• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Will Mankind Survive?

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Interesting, Do you recognize the failure of the economic system as a driving force of why things are as they are? Which to me at least interferes with how people actually want to live, meaning people want certain joys in life to make them achieve happiness. But due to he economic system they might be forced to do otherwise. Do you know what I mean with that?

Yes I know what you are suggesting. A spiritual solution is needed with the economic problem. People will see the need to give to those less fortunate. Laws and taxes will be better balanced. There will always be wealthy and poor, the extremes need to be abolished. A few % of people should not hold the world.to ransom and people should.not.be without the means to survive.

Of course this is a massive subject,but I do see a lot of very wealthy people starting to share that wealth for the good.

Regards Tony
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
Yes I know what you are suggesting. A spiritual solution is needed with the economic problem. People will see the need to give to those less fortunate. Laws and taxes will be better balanced. There will always be wealthy and poor, the extremes need to be abolished. A few % of people should not hold the world.to ransom and people should.not.be without the means to survive.

Of course this is a massive subject,but I do see a lot of very wealthy people starting to share that wealth for the good.

Regards Tony
So if I understand you correct, the solution is to get all to follow the teaching of Baha'i religion. And through that it would be an economic system based on charity?
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I suppose that's better than going by centuries-old rules. But Bahai's have no right to make any laws. At best, they can make rules that apply to their followers.
Baha'i Laws only apply to Baha'is, not to anyone else.
Bahai's don't want God's laws. Bahai's don't want secular laws. Bahai's want the laws as written by someone who most of the world's peoples see as a religiously biased self-promoter.
Bahai's consider the laws of Baha'u'llah to be God's Laws for this age...
It does not matter what the rest of the world's peoples think about them because they are not required to follow our laws, not anymore than Baha'is are required to follow Jewish laws.

But Baha'is are required to follow the secular laws of the land in which they live, as well as following Baha'i laws.
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
So if I understand you correct, the solution is to get all to follow the teaching of Baha'i religion. And through that it would be an economic system based on charity?

The teachings that I am suggesting, that will help all humanity are taught by all of Gods Messengers and by people that have no faith, but strive to live a life of virtues.

The future economic system will be based on may aspects, but it needs to be guided by spiritual virtues. I see it may include a universal currency. Taxes, interest etc will be fair an just. Greed will not feed the system.

Regards Tony
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
You can eliminate me from your list of atheists who have this attitude that the world situation is not that serious.
Will do.... and I am glad you take it seriously because it is serious...

Notably, the adherents to the older religions such as Christianity and Judaism do not take the world situation that seriously, because they believe that their Messiahs are going to come and fix everything that is wrong in the world...

Baha'is are the only religion I know of that teaches that humans are fully responsible for fixing things that are wrong in the world, not God or the Messiah. Baha'u'llah was the Messiah, but He only brought the blueprint instructions humans need to use to fix the problems... He did not come to do it Himself, as Christians and Jews believe their Messiahs will surely do... God does not swoop down to earth and fix what He has entrusted humans to fix, that is a fantasy.

Sure saves those believers a lot of work, only problem is that it is based upon a fantasy. :rolleyes:
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
The teachings that I am suggesting, that will help all humanity are taught by all of Gods Messengers and by people that have no faith, but strive to live a life of virtues.

The future economic system will be based on may aspects, but it needs to be guided by spiritual virtues. I see it may include a universal currency. Taxes, interest etc will be fair an just. Greed will not feed the system.

Regards Tony
Its seems that our different approaches faces almost equally difficulties in being possible, You having to get everyone to agree with your guidance and me convincing people that capitalism is not the way forward :D
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Do you really have any hope that the people of the world will somehow ever begin to accept Bab/Baha'u'llah as anything other than the founders of a small religious cult?

I absolutely know everyone will recognize Baha'u'llah eventually, since Baha’u’llah wrote....

