Any answers to these questions? Religious Literalism???
mike3
I read this post:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.bahai/msg/3441a0582300279e?hl=en&dmode=source
and had quite a few questions, and it would be nice if maybe the
original poster could respond.
"I have been done this road many times and although many erudite
scholars
present some wonderful propositions to explain away what they see as
problems in certain quotes from the Writings that do not agree with
"their" sciences, such as the Central Figures using allegories and
such,
not one as yet hold up to me when I apply my own reasoning powers and
in
conjunction with what my heart "just knows" from study of the
Writings
and using a balance between faith, intuition and the intellectual
powers. "
But the problem here is it would ***seem*** that you're saying we
should dismiss evidence, and perhaps just as seriously that the only
interpretation we can rely on in these case is LITERAL, and if a
LITERAL interpretation contradicts science, we are to take the
religion... but then you say:
"Unlike most of my peers who seemed to take sides I was
able to integrate both the material and spiritual and come up with a
new
meaning or understanding. So to me this is one of our big problems
in
the issue of the harmony of science and religion, that of taking sides
or
favoring one over the other instead of viewing them as fundamentally
in
harmony."
But by preferring religion at every corner, is not that taking a side
with it? And is not assuming literalness, fundamentalism? And
fundamentalism can be dangerous (just look at what Christian
fundamentalism has done to the USA, or Islamic fundamentalism to the
Middle East, etc.).
"If the Writings say they are two wings of the bird, or in
harmony and we know this world is but a reflection of the next REAL
world ..."
does this mean that this "next" world is the ONLY other realm of
existence, even though there are quotes that talk about there being
many, many "worlds of God"?
Then comes a quote from the actual religious text:
""It is through the power of the soul that the mind comprehendeth,
imagineth and exerteth its influence, whilst the soul is a power that
is
free.
The mind is circumscribed, the soul limitless.
....whereas the soul is ever endowed with full strength." Baha'i
World
Faith p. 337-8"
But it is said, for example, that God's reality and essence cannot be
known at all. Therefore, even the soul is limited, is it not? (Is not
omniscience only a property of God?) How does one go about this...?
(Again, this evidences the problem with a straight-up, literal
interpretation of religion. Obviously the answer must lie in some
interpretation that is less than literal.)
">From my own 20 years of in depth study of all her works I find
myself
having no problems in the issue of the harmony of science and
religion.
There are quotes in the Writings that to me "appear" to not agree
with
discoveries in science. At the same time I know that science if
continually self-correcting and what was once believed in certitude
by
science and philosophers to be true has now been replaced or
supplanted
by new evidence. We used to have a saying in our philosophy class
that
"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.". In other words
there
may be still hidden facts and information that will come to light in
the
future that will overturn our present assertions or end frustrations
we
now have of not being able to reconcile certain things. At one time
the
educated of the day believed and logically proved by their physical
perceptions the earth was flat and the sun circled it. "
However, so could our interpretations of those quotes be in error as
well. We do not KNOW what and how literally something is to be
taken... that is also subject to correction. Even if religious
revelations are "infallible", our _understanding_ of them surely is
not.
"We certainly do not want to fall victim today of this same condition
of
over-relying on our logical powers when we are not yet spiritually
mature
and thus heaping upon mankind further ignorance of spiritual
realities."
But isn't _over_-relying on _any_thing, at _any_ time and _any_ level
of development, bad? After all, a Baha'i principle is moderation.
And also, must it be an extraordinarily long time before we (hell,
just one individual even) could have this level of "spiritual
maturity"? And would it be a good thing to try as hard as we can to
make things get there, resorting to every tool and devoting every last
second of our lives and ever droplet of all our energy towards making
it happen?
Does this mean it would be *bad* for a scholar at this time, or any
time before say 1,000 Years from 1863 AD (2863 AD), to try and
incorporate religion and science, together, to perform discoveries?
But if so, then how can we ever reach such a state without doing
something "bad" (as someone has to do it to make that time when it is
actually done come about, somebody has to work in that direction in
order for it to come about)?
"To me there is no question of disharmony. True science and true
religion
are in harmony. However we must be careful and not mistake our
religion
as the inerrant representation of the Baha'i Revelation. Religion is
what we understand and apply of Revelation and as such is organic and
constantly developing as individuals develop. Likewise true science
if
organic and constantly developing and therefore we must not become
too
dogmatic in that sense either."
One example I'd bring up here is evolution. Some quotes in, say, the
Baha'i writings, seem to contradict scientific theories of evolution.
However, there is also many decades of _evidence_ to suggest some sort
of evolution. The part of evolution being contradicted seems to be
common descent, and yet there is a great heap of evidence to suggest
this to be the case. It is entirely _possible_, although extremely
_unlikely_, that an evidence could come up to say that was all wrong,
and that instead man (at least his PHYSICAL form, as that is the sum-
total of all that evolutionary theory addresses -- no more! It does
not address, say, any spiritual part of man.). just miraculously
"poofed" into existence. But _without_ such evidence, why not go along
with the evidence you _do_ have, but just not make this belief
_dogma_? (After all, in real science you should'nt have dogmas
anyway!) And you also don't know how the quotes are to be taken,
either. For example, how do we know they were referring to the
physical part of man, which is the domain of evolutionary theory? As
if they are not, the entire point is moot: because evolutionary theory
_only_ deals with the physical part, it can't contradict anything
about nonphysical realities when doesn't state anything about them.
How can something that is silent on a matter possibly say something to
contradict when, by definition, it doesn't say anything at all?
Dogmatism is to be abhorred in both science and in religion.
compx2
You do realize that post is one month shy of eight years old, posted
by Doug McAdam and two or three days ago he backtracked on what he
said in that message right here on these pages.
Now Doug says "All I can say is the Writings say we cannot know the
essence of anything and so why
even discuss this?"
So your comments are appropriate to that discussion. To wit: "But it
is said, for example, that God's reality and essence cannot be known
at all. Therefore, even the soul is limited, is it not?"
Everything is limited except God, by definition and logical
implication. There can be but one Prime Mover, and that is one of His
attributes. But it does not follow that because He is Prime Mover
that His reality and essence cannot be known. We cannot know
realities or essences as humans, however, not because He is Prime
Mover.
Since your first implication does not follow, so also the second, that
the soul is limited, does not follow either. It may be true that any
particular human soul is limited, but it is also true, by the same
token, that anything except God, the the Limitless, is limited. So
singling out a human soul as limited is meaningless since everything
(except God) is limited.
--Kent
On Dec 15, 4:21 pm, mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I read this post:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.bahai/msg/3441a0582300279...
mike3
> Hi Mike3,
>
> You do realize that post is one month shy of eight years old, posted
> by Doug McAdam and two or three days ago he backtracked on what he
> said in that message right here on these pages.
>
> Now Doug says "All I can say is the Writings say we cannot know the
> essence of anything and so why
> even discuss this?"
>
But this "essence knowing" question is _not_ what this is about, I was
just pulling up an _example_ that happened to be at hand here. See
below.
> So your comments are appropriate to that discussion. To wit: "But it
> is said, for example, that God's reality and essence cannot be known
> at all. Therefore, even the soul is limited, is it not?"
>
> Everything is limited except God, by definition and logical
> implication. There can be but one Prime Mover, and that is one of His
> attributes.
Of course. But the problem here is that the quote says "It is through
the power of the soul that the mind comprehendeth, imagineth and
exerteth its influence, whilst the soul is a power that is free.
The mind is circumscribed, *the soul limitless*. " (emphasis is mine,
not in the original.) If this is taken literally, then it would
contradict
that idea. And _that_ is what my point here is. If that idea comes
from
real Baha'i scripture, does not this produce some sort of
contradiction
in the scripture, unless perhaps it is not taken literally?
> But it does not follow that because He is Prime Mover
> that His reality and essence cannot be known. We cannot know
> realities or essences as humans, however, not because He is Prime
> Mover.
>
Where did I say it was because He is the prime mover?
> Since your first implication does not follow, so also the second, that
> the soul is limited, does not follow either. It may be true that any
> particular human soul is limited, but it is also true, by the same
> token, that anything except God, the the Limitless, is limited. So
> singling out a human soul as limited is meaningless since everything
> (except God) is limited.
>
It was only "singled out" because it was an example that was
available.
Surely everything but God is limited, but that was not the point. The
point
has to do with literalism.
mike3
> Since your first implication does not follow, so also the second, that
> the soul is limited, does not follow either. It may be true that any
> particular human soul is limited, but it is also true, by the same
> token, that anything except God, the the Limitless, is limited. So
> singling out a human soul as limited is meaningless since everything
> (except God) is limited.
>
But if everything is limited, then why say the soul is "unlimited"? To
me,
it seems contradictory.
<snip>
compx2
I have read all of your short replies in several messages, and have
decided to answer once int his thread.
First off, there is nothing contradictory about saying that the soul
is limitless and that only God is limitless, unless you were to say
them in the same context. It is like saying these are good tires for
the highway, but I prefer other tires. Context is everything.
Especially in the Baha'i Writings. If the Writings do not say
explicitly say something then it is our interpretations that we rely
upon to understand the issues. The soul is limitless compared to our
contingent existences, but limited compared with God. That is my
interpretation. You might have a different one, and that is fine with
me.
But your bigger question was answered by my comments in an earlier
message to you. Here is me quoting me to answer your question:
> No, it would require the ability to know essences. I don't know who
> besides God would have that "power" that kind of knowledge. We would
> have to talk about what it was in order to even decide what kind of
> knowledge was the knowledge of essences. Without a good definition we
> can't even say what kind of knowledge it is, what would constitute the
> knowledge of the essence of a thing. Some suggest that such knowledge
> is the knowledge of the entire existence of the thing through time.
> We only have a limited conception of such an existence since we are
> bound by time, whereas other beings might not be so limited.
Let me know if you would like to clarify what knowing essences would
mean. But no Writing, no quote, no decision of the Universal House of
Justice will be able to do this for you. If you want to know you will
have to independently investigate, and be prepared and accepting of
differing opinions from different people, Baha'i and Non-Baha'i.
Whatever you decide it means to know an "essence" will be your own
interpretation and not a Baha'i belief. It will be a Mike3 belief.
--Kent
mike...@yahoo.com
thought here. The only statement a Baha'i may make about God is that
He is unknowable. We can't define God as limitless or exclusively
limitless, we simply do not know anything about the parameters of God.
As soon as we attempt to use our language to define Him in any way,
even to state the obvious, that He is all mighty, we are wrong. There
is no good way to describe God and the problem with placing parameters
on Him crops up in our own faulty language and logic. So the second
problem is to move into a discussion where we attempt to define God as
limitless and then compare this with our definition of a limitless the
soul. It's a faulty comparison at the beginning, that we as Baha'is
are unable to make. The soul may very well be limitless by our
standards but not Gods, that represents a paradox, but is the probable
truth.
Douglas McAdam
I have no idea how Mike3 or who and why my post of almost eight years
ago was resurrected but the questions being asked have been answered
before and I am not willing once again to expose myself to more
personal criticisms about this subject. However, since there are also
serious seekers of truth lurking here I will once again make some
suggestions in which Mike3, you and any other interested seekers might
find the information you seek. Believe me, once you investigate all
of the relevant quotes in their context you will see there is no
contradictions in the Writing for these all come from our own limited
perceptions.
The reality of the soul and the worlds of God and other themes or
subjects like the ringstone symbol, three conditions of existence,
God, Greater World, Lesser World, (1) the World of God (‘alam-i-haqq);
(2) the World of Command (‘alam-i-amr); and (3) the World of
Creation (‘alam-i-khalq)
“The inscription upon the Bahá’í ringstone is...symbolic of the 0
three
planes, representing the World of God, the World of Revelation and the
World of Creation.”, are just a few of the titles you might wish to
research.
All these to me add up to the realization for myself that each
condition is a separate realm, kingdom or world and the lower cannot
reach the next level. So within the created world the soul is
limitless but the body and mind are limited. In the Manifested World
the Manifestation can share the Created and Manifested World and is
unlimited in both but cannot reach the realm of the divine reality or
God. And the realm of God or the Divine Reality is beyond any human
descriptions except maybe to say it is infinitude and eternality which
have obvious meaning related to something beyond our created conditions.
Try thinking of each of these worlds, conditions or realms of being as
being represented by a circle and a circle represents infinity,
eternity. Worlds, within, worlds, within worlds.
Also I think it might be good to keep in mind our history and our
present condition as an evolutionary process of understanding things.
For example before our current eras when man had no writing, etc. he
could see about 50 miles in any direction on the horizon and it gave
the idea the world was flat. He also saw the sun rise in the east and
set in the west as if it was going around him. (egocentrism) But as
time went by, from new Revelations released new knowledge and what man
has discovered and experienced by the use of our reason, we now know
the world is round and it circles the sun. So our language also sort
of represents how we are perceiving things. We say we fall down from
a tree when in reality we are falling into the earth, or that we go
up in the sky when in reality we go out in space. The people in
Australia say the same things but they are opposite to what we perceive.
So I would not get too hung up on our current understandings for we
are only in an adolescent stage of spiritual development. How much
better will we perceive and understand once all our powers of
perception and understanding are focusing on our true purpose in life
so that we then can fulfill more effectively the principle of the
harmony of science and religion.
By the way have you ever read the quote saying this creation has no
beginning? Or the one where the Bab said "This is a letter from God
unto God....."?
How is that for something challenging our thinking!
Good luck,
doug
mike3
> In reference to the soul, there are two problems with the line of
> thought here. The only statement a Baha'i may make about God is that
> He is unknowable. We can't define God as limitless or exclusively
> limitless, we simply do not know anything about the parameters of God.
> As soon as we attempt to use our language to define Him in any way,
> even to state the obvious, that He is all mighty, we are wrong.
So does that mean then that the religious texts are, in one sense, a
lie,
because they "describe" God that way ("limitless", "all powerful",
"personal"
God, etc. which are all "wrong" because they are just words from
limited
language)? But that maybe these "lies" are necessary because there is
nothing
better that can be done with language?
> There
> is no good way to describe God and the problem with placing parameters
> on Him crops up in our own faulty language and logic. So the second
> problem is to move into a discussion where we attempt to define God as
> limitless and then compare this with our definition of a limitless the
> soul. It's a faulty comparison at the beginning, that we as Baha'is
> are unable to make. The soul may very well be limitless by our
> standards but not Gods, that represents a paradox, but is the probable
> truth.
How is it a paradox? If God's standards are much more than ours, where
is the
paradox?
mike3
> Hi Mike3.
>
> I have read all of your short replies in several messages, and have
> decided to answer once int his thread.
>
> First off, there is nothing contradictory about saying that the soul
> is limitless and that only God is limitless, unless you were to say
> them in the same context. It is like saying these are good tires for
> the highway, but I prefer other tires. Context is everything.
>
I'd guess so. See, and this agrees with my point: you can't just take
things
literally.
> Especially in the Baha'i Writings. If the Writings do not say
> explicitly say something then it is our interpretations that we rely
> upon to understand the issues. The soul is limitless compared to our
> contingent existences, but limited compared with God. That is my
> interpretation. You might have a different one, and that is fine with
> me.
>
What do you mean, our "contingent existences"? Does this mean a soul
is not contingent upon God? That would seem odd. And isn't our soul
part of our existence, isn't it the essence of _us_?
> But your bigger question was answered by my comments in an earlier
> message to you. Here is me quoting me to answer your question:
>
> > No, it would require the ability to know essences. I don't know who
> > besides God would have that "power" that kind of knowledge. We would
> > have to talk about what it was in order to even decide what kind of
> > knowledge was the knowledge of essences. Without a good definition we
> > can't even say what kind of knowledge it is, what would constitute the
> > knowledge of the essence of a thing. Some suggest that such knowledge
> > is the knowledge of the entire existence of the thing through time.
> > We only have a limited conception of such an existence since we are
> > bound by time, whereas other beings might not be so limited.
>
> Let me know if you would like to clarify what knowing essences would
> mean. But no Writing, no quote, no decision of the Universal House of
> Justice will be able to do this for you. If you want to know you will
> have to independently investigate, and be prepared and accepting of
> differing opinions from different people, Baha'i and Non-Baha'i.
> Whatever you decide it means to know an "essence" will be your own
> interpretation and not a Baha'i belief. It will be a Mike3 belief.
>
Well, what do you think it would mean? Although I suppose that would
not
be a "Baha'i" belief either. Also, what about after our death, could
we then
know it, or would we still be too limited?
mike3
>
> I have read all of your short replies in several messages, and have
> decided to answer once int his thread.
>
> First off, there is nothing contradictory about saying that the soul
> is limitless and that only God is limitless, unless you were to say
> them in the same context. It is like saying these are good tires for
> the highway, but I prefer other tires. Context is everything.
>
I'd guess so. See, and this agrees with my point: you can't just take
things
literally.
> Especially in the Baha'i Writings. If the Writings do not say
> explicitly say something then it is our interpretations that we rely
> upon to understand the issues. The soul is limitless compared to our
> contingent existences, but limited compared with God. That is my
> interpretation. You might have a different one, and that is fine with
> me.
>
What do you mean, our "contingent existences"? Does this mean a soul
is not contingent upon God? That would seem odd. And isn't our soul
part of our existence, isn't it the essence of _us_?
> But your bigger question was answered by my comments in an earlier
> message to you. Here is me quoting me to answer your question:
>
> > No, it would require the ability to know essences. I don't know who
> > besides God would have that "power" that kind of knowledge. We would
> > have to talk about what it was in order to even decide what kind of
> > knowledge was the knowledge of essences. Without a good definition we
> > can't even say what kind of knowledge it is, what would constitute the
> > knowledge of the essence of a thing. Some suggest that such knowledge
> > is the knowledge of the entire existence of the thing through time.
> > We only have a limited conception of such an existence since we are
> > bound by time, whereas other beings might not be so limited.
>
> Let me know if you would like to clarify what knowing essences would
> mean. But no Writing, no quote, no decision of the Universal House of
> Justice will be able to do this for you. If you want to know you will
> have to independently investigate, and be prepared and accepting of
> differing opinions from different people, Baha'i and Non-Baha'i.
> Whatever you decide it means to know an "essence" will be your own
> interpretation and not a Baha'i belief. It will be a Mike3 belief.
>
Well, what do you think it would mean? Although I suppose that would
not
be a "Baha'i" belief either. Also, what about after our death, could
we then
know it, or would we still be too limited?
> --Kent
compx2
All essences are unknowable. A lot can be known about God, but His
essence, like all essences, is unknown.
The normal Baha'i parroted position that God is an "unknowable
essence" is meaningless. Only with independent investigation can one
realize that the parroted phrase "Unknowable Essence" applies to
everything, not just God.
If you listen to Baha'is you will not understand. Only if you think
for yourself will you understand.
--Kent
Sizwe Cawe
the Twin Manifestations refer to God as an "Unknowable Essence". This
phrase seems to have been one of Baha'u'llah's favourites.
Sizwe.
, inaccessible, and unknowable.
e Wolf, p. 118)
hat God, the unknowable Essence, the Divine Being, is immensely exalted bey
ond every human attribute, such as corporeal existence, ascent and descent,
egress and regress.
'u'llah, p. 46)
nor heart, however keen or pure, can ever grasp the nature of the most ins
ignificant of His creatures; much less fathom the mystery of Him Who is the
Day Star of Truth, Who is the invisible and unknowable Essence.
