Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Original sin
Collapse
X
-
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
-
Originally posted by seer View PostSo they don't believe in evolution!
"The lost link of Darwinian theory is itself a proof that man is not an animal. How is it possible to have all the links present and that important link absent? Its absence is an indication that man has never been an animal. It will never be found."
Pretty sure last time I brought this up to shunya, he claimed that Abdu’l-Bahá wasn't inerrant, so it didn't matter, and then I showed him numerous places within Baha'i literature that stated that Abdu’l-Bahá was, in fact, inerrant in all that he said.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostNope. Well, Abdu’l-Bahá certainly didn't,
"The lost link of Darwinian theory is itself a proof that man is not an animal. How is it possible to have all the links present and that important link absent? Its absence is an indication that man has never been an animal. It will never be found."
Pretty sure last time I brought this up to shunya, he claimed that Abdu’l-Bahá wasn't inerrant, so it didn't matter, and then I showed him numerous places within Baha'i literature that stated that Abdu’l-Bahá was, in fact, inerrant in all that he said.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
So, for instance, that article states,
"An additional element in Abdu’l-Baha’s engagement with Darwinian evolution was not covered in his San Francisco talk, but was documented by Ms. Barney during her time in Palestine, and published in the 1908 book Some Answered Questions. Abdu’l-Baha disagreed with Darwin’s contention that evolution is “blind,” lacking purposeful direction or intent. Instead he argued that the evolutionary scheme was part of a divine plan. The appearance of humans, he said, was the culmination of the process. In fact, creation would be imperfect and incomplete without us."
But this is what he actually says in Some Answered Questions,
THE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE HUMAN RACE
Question.—What do you say with regard to the theories held by some European philosophers on the growth and development of beings?
Answer.—This subject was spoken of the other day, but we will speak of it again. Briefly, this question will be decided by determining whether species are original or not—that is to say, has the species of man been established from its origin, or was it afterward derived from the animals?
Certain European philosophers agree that the species grows and develops, and that even change and alteration are also possible. One of the proofs that they give for this theory is that through the attentive study and verification of the science of geology it has become clear that the existence of the vegetable preceded that of the animal, and that of the animal preceded that of man. They admit that both the vegetable and the animal species have changed, for in some of the strata of the earth they have discovered plants which existed in the past and are now extinct; they have progressed, grown in strength, their form and appearance have changed, and so the species have altered. In the same way, in the strata of the earth there are some species of animals which have changed and are transformed. One of these animals is the serpent. There are indications that the serpent once had feet, but through the lapse of time those members have disappeared. In the same way, in the vertebral column of man there is an indication which amounts 192 to a proof that, like other animals, he once had a tail. At one time that member was useful, but when man developed, it was no longer of use; and, therefore, it gradually disappeared. As the serpent took refuge under the ground and became a creeping animal, it was no longer in need of feet, so they disappeared; but their traces survive. The principal argument is this: that the existence of traces of members proves that they once existed, and as now they are no longer of service, they have gradually disappeared. Therefore, while the perfect and necessary members have remained, those which are unnecessary have gradually disappeared by the modification of the species, but the traces of them continue.
The first answer to this argument is the fact that the animal having preceded man is not a proof of the evolution, change and alteration of the species, nor that man was raised from the animal world to the human world. For while the individual appearance of these different beings is certain, it is possible that man came into existence after the animal. So when we examine the vegetable kingdom, we see that the fruits of the different trees do not arrive at maturity at one time; on the contrary, some come first and others afterward. This priority does not prove that the later fruit of one tree was produced from the earlier fruit of another tree.
Second, these slight signs and traces of members have perhaps a great reason of which the mind is not yet cognizant. How many things exist of which we do not yet know the reason! So the science of physiology—that is to say, the knowledge of the composition of the members—records that the reason and cause of the difference in the colors of animals, and of the hair of men, of the redness of the lips, and of the variety of the colors of birds, is still unknown; it is secret and hidden. But it is known that the pupil of the eye is black so as to attract the rays of the sun, for if it were another color—that is, uniformly white—it 193 would not attract the rays of the sun. Therefore, as the reason of the things we have mentioned is unknown, it is possible that the reason and the wisdom of these traces of members, whether they be in the animal or man, are equally unknown. Certainly there is a reason, even though it is not known.
