Bahá'í Faith - "Jesus" - Shunyadragon?

[pancreasman]

Let's try this again. I gave an explanation why I do not think 'Truth' is a viable belief. Simply there is no evidence that anyone nor any belief system has come up what would be considered absolute Truth. Like the dart board example without a bulls eye target, the darts are all over the place without a consistent pattern concerning the human claims for 'Truth.' The answer is simply yes, no one has demonstrated anything close to absolute.

As far as 'hopelessly in adequate to believe in absolute truths, yes. Do you believe in 'absolute Truths'? When you referred to 'your's and mine,' count me out because I do not believe in 'absolute Truths' from the human perspective. Everything I believe is subject to change and in pencil. Just a brief review of history and the nature and problem of human beliefs should be enough to convince you of the problem.

Does the knowledge or nature of 'absolute Truth' exist? Likely yes. If there is a God, it resides with God. It there is not a God,than it resides with the ultimate nature of our physical existence.

So the darts are all over the dartboard. There is no consistent pattern. But earlier you said:

I believe this 'Source' some call God(s) exists. I believe in Revelation as the continuous evolving, and changing human knowledge of God that never ends, and it does not result in the transmission of absolute knowledge and doctrine of the nature of God. Revelation comes through the Messiah, and through the human mind through communion with God. Religious beliefs reflect the culture and times of the Revelation believed. Creation and Revelation are continuous processes and intimately related. Religious beliefs are the human view of the Divine, not Divine knowledge of absolutes.

Does this revelation evolve to become more accurate as time goes by? Apparently, you think the Baha'i revelation is more accurate, better in some way, than the Christian revelation otherwise you wouldn't choose to accept it. These two views about revelation appear to be in contradiction. Either, revelation is more and more reflecting reality as time goes by or 'the darts are all over the dartboard with no bulls-eye' I just can't reconcile these two.

[headheart]

Hi Frank,
Even though my forum setting reveals that I am "off-line" I'm actually "on-line" at the moment, however after this post I will be officially "off-line" Leaving seems to have opened the door for more work than I can manage as well as being committed to serious argument, discussion and debate on this forum, or for that matter any forum. Peace, Eric.

Dear T-webbers,
Please remember that this thread was not started as a place to rag-on Frank but to allow him to present is with his unique beliefs, plus his thoughts about Jesus. This is Comparative Religions 101 so please make sure that you maintain the same level of respect and decorum that you expect from others with regard to you own most innermost beliefs and consideration. Thanks, Eric.

Now something I wanted to lightly toss into the placid lake of contemplation as something that might serve to as a counterbalance to some of the ideas that are being considered at the moment.

These are from the preface to 'The Great Divorce' by C.S Lewis:

'Blake wrote "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell", if I have written of their divorce this is not because I think of myself as a fit antagonist for so great a genius nor even because I'm at all sure what I know what he meant, but in some sense or other the attempt to make that marriage perennial. The attempt is based on the belief that reality never presents us with an absolutely unavoidable 'either-or'; that, granted skill and patience and (above all) times enough, some way of embracing both alternatives can always be found; that mere development or adjustment or refinement will somehow turn evil into good without our being called on for a final and total rejection of anything we should like to retain.

This belief I take to be disastrous error. You cannot take all luggage with you on all journeys; on one journey even your right hand and your right eye may be among the things you have to leave behind. We are not living in a world where all roads are radii of a circle and where all, if followed long enough, will therefore draw gradually nearer and finally meet at the centre: rather in a world where every road, after few miles forks into two, and each of those into two again, and at every fork you must make make a decision. Even on a biological level life is not like a pool but like a tree. It does not move towards unity but away from it and the creatures grow further apart as they increase in perfection. Good, as it ripens, becomes more different not only from evil but from other good.

I do not think that all who choose wrong roads perish; but their rescue consists in being put back on the right road. A wrong sum can be put right: but only by going back till you find your error and working it afresh from that point, never by simply going on. Evil can be undone, but it cannot 'develop' into good. Time does not heal it. The spell must be unwound, bit by bit, 'with backwards mutters of dissevering power'---or else not. It is still 'either-or. ....'

Peace,
Eric

[shunyadragon]

So the darts are all over the dartboard. There is no consistent pattern. But earlier you said:



Does this revelation evolve to become more accurate as time goes by? Apparently, you think the Baha'i revelation is more accurate, better in some way, than the Christian revelation otherwise you wouldn't choose to accept it. These two views about revelation appear to be in contradiction. Either, revelation is more and more reflecting reality as time goes by or 'the darts are all over the dartboard with no bulls-eye' I just can't reconcile these two.