'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 62)
emorial He hath been veiled in the ineffable sanctity of His exalted Self,
and will everlastingly continue to be wrapt in the impenetrable mystery of
His unknowable Essence.
aha'u'llah, p. 62)
garding Him Who is the Manifestation of God and Him Who is the invisible, t
he inaccessible, the unknowable Essence as one and the same.
lah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 166)
lted is His Essence above the descriptions of His creatures. He, alone, occ
upieth the Seat of transcendent majesty, of supreme and inaccessible glory.
The birds of men's hearts, however high they soar, can never hope to attai
n the heights of His unknowable Essence.
the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 193)
art it is evident that God, the unknowable Essence, the divine Being, is im
mensely exalted beyond every human attribute, such as corporeal existence,
ascent and descent, egress and regress.
, p. 97)
the Qur'án, as a guidance unto all that are in heaven and on earth. He,
the divine Being, and unknowable Essence, hath, Himself, testified that thi
s Book is, beyond all doubt and uncertainty, the guide of all mankind until
the Day of Resurrection.
MEASURABLY exalted art Thou, O my God, above the endeavours of all beings a
nd created things to praise Thee and recognize Thee. No creature can ever c
omprehend Thee as beseemeth the reality of Thy holy Being and no servant ca
n ever worship Thee as is worthy of Thine unknowable 201 Essence. Pra
ise be unto Thee; too high is Thine exalted Self for any allusions proceedi
ng from Thy creatures ever to gain access unto Thy presence.
Selections from the Writings of the Bab, p. 200)
glorified art Thou, O Lord! 208 Every man of insight is far astray i
n his attempt to recognize Thee, and every man of consummate learning is so
re perplexed in his search after Thee. Every evidence falleth short of Thin
e unknowable Essence and every light retreateth and sinketh below the horiz
on when confronted with but a glimmer of the dazzling splendour of Thy migh
t.
----- Original Message ----
i-f...@bcca.org
Any answers to these questions? Religious Literalism???
All essences are unknowable. A lot can be known about God, but His
essence, like all essences, is unknown.
ble Essence" applies to
aha'is you will not understand. Only if you think
rote:
> thought here. The only statement a Baha'i may make about God is tha
t
As soon as we attempt to use our language to define Him in any way,
compx2
No one is saying that the concept (God is an Unknowable Essence) is
not a very significant concept. Were we to contemplate that concept
in the contexts Baha'u'llah clarifies there is much to learn. I say
that we have a lot to learn about God, especially if we understand the
limitations on our knowledge and use that understanding to delve
deeper and understand as much as is possible.
But "Unknowable Essence" is not a significant concept without those
contexts. If the point is solely that we cannot know God, well, that
is true, but not significant. There are many things we cannot know,
but many more things we can. And I venture to say that is not what
Baha'u'llah is saying when He refers to the Unknowable Essence. He
has much more to say than just telling us what we cannot know.
I object to the routine Baha'i parroting of the phrase in order to
place a brick wall in the way of trying to understand God.
--Kent
> Any answers to these questions? Religious Literalism???
> All essences are unknowable. A lot can be known about God, but His
> essence, like all essences, is unknown.
> ition that God is an "unknowable
> dependent investigation can one
> ble Essence" applies to
> aha'is you will not understand. Only if you think
> u understand.
> rote:
> > thought here. The only statement a Baha'i may make about God is tha
> t
> limitless, we simply do not know anything about the parameters of God.
> As soon as we attempt to use our language to define Him in any way,
> en to state the obvious, that He is all mighty, we are wrong. There
> no good way to describe God and the problem with placing parameters
> Him crops up in our own faulty language and logic. So the second
> m is to move into a discussion where we attempt to define God as
> ess and then compare this with our definition of a limitless the
> It's a faulty comparison at the beginning, that we as Baha'is
> e to make. The soul may very well be limitless by our
> Gods, that represents a paradox, but is the probable- Hide quoted text
-
>
> - Show quoted text -
compx2
You:
> What do you mean, our "contingent existences"? Does this mean a soul
> is not contingent upon God? That would seem odd. And isn't our soul
> part of our existence, isn't it the essence of _us_?
Here is what I said: "The soul is limitless compared to our contingent
existences"
We live in a contingent world, our existence is a contingent
existence. I understand this subject from readings in Some Answered
Questions, but of course my understanding is interpretation. Here is
an example from that book that explains our contingent reality a
little bit:
"The contingent world is the source of imperfections: God is the
origin of perfections. The imperfections of the contingent world are
in themselves a proof of the perfections of God." (Abdu'l-Baha, Some
Answered Questions, p. 5)
and:
"Because a characteristic of contingent beings is dependency, and this
dependency is an essential necessity, therefore, there must be an
independent being whose independence is essential." (Abdu'l-Baha,
Some Answered Questions, p. 6)
The last one I will subject you to is this:
"If it were possible to reach a limit of perfection, then one of the
realities of the beings might reach the condition of being independent
of God, and the contingent might attain to the condition of the
absolute. But for every being there is a point which it cannot
overpass..." (Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 230)
You can certainly find more on this subject yourself, but my
understanding is that, yes, our souls are our essences (that is the
definition). But we are not able to understand essences, to
understand our souls. The way I understand that limitation is that we
are dependent, we can only see relationships, aspects and attributes
of essences and other things. If we could see essences we would see
directly, not in a manner 'Abdu'l-Baha called "contingent".
Hope this helps you understand what I was saying.
--Kent
> > > <snip>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
mike...@yahoo.com
>So does that mean then that the religious texts are, in one sense, a
>lie, because they "describe" God that way ("limitless", "all powerful",
>"personal" God, etc. which are all "wrong" because they are just words from
>limited language)? But that maybe these "lies" are necessary because there is
>nothing better that can be done with language?
No because your are attempting to dissect it into its' parts, instead
of reading the whole. For example. One may describe God as capable of
anything and all powerful. So God being all powerful should be capable
of creating the rock that he cannot lift. If you exclude all else that
was written about God, then you are right, given these two parameters,
there is a flaw in our understanding of God. The Baha'i writtings are
a collection to be taken as a whole, and to attempt to dissect it into
any one part in a reductionists' line of thinking (as is the western
way) you will find yourself imagining a God that can conceive of a
stone that he cannot lift.
Reductionism in the faith leads to either confusion or athiesm. The
Baha'i texts are meant to be understood in their entirety and become
meaningless when you attempt to cipher out individual parts. As a
whole it is the truth. This is why you can't pick and choose what you
want to believe as a Baha'i, you must accept the package, otherwise
you'll find nothing but the confusion being presented.
compx2
appears the crux of it is in this line of yours:
> ... you can't pick and choose what you
> want to believe as a Baha'i, you must accept the package, otherwise
> you'll find nothing but the confusion being presented.
I say you *Have To* pick and choose what you want to believe as a
Baha'i. It is a command from God as basic as the the elimination of
prejudice and support in principle for a federated world government.
If you want to remain a Baha'i in good standing with the
Administrative Order of Baha'u'llah there are commands you must
follow. That is not the same as picking and choosing what you
believe. And if you lose voting rights over a lifestyle issue you can
still be an asterisked Baha'i.
Beliefs are individual. We must choose individually at the nit-picky
level of hair length and wine for dinner. Those decisions are ours to
make. If you think there are beliefs that you must have to be a
Baha'i, well, you have the view of the vast majority of Baha'is. You
all seem to think we must believe as you believe, that if I am
unmarried, for example, I should be interrogated about my sexual
habits and such. And if I give someone a wrong answer, well, then I
am going to hell. That is why, in my opinion, so many of us are
turned off by the Baha'i Faith. It is because we see the Baha'i Faith
as you and your kind, Mikera. Some of us remain Baha'i in spite of
what the Faith has become in places like the SRB.
I am a Baha'i in spite of your beliefs, which I do not share. All I
can do is try to convince you that one need not share your beliefs to
be Baha'i, and ask you to be careful with such proclamations as the
one above about the Faith I love.
If you have trouble with that, well, how many people do you think you
are going to convince to believe everything you believe? On the other
hand, if people are allowed to think for themselves and not stand
corrected at every turn by a homgenous group of smiling groups who
might look just like wierdos to outsiders we might find some real
diversity, some real hard working, reasonable, logical, spiritual,
admirable and wonderful people of capacity with something new to
say.
When people I see come here, reasonable people, are told they must not
believe this or that, well, no wonder they move on and never come
back. The issues are not as black and white as you say they are.
There is very little diversity of belief in the Baha'i Faith, and that
is not because of the Central Figures. It is because of the Baha'is.
--Kent
mike3
> HIi Mike3, I missed this earlier:
>
> You:
>
> > What do you mean, our "contingent existences"? Does this mean a soul
> > is not contingent upon God? That would seem odd. And isn't our soul
> > part of our existence, isn't it the essence of _us_?
>
> Here is what I said: "The soul is limitless compared to our contingent
> existences"
>
So a soul is not "contingent" upon anything, then? I thought it comes
from
God, so then isn't it contingent upon God, like everything else is? Is
it not
dependent on God and subject to God? It is, after all, a creation of
God, no?
> We live in a contingent world, our existence is a contingent
> existence. I understand this subject from readings in Some Answered
> Questions, but of course my understanding is interpretation. Here is
> an example from that book that explains our contingent reality a
> little bit:
>
> "The contingent world is the source of imperfections: God is the
> origin of perfections. The imperfections of the contingent world are
> in themselves a proof of the perfections of God." (Abdu'l-Baha, Some
> Answered Questions, p. 5)
>
> and:
>
> "Because a characteristic of contingent beings is dependency, and this
> dependency is an essential necessity, therefore, there must be an
> independent being whose independence is essential." (Abdu'
l-Baha,
> Some Answered Questions, p. 6)
>
> The last one I will subject you to is this:
>
> "If it were possible to reach a limit of perfection, then one of the
> realities of the beings might reach the condition of being independent
> of God, and the contingent might attain to the condition of the
> absolute. But for every being there is a point which it cannot
> overpass..." (Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 230)
>
Does this mean that not only can one not _reach_ the limit, but one
cannot get _as close as one wants_ to it, and so there is an _end_
("...point which it cannot overpass...") to the acquisition of
perfections
of man after a _finite_ amount of them have been acquired? Or is this
point "that cannot be overpassed" that break from contingency to
absoluteness, and so one can continue to get closer and closer to this
point eternally, yet never _reach_ it? (i.e. no "end")
> You can certainly find more on this subject yourself, but my
> understanding is that, yes, our souls are our essences (that is the
> definition). But we are not able to understand essences, to
> understand our souls. The way I understand that limitation is that we
> are dependent, we can only see relationships, aspects and attributes
> of essences and other things. If we could see essences we would see
> directly, not in a manner 'Abdu'l-Baha called "contingent".
>
> Hope this helps you understand what I was saying.
>
> --Kent
>
<snip>
mike3
<snip> You
> all seem to think we must believe as you believe, that if I am
> unmarried, for example, I should be interrogated about my sexual
I'm curious about this part. Who is claiming that Baha'is should go
and
pry into someone else's sexual habits like that, exactly?
t h
on Local Spiritual
Assemblies, we did not address anything unless it was blatant and public
knowledge. Possibly
there are people who might think such activity was appropriate but if so
I think they would be
incorrect.
Cheers,
Tom
t h
is far beyond our
physical existence and comprehension.
I would say there is no limit to our spiritual development, no point
where it stops.
On the other hand there are places that we cannot go, e.g. become God.
That is another
realm.
Tom
Douglas McAdam
Good point.
We might also consider that God is a Creator and thus does not stop
creating and so the soul progresses throughout infinity in its own
realm.
doug
mike3
This viewpoint makes sense, actually.
mike3
wrote:
> Hi Tom-
> Good point.
> We might also consider that God is a Creator and thus does not stop
> creating and so the soul progresses throughout infinity in its own
> realm.
>
That makes sense.
<snip>
mike3
wrote:
Hmm. So does this mean that the "afterlife" would actually take place
in a vast many different worlds or universes or whatever you want to
call them, instead of just one?
<snip>
> So I would not get too hung up on our current understandings for we
> are only in an adolescent stage of spiritual development. How much
> better will we perceive and understand once all our powers of
> perception and understanding are focusing on our true purpose in life
>
> so that we then can fulfill more effectively the principle of the
> harmony of science and religion.
>
But can this _only_ be done at some distant, far off (500 years, 1000,
10,000? yuck.) time in the future, and it would be laughable and wrong
for anyone at this time to try and focus all their powers on their
true
purpose of life?
> By the way have you ever read the quote saying this creation has no
> beginning? Or the one where the Bab said "This is a letter from God
> unto God....."?
>
> How is that for something challenging our thinking!
>
How does the one about creation having no beginning "challenge our
thinking", exactly? Do you mean the "Big Bang" theories? But those
only
deal with the *material universe*, which could be but one of many,
many
universes and that overall Multiverse of all creation may have existed
always, forever, and to it the big bang theories do not apply at all.
> Good luck,
>
> doug
>
<snip>
Douglas McAdam
On Dec 24, 2008, at 2:50 PM, mike3 wrote:
> On Dec 17, 12:38 pm, Douglas McAdam <douglasmca...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>>
SNIP
>>
>> being represented by a circle and a circle represents infinity,
>> eternity. Worlds, within, worlds, within worlds.
>>
>
> Hmm. So does this mean that the "afterlife" would actually take place
> in a vast many different worlds or universes or whatever you want to
> call them, instead of just one?
>
Your guess is as good as mine Mike3. I still don't see what all this
has to do with the immediate purpose we have in this world. It may be
interesting but all answers are merely conjecture. What does the term
"world" mean? There is the world of the child, that of an adult,
etc. Then there are physical worlds. Maybe in our next world
condition of the spirit we will be free to traverse all worlds.
> <snip>
>> So I would not get too hung up on our current understandings for we
>> are only in an adolescent stage of spiritual development. How much
>> better will we perceive and understand once all our powers of
>> perception and understanding are focusing on our true purpose in life
>>
>> so that we then can fulfill more effectively the principle of the
>> harmony of science and religion.
>>
>
> But can this _only_ be done at some distant, far off (500 years, 1000,
> 10,000? yuck.) time in the future, and it would be laughable and wrong
> for anyone at this time to try and focus all their powers on their
> true
> purpose of life?
No, I think it depends on our spiritual development. Could the cave
man have invented the automobile, etc. It all depends on our current
condition and our capacity to develop further. Why do we have to wait
when all we have to do is obey the Covenant, acquire the needed
virtues, etc. That does not take us thousands of years. Just look at
the change in an individual from the time he or she accepted the Faith
and then exerted efforts to acquire virtues. It is amazing what we
can accomplish when we obey.
>
>
>> By the way have you ever read the quote saying this creation has no
>> beginning? Or the one where the Bab said "This is a letter from God
>> unto God....."?
>>
>> How is that for something challenging our thinking!
>>
>
> How does the one about creation having no beginning "challenge our
> thinking", exactly? Do you mean the "Big Bang" theories? But those
> only
> deal with the *material universe*, which could be but one of many,
> many
> universes and that overall Multiverse of all creation may have existed
> always, forever, and to it the big bang theories do not apply at all.
It is also a challenge for those who believe literally that the earth,
this entire creation , heaven, hell, etc. was created from nothing.
There are many challenges to old thinking in the Baha'i Revelation.
It has expanded our entire consciousness. For example what about the
belief many have the Jesus is God and then the Bab wrote Baha'u'llah
and said that this was a letter from God unto God. That is a
challenge to many old believers of past religions.
regards
doug
>
>
>> Good luck,
>>
>> doug
>>
> <snip>
>
compx2
you did pretty well giving the gist of what I said....
On the other hand you took it in a direction I did not go:
> I would say there is no limit to our spiritual development, no point
> where it stops.
> On the other hand there are places that we cannot go, e.g. become God.
> That is another
> realm.
I find it difficult to speak of an essence and its development. Like
the progress of a soul. It seems to me an essence is a complete
thing, from its beginning to its end. Moreover becoming God is not,
in my estimation, like, well, I am kind of surprised at the terms.
Place, become, God. Those concepts don't belong together, like frog,
parcheesee and Einstein. I don't see any connection.
Thanks for reading. --Kent
> Tom- Hide quoted text -
compx2
My point is that the view a lot of Baha'is have of the Faith is that
it is the place of the Administrative Order to police such things, to
find out and consult about such things, especially when asked to
consider such things by members of the Baha'i community. I think you
know by now that I do not think it is the place of any Baha'i or
administrative unit to police such things, and were I on an assembly
asked to do such a thing I would resist with all the arguments and
reasons I can find from accepted Writings.
We can only teach by example, administer with love, and the only
people we can change are ourselves. It has not been my experience
that Baha'is see things that way, however.
--Kent
mike3
wrote:
> On Dec 24, 2008, at 2:50 PM, mike3 wrote:
>
> > On Dec 17, 12:38 pm, Douglas McAdam <douglasmca...@sbcglobal.net>
> > wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
> >> being represented by a circle and a circle represents infinity,
> >> eternity. Worlds, within, worlds, within worlds.
>
> > Hmm. So does this mean that the "afterlife" would actually take place
> > in a vast many different worlds or universes or whatever you want to
> > call them, instead of just one?
>
> Your guess is as good as mine Mike3. I still don't see what all this
> has to do with the immediate purpose we have in this world. It may be
> interesting but all answers are merely conjecture. What does the term
> "world" mean? There is the world of the child, that of an adult,
> etc. Then there are physical worlds. Maybe in our next world
> condition of the spirit we will be free to traverse all worlds.
>
This is sort of what I would have thought, which is that the term
"world"
seems to have different meanings in different contexts.
> > <snip>
> >> So I would not get too hung up on our current understandings for we
> >> are only in an adolescent stage of spiritual development. How much
> >> better will we perceive and understand once all our powers of
> >> perception and understanding are focusing on our true purpose in life
>
> >> so that we then can fulfill more effectively the principle of the
> >> harmony of science and religion.
>
> > But can this _only_ be done at some distant, far off (500 years, 1000,
> > 10,000? yuck.) time in the future, and it would be laughable and wrong
> > for anyone at this time to try and focus all their powers on their
> > true
> > purpose of life?
>
> No, I think it depends on our spiritual development. Could the cave
> man have invented the automobile, etc. It all depends on our current
> condition and our capacity to develop further. Why do we have to wait
> when all we have to do is obey the Covenant, acquire the needed
> virtues, etc. That does not take us thousands of years. Just look a
t
> the change in an individual from the time he or she accepted the Faith
> and then exerted efforts to acquire virtues. It is amazing what we
> can accomplish when we obey.
>
Would that, however, lead to making more scientific discoveries too?
Has
any Baha'i scientist been able to make more discoveries due to their
following
and obedience of it?
>
>
>
>
> >> By the way have you ever read the quote saying this creation has no
> >> beginning? Or the one where the Bab said "This is a letter from God
> >> unto God....."?
>
> >> How is that for something challenging our thinking!
>
> > How does the one about creation having no beginning "challenge our
> > thinking", exactly? Do you mean the "Big Bang" theories? But those
> > only
> > deal with the *material universe*, which could be but one of many,
> > many
> >universesand that overall Multiverse of all creation may have existed
> > always, forever, and to it the big bang theories do not apply at all.
>
> It is also a challenge for those who believe literally that the earth,
> this entire creation , heaven, hell, etc. was created from nothing.