Third, let us suppose that there was a time when some animals, or even man, possessed some members which have now disappeared; this is not a sufficient proof of the change and evolution of the species. For man, from the beginning of the embryonic period till he reaches the degree of maturity, goes through different forms and appearances. His aspect, his form, his appearance and color change; he passes from one form to another, and from one appearance to another. Nevertheless, from the beginning of the embryonic period he is of the species of man—that is to say, an embryo of a man and not of an animal; but this is not at first apparent, but later it becomes visible and evident. For example, let us suppose that man once resembled the animal, and that now he has progressed and changed. Supposing this to be true, it is still not a proof of the change of species. No, as before mentioned, it is merely like the change and alteration of the embryo of man until it reaches the degree of reason and perfection. We will state it more clearly. Let us suppose that there was a time when man walked on his hands and feet, or had a tail; this change and alteration is like that of the fetus in the womb of the mother. Although it changes in all ways, and grows and develops until it reaches the perfect form, from the beginning it is a special species. We also see in the vegetable kingdom that the original species of the genus do not change and alter, but the form, color and bulk will change and alter, or even progress.
To recapitulate: as man in the womb of the mother passes from form to form, from shape to shape, changes and develops, and is still the human species from the beginning 194 of the embryonic period—in the same way man, from the beginning of his existence in the matrix of the world, is also a distinct species—that is, man—and has gradually evolved from one form to another. Therefore, this change of appearance, this evolution of members, this development and growth, even though we admit the reality of growth and progress, 1 does not prevent the species from being original. Man from the beginning was in this perfect form and composition, and possessed capacity and aptitude for acquiring material and spiritual perfections, and was the manifestation of these words, “We will make man in Our image and likeness.” 2 He has only become more pleasing, more beautiful and more graceful. Civilization has brought him out of his wild state, just as the wild fruits which are cultivated by a gardener become finer, sweeter and acquire more freshness and delicacy.
The gardeners of the world of humanity are the Prophets of God.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostEh, they're fudging a bit. If he believed in evolution it was likely closer to the YEC distinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution."
So, for instance, that article states,
"An additional element in Abdu’l-Baha’s engagement with Darwinian evolution was not covered in his San Francisco talk, but was documented by Ms. Barney during her time in Palestine, and published in the 1908 book Some Answered Questions. Abdu’l-Baha disagreed with Darwin’s contention that evolution is “blind,” lacking purposeful direction or intent. Instead he argued that the evolutionary scheme was part of a divine plan. The appearance of humans, he said, was the culmination of the process. In fact, creation would be imperfect and incomplete without us."
But this is what he actually says in Some Answered QuestionsAtheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostShuny, what the hell are you talking about? Your religion teaches that all humans today are the direct offspring of Adam. Your quotes do not contradict that, they don't even speak of Adam. If they do contradict my quotes then there is serious contradiction in your religion.
Again . . .
They are separate realities in the Baha'i writings, and I provided references describing this.
You persist in being an absolute litralist, not only with the Bible, but the Baha'i Faith and other religions when it suits you to justify your agenda. I cited Baha'i writings that openly contradict your biased assertions, but you choose to ignore them. Based on the citations. The Baha'i writings describe both a cyclic spiritual evolution in Revelation, but also an evolving physical evolution, in particular specifically of the evolution of humanity from the animal kingdom.
the Baha'i writings do not date the physical prehistory of the evolution of humanity, but based on the citations I provided that describe human evolution in the animal kingdom it relies on science for th knowledge of the physical history and time frame of our existence and the evolution of life and humanity, because of the belief in the Harmony of Science and Religion.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
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostNope. Well, Abdu’l-Bahá certainly didn't,
"The lost link of Darwinian theory is itself a proof that man is not an animal. How is it possible to have all the links present and that important link absent? Its absence is an indication that man has never been an animal. It will never be found."
Pretty sure last time I brought this up to shunya, he claimed that Abdu’l-Bahá wasn't inerrant, so it didn't matter, and then I showed him numerous places within Baha'i literature that stated that Abdu’l-Bahá was, in fact, inerrant in all that he said.
Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-05-2019, 12:42 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
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThis is the spiritual relationship between humanity and Adam, and to a degree the ancestry of the Manifestations of God and humanity through the male lineage.
Again . . .
They are separate realities in the Baha'i writings, and I provided references describing this.
