Non-theistic Moral Realism

[shunyadragon]

That is a lie Shuny, I did not misquote your religion. I have backed you into a corner - who do you believe - science or the teachings of your religion?

Yes you selectively dishonestly misquote the Baha'i writings, and failed to acknowledge the writings I cited, which describe many cycles of human spiritual evolution of humanity, and the recreation of humanity and the future of other cycles like the Adamic cycle. You also failed to acknowledge the definition of infallibility that defines this as only referring to the spiritual laws and principles of the Baha'i Faith, and not to the progressive knowledge of science that takes precedence over the literal interpretation of any scripture including that of the Baha'i Faith in the natural evolution of knowledge as Revelation, which is the primary nature of Revelation from the perspective of the Baha'i Faith. You hold to a stone rigid dishonest view of of the interpretation of other scripture including your selective interpretation of the Bible , and biased view of every other believers view other than your own very much like the view of Adrift as cited here:

Well of course I can comprehend a different perspective, but we each believe that our perspective is the correct one, or else we wouldn't hold them. Mine really is the correct one though.

A selective citation of references can fallaciously claim to prove anything you desire.

[Tassman]

No Tass, you are ignoring your double standard. You suggested that freedom of the will was invalid because we do not know how or where it came about. But we don't know how or where self-awareness came about.

That’s not the argument. We have verifiable evidence of the existence of self-awareness and we know that it evolved via natural selection, just as intelligence did.

Conversely, we do NOT have evidence of the existence of libertarian free-will, the very concept is of it logically incoherent. And you cannot you explain, despite repeated requests, how LFW supposedly arises from a vacuum without subconscious input from the antecedent experiences of our cultural socialisation and life events.

[Tassman]

That is a lie Shuny, I did not misquote your religion. I have backed you into a corner - who do you believe - science or the teachings of your religion?

You have a long history of quote mining and highly selective quoting of authoritative experts...your previous dishonest misuse of Sam Harris on 'Consciousness' and Vilenkin on 'infinity' being just two egregious examples. And I find it extraordinary that you have the arrogance to tell shunya what he should be believing about his own faith when it is his belief system not yours.

[seer]

Yes you selectively dishonestly misquote the Baha'i writings, and failed to acknowledge the writings I cited, which describe many cycles of human spiritual evolution of humanity, and the recreation of humanity and the future of other cycles like the Adamic cycle. You also failed to acknowledge the definition of infallibility that defines this as only referring to the spiritual laws and principles of the Baha'i Faith, and not to the progressive knowledge of science that takes precedence over the literal interpretation of any scripture including that of the Baha'i Faith in the natural evolution of knowledge as Revelation, which is the primary nature of Revelation from the perspective of the Baha'i Faith. You hold to a stone rigid dishonest view of of the interpretation of other scripture including your selective interpretation of the Bible , and biased view of every other believers view other than your own very much like the view of Adrift as cited here

Shuny I did not deny your religion teaches other cycles. My only point was that your religion teaches that Adam was the father of mankind (all humans who live today) and that Adam was created without father and mother. That is what Abdu'l-Baha taught. So are you now saying that Abdu'l-Baha was wrong?

[seer]

You have a long history of quote mining and highly selective quoting of authoritative experts...your previous dishonest misuse of Sam Harris on 'Consciousness' and Vilenkin on 'infinity' being just two egregious examples. And I find it extraordinary that you have the arrogance to tell shunya what he should be believing about his own faith when it is his belief system not yours.

That is a lie Tass, I never misquoted Harris, and you could never show otherwise - I always linked the full article. And you can follow the links to the teachings of Abdu'l-Baha and read them in context - it doesn't change what they say.

[shunyadragon]

That is a lie Tass, I never misquoted Harris, and you could never show otherwise - I always linked the full article. And you can follow the links to the teachings of Abdu'l-Baha and read them in context - it doesn't change what they say.

Your dishonest, unethical quote mining and bashing others that do not believe has always been your modus operandi for many years. The quotes you made from Abdu'l-baha are not a complete view of either infallibility nor the over all view of the relationship between Baha'i writings and science. I provided the proper citations to complete the view of the Baha'i Faith, but you choose to selectively ignore them

[seer]

Your dishonest, unethical quote mining and bashing others that do not believe has always been your modus operandi for many years. The quotes you made from Abdu'l-baha are not a complete view of either infallibility nor the over all view of the relationship between Baha'i writings and science. I provided the proper citations to complete the view of the Baha'i Faith, but you choose to selectively ignore them

You are lying again Shuny, I was not in the least dishonest:

"If being without a father is a virtue, Adam is greater and more excellent than all the Prophets and Messengers, for He had neither father nor mother." (Some Answered Questions, p. 89)

"O handmaid of God! It is with the Lord Christ even as with Adam. Did the first human being who came into existence on this earth have a father or mother? It is certain that he had neither. But Christ lacked only a father." (Selections from the Writings of 'Abdu'l-Baha 139:6)

For the spirit and the soul of Adam, when they were attached to the human world, passed from the world of freedom into the world of bondage, and His descendants continued in bondage. This attachment of the soul and spirit to the human world, which is sin, was inherited by the descendants of Adam, and is the serpent which is always in the midst of, and at enmity with, the spirits and the descendants of Adam. That enmity continues and endures. For attachment to the world has become the cause of the bondage of spirits, and this bondage is identical with sin, which has been transmitted from Adam to His posterity. It is because of this attachment that men have been deprived of essential spirituality and exalted position.

Know that there are two natures in man: the physical nature and the spiritual nature. The physical nature is inherited from Adam, and the spiritual nature is inherited from the Reality of the Word of God, which is the spirituality of Christ. The physical nature is born of Adam, but the spiritual nature is born from the bounty of the Holy Spirit. The first is the source of all imperfection; the second is the source of all perfection.