But what about one particular part of that creation, such as this
material
universe? Does that exist indefinitely or did _it_ have a beginning at
some
point? How do you explain all the evidence for "big bang"? Could the
"big bang" be just one of many?
> There are many challenges to old thinking in the Baha'i Revelation.
> It has expanded our entire consciousness. For example what about the
> belief many have the Jesus is God and then the Bab wrote Baha'u'llah
> and said that this was a letter from God unto God. That is a
> challenge to many old believers of past religions.
>
As is the idea of "heaven and hell" as a metaphor, and not as real
places
or realms "out there" somewhere in the multiverse. Or that God looks
like
a person, or whatever.
mike3
> >So does that mean then that the religious texts are, in one sense, a
> >lie, because they "describe" God that way ("limitless", "all powerful",
> >"personal" God, etc. which are all "wrong" because they are just words f
rom
> >limited language)? But that maybe these "lies" are necessary because the
re is
> >nothing better that can be done with language?
>
> No because your are attempting to dissect it into its' parts, instead
> of reading the whole.
But even as a whole, is it not still written in language? And you
yourself said
that the moment one tries to describe God in language, then one is
immediately
in error.
> For example. One may describe God as capable of
> anything and all powerful. So God being all powerful should be capable
> of creating the rock that he cannot lift. If you exclude all else that
> was written about God, then you are right, given these two parameters,
> there is a flaw in our understanding of God.
What about given a whole lot MORE parameters, and which ones would
resolve the paradox?
> The Baha'i writtings are
> a collection to be taken as a whole, and to attempt to dissect it into
> any one part in a reductionists' line of thinking (as is the western
> way) you will find yourself imagining a God that can conceive of a
> stone that he cannot lift.
>
But what additional things, when taken into account, would, and how
would,
they, resolve the paradox of the stone that cannot be lifted, or the
wall that
cannot be smashed, or whatever?
> Reductionism in the faith leads to either confusion or athiesm.
Then lets talk about it from something more than just reductionism.
mike3
Thank you for explaining the point.
Douglas McAdam
As usual this thread is getting far too large to deal with each
specific and so I'm Snipping out portions to answer your last comments.
On Dec 25, 2008, at 7:41 PM, mike3 wrote:
> On Dec 24, 3:41 pm, Douglas McAdam <douglasmca...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>> SNIP
>> No, I think it depends on our spiritual development. Could the cave
>> man have invented the automobile, etc. It all depends on our current
>> condition and our capacity to develop further. Why do we have to
>> wait
>> when all we have to do is obey the Covenant, acquire the needed
>> virtues, etc. That does not take us thousands of years. Just look
>> at
>> the change in an individual from the time he or she accepted the
>> Faith
>> and then exerted efforts to acquire virtues. It is amazing what we
>> can accomplish when we obey.
>>
> Would that, however, lead to making more scientific discoveries too?
> Has any Baha'i scientist been able to make more discoveries due to
> their
> following and obedience of it?
I think it is far too early in our development to determine if any
Baha'i has
made significant contributions to any science. Maybe they have I
don't know.
My point is that the Writings clearly tell us the purpose of science
and so if
we know that purpose and we then acquire virtues in the realization
process
we are bound to develop true science and true religion, or should I say
"discover" them.
>>>> SNIP
>> It is also a challenge for those who believe literally that the
>> earth,
>
>> this entire creation , heaven, hell, etc. was created from nothing.
>
> But what about one particular part of that creation, such as this
> material
> universe? Does that exist indefinitely or did _it_ have a beginning at
> some
> point? How do you explain all the evidence for "big bang"? Could the
> "big bang" be just one of many?
So what created the materials and energy for the "Big Bang"?
There is a Tablet from Baha'u'llah, in fact several, dealing with all
this but I cannot recall
their titles. I think one is called Tablet of the Universe and
another is Tablet of Wisdom wherein
He explained about the "The world of existence came into being through
the heat generated from the interaction between the active force and
that which is its recipient. "
To me, logically, God is a Creator and thus has always been creating
and will continue eternally throughout infinity.
>
>
>> There are many challenges to old thinking in the Baha'i Revelation.
>> It has expanded our entire consciousness. For example what about the
>
>> belief many have the Jesus is God and then the Bab wrote Baha'u'llah
>> and said that this was a letter from God unto God. That is a
>> challenge to many old believers of past religions.
>>
>
> As is the idea of "heaven and hell" as a metaphor, and not as real
> places
> or realms "out there" somewhere in the multiverse. Or that God looks
> like
> a person, or whatever.
The subject of good an evil is also explained by the Master, I think
in SAQ maybe. It is not an easy concept to grasp. The best analogy I
know of is that of the solar sun shining on this earth of ours. As
our earth spins we experience light and dark but in reality there is
no darkness created it is simply there is a blockage of the light and
yet that same light cannot be completely blocked. The rays of the
solar sun reach into the depths of the deepest ocean caves, etc.
Likewise from the view of the sun there is no night and day for all is
light. No beginning and no end. Abstract thinking is not all that
easy for most people for our education system is far from a holistic
type that we need so badly.
peace,
doug
>
>
Douglas McAdam
This whole discussion reminds me of my college philosophy 101 classes
and I am forced to wonder what all this has to do with how we live our
lives, get along with others, etc.
The Writings are quite clear that God is an Unknowable Essence and His
attributes are known only through being Manifested to us by the
Manifestation of God. And we know those same Writings tell us that
absoluteness is not something that applies to we limited human
critters and that perfections are endless. So why even bother
thinking in terms of limitations, reductionist arguments etc.?
If God is All Powerful then He cannot create a rock that He cannot lift.
We are not all powerful and thus we can create things we cannot lift.
So we who are not all powerful, who are limited, who suffer from
imperfection and who cannot be absolute about anything are then trying
to fathom the unfathomless, the unknowable. Sounds to me like a
futile exercise and waste of time when we have all this suffering in
the world to remedy and we do have the Remedy.
peace,
doug
mike3
wrote:
> Hi Mike3
> This whole discussion reminds me of my college philosophy 101 classes
> and I am forced to wonder what all this has to do with how we live our
> lives, get along with others, etc.
>
> The Writings are quite clear that God is an Unknowable Essence and His
> attributes are known only through being Manifested to us by the
> Manifestation of God. And we know those same Writings tell us that
> absoluteness is not something that applies to we limited human
> critters and that perfections are endless. So why even bother
> thinking in terms of limitations, reductionist arguments etc.?
>
What about _non_-reductionist arguments? I want _understanding_ of
this.
Being able to understand things in _non_-reductionistic ways may be
useful
in other, less theoretical, discussions as well.
> If God is All Powerful then He cannot create a rock that He cannot lift.
> We are not all powerful and thus we can create things we cannot lift.
>
And He could lift it too, right? Even though it makes no _logical_
sense, but
God would not be limited by logic, for logic is a _creation_ of God
and God
is entirely, completely, totally unlimited.
> So we who are not all powerful, who are limited, who suffer from
> imperfection and who cannot be absolute about anything are then trying
> to fathom the unfathomless, the unknowable. Sounds to me like a
> futile exercise and waste of time when we have all this suffering in
> the world to remedy and we do have the Remedy.
>
But one can't change other people and make them accept it.
mike3
wrote:
This makes quite a bit of sense, actually. So no, "heaven and hell"
are not
actual places. And this would also suggest that, because the light
cannot
be entirely blocked, nobody is beyond hope, not even the most evil of
dictators.
> Abstract thinking is not all that
> easy for most people for our education system is far from a holistic
> type that we need so badly.
>
Well I never went to public school, by the way. Most of what I know, I
learned
myself.
mike3
> On Dec 26, 9:53 am, Douglas McAdam <douglasmca...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Mike3
> > This whole discussion reminds me of my college philosophy 101 classes
> > and I am forced to wonder what all this has to do with how we live our
>
> > lives, get along with others, etc.
>
> > The Writings are quite clear that God is an Unknowable Essence and His
>
> > attributes are known only through being Manifested to us by the
> > Manifestation of God. And we know those same Writings tell us that
> > absoluteness is not something that applies to we limited human
> > critters and that perfections are endless. So why even bother
> > thinking in terms of limitations, reductionist arguments etc.?
>
> What about _non_-reductionist arguments? I want _understanding_ of
> this.
> Being able to understand things in _non_-reductionistic ways may be
> useful
> in other, less theoretical, discussions as well.
>
To clarify on what this "understanding" is supposed to be of, it is
this.
mikera said that " No because your are attempting to dissect it into
its' parts, instead
of reading the whole." So I want to know what this whole is, and how
accepting that whole answers my questions. Then he says
"For example. One may describe God as capable of
anything and all powerful. So God being all powerful should be capable
of creating the rock that he cannot lift. If you exclude all else that
was written about God, then you are right, given these two parameters,
there is a flaw in our understanding of God." So then what are the
other
parameters, which, when included, resolve the question and how do they
do it? This is what I want to know and "understand".
> > If God is All Powerful then He cannot create a rock that He cannot lift
..
mike3
wrote:
Does this mean it is "far too early" in our development for a Baha'i
to be a scientist? And that "true" science will be totally elusive for
many aeons (1,000 years, for example)?
Douglas McAdam
On Dec 28, 2008, at 4:07 AM, mike3 wrote:
>> Abstract thinking is not all that
>> easy for most people for our education system is far from a holistic
>> type that we need so badly.
>>
>
> Well I never went to public school, by the way. Most of what I know, I
> learned
> myself.
Hi Mike3-
Then you probably suffer less from the type of conditioning that comes
from the public education system. However I should have been more
precise in my remark for my point is that our entire upbringing, our
whole process of education, our whole conditioning is not one of a
holistic nature. The Beloved Master said---
"The root cause of wrongdoing is ignoranceand we must therefore
hold fast to the tools of perception and knowledge." (Selections from
the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, p. 136)
From other quotes regarding education I'm sure he was not just
talking about academic education, I feel he was talking about total or
holistic (whole or Holy) education of body, mind and spirit. Also it
is apparent that our problems are caused by unsatisfied needs, wants
and desires. So if we look at the three natures of the human, i.e.
body or animal nature, human intellectual nature, and the higher or
spiritual nature can we say that all their needs are being efficiently
satisfied in our present society? I don't think so. Are we getting
proper air, water, fire, shelter etc. for our physical nature's well
being? Are we getting the intellectual needs satisfied by realistic
education? Is the soul getting proper spiritual education? All of
which should be related to the fulfillment of our overall purpose in
life and instead what we have is the type of conditioning that is
producing disunity and terrible social and individual problems, quite
evident now as we witness the various systems in decline.
regards,
doug
t h
development modeling
when I was working in that field. I published a number of papers about
development and
growth of potatoes, wheat, corn, soybeans, and sorghum. The models I
developed were
used by other scientists in developing later generation models.
Cheers,
Tom
Douglas McAdam
Congratulations and I'm sure there are other examples too.
Unfortunately in today's world the news and other media are more
concerned with publishing things that offer them profits.
Also I doubt very much if any Baha'i who invented something or who had
contributed something that created a more advanced state in society
would identify him or herself as a Baha'i.
A good example of societal blindness is the inventions we have that
came from the black culture, something that is not fully acknowledged
even as yet.
However I had not intended to give the impression that Baha'is make
better scientists. I'm just trying to point out that when scientists
become themselves more devoted to the overall purpose of knowing and
loving God through service then our sciences will greatly improve.
regards,
doug
Douglas McAdam
I am totally lost here and need some clarification.
Exactly what is this problem you seem to be having with the idea that
God is an Unknowable Essence and that all we can know is the
Attributes of God that are manifested by His Manifestation?
I don't see any problem. In fact I was relieved as a new Baha'i when
I read that God was an Unknowable Essence for that then meant why
bother even thinking about it for what we truly need to do is exactly
what Baha'u'llah said, first to accept the Manifestation and secondly
to obey His commands. If we do this then we won't be seeing all these
problems in the world.
Thus, all statements about God can only refer to His attributes as
embodied by His Manifestation (Mazhar-i-Iláhí) or Prophet (nabí or
rasúl). It cannot refer to the Essence of God because God at the Háhú
t
level is a hidden God who transcends everything and is, thus,
sanctified from any mention, knowledge, or attribution by any part of
His creation. "Consequently, with reference to this plane of existence
(Háhút), every statement and elucidation is defective, all praise
and
all description are unworthy, every conception is vain, and every
meditation is futile."11 Even the names, attributes, and perfections
that we ascribe to God such as "merciful," "forgiving," "loving,"
"just," "all-powerful," and so forth can only refer to the Prophet, as
God's Essence is unknowable and no one but He Himself has any
knowledge of His own innermost Essence.
Tablet of All Food (0:13)
This theory is erroneous; for though the existence of beings in
relation to the existence of God is an illusion, nevertheless, in the
condition of being it has a real and certain existence. It is futile
to deny this. For example, the existence of the mineral in comparison
with that of man is nonexistence, for when man is apparently
annihilated, his body becomes mineral; but the mineral has existence
in the mineral world. Therefore, it is evident that earth, in relation
to the existence of man, is nonexistent, and its existence is
illusory; but in relation to the mineral it exists.
Some Answered Questions (83:2, page: [279])
"How bewildering to me, insignificant as I am," Baha'u'llah in His
communion with God affirms, "is the attempt to fathom the sacred
depths of Thy knowledge! How futile my efforts to visualize the
magnitude of the power inherent in Thine handiwork—the revelation of
Thy creative power!" "When I contemplate, O my God, the relationship
that bindeth me to Thee," He, in yet another prayer revealed in His
own handwriting, testifies, "I am moved to proclaim to all created
things 'verily I am God!'; and when I consider my own self, lo, I find
it coarser than clay!"
World Order Baha'u'llah (37:41, page: [114])
mike3
wrote:
> Dear Mike3-
> I am totally lost here and need some clarification.
> Exactly what is this problem you seem to be having with the idea that
>
> God is an Unknowable Essence and that all we can know is the
> Attributes of God that are manifested by His Manifestation?
That is not the problem. The problem here is this:
You said:
"And we know those same Writings tell us that
absoluteness is not something that applies to we limited human
critters and that perfections are endless. So why even bother
thinking in terms of limitations, reductionist arguments etc.? "
So what would be _non_-reductionist arguments, and would it be
better to think in terms of them?
mikera said that " No because your are attempting to dissect it into
its' parts, instead
of reading the whole." So then I wanted to know what the _whole_ says
that allows for the resolution of the "stone too heavy to lift"
paradox:
then he says "For example. One may describe God as capable of
anything and all powerful. So God being all powerful should be capable
of creating the rock that he cannot lift. If you exclude all else that
was written about God, then you are right, given these two parameters,
there is a flaw in our understanding of God." But what _other_
parameters
would resolve the paradox? That is my question here with this thing.
<snip>
> what Baha'u'llah said, first to accept the Manifestation and secondly
>
> to obey His commands. If we do this then we won't be seeing all these
>
> problems in the world.
Does this mean that all those who were good in their heart and did a
lot of
good out of that goodness in their heart, are still "wrong" and a
source of "evil"
and trouble in the world, because they didn't do that _first_
principle at all?
Because remember, only at most 6 million out of 6 billion have done
the first.
<snip>
Douglas McAdam
Hi Mike-
I thought I had explained this. God is All Powerful and so He cannot
create any rock He cannot lift.
In a way there is nothing we ourselves can create that we cannot lift
somehow, although we might have to invent a device to do the lifting.
I think this is a ridiculous argument that has been offered in
Philosophy 101 classes and not in any way relative or relevant to a
belief in God and the practice of His laws.
>
>
> <snip>
>> what Baha'u'llah said, first to accept the Manifestation and secondly
>>
>> to obey His commands. If we do this then we won't be seeing all
>> these
>>
>> problems in the world.
>
> Does this mean that all those who were good in their heart and did a
> lot of
> good out of that goodness in their heart, are still "wrong" and a
> source of "evil"
> and trouble in the world, because they didn't do that _first_
> principle at all?
> Because remember, only at most 6 million out of 6 billion have done
> the first.
> <snip>
Gosh Mike, how many times do I have to explain this. Here is the
quote again and so now you tell me what you think it means. I'm not
going to judge people I'm just saying what I think the quote means.
If you think it is different them maybe we can discuss it but I'm not
willing to once again experience all the negative comments I have had
before from someone on this forum. Why not read the quote in the
entire context.
CXXXIll. The ordinances of God have been sent down from the heaven of
His most august Revelation. All must diligently observe them. Man's
supreme distinction, his real advancement, his final victory, have
always depended, and will continue to depend, upon them. Whoso keepeth
the commandments of God shall attain everlasting felicity.
A twofold obligation resteth upon him who hath recognized the Day
Spring of the Unity of God, and acknowledged the truth of Him Who is
the Manifestation of His oneness. The first is steadfastness in His
love, such steadfastness that neither the clamor of the enemy nor the
claims of the idle pretender can deter him from cleaving unto Him Who
is the Eternal Truth, a steadfastness that taketh no account of them
whatever. The second is strict observance of the laws He hath
prescribed—laws which He hath always ordained, and will continue to
ordain, unto men, and through which the truth may be distinguished and
separated from falsehood. (Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah,
p.289-290)
There might be other quotes that modify this but I have not run across
any.
God bless us all,
doug
>
>
ratu...@yahoo.co.uk
> One example I'd bring up here is evolution. Some quotes in, say, the
> Baha'i writings, seem to contradict scientific theories of evolution.
> However, there is also many decades of _evidence_ to suggest some sort
> of evolution.
This example of Mike's is one that I also have been thinking about,
but from a different angle. My angle is not to say which takes
priority but instead to search for an understanding of the reality,
the truth of the situation.
There is a particularly interesting quote from Abdul-Baha here:
""Some of the philosophers of Europe think that one species evolves
into another species. For example, that the animal evolved until it
became a human being. But the prophets teach that this theory is
erroneous, as we have explained already in the book Some Answered
Questions. Nay, rather evolution and growth take place within the same
species. For instance, the seed of man gradually develops, passing
through the stages of embryo, fìtus, infant, child, and adolescent
until intellectual maturity is attained. All the while it has
progressed within the same species" (Má'idiy-i Asmání 2: 69)."
- taken from http://bahai-library.com/articles/evolution.html
Clearly this literally contradicts the evidence of speciation - i.e.
the creation of independent species - provided by modern scientific
observation (see, for explanation and examples http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
/Speciation)
My question is what do other Baha'is believe as the truth? Clearly
either speciation happens or it doesn't: species are either static or
changing; it can't be both. How do others resolve the apparent
contradiction?
There are some very interesting philosophical and spiritual
interpretations to Abdul-Baha's words, such as these from Friberg
(http://bahai-library.com/articles/evolution.html#a3):
"'Abdu'l-Bahá's comments on evolution, I conclude, are best approached
as rational arguments and spiritual truths. Then, it becomes apparent
that he lays no challenge to scientific facts or to a scientific
approach toward understanding evolution, but challenges as incorrect
certain speculative inferences from those facts. In particular, he
denies the validity of inferences which insist that human nature
originates from animal nature."
Can we simply turn to Abdul Baha to fill in the philosophical side of
the reality and rely on the scientific explanation for the details?
Andrew
Douglas McAdam
although his form may have been different. A human being is
distinctly human.
I cannot imagine a Creation without a man or without a Manifestation
for it would be incomplete.
