Which is “the first, the greatest and mightiest of all books”?

[Willamena]

Neither. We can't really examine the supernatural, can we?

You still haven't demonstrated why it's foolish

If FSM has as much evidence as God or gods, then God or gods are nothing more than parody, irony, and trope, since that is the essence and extent of FSM (APBH).

Yes, and some Pastafarians may believe, piously, in TFSM. No irony or tropes included, which what I said from the beginning.

As I said, some may be foolish.

 

[charlie sc]

If FSM has as much evidence as God or gods, then God or gods are nothing more than parody, irony, and trope, since that is the essence and extent of FSM (APBH).

This is not exactly what I said. Anyway. I'm pretty sure there are more options than just, "parody, irony, and trope." Things like myth comes to mind or stories. I'm sure I can think of others.

Even though this is the essence of what FSM is, that doesn't mean people won't take it another way and I haven't seen a verse in Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster that says don't worship TFSM. As I recall, Buddha did not want to be worshipped, but people venerate and bow to his statue continuously. I don't see this being any less of a religion because of it.

As I said, some may be foolish.

You haven't demonstrated why believing in a deity is foolish. Are you saying that all theists are foolish?

 

[Willamena]

This is not exactly what I said. Anyway. I'm pretty sure there are more options than just, "parody, irony, and trope." Things like myth comes to mind or stories. I'm sure I can think of others.

I'm pretty sure there aren't when it comes to FSM.

Even though this is the essence of what FSM is, that doesn't mean people won't take it another way and I haven't seen a verse in Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster that says don't worship TFSM. As I recall, Buddha did not want to be worshipped, but people venerate and bow to his statue continuously. I don't see this being any less of a religion because of it.

People taking it another way, other than what it is, is being foolish.

You haven't demonstrated why believing in a deity is foolish. Are you saying that all theists are foolish?

Believing in a deity isn't what is foolish.



You're really not getting it.

 

[charlie sc]

I'm pretty sure there aren't.

I just said myth.

People taking it another way, other than what it is, is being foolish.

So this is your definition of foolish, lol. I don't even want to examine how many people this applies to, but I'll do one.
Would you be called foolish since you were using the word theist, "another way, other than what it is"?

Believing in a deity isn't what is foolish.



You're really not getting it.

Well, you're not explaining it. I suspect because it's an assertion with no good reason behind it.

 

[Willamena]

I just said myth.

What myth does FSM embody?

So this is your definition of foolish, lol. I don't even want to examine how many people this applies to, but I'll do one.
Would you be called foolish since you were using the word theist, "another way, other than what it is"?

It is definition only in the loosest and vaugest sense of the term. But it wasn't my intent there to define, just to comment.

Well, you're not explaining it. I suspect because it's an assertion with no good reason behind it.

Fair enough.

 

[charlie sc]

What myth does FSM embody?

I don't know if it embodies mythology but it could become myth, but I think that's less likely because it's taken less seriously. My comment was directed at the comment, "then God or gods are nothing more than parody, irony, and trope, since that is the essence and extent of FSM."
If you don't mind, I'll try rephrase your question to be a bit more comprehensible: the essence of FSM is to show god(s) and religion are nothing more than parody, irony and trope. However, this is not just the essence of FSM. FSM can show also show how pointless it is to interpret information, especially correlational, on a supernatural being that's not verifiable. It can also demonstrate the political bias of religios belief, where one is considered religion even though the other demonstrates the same mechanism and so on. For mythology, one can see how some very serious religions like the Pantheon gods or Nordic gods have now become myth.

So no, its essence is not just to show, "gods are nothing more than parody, irony, and trope."

It is definition only in the loosest and vaugest sense of the term. But it wasn't my intent there to define, just to comment.

Yeah, definitions can be difficult when you're making them up on the spot. To be fair, perhaps you meant you consider people to take things other than what they are foolish, which is an opinion and I can accept that much more readily.

Fair enough.

Ok.

 

[England my lionheart]

I'm split because this is in science and religion but I would say either Mary Shelley's Frankenstein or HG wells "time machine" or maybe just edgeing it "the war of the world's".

 

[Willamena]

I don't know if it embodies mythology but it could become myth, but I think that's less likely because it's taken less seriously. My comment was directed at the comment, "then God or gods are nothing more than parody, irony, and trope, since that is the essence and extent of FSM."
If you don't mind, I'll try rephrase your question to be a bit more comprehensible: the essence of FSM is to show god(s) and religion are nothing more than parody, irony and trope. However, this is not just the essence of FSM. FSM can show also show how pointless it is to interpret information, especially correlational, on a supernatural being that's not verifiable. It can also demonstrate the political bias of religios belief, where one is considered religion even though the other demonstrates the same mechanism and so on. For mythology, one can see how some very serious religions like the Pantheon gods or Nordic gods have now become myth.

So no, its essence is not just to show, "gods are nothing more than parody, irony, and trope."


Yeah, definitions can be difficult when you're making them up on the spot. To be fair, perhaps you meant you consider people to take things other than what they are foolish, which is an opinion and I can accept that much more readily.



Ok.

I think, at this point, we can only agree to disagree. ​

 

[charlie sc]

I think, at this point, we can only agree to disagree. ​

I like you

 

[viole]

Which is “the first, the greatest and mightiest of all books”?

In that order? Or do you expect that there exist a book where all those three properties obtain?

Thread open for all people who belong to a religion or no-religion, please.

All people either belong to a religion or to a no religion. So, you could have saved a couple of words by saying: thread open for all people. Period.

