PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
This is probably going to open a huge can of worms, but...
I recognize the Baha'i faith as containing truth. I also believe that most things we know about God are false assertions.
Deuteronomy 29:29
The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law
“God in His Essence and in His own Self hath ever been unseen, inaccessible, and unknowable. For were He to have any peer or likeness, how could it then be demonstrated that His being is exalted above, and His essence sanctified from, all comparison and likeness? ” – Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, page 118
Being properly classified as a theist to the modern world, I believe, often involves subscribing to a few assertions about God. Atheists tend to reject any such assertions, and in the Baha'i faith I tend to think God would "rather" we worship Him, but I'm skeptical that atheists will truly have a worse afterlife than theists.
Baha'i articles occasionally teach that people not ready for the afterlife *may* be taught by God, and then enter, but here's another question - what if, following this premise I outlined, the theists need more teaching than the atheists? What if the theists in general get called out by God for selling books and such to make lots of money, flying private jets, virtue signalling, etc, while the atheists tend to have an easier transition due to focusing better on people and contributing to science, rather than on theologies and the churches?
Which goes back to the question, is it better to have no assertions, or risk greatly having false assertions? Here is the way I see it:
Atheists/agnostics: "I don't know or claim to."
Theists: "I assert I do know."
I recognize the Baha'i faith as containing truth. I also believe that most things we know about God are false assertions.
Deuteronomy 29:29
The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law
“God in His Essence and in His own Self hath ever been unseen, inaccessible, and unknowable. For were He to have any peer or likeness, how could it then be demonstrated that His being is exalted above, and His essence sanctified from, all comparison and likeness? ” – Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, page 118
Being properly classified as a theist to the modern world, I believe, often involves subscribing to a few assertions about God. Atheists tend to reject any such assertions, and in the Baha'i faith I tend to think God would "rather" we worship Him, but I'm skeptical that atheists will truly have a worse afterlife than theists.
Baha'i articles occasionally teach that people not ready for the afterlife *may* be taught by God, and then enter, but here's another question - what if, following this premise I outlined, the theists need more teaching than the atheists? What if the theists in general get called out by God for selling books and such to make lots of money, flying private jets, virtue signalling, etc, while the atheists tend to have an easier transition due to focusing better on people and contributing to science, rather than on theologies and the churches?
Which goes back to the question, is it better to have no assertions, or risk greatly having false assertions? Here is the way I see it:
Atheists/agnostics: "I don't know or claim to."
Theists: "I assert I do know."