"We must not be afraid in stating truths in spite of the fact that
they may
run against what the biologist, the astronomer, the physicist, etc.,
say.
His point is that we should not impose it on the scientist, but we
should
have the courage to make these statements and not be afraid of stating
them
and saying we have no proof. We must admit that we have no proof, but
state
these are our teachings and express the hope science will prove them.
These
statements are divine Revelation and we believe in them. We should not
do
what the Muslim and Christian leaders have done and compromise. It is
a very
subtle form of corruption that the Muslim leaders have introduced into
the
Qur'an (regarding marriage, astronomy, etc.,). If science discovers a
fact
contrary to the text of the teachings, the Baha'is must adhere to the
text
of the teachings, even if it takes a thousand years to prove it as it
did
with the text of the Qur'an," (Surih 36) and (Answered Questions page
28).
regards,
doug
mike3
But are these statements about evolution meant to be taken literally?
See, that's the rub here. All that is "known" (or at least believed,
if you
are a Baha'i), is that whatever the statement means, is true. But our
apprehension of that meaning may not be perfect either, just as our
science
might be wrong too. So how could one know which one is wrong? And
to take everything literally, isn't that fundamentalism, and too
simple-
minded an approach? And that is bad, no?
The above says one cannot "compromise". But what does that mean,
exactly? Does this mean one should take everything straight up
literally,
and just blow all the science off? But then what's the point of
reason, and
also, how does it jive with the statements about religion without
science
being blind (or something like that)? So if, for example, one were to
take
'Abdu'l-Baha's statement as one that is about _meta-physics_, and not
_physics_, is that too much of a "compromise"? Is "compromising" the
same as "deviating from literalism"? What about holism, where you use
the rest of the canon to try and divine the meaning of the quote,
instead
of interpreting it in isolation? What is this "compromise", exactly?
And
how does this jive not only with the stuff about religion w/o science
being
"blind" but that science and religion should be in _harmony_? Does not
that
suggest that, among other things, science may be used to help
understand
the religion as well? Remember, it's not a one-way thing. One analogy
for
the idea was that science and religion are like 2 wings of a bird: you
need
both to fly. Having a lopsided bird with 1 huge wing and 1 little
teeny wing
sure could not fly well if at all either!
(Note here that my usage of the term "physics" is somewhat different
and
more general than the term as used to refer to a specific branch of
science.)
compx2
"... we should have the courage to make these statements and not be
afraid of stating them and saying we have no proof. We must admit
that we have no proof, but state these are our teachings and express
the hope science will prove them."
But I soooo disagree, on so many levels.
So let me just state for the record that, although Baha'is seem to be
accepting these ideas, that does not make them Baha'i ideas. I am a
Baha'i, and I find the idea, for example, that whatever is in the
Baha'i Writings must be true is backwards. Our Writings are meant for
inspiration, for guidance, for spiritual awakening and bettering the
human condition. They are not scientific proofs, and they certainly
don't supercede scientific proofs.
Since no one is reading this anyway I will stop here, but golly, any
lurkers please don't think that all Baha'is think like this. We
don't.
--Kent
> science.)- Hide quoted text -
mike3
wrote:
Yet if He cannot lift it then there is something he can't do. What do
you
do about that part? Or could He lift it, even though that is illogical
-- God
is not bound by logic?
But I want to know if I am right in how I've taken it, that's just it!
Because
I keep getting that implication from it... I want to know if that
implication is
valid, because it seems too awful to be true.
Douglas McAdam
see below
On Jan 2, 2009, at 5:04 PM, mike3 wrote:
> But are these statements about evolution meant to be taken literally?
> See, that's the rub here. All that is "known" (or at least believed,
> if you
> are a Baha'i), is that whatever the statement means, is true. But our
> apprehension of that meaning may not be perfect either, just as our
> science
> might be wrong too. So how could one know which one is wrong? And
> to take everything literally, isn't that fundamentalism, and too
> simple-
> minded an approach? And that is bad, no?
I don't know what statements about evolution you refer to as whether
we should take them literally or not.
Whatever is in the Writings to me is truth but our understanding of it
can be faulty. Thank God we also have the principle of consultation.
Personally, after perusing the various Writings and what I could
gather from science papers on the subject of evolution I see no
problem between what the Writings say and what science thusfar
believes, and I say "believes" because science is also and evolving
knowledge. I'm going to remain open minded because I know that in
time as mankind on the whole becomes more spiritual, and when our
education system deals with holism and not just specifics, we will
find emerging a true science and true religion which will be in
perfect harmony.
No I do not think compromise means taking things literally in the
Writings. I think we need to realize we are dealing with a developing
science and a developing religion and we need to be open minded and
avoid making limiting and absolute statements about either.
The House of Justice has told us the our current methodologies are not
sufficient to provide us with the most efficient understanding of the
Revelation and that we need to develop a new one that will be able to
observe and study spiritual realities.
I don't think it is right for a scientist or any person to say that
science cannot study spiritual realities, nor do I think it right for
a religionist to say science is wrong about evolution. I think we
need to realize that if the Writings say that true science and true
religion agree then so be it we then must find ways to reach this
agreement and at the moment our present knowledge gained from
discovery and experience both with regards to material and spiritual
realities are limited because we ourselves are limited in spiritual
development.
regards,
doug
>
>
Douglas McAdam
Here is the full quote. It comes from the Center of the Covenant, the
Official Interpreter of the Revelation of Baha'u'llah and the Perfect
Exemplar of His Teachings.
"We must not be afraid in stating truths in spite of the fact that
they may
run against what the biologist, the astronomer, the physicist, etc.,
say.
His point is that we should not impose it on the scientist, but we
should
have the courage to make these statements and not be afraid of stating
them
and saying we have no proof. We must admit that we have no proof, but
state
these are our teachings and express the hope science will prove them.
These statements are divine Revelation and we believe in them. We
should not
do what the Muslim and Christian leaders have done and compromise. It is
a very subtle form of corruption that the Muslim leaders have
introduced into
the Qur'an (regarding marriage, astronomy, etc.,). If science
discovers a
fact contrary to the text of the teachings, the Baha'is must adhere to
the
text of the teachings, even if it takes a thousand years to prove it
as it
did with the text of the Qur'an," (Surih 36) and (Answered Questions
page28).
compx2
> is not bound by logic?
When an irresistible force meets an immovable object there is an
indescribable collision.
> -- God
> is not bound by logic?
No, but we are.
--Kent
> valid, because it seems too awful to be true.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Douglas McAdam
friend.
Sure it is awful that people must bring trouble down on them but that
is there own choice.
The Manifestation has made it clear what is required of we servants
and explained how it all works, i.e. obey and receive reward and
disobey and receive punishment, it is our choice.
I think it is awful that a person disobeys the law of gravity and
breaks both legs and can never walk again but that was his poor
choice, not God's fault.
What is the point of accepting the Manifestation if all we have to do
is lead a good life?
Why bother teaching anyone that Christ has returned?
I'm not judging anyone Mike, I'm just giving you the quote in answer
to your question and sharing my own thoughts on it.
regards,
doug
tsuki190
You need to provide an accurate primary source for all of this. It is
not on page 28
of my SAQ. That is the end of a section on Mohammud taking about his
astronomical statements (which were in agreement with Galileo). I did a search
of SAQ online and your passage is not in it.
Cheers,
Tom
On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Douglas McAdam
<dougla...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> You said you don't know who said this.
> Here is the full quote. It comes from the Center of the Covenant, the
> Official Interpreter of the Revelation of Baha'u'llah and the Perfect
> Exemplar of His Teachings.
>
> "We must not be afraid in stating truths in spite of the fact that they may
> run against what the biologist, the astronomer, the physicist, etc., say.
> His point is that we should not impose it on the scientist, but we should
> have the courage to make these statements and not be afraid of stating them
> and saying we have no proof. We must admit that we have no proof, but state
> these are our teachings and express the hope science will prove them.
> These statements are divine Revelation and we believe in them. We should not
> do what the Muslim and Christian leaders have done and compromise. It is
> a very subtle form of corruption that the Muslim leaders have introduced
> into
> the Qur'an (regarding marriage, astronomy, etc.,). If science discovers a
> fact contrary to the text of the teachings, the Baha'is must adhere to the
> text of the teachings, even if it takes a thousand years to prove it as it
> did with the text of the Qur'an," (Surih 36) and (Answered Questions
> page28).
> On Jan 2, 2009, at 10:52 PM, compx2 wrote:
>
Susan
> I find it difficult to speak of an essence and its development. Like
> the progress of a soul. It seems to me an essence is a complete
> thing, from its beginning to its end.
Certainly Neo-platonism speaks of unchanging essences, but this is one
area where the Writings appear to depart from platonic notions. The
Writings *do* speak of essences changing. Jean-Marc Lepain illustrated
this in his dissertation *The Archeology of the Kingdom.*
Unfortunately, its written in French.
compx2
If Baha'u'llah were using words like "essences" differently from
conventional use, and 'Abdu'l-Baha was aware of such word usage, it
seems to
me we would find evidence of such a difference in some place other
than an
obscure dissertation in French. Google has found no hint of the
existence
of *The Archeology of the Kingdom* from the information you have
provided
so far.
On the other hand, it has always been my contention, contrary to Mark
and
his ilk, that Baha'u'llah was not expounding on the philosophies of
His
time, but rather straightening contrived understandings, simplifying
personal responsibilities, commanding us to investigate the universal
Source
of knowledge, and explaining to each of us that only our individual
understandings of the Highest Possible Understanding matter.
I read French. If you could point me to a copy, I would appreciate
it.
--Kent
compx2
http://bahai-library.com/pilgrims/maxwell.notes.html
--Kent
On Jan 3, 10:24 pm, Douglas McAdam <douglasmca...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> > valid, because it seems too awful to be true.- Hide quoted text -
compx2
Answered Questions, not recorded in the Ocean library at all.
As I have been telling you for years now, Doug, even if it were, truth
is truth independently of whether or not it is printed in any book,
even in the Baha'i Writings. Our meanings can be true, our words
cannot. Interpretations can be true, passages from books cannot.
--Kent
mike3
> I'm afraid I cannot answer you any different than I already have my
> friend.
> Sure it is awful that people must bring trouble down on them but that
>
> is there own choice.
So they choose not to hear -- 99.999% of people have made this
"choice",
no matter how good they are in their heart, they chose never to even
hear
of this messenger, and so they will be bringing _as much_ trouble to
them
as will befall someone with a heart full of darkness?
> The Manifestation has made it clear what is required of we servants
> and explained how it all works, i.e. obey and receive reward and
> disobey and receive punishment, it is our choice.
> I think it is awful that a person disobeys the law of gravity and
> breaks both legs and can never walk again but that was his poor
> choice, not God's fault.
> What is the point of accepting the Manifestation if all we have to do
>
> is lead a good life?
> Why bother teaching anyone that Christ has returned?
> I'm not judging anyone Mike, I'm just giving you the quote in answer
> to your question and sharing my own thoughts on it.
>
_I_ didn't say _you_ were "judging" somebody.
Douglas McAdam
Regarding the progress of the soul isn't this what the Seven and Four
Valleys is all about?
regards,
doug
Douglas McAdam
I found it. It comes from the Maxwell Notes. Page 37 which I found on
the Internet.
So it is not the Writings. However I agree in general that we should
remain open minded and not make judgments either way about saying the
Writings or science is wrong.
regards,
doug
mike3
> Hi Mike-
>
> see below
>
> On Jan 2, 2009, at 5:04 PM, mike3 wrote:
>
> > But are these statements about evolution meant to be taken literally?
> > See, that's the rub here. All that is "known" (or at least believed,
> > if you
> > are a Baha'i), is that whatever the statement means, is true. But our
> > apprehension of that meaning may not be perfect either, just as our
> > science
> > might be wrong too. So how could one know which one is wrong? And
> > to take everything literally, isn't that fundamentalism, and too
> > simple-
> > minded an approach? And that is bad, no?
>
> I don't know what statements about evolution you refer to as whether
> we should take them literally or not.
> Whatever is in the Writings to me is truth but our understanding of it
> can be faulty.
That makes more sense.
> Thank God we also have the principle of consultation.
> Personally, after perusing the various Writings and what I could
> gather from science papers on the subject of evolution I see no
> problem between what the Writings say and what science thusfar
> believes, and I say "believes" because science is also and evolving
> knowledge. I'm going to remain open minded because I know that in
> time as mankind on the whole becomes more spiritual, and when our
> education system deals with holism and not just specifics, we will
> find emerging a true science and true religion which will be in
> perfect harmony.
>
Although I would not think that reductionism is the only way, and that
holism should not be used.
I.e. to avoid dogmatism. As they will *never* be perfect and know
everything:
everything is subject to revision, and truth knows no limit so then
they are
_always_ "developing". It is highly unlikely that certain basic tenets
of biological
evolution will be disproven, but it is still _possible_ and I don't
think a *good*
scientist would say otherwise. For to do so would be unscientific, and
would be
falling into the trap of pseudo-science.
As I like to say: we should be open-minded, but not so open-minded our
brains
have fallen out, but we should also not be so closed-minded that our
brains
have withered from lack of intellectual light either.
> The House of Justice has told us the our current methodologies are not
> sufficient to provide us with the most efficient understanding of the
> Revelation and that we need to develop a new one that will be able to
> observe and study spiritual realities.
So why not do it?
> I don't think it is right for a scientist or any person to say that
> science cannot study spiritual realities, nor do I think it right for
> a religionist to say science is wrong about evolution. I think we
> need to realize that if the Writings say that true science and true
> religion agree then so be it we then must find ways to reach this
> agreement and at the moment our present knowledge gained from
> discovery and experience both with regards to material and spiritual
> realities are limited because we ourselves are limited in spiritual
> development.
>
But won't that always be how it is, because for it not to be, our
spiritual
development would have to be _un_limited, which would mean we would
be _perfect_, yet we can never be truly perfect?
Douglas McAdam
years and have never thought to check it out. I have no idea where I
got it or who gave it to me but I will find out for sure.
Thanks,
doug
On Jan 4, 2009, at 12:46 AM, tsuki190 wrote:
Douglas McAdam
and I say is limited truth.
peace,
doug
tsuki190
but he had already approved it. " Mark and his ilk, " is not appropriate
language on this list. The moderators apologize for letting it thru.
Tom
[Note: the moderator is "Mark" and felt funny rejecting it. However, Tom is correct.]
Douglas McAdam
On Jan 4, 2009, at 12:44 PM, mike3 wrote:
> On Jan 3, 8:24 pm, Douglas McAdam <douglasmca...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> I'm afraid I cannot answer you any different than I already have my
>> friend.
>> Sure it is awful that people must bring trouble down on them but that
>>
>> is there own choice.
>
> So they choose not to hear -- 99.999% of people have made this
> "choice",
> no matter how good they are in their heart, they chose never to even
> hear
> of this messenger, and so they will be bringing _as much_ trouble to
> them
> as will befall someone with a heart full of darkness?
Hi Mike-
No I would not say they choose not to hear, I would say they choose
not to believe in the Manifestation for one reason or another. Just
for discussions sake take a look at your own experience in teaching.
How many souls have you taught directly who Baha'u'llah is and how
many have completely ignored or even actively opposed? But that does
not mean they have been damned forever because sometimes the Message
takes time to be assimilated and so maybe all you did was plant the
seed and later another Baha'i might nurture that seed and the soul
will accept. This to me is why we must continue to unconditionally
love all souls. My theory is that if we are created to know and love
God and the Manifestation is indeed from God then the soul is created
to have the capacity to know. However the outer person, the ego, has
maybe been wrongly educated and thus will resist the Manifestation
because it has a much different idea of who is in charge of things.
The ego will oppose anything that may mean losing control of the
self. An old teacher of mine many years ago told me that if the soul
is created to exist in a condition of servitude then the body and mind
are created for that purpose too and so the body and mind are supposed
to serve the soul but to do so all need proper education. The idea
also was expressed to me that the soul will instantly recognize the
Manifestation but the outer materialistic ego will fight against the
soul and this creates an inner problem of anxiety in which a
compromising behavior must be sought and that compromising behavior
can become an addiction. In the Comprehensvie Deepening Program I
recall where there was a paragraph regarding how the biggest
contribution to mental illness in children was the double standard of
adults. The adult will exhibit a double standard and the child's
brain is thrown out of unity and it creates nervousness in which the
child must seek a compromising behavior. So maybe that might also
apply to a person and his or her relation with the spirit. The soul
recognizes Truth and wants to acquire it but the outer conditioned
person rejects it and thus a problem exists. How many times I can
recall telling someone a truth and they argue with me and then two
weeks later they tell me that same truth as if they discovered in
themselves.
>
>
>> The Manifestation has made it clear what is required of we servants
>> and explained how it all works, i.e. obey and receive reward and
>> disobey and receive punishment, it is our choice.
>> I think it is awful that a person disobeys the law of gravity and
>> breaks both legs and can never walk again but that was his poor
>> choice, not God's fault.
>> What is the point of accepting the Manifestation if all we have to do
>>
>> is lead a good life?
>> Why bother teaching anyone that Christ has returned?
>> I'm not judging anyone Mike, I'm just giving you the quote in answer
>> to your question and sharing my own thoughts on it.
>>
>
> _I_ didn't say _you_ were "judging" somebody.
No, I know you didn't Mike I am just saying this so that there is no
misunderstanding by anyone.
God bless,
doug
Douglas McAdam
I'm snipping out extraneous text to focus on only those parts to which
I feel prompted to respond-
On Jan 4, 2009, at 1:13 PM, mike3 wrote:
> On Jan 3, 3:38 pm, Douglas McAdam <douglasmca...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>
>> No I do not think compromise means taking things literally in the
>> Writings. I think we need to realize we are dealing with a
>> developing
>
>> science and a developing religion and we need to be open minded and
>> avoid making limiting and absolute statements about either.
>
> I.e. to avoid dogmatism. As they will *never* be perfect and know
> everything:
> everything is subject to revision, and truth knows no limit so then
> they are
> _always_ "developing". It is highly unlikely that certain basic tenets
> of biological
> evolution will be disproven, but it is still _possible_ and I don't
> think a *good*
> scientist would say otherwise. For to do so would be unscientific, and
> would be
> falling into the trap of pseudo-science.
>
> As I like to say: we should be open-minded, but not so open-minded our
> brains
> have fallen out, but we should also not be so closed-minded that our
> brains
> have withered from lack of intellectual light either.
Yes, I agree. I don't think we will suffer though from being too open
minded. Seems to me that our major problem is being too closed minded
about the religion/science relationships. For example we have laws in
our Faith and science has not proven anything about them and so we
could be open minded and simply argue it is fine to violate these laws
since they disagree with science. And some do try to rationalize
behaviors this way. But for me I will follow the spiritual law
regardless of what these rational minded people say and I do not feel
that is being closed mindedness.
>
>
>> The House of Justice has told us the our current methodologies are
>> not
>
>> sufficient to provide us with the most efficient understanding of the
>> Revelation and that we need to develop a new one that will be able to
>> observe and study spiritual realities.
>
> So why not do it?
That is the question? But we are talking about why because it is
obvious far too many, even Baha'is, conclude it is not possible to for
science to do this.