Bahaullah writes:

“Gracious God! In His Book, which He hath entitled “Qayyúmu’l-Asmá,”—the first, the greatest and mightiest of all books—He prophesied His own martyrdom. In it is this passage: “O thou Remnant of God! I have sacrificed myself wholly for Thee; I have accepted curses for Thy sake; and have yearned for naught but martyrdom in the path of Thy love. Sufficient Witness unto me is God, the Exalted, the Protector, the Ancient of Days!”

Page 231 Kitab-i-Iqan or the “Book of Certitude” written by Bahaullah.

What is this bunch if deepities?

Ciao

- viole

 

[paarsurrey]

In that order? Or do you expect that there exist a book where all those three properties obtain?

All people either belong to a religion or to a no religion. So, you could have saved a couple of words by saying: thread open for all people. Period.

What is this bunch if deepities?

Ciao

- viole

It is a claim of Bahaullah, the founder of the religion of Bahaism people, that the book "Qayyúmu’l-Asmá,” written/authored/revealed by Bab was the
"the first, the greatest and mightiest of all books”.
So the book about which one claims must have the following features to qualify:

• It should be the "first" book
• it should be the greatest
• and it should be mightiest.

Right, please?

Regards

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Which is “the first, the greatest and mightiest of all books”?

Thread open for all people who belong to a religion or no-religion, please.

Regards
___________

Bahaullah writes:

“Gracious God! In His Book, which He hath entitled “Qayyúmu’l-Asmá,”—the first, the greatest and mightiest of all books—He prophesied His own martyrdom. In it is this passage: “O thou Remnant of God! I have sacrificed myself wholly for Thee; I have accepted curses for Thy sake; and have yearned for naught but martyrdom in the path of Thy love. Sufficient Witness unto me is God, the Exalted, the Protector, the Ancient of Days!”

Page 231 Kitab-i-Iqan or the “Book of Certitude” written by Bahaullah.

Is your real interest in an answer (or answers) to the first question (Which is “the first, the greatest and mightiest of all books”?) in general terms or to challenge Bahaullah's claim/the Bahai claim?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Is your real interest in an answer (or answers) to the first question (Which is “the first, the greatest and mightiest of all books”?) in general terms or to challenge Bahaullah's claim/the Bahai claim?

It is a quandry, as the book that is the subject of the OP question, is dedicated to and confirms Baha'u'llah.

Regards Tony

 

[The_Fisher_King]

It is a quandry, as the book that is the subject of the OP question, is dedicated to and confirms Baha'u'llah.

Regards Tony

The first question on its own terms (albeit lifted from the Bahai book cited) is a nice question, but I am not convinced that the OP is really interested in this question on its own terms, except as a challenge to Bahaullah's claim/an opportunity perhaps to make a counter claim in favour of the OP's faith.. (which isn't a problem for me, but does change the nature of the debate)

 

[TransmutingSoul]

The first question on its own terms (albeit lifted from the Bahai book cited) is a nice question, but I am not convinced that the OP is really interested in this question on its own terms, except as a challenge to Bahaullah's claim/an opportunity perhaps to make a counter claim in favour of the OP's faith.. (which isn't a problem for me, but does change the nature of the debate)

I see the poster has a wonderful heart and very polite, so I just focus on those aspects.

Regards Tony

 

[cladking]

I think the Pyramid Texts will someday be seen as especially "mighty" as well;

https://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/pyt/index.htm

 

[paarsurrey]

Is your real interest in an answer (or answers) to the first question (Which is “the first, the greatest and mightiest of all books”?) in general terms or to challenge Bahaullah's claim/the Bahai claim?

Naturally, if one knows a book which exceeds the features pointed out by Bahaullah, that challenges Bahaullah's claim/the Bahai claim, else, one should have to prove that the book "Qayyúmu’l-Asmá" authord by Bab, lacks the features Bahaullah's claimed or the Bahais claim for it.

In both case it is a challenge.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Is your real interest in an answer (or answers) to the first question (Which is “the first, the greatest and mightiest of all books”?) in general terms or to challenge Bahaullah's claim/the Bahai claim?

I am reading a core book of the Bahaism people named "Kitab-i-Iqan" or the "Book of Certitude". While reading it if I find something worth asking for I ask it here for information.

Regards

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Naturally, if one knows a book which exceeds the features pointed out by Bahaullah, that challenges Bahaullah's claim/the Bahai claim, else, one should have to prove that the book "Qayyúmu’l-Asmá" authord by Bab, lacks the features Bahaullah's claimed or the Bahais claim for it.

In both case it is a challenge.

Regards

The challenge was given by Muhammad and the Bab produced a book that matched that challenge. The Book proved it matched the koran by the hearts of the many Muslim Divines of great reputation that accepted the Bab and willing gave their lives for what it contained.

Men holding on to worldly desire and man made doctrine will never see this, as history has well proved.

The key is is if you see it or do not. If you do, do not hestitate even for a moment, if you do not, be careful what is imputed before one determines the Truth.

• The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 2:89-90 (The Calf, سورة البقرة‎)
• The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 2:174 (The Calf, سورة البقرة‎)

Regards Tony

 

[viole]

It is a claim of Bahaullah, the founder of the religion of Bahaism people, that the book "Qayyúmu’l-Asmá,” written/authored/revealed by Bab was the
"the first, the greatest and mightiest of all books”.
So the book about which one claims must have the following features to qualify:

• It should be the "first" book
• it should be the greatest
• and it should be mightiest.

Right, please?

Regards

Oh well, if he said that, then it must be true.

Ciao

- viole