“Warn and acquaint the people, O Servant, with the things We have sent down unto Thee, and let the fear of no one dismay Thee, and be Thou not of them that waver. The day is approaching when God will have exalted His Cause and magnified His testimony in the eyes of all who are in the heavens and all who are on the earth.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 248

"His Cause" is the Cause of God, the Cause that Baha’u’llah brought.

Regarding religions in their early days, in his book entitled “the light shineth in darkness” Udo Schaefer writes the following in the section entitled Belief and Unbelief Today:

“The great revolutionary events in the history of the world arrive—as Friedrich Nietzsche once said—‘on doves’ feet.’

These words are especially relevant to the appearance of the great religions—those events in the history of mankind which have influenced and changed people’s lives in a particularly lasting way. In their early periods, none of the universal religions known to us allowed an unbelieving world to see their creative spiritual impulse which was transforming and reviving everything anew. The quality of dynamic power inherent in the Word of God was perceived only by the small group of those who believed in this creative Word of God and were filled by it. Thus Jesus Christ was virtually ignored by contemporary historians. The historians of Palestine, Greece and Rome took no notice of the event which was to change the world of that time and without which the spiritual life of the West would be inconceivable. They paid no attention to the life, works and death of the founder of Christianity. Only Tacitus mentions in his Annals—and the authenticity of this evidence is questioned—a ‘Christ’ who, in the reign of the Emperor Tiberius, was killed by order of the governor Pontius Pilate, and he continues: ‘For the moment the destructive superstition had been repressed, but it broke out again not that is hideous and shameful congregates and gains adherents.’

Even Philo of Alexandrea, the Jewish scholar, knows nothing of Jesus—Philo, who left to posterity a voluminous bulk of works, who was a great expert on the Bible and the Jewish sects and who also mentions Pilate. The report about Christ in The Antiquities of the Jews by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, born shortly after Jesus’ crucifixion, is very likely an interpolation from the third century. ‘The New Testament is the only source of information about Jesus,’ writes Romano Guardini. To the cultivated Roman of the second century, Christianity was an obscure Jewish sect, a ‘corrupt superstitious belief’, an ‘evil’, as Tacitus calls it; only a small part of the population, the Christians themselves, believed in the triumphant progress of this religion. It certainly seemed much more probable that the future belonged to any other of the many religious movements, for instance the mystery cults, some of which were quite eminent. We can see the same process taking place in the history of other great religions: every faith in its early period has had to experience first ignorance, then derision and persecution. At no time have contemporary non-believers visualized a great future for the new-born religion.”

(Udo Schaefer, the light shineth in darkness, pp. 9-10)
 
Scientists are not natural politicians, but I would expect most of them would do a better job than the "normal" politicians would. Also you can't force people into office and last a majority of them are atheists, which are very low in how trusted these are in the US according to surveys. Hopefully that will change and seems to change if you look at the younger people compared to the older ones.

PF_17.02.15_feelingThermometer_age640px.png

And also as you say, scientists are people as well so could be influenced just as well. But at the same time I think that observation tells you that something might be wrong, if the system allow for this influence in the political system.


Sorry and no worries :)


Yes, that is why I say that we need is system that reduce the human impact on decision making, as its can often be influenced by own personal opinions, religions etc. rather than what is actually true and what is morally right to do. So the MD, might be a creationist, he might be highly religious and as long as something doesn't interfere with that, he can do a good job. The moment something causes a conflict with his beliefs he might not be rational, because he is trying to fit his religious views into it as well.


And that is fine, its not really a problem. As I say it only becomes a problem when these causes harm to other people.


You have to remember that it was not only in Germany that Jews weren't look well upon, before the second world war.

As the M.S. St. Louis cruised off the coast of Miami in June 1939, its passengers could see the lights of the city glimmering. But the United States hadn’t been on the ship’s original itinerary, and its passengers didn’t have permission to disembark in Florida. As the more than 900 Jewish passengers looked longingly at the twinkling lights, they hoped against hope that they could land.

Those hopes would soon be dashed by immigration authorities, sending the ship back to Europe. And then, nearly a third of the passengers on the St. Louis were murdered.