However Mike, have we not seen some samples of such studies being
done? How about the studies of the effects of prayer upon patients in
hospitals? How about the brain scans that show a difference in those
brains when in prayer? How about observing the behaviors of religious
peoples? Psychology and Sociology use methods to study behaviors
which to me are effects. What about the law of abstinence from
alcohol? Can we assume that law is a Postulate to be studied and then
do the studies on groups and record their behaviors what has happened
to their bodies and brains? We already know how alcohol effects brain
and body cells and that can be measure can't it? Just because a small
amount is not considered harmful doesn't mean the law of abstinence is
wrong does it.
Obviously these and other issues are not easy to study or even discuss
as we have seen from the evidence on this forum about the alcohol
issue. If people would only be open minded and objective and discuss
these things and if the scientific and religious community would make
it a focus we might be surprised at the progress we make. But until
we believe it is possible we are not going to do it.
>
>
>> I don't think it is right for a scientist or any person to say that
>> science cannot study spiritual realities, nor do I think it right for
>> a religionist to say science is wrong about evolution. I think we
>> need to realize that if the Writings say that true science and true
>> religion agree then so be it we then must find ways to reach this
>> agreement and at the moment our present knowledge gained from
>> discovery and experience both with regards to material and spiritual
>> realities are limited because we ourselves are limited in spiritual
>> development.
>>
>
> But won't that always be how it is, because for it not to be, our
> spiritual
> development would have to be _un_limited, which would mean we would
> be _perfect_, yet we can never be truly perfect?
Guess I am not following you here Mike. Perfections are endless,
according to the Writings. We can look back in history and see the
type of imperfections in ancient times being quite different than
now. In the future will will also find that todays imperfections
being resolved but new ones appearing as new laws come from new
Manifestations.
However when I say spiritual realities I'm not talking about being
able to observe and evaluate and understand the Unknowable Essence we
call God, nor His Manifestation or the essences of anything for that
matter and there are other spiritual realities we simply will not
fully understand but when it come to the effects that are observable
here in this world as reflections of the spirit then I do think
science will come up with a new methodology for that purpose.
regards,
doug
>
>
mike...@yahoo.com
>What about given a whole lot MORE parameters, and which ones would
>resolve the paradox?
This is actually a decent question. I might be going out on a limb
here, but so far I've come up short in finding a flaw in the
statement: God is all-glorious. Can you? I could poke holes in other
statements like God is the greatest (due to the relativism) all
capable..etc. but so far, I'm not having much luck with this one.
Perhaps that's why we call it the greatest name of God, because it's
alot harder to find a loophole in such a statement.
In totality the writings convey a meaning of God that best suits our
limited logic and language. It's like you live in flatland and you're
accusing the person who attempts to relate the third dimension to you
of being a liar for not using and exact language.
Science to me is about arriving at the truth and understanding our
universe and in this case, the tradition of reductionism clearly does
not apply. Imagine a two dimensional creature trying to use
reductionism to find his third dimension? He's going to be in there a
long time..
>> what Baha'u'llah said, first to accept the Manifestation and secondly
>> to obey His commands. If we do this then we won't be seeing all these
>> problems in the world.
>Does this mean that all those who were good in their heart and did alot of
>good out of that goodness in their heart, are still "wrong" and a source of "evil"
>and trouble in the world, because they didn't do that _first_
>principle at all? Because remember, only at most 6 million out of 6 billion have done
>the first.
There are levels to this that must be appreciated when (again)
reading the writings in their totality. For starters, Baha'is are told
that no one, knows their own end. We are not promised salvation for
our good deeds as Baha'is. A person who dies may recognize Baha'u'llah
in death having never even known him in life. And a good Baha'i in
death may still fall in the nethermost fire of self and fail to
recognize Baha'u'llah. So what are we saying here? Do you do your good
deeds for salvation or because you love God and humanity having no
care other than you chose at this moment to do something good for your
beloved.
Your line of thinking is christian in nature and misses the point
entirely. We can't even promise our own salvation, how can we worry if
others are saved? The truth is that much of the evil comes from
exactly your line of thought which centers of self and personal
salvation. Salvation is not our concern, recognizing our beloved and
serving him and humanity, this is the source of all good.
mike...@yahoo.com
>Beliefs are individual. We must choose individually at the nit-picky
>level of hair length and wine for dinner. Those decisions are ours to
>make. If you think there are beliefs that you must have to be a
>Baha'i, well, you have the view of the vast majority of Baha'is. You
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you here. You're line of
thinking here is very protestant in nature. Try this thought out for a
second. If I accept what you state as true, and incorporate it as my
belief then it's okay for me to go and kill muslims for mistreating my
grandmother or desecrating my grandfathers grave, and still call
myself a Baha'i. This in turn leads to feuding and next thing you know
we have our own religious war. Do you see the problem when people
start to determine their own version of what's morally acceptable.
To you, your line of thinking appears innocent and liberally fair
minded, to me, it's the reason the world is in its' current state of
affairs.
Baha'is are here to change that, and if it means kicking me out of
the faith for killing a muslim out of revenge or chastizing a person
for drinking socially, If that's what you mean by homogenous then so
be it. That in my estimation is the remedy for our world's ills.
Like it or not, the faith has grown in spite of serious disadvantages
both financially and socially. I wonder what will happen when your
churches or mosques lack the money to support their ministers? I guess
that means there's going to have to be some serious loss of capital
for that to happen. Perhaps there will be a need for that do-it-
yourself religion in order to cut costs. Let's see what happens?
Susan
> If Baha'u'llah were using words like "essences" differently from
> conventional use,
Dear Kent,
You presume there is a conventional use of the words like 'essences.'
Do you even know what words in Persian or Arabic are used for essence
and what they 'conventionally' meant in those cultures?
Are you familiar with the Ishraqi philosophical background that often
informed those conceptions?
Or are you just assuming that the Writings should be understood in a
decontextualized, literalistic and fundamentalistic fashion? :-)
> I read French. If you could point me to a copy, I would appreciate
> it.
<http://www.bahai-biblio.org/centre-doc/ouvrage/esprit-antropique/
esprit-antropi\
que-sommaire.htm>
Susan
Susan
> Hi Susan-
> Regarding the progress of the soul isn't this what the Seven and Four
> Valleys is all about?
>
> regards,
> doug
There are lots of things in our Writings which speak of the progress
of the soul.
mike3
wrote:
> On Jan 4, 2009, at 12:44 PM, mike3 wrote:
>
> > On Jan 3, 8:24 pm, Douglas McAdam <douglasmca...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> I'm afraid I cannot answer you any different than I already have my
> >> friend.
> >> Sure it is awful that people must bring trouble down on them but that
>
> >> is there own choice.
>
> > So they choose not to hear -- 99.999% of people have made this
> > "choice",
> > no matter how good they are in their heart, they chose never to even
> > hear
> > of this messenger, and so they will be bringing _as much_ trouble to
> > them
> > as will befall someone with a heart full of darkness?
>
> Hi Mike-
> No I would not say they choose not to hear, I would say they choose
> not to believe in the Manifestation for one reason or another.
Even those who's world-situation prevented them from hearing it? Like
those who just by sheer luck/unluck have never encountered it? I.e.
99% of people?
<snip>
mike3
wrote:
One *would*, though, if one starts accepting delusions left and right.
For
example, suppose you're so open-minded that you accept some sort of
medical treatment _without any question_ because it looks different
from
"orthodox" medicine. Without _any_ question. Then you do it, and you
get
much sicker from it. Turns out it was a scam and you had been duped.
Just
because "orthodox" medicine may not "know everything" (does
anything?!),
doesn't mean you can go willy-nilly believing everything you hear out
there
without question. Of course one cannot dismiss everything heard
without
question, either. What if a real, working cure for the disease one had
was
out there? You have to be open enough to go looking for it, but not so
open
that one falls into the traps. You cannot be so closed, either, that
you don't
start looking and get killed by the disease instead.
> Seems to me that our major problem is being too closed minded
> about the religion/science relationships.
Perhaps for _this specific issue_. But in other places there is the
issue of too
much open-mindedness too.
> For example we have laws in
> our Faith and science has not proven anything about them and so we
> could be open minded and simply argue it is fine to violate these laws
> since they disagree with science.
"Dis"agree with science? Where does science say that some of these
laws
are right/wrong? I didn't think science made pronouncements of things
like morals and stuff. To _dis_agree science needs to say something
that
_contradicts_ them.
> And some do try to rationalize
> behaviors this way. But for me I will follow the spiritual law
> regardless of what these rational minded people say and I do not feel
> that is being closed mindedness.
>
But if one is not "rational-minded" then one could easily fall into
lots of
irrational things, i.e. superstition. I think the idea is not to be
too
_dogmatic_, and real science would concede that point. Real science
is not supposed to be dogmatic.
>
>
> >> The House of Justice has told us the our current methodologies are
> >> not
>
> >> sufficient to provide us with the most efficient understanding of the
> >> Revelation and that we need to develop a new one that will be able to
> >> observe and study spiritual realities.
>
> > So why not do it?
>
> That is the question? But we are talking about why because it is
> obvious far too many, even Baha'is, conclude it is not possible to for
> science to do this.
> However Mike, have we not seen some samples of such studies being
> done? How about the studies of the effects of prayer upon patients in
> hospitals? How about the brain scans that show a difference in those
> brains when in prayer? How about observing the behaviors of religious
> peoples?
Yes, I've seen this.
> Psychology and Sociology use methods to study behaviors
> which to me are effects. What about the law of abstinence from
> alcohol? Can we assume that law is a Postulate to be studied and then
> do the studies on groups and record their behaviors what has happened
> to their bodies and brains? We already know how alcohol effects brain
> and body cells and that can be measure can't it?
It can.
> Just because a small
> amount is not considered harmful doesn't mean the law of abstinence is
> wrong does it.
No it wouldn't. So how does this "Science" _contradict_ the law, as
you mentioned
earlier? It doesn't.
Perfections are endless but nobody will ever _have them all_. As then
they
would be perfect. This is not possible for a human being. You yourself
said
just above, about "todays imperfections being resolved but new ones
appearing"
Rather, they can only be continually acquired, and there will _always_
be
some they _will not have_. You said "and at the moment our present
knowledge gained from discovery and experience both with regards to
material and spiritual realities are limited because we ourselves are
limited
in spiritual development." I was just pointing out that this is
_always_ how
it will be. It may get _less_ limited as we gain more development, but
because
there is no end to development it will never be _totally_ _un_limited
either.
Does that make sense? It is just simple logic. But does any of this
mean
that we will not be able to get *any* significant new methods until
hundreds
and hundreds of years from now, as it is impossible to have enough
spiritual
development until that much time has elapsed?
Douglas McAdam
For those who, for whatever reason, do not have the opportunity to
choose to believe or not my understanding is they will get that
opportunity in the next world.
I do not understand why this is so difficult to understand.
We are created to know and love God. The Manifestation comes and we
are supposed to recognize and obey. I doubt an All Merciful God, a
Just God would punish a soul who never had an opportunity to make a
choice.
regards,
doug
mike3
> Dear Mike-
>
> For those who, for whatever reason, do not have the opportunity to
> choose to believe or not my understanding is they will get that
> opportunity in the next world.
> I do not understand why this is so difficult to understand.
> We are created to know and love God. The Manifestation comes and we
> are supposed to recognize and obey. I doubt an All Merciful God, a
> Just God would punish a soul who never had an opportunity to make a
> choice.
>
Well that makes more sense, now. Why was I having so much trouble?
For one, it did not seem just, for another, I didn't have all the
information,
yet another, I equate "punishment" with "ETERNAL punishment" as in
"the worst punishment possible" (this is probably due to some sub-
conscious
tendency to equate religions in my head with fundamentalist
Christianity even
though I know consciously that one cannot do this), even though there
are
degrees of punishment as much as there are degrees of reward, and it
need
not be eternal. This itself is a manifestation of black/white
thinking, a problem
I sometimes have (although it's more like one part of my mind realizes
it
is not so black/white, but then there's this nagging other part that
likes to
say that is the implication.).
ratu...@yahoo.co.uk
> Dear Mike-
>
> For those who, for whatever reason, do not have the opportunity to
Does someone who hears the message of Baha'u'llah and signs the card
"choose to believe" and someone who doesn't "choose not to believe"?
Everyone on earth has heard the teachings of Baha'u'llah is some form
or another - maybe the Pakistani tribesman whose daughter wants to
study rather than marry, may an Israeli kibbutznik who decides to
campaign for the rights of Palestinians or a New York investment
banker who blows the whistle on a fraud. Or maybe even a card carrying
Baha'i who is invited to a fireside on the wrong side of town and is
worried about parking his car.
In fact, we are all repeatedly asked to make choices. The decisions we
make and the actions we do are what determines whether we recognise
the Manifestation, not necessarily whether we sign a card or not.
Andrew
Douglas McAdam
What you said about equating punishment with Christian fundamentalism
makes a lot of sense to me. I truly think, even though we may not
admit it, that we are all in some fashion and to some degree affected
by growing up in a predominately Judaeo/Christian culture. The life
long exposure to attitudes and stimuli from the media, the school and
other experiences etc. are deeply ingrained in our cumulative
consciousness and we simply may not be aware of how that influences
our thinking until it is brought somehow to our attention. I recall
growing up and being turned off and confused by fundamentalist
attitudes and not having my questions answered so that when I read the
Baha'i Writings it was like all the answers I needed that made sense
out of things. Yet still we find people so heavily ingrained with
these conditions they oppose the Faith and argue with the Writings. I
recall Dan Jordan saying that prejudice was an emotional commitment to
an error in knowledge.
regards,
doug
mike3
<snip>
> Your line of thinking is christian in nature and misses the point
> entirely. We can't even promise our own salvation, how can we worry if
> others are saved? The truth is that much of the evil comes from
> exactly your line of thought which centers of self and personal
> salvation. Salvation is not our concern, recognizing our beloved and
> serving him and humanity, this is the source of all good.
So then it does not matter which religion one follows, as long as one
does
that selfless service to humanity and God. Perhaps that is the true
religion?
Good is good, period. This makes much more sense than that other train
of
thought, which is not one I actually support, but rather one that I
don't think
is so, but unfortunately I've tended to associate it with "religions"
in general,
even if not wholly consciously, and I "know" its error.
mike3
> Hi Mike-
> What you said about equating punishment with Christian fundamentalism
> makes a lot of sense to me. I truly think, even though we may not
> admit it, that we are all in some fashion and to some degree affected
> by growing up in a predominately Judaeo/Christian culture.
> The life
> long exposure to attitudes and stimuli from the media, the school and
> other experiences etc. are deeply ingrained in our cumulative
> consciousness and we simply may not be aware of how that influences
> our thinking until it is brought somehow to our attention.
I actually realized it on my own. Although I neer went to school or
really
did much "out in the world", I nevertheless heard of the stuff through
internet
and that type of stuff.
> I recall
> growing up and being turned off and confused by fundamentalist
> attitudes and not having my questions answered so that when I read the
> Baha'i Writings it was like all the answers I needed that made sense
> out of things. Yet still we find people so heavily ingrained with
> these conditions they oppose the Faith and argue with the Writings. I
> recall Dan Jordan saying that prejudice was an emotional commitment to
> an error in knowledge.
>
Well the reason I ask all these questions and have so much trouble is
because
I actually want to believe that punishment ISN'T eternal, that the
Majority of
people are NOT going to be "burning" in hell for eternity, that sins
are NOT equal,
that a good heart *plus* deeds DOES count even if you haven't accepted
a religion,
and so on, (i.e. that God does not ignore it and that it certainly
_does_ have a
positive effect) and so on. I.e. the _opposite_ of much of that
fundamentalist stuff,
which I don't feel is right.
So instead of "believing" all the fundamentalist stuff I read (I've
never directly
experienced getting preached to by a preacher, or gone to a church,
etc.), I got
hardened against it firmly, and decided to believe it false. Is this
an error in knowledge?
And this is why I question the Baha'i religion as well, because to me
it seemed like
those things were _confirming_ that fundamentalism was true: if you
don't accept,
you're damned! But *that* doesn't seem like God to me. Fundamentalism
seems
totally *wrong*.
<snip>
mike3
> >resolve the paradox?
>
> This is actually a decent question. I might be going out on a limb
> here, but so far I've come up short in finding a flaw in the
> statement: God is all-glorious. Can you? I could poke holes in other
> statements like God is the greatest (due to the relativism) all
> capable..etc. but so far, I'm not having much luck with this one.
> Perhaps that's why we call it the greatest name of God, because it's
> alot harder to find a loophole in such a statement.
>
> In totality the writings convey a meaning of God that best suits our
> limited logic and language. It's like you live in flatland and you're
> accusing the person who attempts to relate the third dimension to you
> of being a liar for not using and exact language.
> Science to me is about arriving at the truth and understanding our
> universe and in this case, the tradition of reductionism clearly does
> not apply. Imagine a two dimensional creature trying to use
> reductionism to find his third dimension? He's going to be in there a
> long time..
>
The question is *how* do you use things *other* than reductionism to
find
out, *and*, *what* is the conclusion? And *how* does it resolve the
paradox?
> >> what Baha'u'llah said, first to accept the Manifestation and secondly
> >> to obey His commands. If we do this then we won't be seeing all these
> >> problems in the world.
> >Does this mean that all those who were good in their heart and did alot of
> >good out of that goodness in their heart, are still "wrong" and a source of "evil"
> >and trouble in the world, because they didn't do that _first_
> >principle at all? Because remember, only at most 6 million out of 6 billion have done
> >the first.
>
> There are levels to this that must be appreciated when (again)
> reading the writings in their totality. For starters, Baha'is are told
> that no one, knows their own end. We are not promised salvation for
> our good deeds as Baha'is. A person who dies may recognize Baha'u'llah
> in death having never even known him in life. And a good Baha'i in
> death may still fall in the nethermost fire of self and fail to
> recognize Baha'u'llah. So what are we saying here? Do you do your good
> deeds for salvation or because you love God and humanity having no
> care other than you chose at this moment to do something good for your
> beloved.
>
> Your line of thinking is christian in nature and misses the point
> entirely. We can't even promise our own salvation, how can we worry if
> others are saved? The truth is that much of the evil comes from
> exactly your line of thought which centers of self and personal
> salvation. Salvation is not our concern, recognizing our beloved and
> serving him and humanity, this is the source of all good.
The person I'm thinking of (they are a hypothetical), is the one that
does
good deeds out of the goodness of their heart and love for everything
else.
That's how I'd try to do things. I'd rather *not* do it for keeping
myself from
"burning in hell" or trying to "get the riches of heaven". It doesn't
seem so good
any more when the motivation is that. The thing though is, does the
acceptance
or rejection of *some particular religion* *totally negate* *even
this*? I would like
to believe it doesn't. As believing it does sounds a little too
fundamentalist Christian
for my taste. So yes, those questions *are* about a "Christian" train
of thinking, because
I actually *don't* agree with that line of thinking and want to see if
Baha'i also does
not agree with that line of thinking. What I *don't* want to think is
that God is a terrible
monster that brings horrible wrath upon even the best of people merely
because they didn't
accept some religion. That sounds like a psychopathic, evil monster to
me, a hideous
and terrible thing. I would not, and NEVER will, believe in a God that
does such a thing,
ever. Because I love humanity too much. Is that a "centered on self"
attitude, to do that? I
do not think so. I was asking questions about whether or not some
other line of thinking
(that Christian one) was also part of *this* religion (Baha'i), one of
the few that I've seen
that would seem it might not endorse that. Because I'm not sure if I
can commit to any
official religion at all. Maybe, that's how I should do it. Just do
what is best for humanity,
out of a selfless love for them, and not worry about which religion
was more "right".
mike3
And furthermore, I *don't* want to follow any religion out of hope of
reward
or fear of punishment, as that would to me defeat the purpose of it
all.