The statement concerning the darts concerned the claims of 'absolute truth,' which once claimed as doctrine do not often change over time. Knowledge like in science changes and evolves over time. this why religions that persist in holding ancient doctrines as 'Truth' have difficulty with science.

Another analogy, for those who remember records. Cracks and scratches in the record, represent absolute 'truth' doctrine.' Ancient religions that cling to ancient doctrines are stuck in the past, like the needle on the record player stuck hitting a crack and replaying the same thing over and over again.

The Baha'i believes religion like science should evolve and change over time to appeal more to the universal for knowledge of our existence, both physical and spiritual. In doing this the two disciplines eventual merge in some ways. Yes in a way the Baha'i teachings are more accurate, but the most important thing is that the show an evolution toward the universal, and an evolving cyclic dynamic spiritual concept of knowledge that mirrors the nature of our physical existence.

[headheart]

Knowledge like in science changes and evolves over time. this why religions that persist in holding ancient doctrines as 'Truth' have difficulty with science.

Changes in the way we understand our Universe don't change G-d.

Peace,
headheart

[pancreasman]

Changes in the way we understand our Universe don't change G-d.

Peace,
headheart

But they may change (a) our understanding of God and (b) whether we think there is a god at all.

[headheart]

But they may change (a) our understanding of God and (b) whether we think there is a god at all.

Only if our idea of God is tied to our understanding of the Universe.

Peace,
headheart

[pancreasman]

Only if our idea of God is tied to our understanding of the Universe.

Peace,
headheart

It's tied to your brain ... which is in the universe.

[headheart]

It's tied to your brain ... which is in the universe.

I doubt that.

[headheart]

But they may change (a) our understanding of God and (b) whether we think there is a god at all.

Do you mean something like this?

Does God exist? by Stephen Hawking



Or, this:

'According to Viking mythology, eclipses occur when two wolves, Skoll and Hati, catch the sun or moon. At the onset of an eclipse people would make lots of noise, hoping to scare the wolves away. After some time, people must have noticed that the eclipses ended regardless of whether they ran around banging on pots.

Ignorance of nature's ways led people in ancient times to postulate many myths in an effort to make sense of their world. But eventually, people turned to philosophy, that is, to the use of reason—with a good dose of intuition—to decipher their universe. Today we use reason, mathematics and experimental test—in other words, modern science.

Albert Einstein said, "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible." He meant that, unlike our homes on a bad day, the universe is not just a conglomeration of objects each going its own way. Everything in the universe follows laws, without exception.'

(read more)

Why God Did Not Create the Universe By STEPHEN HAWKING And LEONARD MLODINOW
There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our world—no gods required

Peace,
headheart

[shunyadragon]

Changes in the way we understand our Universe don't change G-d.

Peace,
headheart

Well, I believe that the evolution of the knowledge of science and how we understand our universe may change the way humans believe and consider the nature of God. I believe there is a parallel spiritual evolution of our belief that coincides with the evolution of our scientific evolution of our knowledge of our physical existence.

Our knowledge of whatever could not effect God, whether God exists of not.

[robrecht]

Well, I believe that the evolution of the knowledge of science and how we understand our universe may change the way humans believe and consider the nature of God.

Our knowledge of whatever could not effect God, whether God exists of not.

When I was in college, such a long time ago, I remember reading and being quite enamored with Alfred North Whitehead's process theology, which for me evoked long-held intuitions about pantheism and pan-en-theism that I recall from very early childhood and a little bit of reading of Teilhard de Chardin in high school. From this perspective, I believe it is true to say that the evolution in 'knowledge' of God, and really our growing knowledge of anything and everything, anyone and everyone, is always expanding and with this expansion, so too does God somehow evolve. Obviously, this perspective is not that of the so-called orthodox 'static' God existing outside and independently of the universe, but it does indeed have merit for our consciousness/imagination of God in his immanence. Imagine only that Thomas describes God as pure Act, and while he means by that having no potentiality, it is ridiculous to translate pure Act as static. I don't want to misrepresent so-called orthodox views as actually teaching a static God, but it is nonetheless an unavoidable impression sometimes.

Does any of this make any sense to you, Shuny? Does it relate in any way to the Baha'i Faith?