Most of the ship’s 937 passengers were Jews trying to escape Nazi Germany. Though World War II had not yet begun, the groundwork for the Holocaust was already being laid in Germany, where Jewish people faced harassment, discrimination and political persecution. But though the danger faced by the passengers was clear, they were turned down by immigration authorities, first by Cuba, then the United States and Canada. For many on the St. Louis, that rejection was a death sentence.


So if you examine the history before 1939 you can find a lot of "hate" or mistrust towards the Jews, Germany unfortunately just went crazy.


A brief history lesson :)

The Danes knew long before the war that their army could not resist a German invasion.

Both the Danish king and the Danish government decided that their best hope of maintaining Denmark’s sovereignty lay in cooperating but not collaborating with the German occupiers. This “cooperation” profited some Danes but shamed many others. The Danish population harbored ancestral hostility to the Germans, and the occupation reinforced these feelings.

From very early on in this ambiguous relationship, the Danes, from the king on down, made it clear that harming the Jews would bring cooperation to an end and force the Germans to occupy the country altogether. The king famously told his prime minister, in private, that if the Germans forced the Danish Jews to wear a yellow star, then he would wear one too.

When, in late summer in 1943, the order came down from Eichmann to the local German authorities in Copenhagen that they had to rid the city of its Jews, these authorities faced a dilemma. They knew that the Danish politicians, police, and media – that Danish society as a whole – would resist and that, once the cooperation of the Danes had been lost, the Germans would have to run the country themselves. The Germans in Copenhagen were also beginning to have second thoughts about the war itself.

When Adolf Eichmann came to Copenhagen in 1943 to find out why so many Jews had escaped, he did not cashier the local Gestapo. Instead he backed down and called off the deportations of Danes who were half-Jewish or married to Jews. Lidegaard’s explanation for Eichmann’s volte face is simply that the institutions of Danish society all refused to go along. And without their cooperation, a Final Solution in Denmark became impossible. Totalitarianism, not to mention ethnic cleansing and ethnic extermination, always requires a great deal of collaboration.

When they got wind of German plans in September 1943, the Danish government resigned, and no politician agreed to serve in a collaborationist government with the Germans thereafter. After the roundups of Jews were announced, leading Danish politicians of different parties issued a joint statement declaring, “The Danish Jews are an integral part of the people, and therefore all the people are deeply affected by the measures taken, which are seen as a violation of the Danish sense of justice.” This is the political culture of “countrymen” with which Lidegaard explains the extraordinary determination – and success – of the Danes in protecting their Jewish population.

When the Germans arrived to begin the deportations, Jews had already been warned – in their synagogues – and they simply vanished into the countryside, heading for the coast to seek a crossing to neutral Sweden.


So the Danes as many others in Europe and around the world, didn't know what was happening, they knew and disliked Hitler, but first later realized that something was not right.
I want to begin by saying I look forward to your posts and generally speaking I think you are an astute observer and your queries are honest and penetrative.

Off the top of my head I would say people have their bias for a host of reasons regardless of whether they are atheists or believe in a religion. I think atheists come off more reasonable than believers in the older religions for a host of reasons not the least of which there is so much disagreement within the ranks of the older religions. In that sense their disagreements seem to resemble those of politicians.

Insofar as the US Constitution is concerned its principles of checks and balances of the three branches; the Executive, Congress, and the Supreme Court, why that is the case is because of the assumption humans are basically corruptible in nature. Presently, I think the current occupant of the White House is severely testing the resiliency and competence of the US government and poses a threat to whatever remains of world stability.

I want to thank you profusely for your review of history! Thank you so much. Insofar as German Nazi occupation of Denmark is concerned I marveled at their courage and resilient defiance as you portrayed it. I also marveled at the detail of your coverage. Thank you so much!