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/SAQ/saq-30.html

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/S...=highlight#gr2

Just say it Shuny, Abdu'l-Baha was wrong. No matter what you think other Baha'i teachings are, Abdu'l-Baha is clearly saying that Adam was created without father or mother, and that he is the father of mankind, we inherent our physical nature from him. And I will remind you - every time you accuse me of rejecting science I will bring this up and link it - fair warning.

[shunyadragon]

You are lying again Shuny, I was not in the least dishonest:



Just say it Shuny, Abdu'l-Baha was wrong. No matter what you think other Baha'i teachings are, Abdu'l-Baha is clearly saying that Adam was created without father or mother, and that he is the father of mankind, we inherent our physical nature from him. And I will remind you - every time you accuse me of rejecting science I will bring this up and link it - fair warning.

Infallibility does not include commentary on science. By the specific quotes I gave concerning the harmony of science and religion, ALL scripture must be understood in the light of the advancing and evolving knowledge of science concerning the physical nature of our existence including the Baha'i writings.

As far as Adam goes I made that very clear in other citations that every Manifestation of God is the Father of Humanity, Revelation, and the recreation of humanity. By the Baha'i writings humanity has existed through many cycles of Revelation and recreation for tens of thousands of years.

I will remind you every time you are an unethical, dishonest quote miner, and generally all around combative, belligerent, arrogant one-sided advocate. Others have noted this behavior many times. Like adrift, your persist in accusing others of being dishonest when it does not fit you egocentric agenda.

You foolish warning is spitting into a head wind.

[seer]

Infallibility does not include commentary on science. By the specific quotes I gave concerning the harmony of science and religion, ALL scripture must be understood in the light of the advancing and evolving knowledge of science concerning the physical nature of our existence including the Baha'i writings.

As far as Adam goes I made that very clear in other citations that every Manifestation of God is the Father of Humanity, Revelation, and the recreation of humanity. By the Baha'i writings humanity has existed through many cycles of Revelation and recreation for tens of thousands of years.

I will remind you every time you are an unethical, dishonest quote miner, and generally all around combative, belligerent, arrogant one-sided advocate. Others have noted this behavior many times. Like adrift, your persist in accusing others of being dishonest when it does not fit you egocentric agenda.

You foolish warning is spitting into a head wind.

Shuny let's take a couple of points at a time:

"O handmaid of God! It is with the Lord Christ even as with Adam. Did the first human being who came into existence on this earth have a father or mother? It is certain that he had neither. But Christ lacked only a father." (Selections from the Writings of 'Abdu'l-Baha 139:6)

So Adam was the FIRST human being, and came into existence without a father and mother. So again, was Abdu'l-Baha wrong?

[shunyadragon]

So Adam was the FIRST human being, and came into existence without a father and mother. So again, was Abdu'l-Baha wrong?

No Adam was not the first human being, because in the Baha'i writings there are tens of thousands of years of human history with numerous Messianic cycles. Adam was Created as the Father of this dispensation without father nor mother, but humanity existed for tens of thousands of years in numerous Messianic cycles, each a recreation of the previous cycle.

[seer]

No Adam was not the first human being, because in the Baha'i writings there are tens of thousands of years of human history with numerous Messianic cycles. Adam was Created as the Father of this dispensation without father nor mother, but humanity existed for tens of thousands of years in numerous Messianic cycles, each a recreation of the previous cycle.

Ok, so Abdu'l-Baha was wrong - Adam was not the first human? And what do you mean he was created without father and mother? He wasn't born from existing parents?

[shunyadragon]

Ok, so Abdu'l-Baha was wrong - Adam was not the first human?

In this case you are not willing to understand the context of of the fact that the Baha'i writings describe tens of thousands of years of human existence and many cycles of Revelation, therefore Adam was not the 'first human' in the history of humanity.

And what do you mean he was created without father and mother? He wasn't born from existing parents?

What do I mean? Pretty much as Abu Abdu'l-Baha described and I confirmed. He was the first Manifestation Created by God for the Adamic cycle.

[seer]

In this case you are not willing to understand the context of of the fact that the Baha'i writings describe tens of thousands of years of human existence and many cycles of Revelation, therefore Adam was not the 'first human' in the history of humanity.

Shuny, it was Abdu'l-Baha, not me that called Adan the first human being. He also said that we (humans) inherited our physical life from Adam.

What do I mean? Pretty much as Abu Abdu'l-Baha described and I confirmed. He was the first Manifestation Created by God for the Adamic cycle.

So Adam did not descend from the humans that existed before this cycle, but was created with out that biological connected. And we human beings descended from Adam. Correct?

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, it was Abdu'l-Baha, not me that called Adan the first human being. He also said that we (humans) inherited our physical life from Adam.



So Adam did not descend from the humans that existed before this cycle, but was created with out that biological connected. And we human beings descended from Adam. Correct?

It is impossible to take Adrift and you seriously, because your are unreasonably combative, aggressive, biased by an agenda that you believe that your belief is absolutely truth, and other beliefs are false. This is confirmed by previous citations. Dialogue is useless given your arrogant aggressive attitude toward to everyone who believes differently than you.

All this has been documented by previous citations that have confirmed this.

[MaxVel]

It is impossible to take Adrift and you seriously, because your are unreasonably combative, aggressive, biased by an agenda that you believe that your belief is absolutely truth, and other beliefs are false. This is confirmed by previous citations. Dialogue is useless given your arrogant aggressive attitude toward to everyone who believes differently than you.

All this has been documented by previous citations that have confirmed this.

This is very ironic, coming from you.