Douglas McAdam
See my comments below please--
On Jan 9, 2009, at 3:53 PM, mike3 wrote:
> SNIP
>> I recall
>> growing up and being turned off and confused by fundamentalist
>> attitudes and not having my questions answered so that when I read
>> the
>> Baha'i Writings it was like all the answers I needed that made sense
>> out of things. Yet still we find people so heavily ingrained with
>> these conditions they oppose the Faith and argue with the
>> Writings. I
>> recall Dan Jordan saying that prejudice was an emotional commitment
>> to
>> an error in knowledge.
>>
>
> Well the reason I ask all these questions and have so much trouble is
> because
> I actually want to believe that punishment ISN'T eternal, that the
> Majority of
> people are NOT going to be "burning" in hell for eternity, that sins
> are NOT equal,
> that a good heart *plus* deeds DOES count even if you haven't accepted
> a religion,
> and so on, (i.e. that God does not ignore it and that it certainly
> _does_ have a
> positive effect) and so on. I.e. the _opposite_ of much of that
> fundamentalist stuff,
> which I don't feel is right.
I'm sure from my own reading of the Baha'i Writings that no soul will
be "burning in hell". However I once read something from some scholar
of the Faith I think that the idea was that what we do here does have
an effect on us in the next world. The examples I recall was that a
person in this world might do something that inhibited the growth of
the soul and that lack of development proceeds into the next world
where the soul progresses only by the Mercy of God and not by
individual action. Another example was that of a baby in the womb
experiencing a lack of growth because of what the mother or parents
had passed on through the genes. The baby comes into this world with
not having a full physical capacity and thus will be inhibited here
physically. Or say an opium addict will have black teeth here and
even when stopping the habit and becoming a better person the teeth
will remain black.
But bottom line to me is that the Baha'i Writings really clear up the
traditional misunderstandings about heaven and hell. I would direct
you to David Young's Course in which he deals with such subjects as
heaven and hell, sin, etc.
>
>
> So instead of "believing" all the fundamentalist stuff I read (I've
> never directly
> experienced getting preached to by a preacher, or gone to a church,
> etc.), I got
> hardened against it firmly, and decided to believe it false. Is this
> an error in knowledge?
No I don't think it false. I may be that you are experiencing that
kind of "just knowing" or innate wisdom of the soul because your old
world conditioning was not as strong as some people.
>
> And this is why I question the Baha'i religion as well, because to me
> it seemed like
> those things were _confirming_ that fundamentalism was true: if you
> don't accept,
> you're damned! But *that* doesn't seem like God to me. Fundamentalism
> seems
> totally *wrong*.
> <snip>
>
I guess it depends on what we define as fundamentalism. There are
some things which we should be fundamental about, such as the laws,
i.e. they are clear and not a matter of interpretation. But other
Teachings I think must be taken in context and a broader
consideration. Thank God He has given us the principle of
consultation and warned us that although we are free and should make
our own interpretations we are not to force these on others. And
thank God we have the written Covenant to turn to when we encounter
disagreements and the necessary Institutions to consult when needed.
In closing let me say that I believe I could make a strong case for
the idea that the soul has innate wisdom and capacity to know the
truth when presented but the outer ego being conditioned by our
largely materialistic upbringing will argue against anything that
threatens its control over the person. Indeed I truly believe this is
one of the things that cause problems in people. I read where one of
the chief causes of mental illness in children was the double standard
of adults. Children hear or see an adult doing just the opposite of
what they had learned or were told by those same adults and those two
conflicting messages going to the brain cause nervousness in which the
child will seek a compromising behavior and then becomes addicted to
that behavior.
I recall many times telling someone the truth and how they objected
and opposed what I said only to find a few weeks later them telling me
the same thing as if they discovered in on their own.
God bless,
doug
mike...@yahoo.com
>So then it does not matter which religion one follows,
>as long as one does that selfless service to humanity and God.
I'm not so sure about this. For example. If the premise of your
religion that you follow and support financially is to further a claim
that 'we are going to heaven and you are going to hell' or that 'white
people are good and black people are evil'...etc. and your reason for
being a part of this religion centers on personal convenience,
salvation and self-advancement, Then I'd seriously question how you
can hold true to the claim of a selfless desire to serve humanity and
God. Baha'u'llah says that we should pray that our _good_ deeds are
acceptable at the throne of the All mighty. It isn't just that we do a
good deed, we must pray that our motivations were right and that our
heart was pure.
To create an extreme example. Consider the unknowing Nazi. A person
who during WWII allys himself with the Nazis and does good deeds,
giving to the poor, being polite, serving his country...etc. If the
core of his motivations for good deeds centers on his pride and
nationalism, then would it really be acceptable?
At the end of the day, the Baha'i represents a sum total in thought
and character that begins with the recognition of Baha'u'llahs wisdom
and ends with the personal transformation in allying oneself with
those who share your common beliefs.
The Baha'i faith provides a framework where humanity can collectively
put to rest things like war, religious intolerance and poverty..etc.
but we must do it as a collective. Our motivation for seeking new
Baha'is centers on the need to raise humanity up.
> The thing though is, does the acceptance or rejection of *some particular religion* *totally negate* *even
>this*? I would like
I guess it all depends on what the premise of your acceptance or
rejection is? When you examine your reasons for believing somthing is
it a matter of convenience, culture, self-advancement? I think those
are some important questions to ask that may guage your own level of
spirituality.
>I actually *don't* agree with that line of thinking and want to see if
>Baha'i also does not agree with that line of thinking. What I *don't* want to think is
I can't speak for all Baha'is but I can state that I'm a third
generation Baha'i and I can see that there are Baha'is from a
Christian background who still think on certain lines. I don't fault
them but I do know that over time my personal view seems to become the
norm. So I do believe that over time, the Faith is transformative.
>that God is a terrible monster that brings horrible wrath upon even the best of people merely
>because they didn't accept some religion. That sounds like a psychopathic, evil monster to
>me, a hideous and terrible thing. I would not, and NEVER will, believe in a God that
>does such a thing,ever. Because I love humanity too much. Is that a "centered on self"
This has never been the case in the Faith. It's more like God is a
loving Father who forewarns you that the burner on the stove is hot
and not to touch it. The consequences of your disobedience are
inherent in the act. A person turning away from the Faith will live
with the ever apparent spiritual ills of our society. Why live in
misery? That's my question.
Sometimes reductionism doesn't apply and you need to try it out on
faith and see where it goes.
mike3
wrote:
But does this mean the lack of development is always *permanent*? And
is this the "punishment" for the "sin"?
> But bottom line to me is that the Baha'i Writings really clear up the
> traditional misunderstandings about heaven and hell. I would direct
> you to David Young's Course in which he deals with such subjects as
> heaven and hell, sin, etc.
>
>
>
> > So instead of "believing" all the fundamentalist stuff I read (I've
> > never directly
> > experienced getting preached to by a preacher, or gone to a church,
> > etc.), I got
> > hardened against it firmly, and decided to believe it false. Is this
> > an error in knowledge?
>
> No I don't think it false. I may be that you are experiencing that
> kind of "just knowing" or innate wisdom of the soul because your old
> world conditioning was not as strong as some people.
>
What I'm talking about is stuff like the fundamentalist beliefs about
hell, sin, etc.
And yes, the "conditioning" (at least in terms of "materialism") may
not be as much in this case, because my family and life situations
were different.
> > And this is why I question the Baha'i religion as well, because to me
> > it seemed like
> > those things were _confirming_ that fundamentalism was true: if you
> > don't accept,
> > you're damned! But *that* doesn't seem like God to me. Fundamentalism
> > seems
> > totally *wrong*.
> > <snip>
>
> I guess it depends on what we define as fundamentalism. There are
> some things which we should be fundamental about, such as the laws,
> i.e. they are clear and not a matter of interpretation.
The type of fundamentalism I'm talking about is the stuff about hell,
sin,
"accept Jesus/Muhammad/etc. or your are doomed FOREVER!!!", etc.
mike3
> >So then it does not matter which religion one follows,
> >as long as one does that selfless service to humanity and God.
>
> I'm not so sure about this. For example. If the premise of your
> religion that you follow and support financially is to further a claim
> that 'we are going to heaven and you are going to hell' or that 'white
> people are good and black people are evil'...etc. and your reason for
> being a part of this religion centers on personal convenience,
> salvation and self-advancement, Then I'd seriously question how you
> can hold true to the claim of a selfless desire to serve humanity and
> God.
Well I was thinking more along the lines of any religion that
*doesn't* have
such things. Or even hard atheism, with no belief in religions at all,
so nothing
to make those claims. And not all religions make such claims, and I'm
not sure
if Baha'i would be the *sole* exception. i.e. any "Religion" that
*does not*
conflict with it.
And that's one of the things I would never do: enter into a religion
out of fear
of hell, or because someone else wanted me to, or whatever. That would
seem to defeat it all. That would sour the good.
> Baha'u'llah says that we should pray that our _good_ deeds are
> acceptable at the throne of the All mighty. It isn't just that we do a
> good deed, we must pray that our motivations were right and that our
> heart was pure.
>
That's the type of deed I am talking about, the one motivated by a
good
and pure heart. How that flies when the person has not accepted the
Baha'i
religion, yet whatever "religion" they have does not run contrary to
such a
good/pure heart.
> To create an extreme example. Consider the unknowing Nazi. A person
> who during WWII allys himself with the Nazis and does good deeds,
> giving to the poor, being polite, serving his country...etc. If the
> core of his motivations for good deeds centers on his pride and
> nationalism, then would it really be acceptable?
>
It might not be good then, though, no.
> At the end of the day, the Baha'i represents a sum total in thought
> and character that begins with the recognition of Baha'u'llahs wisdom
> and ends with the personal transformation in allying oneself with
> those who share your common beliefs.
>
> The Baha'i faith provides a framework where humanity can collectively
> put to rest things like war, religious intolerance and poverty..etc.
> but we must do it as a collective. Our motivation for seeking new
> Baha'is centers on the need to raise humanity up.
>
> > The thing though is, does the acceptance or rejection of *some particul
ar religion* *totally negate* *even
> >this*? I would like
>
> I guess it all depends on what the premise of your acceptance or
> rejection is? When you examine your reasons for believing somthing is
> it a matter of convenience, culture, self-advancement?
What happens if it is a matter of trying to do things out of the
goodness
in the heart, for the goodness of the world?
> I think those
> are some important questions to ask that may guage your own level of
> spirituality.
>
> >I actually *don't* agree with that line of thinking and want to see if
> >Baha'i also does not agree with that line of thinking. What I *don't* wa
nt to think is
>
> I can't speak for all Baha'is but I can state that I'm a third
> generation Baha'i and I can see that there are Baha'is from a
> Christian background who still think on certain lines. I don't fault
> them but I do know that over time my personal view seems to become the
> norm. So I do believe that over time, the Faith is transformative.
>
> >that God is a terrible monster that brings horrible wrath upon even the
best of people merely
> >because they didn't accept some religion. That sounds like a psychopathi
c, evil monster to
> >me, a hideous and terrible thing. I would not, and NEVER will, believe i
n a God that
> >does such a thing,ever. Because I love humanity too much. Is that a "cen
tered on self"
>
> This has never been the case in the Faith. It's more like God is a
> loving Father who forewarns you that the burner on the stove is hot
> and not to touch it. The consequences of your disobedience are
> inherent in the act.
But then what is all this stuff in religious texts about God's
"judgment" and
God "punishing", anyway (and you just mentioned earlier about "deeds
being
acceptable at the throne of the Almighty"!), when the punishment is
apparently
intrinsic to the wrong act itself? Or is it because God designed that
system,
and made it, and keeps it going, so one could in that sense say "God
punishes
you for the wrong"?
> A person turning away from the Faith will live
> with the ever apparent spiritual ills of our society. Why live in
> misery? That's my question.
>
> Sometimes reductionism doesn't apply and you need to try it out on
> faith and see where it goes.
Where's the reductionism being used here?
Douglas McAdam
On Jan 9, 2009, at 3:53 PM, mike3 wrote:
Hi Mike3-
We have been down this road before and I am rather concerned that the
same comments are being written again.
I posted a quote about this and received some really negative
responses from on individual and am not feeling I want to go through
all this again so I will simply state how I see things and leave it at
that.
Are you studying the Baha'i Writings because to me that is where you
will find your answers. Those Writings made it quite clear to me that
God sends His Manifestation to guide us to new levels of spiritual
development by refreshing the eternal spiritual truths such as loving
and serving God and humanity and also by giving us new social laws to
suit the capacity of the age and the conditions needed for new growth
to new levels of development.
What is selfless service to humanity and God? Is this different today
than say in ancient tribal times? Why does God send us a
Manifestation with new Teachings if all we have to do is follow the
ancient religions, say like Sabeanism or Hinduism? And how do we know
what those ancient religions really taught being as how we do not have
the evidence of accurate Scriptures tide directly to the
Manifestation? And why is it that there is so much disunity about
religion if there are so many good people following each one?
To me, if the Baha'i Writings are truth, then each believer of a
former religion who actually lived the good life would see and accept
the reality of the returning Prophet of God. For example why did not
the good people in Judaism accept Christ? Why did they reject and
crucify? Why did not the good Christians accept Muhammad? Why are
not the good Muslims accepting Baha'u'llah if all one has to do is
lead a good life? What would a soul lose if they accept the new
Prophet such as Baha'u'llah? I have acquaintances from Christianity
who are good people but they will not accept Baha'u'llah and in some
ways create problems for me at my Jail classes. They mean well but
they do not realize the problems they are fostering. But that does
not stop me from loving them and treating them with respect and
patience, etc.
How about the Day of Judgment? What is there and who is there to
judge? Why does God send us a new Manifestation with new Revelation
if all we have to do is follow some previous religion? Why did He
send Krishna, then later others, etc.?
I believe wholeheartedly and with unqualified exceptance in God and
His Manifestation Baha'u'llah for this Day and it is quite clear to me
that He has stated unequivocably there are twin duties imposed on
mankind, i.e. to recognize the Manifestation when He returns and to
observe His Commandments and we cannot have one without the other.
That quote is worded clearly and so I see that just living what
someone feels is a good life is not enough. Granted I cannot judge
others and I don't but at the same time what other meaning can we give
to that quote? Also why is it that people who live a good life do not
accept Baha'u'llah for what harm could acceptance do to them? No it
would only make them even better people as I see it. Atheists believe
they live a good life too but that is not what religion says about
atheism. Still we must love atheist too.
I really do not know of any Baha'is who think in terms of non-
believers or other religions going to hell etc. On the contrary all
the many Baha'is I have known in my 40 years of service are truly
those who accept all people but they do not really waste a lot of time
trying to teach people who are not receptive.
God bless us all,
doug
compx2
"So then it does not matter which religion one follows, as long as one
does that selfless service to humanity and God. Perhaps that is the
true religion? Good is good, period. This makes much more sense than
If that is your opinion (and it is not clear that it is) I support
you. Whatever thought process, creed, philosophy, teaching, or
religion that makes people into better people is a message from the
one true God.
God does not care what name you call Him, whether it is Baha'u'llah,
Christ or Allah. He is the Same regardless of anything we do. Many
Baha'is I know shuffle their feet at this point and stammer about,
well, you know the Greatest Name, and the newest Messenger, and such.
But so what?
--Kent
compx2
> You presume there is a conventional use of the words like 'essences.'
Yes, I presume that Arabic and Persian have literary tools akin to
what we call dictionaries in English that are used to enable people to
interpret the meanings of words along lines of conventional and
historic usages of those words.
> Do you even know what words in Persian or Arabic are used for essence
> and what they 'conventionally' meant in those cultures?
I do not speak either of those languages, but my experience in other
languages has taught me that most words have specific and historical
meanings. And when a writer is found to have something significant to
say, those words are thought to contribute to that significance.
Hasn't that been your experience as well?
> Are you familiar with the Ishraqi philosophical background that often
> informed those conceptions?
No, I am not. How will that help me understand the historical and
conceptual model Baha'u'llah imparts with His usage of words like the
one or ones translated by the Guardian and "essence" or "essences"?
> Or are you just assuming that the Writings should be understood in a
> decontextualized, literalistic and fundamentalistic fashion? :-)
No, why would you say that?
--Kent
mike...@yahoo.com
>Well I was thinking more along the lines of any religion that
>*doesn't* have such things. Or even hard atheism, with no belief in religions at all,
From my standpoint your statement excludes all religions except the
Baha'i faith. That's my point. I have not observed that there are any
other religions out there that present truth in such a pure form as
the Baha'i Faith and is able to offer unity on such a large scale. For
example, while it is true that christianity represents the numerically
largest religion in terms of population, sunday morning (to this day)
is still the most seggregated time of the week. There are 20+K sects
of christianity and the number grows every year.
But none of this matters, because at the end of the day if your
reason for choosing the Baha'i faith centers on the fact that you
think it agrees with your personal views then I think it's the wrong
reason. Ultimately, you need to read what Baha'u'llah has written, try
out the obligatory prayers (the long one) for a month or so, and at
the end of that experience, then decide. Is Baha'u'llah who he claims
to be? Because if he is, then it doesn't matter whether, you or I
agree with him. If he is whom he claims to be, then we are left with
little choice on the matter.
>What happens if it is a matter of trying to do things out of the
>goodness in the heart, for the goodness of the world?
The question becomes what is good. You may charitably contribute to a
beggar but inadvertently support the man who made him a begger. Is it
good to raise cattle to feed the world when you know their emissions
are a major contributer to global warming? At what point will we all
starve due to global warming? My point here is that the idea of good
can be deceptive and in my estimation requires a religion that allows
for the much needed consultation to answer these problems.
>But then what is all this stuff in religious texts about God's
>"judgment" and God "punishing", anyway (and you just mentioned earlier about "deeds
>being acceptable at the throne of the Almighty"!), when the punishment is
>apparently intrinsic to the wrong act itself? Or is it because God designed that
>system, and made it, and keeps it going, so one could in that sense say "God
>punishes you for the wrong"?
It could all seem bad until you appreciate that God's punishment is
really an act of kindness and guidance. When you take an exam and get
a 'B' you may think this is a punishment unless you appreciate that
you are now provided with a fair assessment to allow for your self-
improvement.
O SON OF MAN!
My calamity is My providence, outwardly it is fire and vengeance, but
inwardly it is light and mercy. Hasten thereunto that thou mayest
become an eternal light and an immortal spirit. This is My command
unto thee, do thou observe it.
(Baha'u'llah, The Arabic Hidden Words)
Douglas McAdam
Because of the apparent confusion about this subject of good deeds I
thought maybe some quotes might help our understanding.