Insofar as general anti Jewish sentiment in the US and other places prior to and during WWII I was aware of that. So here I will insert an antidote about the Guardian of the Baha’i Faith and the Nazi Regime. I don’t have the exact dates accept it was before Germans totally occupied France. The Guardian was in transit from England to Haifa, Israel. While waiting in a French Port Nazis rushed there to grab him but were unsuccessful. The Baha’i Faith’s emphasis of the unity of mankind represented to the Nazis the antithesis to their plan for the Third Reich to rule the world. Also, insofar as anti Jewish sentiment is concerned the Baha’i Guardian predicted world sentiment would change into taking a pro Israel stance in the future.

I am not that familiar about unity within the ranks of atheists but I would consider as humans there are some differences in their behavior. I hope you don’t take this as a criticism but you come across to me as exhibiting a life that is quite spiritual! You are sincere, honest and want what is best for all peoples and the planet. In that regard you are in sync with the chief aims of the Baha’i Cause! :D
 
So, politicians and scientists may choose to be selfish and self-serving. I'll add to that, Religious leaders, popular as well as relatively unknown, choose to be selfish and self-serving.
What can I say? I agree! Religion does not provide anymore cover for unseemly behavior than does any other human enterprise. I recall reading from Baha’u’llah that the only thing that could hurt him was any believer bringing shame to the Cause of God by their unseemly conduct! That generally is what I recall reading without the literal quote. For clarifications sake Baha’u’llah is not a religious leader but a Prophet.
 
Last edited:

Nimos

Well-Known Member
I want to begin by saying I look forward to your posts and generally speaking I think you are an astute observer and your queries are honest and penetrative.
Thank you, as that is in fact my aim of how I have chosen to approach ideas, to make sure that they are treated with respect and honesty, but that you ought to question them as much as possible and to the best of ones ability, test them for whether they are true or false. Because if something is true, it should be capable of withstanding any reasonable form of testing.

And it seems to me, with my very limited knowledge of Baha'i that you seem to have a much more humane and reasonable approach to things compared to a lot of the other religions. But maybe that is just because we haven't talked about those topics yet :D

Off the top of my head I would say people have their bias for a host of reasons regardless of whether they are atheists or believe in a religion. I think atheists come off more reasonable than believers in the older religions for a host of reasons not the least of which there is so much disagreement within the ranks of the older religions. In that sense their disagreements seem to resemble those of politicians.
Everyone have biases so won't disagree with that, but I do think some are more healthier than others, so if those can be directed towards the better and more reasonable ones that would be a good start.

Whether atheists are more reasonable, I think is mostly because of the lack of constrains that comes with it. We don't have to make certain things fit into a religious view, so if something we experience or observe seems to be wrong or harmful, there is not really any argument for why an atheist would defend it, for what it is.

One observation I have made, is that religious people are not unreasonable or less unreasonable than atheists, except when you talk about their religion, then reason is just thrown out the window.

An example could be that there is no difference between atheists and religious people, when it comes to whether Santa Claus is true or not. Is it reasonable to believe that he is capable of delivering so many presents in such a short amount of time and we all reach the same conclusion on that.

But if you question whether virgin birth or people rising from the dead is reasonable to believe, that seems to be no problem at all for some religious people. But to atheists, this obviously makes no sense, because its just as unreasonable to believe, as Santa is.

So to me, this is where the huge difference is and also why there are loads of very good and talented religious scientists, simply because they are able to leave God outside the lab.

why that is the case is because of the assumption humans are basically corruptible in nature.
This could quickly turn into a huge topic in it self, when starting to talk about human nature. Because its very easy to confuse things we obverse as being part of human nature, even though when you think about it, doesn't necessarily mean that it is.

If we look at a common assumption about human nature as an example. So a person might say, its human nature to fight and make war. Which seems logic that this is true, as we have seen it happen countless times throughout history. But what about all the periods when we haven't fought each other and solved things through collaboration, peaceful agreements, trade agreements etc. So that would mean that its just as much human nature to seek peaceful solutions? But people tend to think, war and destruction is more likely to be an expression of it than peace is, which is kind of strange.