You persist in being an absolute litralist, not only with the Bible, but the Baha'i Faith and other religions when it suits you to justify your agenda. I cited Baha'i writings that openly contradict your biased assertions, but you choose to ignore them. Based on the citations. The Baha'i writings describe both a cyclic spiritual evolution in Revelation, but also an evolving physical evolution, in particular specifically of the evolution of humanity from the animal kingdom.
the Baha'i writings do not date the physical prehistory of the evolution of humanity, but based on the citations I provided that describe human evolution in the animal kingdom it relies on science for th knowledge of the physical history and time frame of our existence and the evolution of life and humanity, because of the belief in the Harmony of Science and Religion.
"An additional element in Abdu’l-Baha’s engagement with Darwinian evolution was not covered in his San Francisco talk, but was documented by Ms. Barney during her time in Palestine, and published in the 1908 book Some Answered Questions. Abdu’l-Baha disagreed with Darwin’s contention that evolution is “blind,” lacking purposeful direction or intent. Instead he argued that the evolutionary scheme was part of a divine plan. The appearance of humans, he said, was the culmination of the process. In fact, creation would be imperfect and incomplete without us."Last edited by seer; 09-05-2019, 12:40 PM.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostInerrancy only concerns the spiritual teachings.
http://bahai-library.com/uhj_infallibility_abdulbaha
It was the express wish of Bahá'u'lláh that after Him the friends should "turn" to 'Abdu'l-Bahá. Bahá'u'lláh also said in His Book of Laws that anything that was not clear in His Writings should be "referred" to His Most Mighty Branch springing from the Ancient Root. (See "The World Order of Bahá'u'lláh" pages 134-135.) In one of the Tablets of 'Abdu'l-Bahá published in "Selections from the Writings of 'Abdu'l-Bahá" (page 214) He quotes the passages mentioned above and interprets them to mean that "whatever He ('Abdu'l-Bahá) saith is the very truth". 'Abdu'l-Bahá further says, referring to those who do not accept Him as the Interpreter of the Word of God, "Whoso deviates from my interpretation is a victim of his own fancy" ("The World Order of Bahá'u'lláh" page 138). Moreover, in the "Star of the West" Volume XII, page 227, 'Abdu'l-Bahá interprets the verses from the "Tablet of the Branch" to mean "...whatsoever His (Abdu'l-Bahá's) pen records, that is correct...."
There is nothing in the Writings that would lead us to the conclusion that what Shoghi Effendi says about himself concerning statements on subjects not directly related to the Faith also applies to 'Abdu'l-Bahá. Instead we have assertions which indicate that 'Abdu'l-Bahá's position in the Faith is one for which we find "no parallel" in past Dispensations. For example, Bahá'u'lláh, in addition to His reference to the Centre of His Covenant as the "Mystery of God", states that 'Abdu'l-Bahá should be regarded as God's "exalted Handiwork" and "a Word which God hath adorned with the ornament of His Own Self, and made it sovereign over the earth and all that there is therein..." And from Shoghi Effendi we have the incontrovertible statement that the Guardian of the Faith while "overshadowed" by the "protection'' of Bahá'u'lláh and of the Bab, "remains essentially human", whereas in respect of 'Abdu'l-Bahá Shoghi Effendi categorically states that "in the person of 'Abdu'l-Bahá the incompatible characteristics of a human nature and superhuman knowledge and perfection have been blended and are completely harmonized."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostWrong. On the very subject of 'Abdu'l-Bahá's scientific musings, the Universal House of Justice (still can't shake that that sounds like something out of Super Friends) declared that 'Abdu'l-Bahá's views are, in fact, infallible.
..."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
True, The Baha'i Faith believes in Divinely direct evolution, ie Theistic Evolution. Regardless of form of appearance humans were always intended to be human. The Baha'i Faith does not define the time frame of evolution. It accepts the physical evolution of life and humanity as described as the Science of Evolution.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
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostTrue, The Baha'i Faith believes in Divinely direct evolutionAtheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostAnd I'm not sure what you mean about God - if man decides what is good or bad then nothing is inherently good or bad. It is only good because man says so.“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostYes of course. The difference between good and bad behavior is not external to man’s nature. It’s intrinsic to human nature to behave according to the cooperative social values of humanity to survive as an intelligent social species. We see similar in the lesser social animals. And archaeological evidence of Neanderthal Man indicates signs of cumulative cultural evolution and rule-based societies. It was ever thus. There is evidence of rule-based behavior among our most primitive ancestors and near relatives even before the development of rule-giving gods.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
172 responses
586 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Yesterday, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
|
21 responses
137 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-25-2024, 10:59 PM
|
Comment