[shunyadragon]

When I was in college, such a long time ago, I remember reading and being quite enamored with Alfred North Whitehead's process theology, which for me evoked long-held intuitions about pantheism and pan-en-theism that I recall from very early childhood and a little bit of reading of Teilhard de Chardin in high school. From this perspective, I believe it is true to say that the evolution in 'knowledge' of God, and really our growing knowledge of anything and everything, anyone and everyone, is always expanding and with this expansion, so too does God somehow evolve. Obviously, this perspective is not that of the so-called orthodox 'static' God existing outside and independently of the universe, but it does indeed have merit for our consciousness/imagination of God in his immanence. Imagine only that Thomas describes God as pure Act, and while he means by that having no potentiality, it is ridiculous to translate pure Act as static. I don't want to misrepresent so-called orthodox views as actually teaching a static God, but it is nonetheless an unavoidable impression sometimes.

Does any of this make any sense to you, Shuny? Does it relate in any way to the Baha'i Faith?

It does to a degree relate to the Baha'i Faith. Whether by intent or not, I believe Orthodox views teach a static view of God, and God's relationship to humanity and Creation based on old world views. I do acknowledge that many traditional Christian theologians do believe in an ultimate unknowable apophatic nature of God. The important issues relate to the beliefs concerning the relationship between God and humanity, and to a certain extent what is the nature of the relationship with Creation.

[iwbiek]

Our knowledge of whatever could not effect God, whether God exists of not.

i've been away from NT scholarship since graduating college (8 years ago) and i know next to nothing of baha'i, but i personally recognize madhyamika in this. i also think your name, "shunya," is no accident. :p

is "shunya" a term used in baha'i? if so, how? (sorry if i'm hijacking.)

[shunyadragon]

Welcome to Tweb!!!!!

i've been away from NT scholarship since graduating college (8 years ago) and i know next to nothing of baha'i, but i personally recognize madhyamika in this.

I will have to give a yes and no to this, because I believe contemporary Buddhism attempts to define by doctrine what is 'emptiness' and 'nothingness' as 'absolutely nothing', and I believe this cannot be defined from the human perspective.

i also think your name, "shunya," is no accident. :p


is "shunya" a term used in baha'i? if so, how? (sorry if i'm hijacking.)

No problem, sincere questions are always welcome. I am a Baha'i with strong Buddhist leanings. shunya means nothing in Pali and shunyata means nothingness or possibly emptyness, it relates to a Buddhist teaching concerning the nature of existence. It does not directly translate to 'nothing' in English though, because it is an undefined term of the nature of the spiritual origins of our physical existence, but it is as close as I can get.

[iwbiek]

Welcome to Tweb!!!!!



I will have to give a yes and no to this, because I believe contemporary Buddhism attempts to define by doctrine what is 'emptiness' and 'nothingness' as 'absolutely nothing', and I believe this cannot be defined from the human perspective.

oh, i agree wholeheartedly, which is what i think madhyamika (or shunyavada) is all about. nagarjuna had his four-part dialectic (this and not that, this and that, neither this nor that, neither not this nor not that) and his reductio ad absurdum because of this. this is why of all buddhist traditions, besides theravada, zen (and rinzai zen in particular) has been the most helpful to me. they take madhyamika and give it a practical application: the satori is the only way out of the reductio ad absurdum. a vedic epithet for brahman comes to mind: "thou before whom all words recoil."

incidentally, in my christian days, i felt the closest affinity with meister eckhart and the author of the cloud of unknowing.

No problem, sincere questions are always welcome. I am a Baha'i with strong Buddhist leanings. shunya means nothing in Pali and shunyata means nothingness or possibly emptyness, it relates to a Buddhist teaching concerning the nature of existence. It does not directly translate to 'nothing' in English though, because it is an undefined term of the nature of the spiritual origins of our physical existence, but it is as close as I can get.

pleased ta meet ya. i'm a weak atheist with strong buddhist leanings, which i have mostly for psychological reasons (my admittedly syncretistic tendencies toward buddhism are all that keep me from being a total misanthrope).

i'm well aware of the buddhist interpretations of shunya, i was just wondering if the term hadn't been adopted by baha'i and given a slightly different meaning. on a related note, it's my understanding that baha'i recognizes avatars (i don't know if the baha'i understanding completely matches up with the hindu understanding, but i'll use it generically). is buddha recognized as such, along with jesus? i know in vaishnavism he is, ironically as one whose mission was to confuse demons by teaching false doctrines. what about guru nanak? just how syncretistic is baha'i anyway?