These are from the Gleanings of Baha'u'llah.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*** Gleanings, page: 53 ***
It is clear and evident to thee that all the Prophets are the Temples
of the Cause of God, Who have appeared clothed in divers attire. If
thou wilt observe with discriminating eyes, thou wilt behold Them all
abiding in the same tabernacle, soaring in the same heaven, seated
upon the same throne, uttering the same speech, and proclaiming the
same Faith. Such is the unity of those Essences of Being, those
Luminaries of infinite and immeasurable splendor! Wherefore, should
one of these Manifestations of Holiness proclaim saying: "I am the
return of all the Prophets," He, verily, speaketh the truth. In like
manner, in every subsequent Revelation, the return of the former
Revelation is a fact, the truth of which is firmly established....
The other station is the station of distinction, and pertaineth to the
world of creation, and to the limitations thereof. In this respect,
each Manifestation of God hath a distinct individuality, a definitely
prescribed mission, a predestined revelation, and specially designated
limitations. Each one of them is known by a different name, is
characterized by a special attribute, fulfils a definite mission, and
is entrusted with a particular Revelation. Even as He saith: "Some of
the Apostles We have caused to excel the others. To some God hath
spoken, some He hath raised and exalted. And to Jesus, Son of Mary, We
gave manifest signs, and We strengthened Him with the Holy Spirit." [53]
*** Gleanings, page: 80 ***
It is clear and evident, therefore, that any apparent variation in the
intensity of their light is not inherent in the light itself, but
should rather be attributed to the varying receptivity of an ever-
changing world. Every Prophet Whom the Almighty and Peerless Creator
hath purposed to send to the peoples of the earth hath been entrusted
with a Message, and charged to act in a manner that would best meet
the requirements of the age in which He appeared. God's purpose in
sending His Prophets unto men is twofold. The first is to liberate the
children of men from the darkness of ignorance, and guide them to the
light [80] of true understanding. The second is to ensure the peace
and tranquillity of mankind, and provide all the means by which they
can be established.
*** Gleanings, page: 290 ***
The ordinances of God have been sent down from the heaven of His most
august Revelation. All must diligently observe them. Man's supreme
distinction, his real advancement, his final victory, have always
depended, and will continue to depend, upon them. Whoso keepeth the
commandments of God shall attain everlasting felicity.
A twofold obligation resteth upon him who hath recognized the Day
Spring of the Unity of God, and acknowledged the truth of Him Who is
the Manifestation of His oneness. The first is steadfastness in His
love, such steadfastness that neither the clamor of the enemy nor the
claims of the idle pretender can [290] deter him from cleaving unto
Him Who is the Eternal Truth, a steadfastness that taketh no account
of them whatever. The second is strict observance of the laws He hath
prescribed—laws which He hath always ordained, and will continue to
ordain, unto men, and through which the truth may be distinguished and
separated from falsehood.
IN THE NAME OF HIM WHO
IS THE SUPREME RULER
OVER ALL THAT HATH BEEN
AND ALL THAT IS TO BE
1
The first duty prescribed by God for His servants is the recognition
of Him Who is the Dayspring of His Revelation and the Fountain of His
laws, Who representeth the Godhead in both the Kingdom of His Cause
and the world of creation. Whoso achieveth this duty hath attained
unto all good; and whoso is deprived thereof hath gone astray, though
he be the author of every righteous deed. It behoveth every one who
reacheth this most sublime station, this summit of transcendent glory,
to observe every ordinance of Him Who is the Desire of the world.
These twin duties are inseparable. Neither is acceptable without the
other.
(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 16)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~End of quotes
mike3
But that doesn't mean they're all totally evil, either. See, what I'm
talking about
is what is in the person's heart, and if it's close to true good if
that has any
effect at all even if the person does not believe in Baha'i Faith.
I.e. that that does
not fully _nullify_ what true good they have done and try to do in
their heart. What
I'm referring to is where they don't have intention in their heart to
do something bad,
and the reasons are not selfish ones, and they are willing to admit to
errors and
change.
> >But then what is all this stuff in religious texts about God's
> >"judgment" and God "punishing", anyway (and you just mentioned earlier a
bout "deeds
> >being acceptable at the throne of the Almighty"!), when the punishment i
s
> >apparently intrinsic to the wrong act itself? Or is it because God desig
ned that
> >system, and made it, and keeps it going, so one could in that sense say
"God
> >punishes you for the wrong"?
>
> It could all seem bad until you appreciate that God's punishment is
> really an act of kindness and guidance. When you take an exam and get
> a 'B' you may think this is a punishment unless you appreciate that
> you are now provided with a fair assessment to allow for your self-
> improvement.
>
But that doesn't quite answer the question: If the punishment is built
in to the action
itself, then how is God "doing the punishing"?
(And what you said would also suggest that _eternal_ punishment of the
type Christians
like to talk about, is not something that would happen often if at
all, as how could
one learn from it, when one is forever trapped in the punishment and
can't do anything
anymore even if they "get the point"? If you're burning and burning in
"hell fire" forever
and ever with no chance of getting out, then how could you possibly
improve? You couldn't!
So it would defeat the purpose of the punishment, no? I'd say it
would.)
mike3
> >*doesn't* have such things. Or even hard atheism, with no belief in reli
gions at all,
>
> From my standpoint your statement excludes all religions except the
> Baha'i faith. That's my point. I have not observed that there are any
> other religions out there that present truth in such a pure form as
> the Baha'i Faith and is able to offer unity on such a large scale. For
> example, while it is true that christianity represents the numerically
> largest religion in terms of population, sunday morning (to this day)
> is still the most seggregated time of the week. There are 20+K sects
> of christianity and the number grows every year.
>
The specific religion is not what I'm trying to name: What I'm saying
is
this: they have a selfless desire to serve humanity, deep in their
little heart,
and that's why they try to do things right, but their religion_ is not
the
Baha'i Faith. Does that *completely nullify* all that goodness and
make
them as "bad as Hitler"? What I was talking about was any "religion"
other
than Baha'i that does not make the types of statements you talked
about:
everyone else will burn in hell, white/black/etc. people are the best
race and
all others suck, and so on, and so on. The "religion" need not even be
an
"official", organized one. It just has to have as little to none of
those type of
elements. In other words, does merely not following Baha'i pretty much
*completely* nullify all that good? Sure, (if Baha'i is right) they
may not have
*as* close a religion to the "truth" as Baha'i, but does this
automatically
nullify *everything* truly good they did, and make them as "bad as
Hitler" --
that is, that they would be *no* better off than they were had their
heart been
full of dark evil and committed crimes like those of Hitler. Merely
because they
were not a Baha'i and so did not accept the messenger for this day. Or
is it
not so black and white?
Douglas McAdam
What banners is the Guardian speaking of here?
What does God's Faith mean?
``Soon will all that dwell on earth be enlisted under these
banners.'"(Shoghi Effendi: God Passes By, Page: 184)
"When the victory arriveth, every man shall profess himself as
believer and shall hasten to the shelter of God's
Faith." (Baha'u'llah: Gleanings, Page: 319)
regards,
doug
compx2
else's. Well, I presume it must happen sometimes, but I have not
witnessed it.
"Soon will all that dwell on earth..." Those who think "banners" mean
"Baha'i Faith" will not be convinced by those of us who believe that
Baha'u'llah (not Shoghi Effendi) meant the Religion of God when He
spoke those words. No one will convince me He meant the future Baha'i
Faith.
Obviously Baha'u'llah knew about the future Baha'i Faith, and how it
would be. But He could not have ever thought it would be a perfect
institution, precisely the same thing as the timeless and perfect
Religion of God He taught.
But hearing me say this won't convince anyone. We have a difference
of opinion that will never be reconciled.
--Kent
On Jan 15, 2:48 pm, Douglas McAdam <douglasmca...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
mike3
wrote:
> On Dec 28, 2008, at 4:07 AM, mike3 wrote:
>
> >> Abstract thinking is not all that
> >> easy for most people for our education system is far from a holistic
> >> type that we need so badly.
>
> > Well I never went to public school, by the way. Most of what I know, I
> > learned
> > myself.
>
> Hi Mike3-
> Then you probably suffer less from the type of conditioning that comes
>
> from the public education system. However I should have been more
> precise in my remark for my point is that our entire upbringing, our
> whole process of education, our whole conditioning is not one of a
> holistic nature. The Beloved Master said---
> "The root cause of wrongdoing is ignoranceand we must therefore ~ '
> hold fast to the tools of perception and knowledge." (Selections from
>
> the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, p. 136)
>
> From other quotes regarding education I'm sure he was not just
> talking about academic education, I feel he was talking about total or
>
> holistic (whole or Holy) education of body, mind and spirit. Also it
>
> is apparent that our problems are caused by unsatisfied needs, wants
> and desires. So if we look at the three natures of the human, i.e.
> body or animal nature, human intellectual nature, and the higher or
> spiritual nature can we say that all their needs are being efficiently
>
> satisfied in our present society? I don't think so. Are we getting
> proper air, water, fire, shelter etc. for our physical nature's well
> being? Are we getting the intellectual needs satisfied by realistic
> education? Is the soul getting proper spiritual education? All of
> which should be related to the fulfillment of our overall purpose in
> life and instead what we have is the type of conditioning that is
> producing disunity and terrible social and individual problems, quite
>
> evident now as we witness the various systems in decline.
>
So does that mean I'd still have far too much "ego" to ever possibly
understand
this stuff and do the necessary "abstract" thinking?
mike...@yahoo.com
>But that doesn't mean they're all totally evil, either. See, what I'm
>talking about is what is in the person's heart, and if it's close to true good if
>that has any effect at all even if the person does not believe in Baha'i Faith.
>I.e. that that does not fully _nullify_ what true good they have done and try to do in
>their heart. What I'm referring to is where they don't have intention in their heart to
>do something bad, and the reasons are not selfish ones, and they are willing to admit to
>errors and change.
No one is totally evil, even Hitler himself. "Noble have I created
thee". Those are the words of Baha'u'llah. It's amazing that many
people don't appreciate the importance of such a bold statement like
that. I've been to so many churches where the sermon was that I'm a
lowly sinner and basically got the devil in me. But that's not
Baha'u'llah's sermon: "Noble Have I created thee"...."Wherefore doest
thou abase thyself?". We're noble and we choose sometimes to allow our
attachments and prejudices to send us in an evil direction. The
question I'd pose is on what grounds does a person reject the Baha'i
faith. In my personal experience I come back to things like social
convenience or personal interactions with other Baha'is, worse the
person feels a fear of commitment, maybe the person wants to believe
that because they are doing something it must be good and worst of all
is the person who drinks, knows it's the truth but likes his alcohol.
I wouldn't call these ideal or sound reasons for rejecting the glaring
truth.
>But that doesn't quite answer the question: If the punishment is built
>in to the action itself, then how is God "doing the punishing"?
There are really two answers to this. The first is that some
punishments are a function of your activity and some are an act of
guidance to steer you towards the light. For example, the sexually
promiscuous youth may find himself contracting a disease or worse in a
really bad relationship. To the person, his act at first may feel
right, but in the long run when he may see the wisdom of Baha'i laws
on the matter. You could say in this case that God wrote the rules of
evolution etc. and then provided us with some guidance on day to day
living.
The second is that some punishments are a veiled act of guidance.
This one's a little more complicated because it comes down to a
mystery as to how it happened but it does seem, in hindsight,
perfectly clear that it was an act of guidance. My favorite example of
this comes from the story of the lover in the seven valleys (you
should read this). But to summarize it: a lover seeking reunion with
his beloved grows despondent after praying to God for this re-union.
He decides to kill himself, but upon nearing the place to do it, a
nightwatchman chases him. Out of fear the man runs and is eventually
chased into the arms of his beloved. The nightwatchman may have been
perceived as a punishment initially but in the end was a guiding
mercy.
>(And what you said would also suggest that _eternal_ punishment of the
>type Christians like to talk about, is not something that would happen often if at
>all, as how could one learn from it, when one is forever trapped in the punishment and
>can't do anything anymore even if they "get the point"? If you're burning and burning in
>"hell fire" forever and ever with no chance of getting out, then how could you possibly
>improve? You couldn't! So it would defeat the purpose of the punishment, no? I'd say it
>would.)
Baha'u'llah is clear that all souls progress in their own way. I have
read that everything we do is recorded in a way that we will always
know what was done and people we know will know the truth. Isn't that
an eternal punishment? Imagine Hitler spending an eternity knowing
what he did and knowing why it was wrong and having to face his own
inner nobility forever. Regardless of how he progresses he can never
forget what he did and his punishment from his own conscience or inner
nobility will make him wish for God's punishment to free him of his
own self. It is hardly a fate that I'd wish on anyone. We are our own
worst enemies and God's punishment can be a liberating mercy. My
prayer is that I am punished in the here and now for whatever
transgression so that when I face eternity my conscience may be
cleansed. How much more terrible a fate it is to live in an eternity
knowing that you rejected the manifestation of God for some trivial
selfish end? In my opinion 'hell fire' would be preferable.
>The specific religion is not what I'm trying to name: What I'm saying
>is this: they have a selfless desire to serve humanity, deep in their
>little heart, and that's why they try to do things right, but their religion_ is not
>the Baha'i Faith. Does that *completely nullify* all that goodness and
>make them as "bad as Hitler"? What I was talking about was any "religion"
>other than Baha'i that does not make the types of statements you talked
>about:everyone else will burn in hell, white/black/etc. people are the best
>race and all others suck, and so on, and so on. The "religion" need not even be
>an "official", organized one. It just has to have as little to none of
>those type of elements. In other words, does merely not following Baha'i pretty much
>*completely* nullify all that good? Sure, (if Baha'i is right) they
>may not have *as* close a religion to the "truth" as Baha'i, but does this
>automatically nullify *everything* truly good they did, and make them as "bad as
>Hitler" --that is, that they would be *no* better off than they were had their
>heart been full of dark evil and committed crimes like those of Hitler. Merely
>because they were not a Baha'i and so did not accept the messenger for this day. Or
>is it not so black and white?
Like I stated earlier, there are no black and white situations,
accept Baha'u'llah and you are saved statements out there. Instead
there is the statement that we can't know our own end and we should
strive daily to pray that our good deeds are acceptable. So it is
pointless to even debate an issue like this. But for no other reason
than humors sake I'll indulge you.
Life is not a game where there are winners and losers. There are no
people who are really better off and if there are losers it is the
people who believe in the game concept. When you die, it's only the
qualities of God that you truely fostered in yourself that live on to
animate you. Did you spend your life fostering these qualities?
Otherwise you are as nothing and may progress by God's grace alone.
One of the greatest Baha'is was a simple man who dropped everything
when he heard of the Faith and went pioneering to the streets of
france where he shortly thereafter died of disease in poverty. By some
standards you'd hardly call him victorious. And I think this persons
life and Abdu'l-Baha's response to him says alot. He was viewed as a
great Baha'i, why? Because in his heart of hearts he recognized
Baha'u'llah and knew that it was not his success or failure as a
pioneer that mattered, but only his obedience to source of his
spiritual life that mattered.
I think your questions are great, and you should answer them for
yourself, but at the end of the day I wouldn't put emphasis on this
area in the faith. What should matter to you is the central question:
Douglas McAdam
I'm not sure how my post would trigger your final thoughts as follows -
> So does that mean I'd still have far too much "ego" to ever possibly
> understand this stuff and do the necessary "abstract" thinking?
No I would not say that. I would say that we can know more if we have
our needs satisfied but don't forget all truth is relative to our
limited understanding.
There are many factors involved in our understanding of things. We
have many and diverse genetic problems and we have many and diverse
needs not being satisfied. A person with a high IQ might not
understand as much as one with a lower but better education maybe.
regards,
doug
mike3
> >But that doesn't mean they're all totally evil, either. See, what I'm
> >talking about is what is in the person's heart, and if it's close to true good if
> >that has any effect at all even if the person does not believe in Baha'i Faith.
> >I.e. that that does not fully _nullify_ what true good they have done and try to do in
> >their heart. What I'm referring to is where they don't have intention in their heart to
> >do something bad, and the reasons are not selfish ones, and they are willing to admit to
> >errors and change.
>
> No one is totally evil, even Hitler himself. "Noble have I created
> thee". Those are the words of Baha'u'llah.
The idea was not that anybody was totally evil -- the notion I have
stuck
in my head is that the goodness/evilness become 100% irrelevant until
they don't accept the messenger and become a Baha'i -- that is,
without
them messenger they are all spiritual nothings -- i.e. 6 billion
people have
never gained _any_thing, no more than Hitler, and have never lost
anything,
not even Hitler -- and so are going to be just as bad off and just as
good off
as if they were a Hitler, i.e. in the most terrible torment possible!
I sure hope
that this notion is in error and things are really not so black and
white, not
so much for my own sake but theirs. And that's what I want to know: is
it
this black and white or not?
I'm not sure why it seems we keep talking past each other on this...
> It's amazing that many
> people don't appreciate the importance of such a bold statement like
> that. I've been to so many churches where the sermon was that I'm a
> lowly sinner and basically got the devil in me. But that's not
> Baha'u'llah's sermon: "Noble Have I created thee"...."Wherefore doest
> thou abase thyself?". We're noble and we choose sometimes to allow our
> attachments and prejudices to send us in an evil direction. The
> question I'd pose is on what grounds does a person reject the Baha'i
> faith. In my personal experience I come back to things like social
> convenience or personal interactions with other Baha'is, worse the
> person feels a fear of commitment, maybe the person wants to believe
> that because they are doing something it must be good and worst of all
> is the person who drinks, knows it's the truth but likes his alcohol.
> I wouldn't call these ideal or sound reasons for rejecting the glaring
> truth.
>
What about:
1. never even heard of it, due to circumstances beyond their control
(probably
majority of people alive today)
2. didn't see the logic in it (not because they didn't want to give up
their
alcohol or sex or whatever but because maybe they didn't see how a
God
could exist, for example) or because they thought it was just
another
fear-mongering system?
> >But that doesn't quite answer the question: If the punishment is built
> >in to the action itself, then how is God "doing the punishing"?
>
> There are really two answers to this. The first is that some
> punishments are a function of your activity and some are an act of
> guidance to steer you towards the light. For example, the sexually
> promiscuous youth may find himself contracting a disease or worse in a
> really bad relationship. To the person, his act at first may feel
> right, but in the long run when he may see the wisdom of Baha'i laws
> on the matter. You could say in this case that God wrote the rules of
> evolution etc. and then provided us with some guidance on day to day
> living.
>
And so you could say that God does punish in this way, but not
"directly".
Or a person who thought his good heart would help the world, but then
saw he never accepted Baha'u'llah and realizes all that good in his
heart
and all the sacrifices he made have been negated by it, and can never
ever get it back for no change in that way is possible any more (what
kind of God makes a Universe or a person like that?!)? Do you see what
the conception is that I am trying to discuss here?
> Regardless of how he progresses he can never
> forget what he did and his punishment from his own conscience or inner
> nobility will make him wish for God's punishment to free him of his
> own self. It is hardly a fate that I'd wish on anyone.
So does this mean most people, which haven't accepted, or even
rejected
the messenger, yet have *not* done the atrocities of Hilter or someone
like
that, and have done a lot of good ***because of a good heart and for
selfless
reasons only, or as close to that as is humanly possible***, are going
to feel
*just as much* pain and experienced *equal* loss?
> We are our own
> worst enemies and God's punishment can be a liberating mercy.
Is this "God's punishment" something else other than what you referred
to/
And why wouldn't God give out the punishment, thereby "freeing him
from his
own self", and so delivering the "mercy" and ending the _eternal_
torment, as
you mentioned above?
