticism. This is why some in the past consider your view to be Baha'i boosterism and I similarly call you out, when appropriate, for engaging in religious polemics instead of discussion of thoughtful theology.
                          More gross misrepresentation of my view of scripture and interpretation of scripture. Your climbing on your own high gold horse of boosterism and religious polemics.

                          My previous posts were very frank and honest, and do not deserve this high handed slander of my position. We disagree often, but at times I have bent to your view.
                          Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-06-2015, 10:29 PM.
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                            I acknowledge their 'manmade' interpretations of Baha'u'llah as well as other Manifestations of God including Jesus, Muhammad concerning their commentaries on science. Yes, there are continued efforts to translate and interpret scripture over the centuries and Millennia. Your the one that often pressed for a literal interpretation of some of Baha'u'llah's and Abdul'baha's commentary on science. I on the other hand rely on the principle of the Baha'i Faith that commentaries in all scripture be understood and interpreted in the light of the evolving knowledge of science, which is the flexible perspective for ALL scripture throughout the Millennia.

                            The italicized needs more explanation. At present it represents a mindless rant. I do not rely, nor ever have for the past 50 years+ relied on the Traditional Christian interpretations of the Bible for my understanding of the Bible, nor the Traditional Jewish view. In fact I consider them an ancient Old world view of God and Revelation.

                            Careful I have been more flexible and not demanding 'authoritative' then most other people particularly conservative evangelical Christians, and many others in ALL religions that insist on considering past doctrine, Dogma and foundation beliefs cannot change.. You asked something different in the previous post that amounts to 'creating my own religion,' by advancing my 'own' interpretation of reality. including my belief in God. I do constantly study and interpret to some extent all the scripture of all the religions I am able to study.

                            The highlighted above is a gross misinterpretation and misrepresentation of how I view ALL scripture, including the Baha'i scripture.

                            Actually Thomas Jefferson with 'snip' edited Bible was in essence trying to come up with his own religious form of Deism, which he kept mostly to private correspondence to maintain his political stature in society and government.

                            More gross misrepresentation of my view of scripture and interpretation of scripture. Your climbing on your own high gold horse of boosterism and religious polemics.

                            My previous posts were very frank and honest, and do not deserve this high handed slander of my position. We disagree often, but at times I have bent to your view.
                            I think you will be hard pressed to give many examples of where I have supposedly often pressed for a literal interpretation of some of Baha'u'llah's and Abdul'bahaa. On a few occasions I have resisted your attempts to ignore or discount elements of a text that you rightly find embarrassing. My statements do not represent a "mindless rant"--that is merely your own common attempt to engage in ad hominem arguments. I am merely questioning your 'truly Theist interpretation where God Reveals the Revelation'. I do not think it would withstand the scrutiny and critique that you direct against the religious views of others. Why do you consider that slander?
                            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                              I think you will be hard pressed to give many examples of where I have supposedly often pressed for a literal interpretation of some of Baha'u'llah's and Abdul'bahaa. On a few occasions I have resisted your attempts to ignore or discount elements of a text that you rightly find embarrassing. My statements do not represent a "mindless rant"--that is merely your own common attempt to engage in ad hominem arguments. I am merely questioning your 'truly Theist interpretation where God Reveals the Revelation'. I do not think it would withstand the scrutiny and critique that you direct against the religious views of others. Why do you consider that slander?
                              I do not find any references in the Baha'i scriptures embarrassing, and I never discounted them. Yes, you emphasized the literal, and I emphasized the principles and interpretation based on Baha'i principles. I may repost your posts here to refresh your memory. Yes this is 'your own common attempt to engage in ad hominem arguments.

                              You did not merely question my 'truly Theist interpretation where God Reveals the Revelation'. You go for the throat with abusive name calling, because of our differences in belief and understanding of scripture..
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                I do not find any references in the Baha'i scriptures embarrassing, and I never discounted them. Yes, you emphasized the literal, and I emphasized the principles and interpretation based on Baha'i principles. I may repost your posts here to refresh your memory. Yes this is 'your own common attempt to engage in ad hominem arguments.

                                You did not merely question my 'truly Theist interpretation where God Reveals the Revelation'. You go for the throat with abusive name calling, because of our differences in belief and understanding of scripture..
                                Abusive name calling? Slander? This is ridiculous.
                                βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                                ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                                אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X