> My
> prayer is that I am punished in the here and now for whatever
> transgression so that when I face eternity my conscience may be
> cleansed. How much more terrible a fate it is to live in an eternity
> knowing that you rejected the manifestation of God for some trivial
> selfish end?
Or because they never even heard of them?!
And would the pain be just as great as what Hitler was going through?
> In my opinion 'hell fire' would be preferable.
>
>
>
> >The specific religion is not what I'm trying to name: What I'm saying
> >is this: they have a selfless desire to serve humanity, deep in their
> >little heart, and that's why they try to do things right, but their religion_ is not
> >the Baha'i Faith. Does that *completely nullify* all that goodness and
> >make them as "bad as Hitler"? What I was talking about was any "religion"
> >other than Baha'i that does not make the types of statements you talked
> >about:everyone else will burn in hell, white/black/etc. people are the best
> >race and all others suck, and so on, and so on. The "religion" need not even be
> >an "official", organized one. It just has to have as little to none of
> >those type of elements. In other words, does merely not following Baha'i pretty much
> >*completely* nullify all that good? Sure, (if Baha'i is right) they
> >may not have *as* close a religion to the "truth" as Baha'i, but does this
> >automatically nullify *everything* truly good they did, and make them as "bad as
> >Hitler" --that is, that they would be *no* better off than they were had their
> >heart been full of dark evil and committed crimes like those of Hitler. Merely
> >because they were not a Baha'i and so did not accept the messenger for this day. Or
> >is it not so black and white?
>
> Like I stated earlier, there are no black and white situations,
> accept Baha'u'llah and you are saved statements out there.
Or similarly, "never hear of him and you're toast *forever* no matter
how
good your heart!!!" statements either. I.e. not hearing of or
accepting the
messenger *does not* automatically nullify all their good heart, and
"put
them on the same level as Hitler" or something.
> Instead
> there is the statement that we can't know our own end and we should
> strive daily to pray that our good deeds are acceptable. So it is
> pointless to even debate an issue like this. But for no other reason
> than humors sake I'll indulge you.
>
> Life is not a game where there are winners and losers. There are no
> people who are really better off and if there are losers it is the
> people who believe in the game concept. When you die, it's only the
> qualities of God that you truely fostered in yourself that live on to
> animate you. Did you spend your life fostering these qualities?
> Otherwise you are as nothing and may progress by God's grace alone.
>
> One of the greatest Baha'is was a simple man who dropped everything
> when he heard of the Faith and went pioneering to the streets of
> france where he shortly thereafter died of disease in poverty. By some
> standards you'd hardly call him victorious. And I think this persons
> life and Abdu'l-Baha's response to him says alot. He was viewed as a
> great Baha'i, why? Because in his heart of hearts he recognized
> Baha'u'llah and knew that it was not his success or failure as a
> pioneer that mattered, but only his obedience to source of his
> spiritual life that mattered.
>
> I think your questions are great, and you should answer them for
> yourself, but at the end of the day I wouldn't put emphasis on this
> area in the faith. What should matter to you is the central question:
> Is Baha'u'llah who he claims to be?
But I would never go and accept it out of fear. That's just it. Fear
is a
dumb reason to accept a religion.
And so you could say that God does punish in this way, but not
"directly".
So does this mean most people, which haven't accepted, or even
rejected
the messenger, yet _have not done the atrocities of Hilter or someone
like
that_, and have done a lot of good ***because of a good heart and for
selfless
reasons only, or as close to that as is humanly possible***, are going
to feel
_just as much_ pain?
> We are our own
> worst enemies and God's punishment can be a liberating mercy.
Is this "God's punishment" something else other than what you referred
to/
And why wouldn't God give out the punishment, thereby "freeing him
from his
own self", and so delivering the "mercy" and ending the _eternal_
torment, as
you mentioned above?
> My
> prayer is that I am punished in the here and now for whatever
> transgression so that when I face eternity my conscience may be
> cleansed. How much more terrible a fate it is to live in an eternity
> knowing that you rejected the manifestation of God for some trivial
> selfish end?
Or because they never even heard of them?!
And would the pain be just as great as what Hitler was going through?
> In my opinion 'hell fire' would be preferable.
>
>
>
> >The specific religion is not what I'm trying to name: What I'm saying
> >is this: they have a selfless desire to serve humanity, deep in their
> >little heart, and that's why they try to do things right, but their religion_ is not
> >the Baha'i Faith. Does that *completely nullify* all that goodness and
> >make them as "bad as Hitler"? What I was talking about was any "religion"
> >other than Baha'i that does not make the types of statements you talked
> >about:everyone else will burn in hell, white/black/etc. people are the best
> >race and all others suck, and so on, and so on. The "religion" need not even be
> >an "official", organized one. It just has to have as little to none of
> >those type of elements. In other words, does merely not following Baha'i pretty much
> >*completely* nullify all that good? Sure, (if Baha'i is right) they
> >may not have *as* close a religion to the "truth" as Baha'i, but does this
> >automatically nullify *everything* truly good they did, and make them as "bad as
> >Hitler" --that is, that they would be *no* better off than they were had their
> >heart been full of dark evil and committed crimes like those of Hitler. Merely
> >because they were not a Baha'i and so did not accept the messenger for this day. Or
> >is it not so black and white?
>
> Like I stated earlier, there are no black and white situations,
> accept Baha'u'llah and you are saved statements out there.
Or similarly, "never hear of him and you're toast *forever* no matter
how
good your heart!!!" statements either. I.e. not hearing of or
accepting the
messenger *does not* automatically nullify all their good heart, and
"put
them on the same level as Hitler" or something. Because there's no
"black" as much as there's no "white".
> Instead
> there is the statement that we can't know our own end and we should
> strive daily to pray that our good deeds are acceptable. So it is
> pointless to even debate an issue like this. But for no other reason
> than humors sake I'll indulge you.
>
> Life is not a game where there are winners and losers. There are no
> people who are really better off and if there are losers it is the
> people who believe in the game concept.
Well I didn't think it was a game -- I've found such a concept
annoying,
actually.
> When you die, it's only the
> qualities of God that you truely fostered in yourself that live on to
> animate you. Did you spend your life fostering these qualities?
> Otherwise you are as nothing and may progress by God's grace alone.
>
> One of the greatest Baha'is was a simple man who dropped everything
> when he heard of the Faith and went pioneering to the streets of
> france where he shortly thereafter died of disease in poverty. By some
> standards you'd hardly call him victorious. And I think this persons
> life and Abdu'l-Baha's response to him says alot. He was viewed as a
> great Baha'i, why? Because in his heart of hearts he recognized
> Baha'u'llah and knew that it was not his success or failure as a
> pioneer that mattered, but only his obedience to source of his
> spiritual life that mattered.
>
> I think your questions are great, and you should answer them for
> yourself, but at the end of the day I wouldn't put emphasis on this
> area in the faith. What should matter to you is the central question:
> Is Baha'u'llah who he claims to be?
But I would never go and accept it out of fear. That's just it. Fear
is a
dumb reason to accept a religion. And I would also never accept any
religion that preaches that most of humanity is doomed to eternal
torment. That is the point. To me, a religion is not true if it runs
afoul
of those rules.
Douglas McAdam
I have no idea where you get this notion from my friend but it does
not seem to relate to the various quotes I see regarding the
importance of accepting the Manifestation and striving to obey His
commands.
The traditional Christian idea that we are all born evil is totally
wrong from what I interpret in the Baha'i Writings. God does not
create evil, we are the ones who turn away and thus create evil.
God created all and then He sends His Manifestation to recreate and
endow Creation with a new potential. Each soul is affected directly
or indirectly by each Revelation according to how much they turn too,
accept and strive to follow the Manifestation's new Revelation. Your
example of Hitler is rather far fetched but I can use it to help
explain this. He refused Christ, Muhammad and Baha'u'llah and look
what disunity and terrible consequences he created on earth. So by
virtue of his own actions he goes forward in the next world in a
lesser spiritual state than as a soul that has accepted the Manifestations
and striven to obey the Teachings and Laws, etc. If a person ignores
his education he is not going to be as well developed as one who
strives to become more knowledgeable about living successfully.
The whole purpose of God in sending His Manifestations is to help
mankind become closer to God, to have love and unity, etc. But if a
soul is ignorant of the Manifestation he is not accountable to God and
by the Mercy of God is given an opportunity to accept and make the
necessary changes.
Here are a couple of quotes to consider-
"The first duty prescribed by God for His servants is the
recognition of Him Who is the Dayspring of His Revelation and the
Fountain of His laws, Who representeth the Godhead in both the Kingdom
of His Cause and the world of creation. Whoso achieveth this duty hath
attained unto all good; and whoso is deprived thereof hath gone
astray, though he be the author of every righteous deed. It behoveth
every one who reacheth this most sublime station, this summit of
transcendent glory, to observe every ordinance of Him Who is the
Desire of the world. These twin duties are inseparable. Neither is
acceptable without the other." (Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 16)
CXXXIll. The ordinances of God have been sent down from the heaven
of His most august Revelation. All must diligently observe them. Man's
supreme distinction, his real advancement, his final victory, have
always depended, and will continue to depend, upon them. Whoso keepeth
the commandments of God shall attain everlasting felicity.
A twofold obligation resteth upon him who hath recognized the Day
Spring of the Unity of God, and acknowledged the truth of Him Who is
the Manifestation of His oneness. The first is steadfastness in His
love, such steadfastness that neither the clamor of the enemy nor the
claims of the idle pretender can deter him from cleaving unto Him Who
is the Eternal Truth, a steadfastness that taketh no account of them
whatever. The second is strict observance of the laws He hath
prescribed—laws which He hath always ordained, and will continue to
ordain, unto men, and through which the truth may be distinguished and
separated from falsehood. (Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah,
p.289-290)
regards,
doug
mike3
wrote:
> Hi Mike3-
> I have no idea where you get this notion from my friend but it does
> not seem to relate to the various quotes I see regarding the
> importance of accepting the Manifestation and striving to obey His
> commands.
> The traditional Christian idea that we are all born evil is totally
> wrong from what I interpret in the Baha'i Writings. God does not
> create evil, we are the ones who turn away and thus create evil.
>
This is not the idea I use. So what's going on here?
> God created all and then He sends His Manifestation to recreate and
> endow Creation with a new potential. Each soul is affected directly
> or indirectly by each Revelation according to how much they turn too,
>
> accept and strive to follow the Manifestation's new Revelation. Your
>
> example of Hitler is rather far fetched but I can use it to help
> explain this. He refused Christ, Muhammad and Baha'u'llah and look
> what disunity and terrible consequences he created on earth. So by
> virtue of his own actions he goes forward in the next world in a
> lesser spiritual state than as a soul that has accepted the Manifestat
ions
>
What about one that didn't, though -- that's what I'm asking about.
I.e.
the majority of our population, who never even heard of the messenger?
Then are they "on the same level as Hitler" (i.e. their failure to
accept or
even hear about the messenger (and so couldn't accept because they
didn't know) renders all the good in their heart null & void)? Or is
it not
that black and white? I'm not sure why this keeps getting glossed
over.
> and striven to obey the Teachings and Laws, etc. If a person ignores
>
> his education he is not going to be as well developed as one who
> strives to become more knowledgeable about living successfully.
>
> The whole purpose of God in sending His Manifestations is to help
> mankind become closer to God, to have love and unity, etc. But if a
> soul is ignorant of the Manifestation he is not accountable to God and
>
> by the Mercy of God is given an opportunity to accept and make the
> necessary changes.
>
But what happens to those that _are_ accountable to God in this way?
Would
they _never_ be able to change?
> Here are a couple of quotes to consider-
> "The first duty prescribed by God for His servants is the
> recognition of Him Who is the Dayspring of His Revelation and the
> Fountain of His laws, Who representeth the Godhead in both the Kingdom
>
> of His Cause and the world of creation. Whoso achieveth this duty hath
>
> attained unto all good; and whoso is deprived thereof hath gone
> astray, though he be the author of every righteous deed. It behoveth
> every one who reacheth this most sublime station, this summit of
> transcendent glory, to observe every ordinance of Him Who is the
> Desire of the world. These twin duties are inseparable. Neither is
> acceptable without the other." (Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 16)
>
And _this_ is where I am getting my notion from. Without the first
duty
(to recognize the messenger), the second is totally unacceptable to
God.
It looks black and white: all the good in their heart is nullified
because they
did not accept the messenger -- and so are "no better off than
Hitler". See
what I'm saying?
t h
I have been thinking about the point you raise. My first reaction is
that I know God is merciful
and is aware of what various people can do and will reward them for
doing their best.
OK so what if we think about the world 200 years into the future?
Perhaps many of these quotes
that you are bringing up do not fully apply to people today. In the
future with the lessor peace
well established, with some governments being run along Baha'i lines
(elections with no campaigns
etc.), and with prosperity and equality for the peoples of the world
steadily growing it will be
very obvious that all the religions are from God, are the spiritual
source of human advancement,
and that the Baha'i Faith is the latest installment in that series. It
will be apparent to everyone on
earth (unless they are willfully blinding themselves) and refusing to
acknowledge the station of
Baha'u'llah will then indeed be a form of rejecting all the Manifestations.
Today many decent people are just not able to consider the possibility
that God has spoken again
to humanity. Baha'u'llah tells us to pray for them and leave them to
God. I think that God will
understand their hearts and their abilities and limitations and treat
their souls with mercy and do
it much better than I am able to do.
Yours,
Tom
mike3 wrote:
>
> What about one that didn't, though -- that's what I'm asking about.
> I.e.
> the majority of our population, who never even heard of the messenger?
> Then are they "on the same level as Hitler" (i.e. their failure to
> accept or
> even hear about the messenger (and so couldn't accept because they
> didn't know) renders all the good in their heart null & void)? Or is
> it not
> that black and white? I'm not sure why this keeps getting glossed
> over.
>
>
>> and striven to obey the Teachings and Laws, etc. If a person ignores
>>
>
>
>> his education he is not going to be as well developed as one who
>> strives to become more knowledgeable about living successfully.
>>
>> The whole purpose of God in sending His Manifestations is to help
>> mankind become closer to God, to have love and unity, etc. But if a
>>
>
>
>> soul is ignorant of the Manifestation he is not accountable to God and
>>
>
>
>> by the Mercy of God is given an opportunity to accept and make the
>> necessary changes.
>>
>>
>
> But what happens to those that _are_ accountable to God in this way?
> Would
> they _never_ be able to change?
>
Douglas McAdam
On Jan 24, 2009, at 2:41 PM, mike3 wrote:
> On Jan 24, 8:50 am, Douglas McAdam <douglasmca...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>> Hi Mike3-
>> I have no idea where you get this notion from my friend but it does
>> not seem to relate to the various quotes I see regarding the
>> importance of accepting the Manifestation and striving to obey His
>> commands.
>> The traditional Christian idea that we are all born evil is totally
>> wrong from what I interpret in the Baha'i Writings. God does not
>> create evil, we are the ones who turn away and thus create evil.
>>
>
> This is not the idea I use. So what's going on here?
Hi Mike3
No I was not saying you said this I was just reinterating an earlier
comment that God does not create evil.
>
>
>> God created all and then He sends His Manifestation to recreate and
>> endow Creation with a new potential. Each soul is affected directly
>
>> or indirectly by each Revelation according to how much they turn too,
>>
>> accept and strive to follow the Manifestation's new Revelation. Your
>
>>
>> example of Hitler is rather far fetched but I can use it to help
>> explain this. He refused Christ, Muhammad and Baha'u'llah and look
>> what disunity and terrible consequences he created on earth. So by
>> virtue of his own actions he goes forward in the next world in a
>> lesser spiritual state than as a soul that has accepted the
>> Manifestat
> ions
>>
>
> What about one that didn't, though -- that's what I'm asking about.
> I.e.
> the majority of our population, who never even heard of the messenger?
> Then are they "on the same level as Hitler" (i.e. their failure to
> accept or
> even hear about the messenger (and so couldn't accept because they
> didn't know) renders all the good in their heart null & void)? Or is
> it not
> that black and white? I'm not sure why this keeps getting glossed
> over.
One that didn't what? I thought I made it quite clear that only those
who reject the Manifestation are in trouble. Those who are ignorant
of the Manifestation, those who have not heard about Him are most
certainly not held accountable from what I read in our Writings. God
is Merciful and Just and so I do not see how He would punish any soul
that has not heard of His Manifestations. So, for the last time, my
understanding is that only those who turn away from the Manifestation
upon hearing of Him are held accountable, no matter how many righteous
deeds they perform. But those who have not had an opportunity are
treated with the Mercy of God and given opportunities to make such a
choice.
>
>
>> and striven to obey the Teachings and Laws, etc. If a person ignores
>
>>
>> his education he is not going to be as well developed as one who
>> strives to become more knowledgeable about living successfully.
>>
>> The whole purpose of God in sending His Manifestations is to help
>> mankind become closer to God, to have love and unity, etc. But if a
>
>> soul is ignorant of the Manifestation he is not accountable to God
>> and
>
>>
>> by the Mercy of God is given an opportunity to accept and make the
>> necessary changes.
>>
>
> But what happens to those that _are_ accountable to God in this way?
> Would
> they _never_ be able to change?
Yes, but my understanding may not be right but it seems to me that a
soul, upon being confronted by the Manifestation may turn away and
later turn back again. I once met a soul like this and it took
fifteen years for the turn around and he became a solid Baha'i.
>
>
>> Here are a couple of quotes to consider-
>> "The first duty prescribed by God for His servants is the
>> recognition of Him Who is the Dayspring of His Revelation and the
>> Fountain of His laws, Who representeth the Godhead in both the
>> Kingdom
>
>>
>> of His Cause and the world of creation. Whoso achieveth this duty
>> hath
>
>>
>> attained unto all good; and whoso is deprived thereof hath gone
>> astray, though he be the author of every righteous deed. It behoveth
>> every one who reacheth this most sublime station, this summit of
>> transcendent glory, to observe every ordinance of Him Who is the
>> Desire of the world. These twin duties are inseparable. Neither is
>> acceptable without the other." (Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p.
>> 16)
>>
>
> And _this_ is where I am getting my notion from. Without the first
> duty
> (to recognize the messenger), the second is totally unacceptable to
> God.
> It looks black and white: all the good in their heart is nullified
> because they
> did not accept the messenger -- and so are "no better off than
> Hitler". See
> what I'm saying?
I cannot accept the idea they are in the same spiritual condition as
Hitler and cannot understand how or why you would make such a
comparison.
No matter how good we may think we are or how good we think others are
there is always room for more growth and I believe God gives us ample
opportunity eternally to receive His Bounties. As an analogy take
the idea of a person in the womb suffering from a lack of nurturing
and is born into this world incapacitated in one way or another. He
or she may have only one arm or no legs and yet they can find ways to
utilize their God given talents and become wonderful souls. They may
excel others in certain areas and are weaker than other in other areas
but the soul still goes forward. So in the next world God is offering
them His Mercy due to their condition and giving them an opportunity
for further spiritual growth. Then there are other people who
willingly turn aside and break spiritual laws etc. and in some future
time come back and strive to be good but their former lifestyle has
left them with certain weaknesses and in the next world God offers His
Mercy and gives them another opportunity. But of course you and
anyone else can find fault with any analogy or example we use because
issue we keep debating the bottom line to me is that every religion
taught love and unity so let's get on with it.
regards,
doug
>
>>