Also it have been suggested through studies, that babies for instance tend to prefer good behavior over bad behavior.

This is another test that were made with slightly older kids, which is actually quite interesting I think:

So maybe human nature is not that of selfishness and destruction, but rather something that is caused later on or imposed on us, due to how society teaches us to behave.

I want to thank you profusely for your review of history! Thank you so much. Insofar as German Nazi occupation of Denmark is concerned I marveled at their courage and resilient defiance as you portrayed it. I also marveled at the detail of your coverage. Thank you so much!
I want to point out that, not all Danish during the war were against the Germans, so as with everything else, you will always have people that are of other opinions and therefore chose to collaborate with the Germans. Also I didn't write the text, but just summarized it through copy/paste :)

I am not that familiar about unity within the ranks of atheists but I would consider as humans there are some differences in their behavior.
There are no unity as such between atheists, we reach the same conclusions in regards to the existences of God. But that is pretty much it. Some believe in ghosts and climate change as being true, while others don't. Also why its very confusing when religious people say that atheism is a religion, because it makes no sense. I can agree with another atheist on the topic of God, but strongly disagree with them on their view on morality. :)

I hope you don’t take this as a criticism but you come across to me as exhibiting a life that is quite spiritual! You are sincere, honest and want what is best for all peoples and the planet. In that regard you are in sync with the chief aims of the Baha’i Cause! :D
Don't worry, I don't get easily offended :)

It depends on what you think is spiritual, I care about animals and humans, since I do believe that we only have one life here on Earth. So to me the only reasonable or logic approach is to then aim at optimizing that time. And it worries me, when you see innocent people and animals forced to live lives, which are so far from what we potentially could achieve as humans if we were better at working together at solving things. If you look at the world in which we live, all the technology, medicine, knowledge about the world, our abilities to produce goods etc. And yet we are unable to make it work so it benefits all humans and nature. We have everything we need to do it, but no way to get there, because of human stupidity when it comes to these things.
 
Last edited:

ecco

Veteran Member
My mind had that thought at one time.

Now I know it will happen, I do not know when and how, but in saying that, I know that for many it will be Uh Uh and that it takes life changing events before our mind goes beyond Uh Uh.

I wish you always safe and happy in those times, that will visit us.

Regards Tony
You and I and everyone who ever heard of you or I will be long dead and that still won't happen.

If you recall, when Jesus died there was disagreement over who should lead and what should be considered sacred text. That was the beginning of strife that still exits today.

If you recall, when Mohammed died there was disagreement over who should lead. That was the beginning of strife that still exits today.

If you recall, when The Bab died there was disagreement over who should lead. That was the beginning of strife that still exits today.

If your God did appear, 50% of the people still would not follow Him or any other him.

So, as to kumbayah, yeah, it's Uh huh.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
What can I say? I agree! Religion does not provide anymore cover for unseemly behavior than does any other human enterprise. ... That generally is what I recall reading without the literal quote. For clarifications sake Baha’u’llah is not a religious leader but a Prophet.


A religious leader is one who is recognised by a religious body as having some authority within that body. The leader of a religious order.
Are you saying the above definition did/does not apply to Baha’u’llah?


I recall reading from Baha’u’llah that the only thing that could hurt him was any believer bringing shame to the Cause of God by their unseemly conduct!

How clever of him. It sounds just like Donald Trump. I can't bring shame upon myself. If there is shame on me it's because of someone else.
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
You and I and everyone who ever heard of you or I will be long dead and that still won't happen.

If you recall, when Jesus died there was disagreement over who should lead and what should be considered sacred text. That was the beginning of strife that still exits today.

If you recall, when Mohammed died there was disagreement over who should lead. That was the beginning of strife that still exits today.

If you recall, when The Bab died there was disagreement over who should lead. That was the beginning of strife that still exits today.

If your God did appear, 50% of the people still would not follow Him or any other him.

So, as to kumbayah, yeah, it's Uh huh.

Again I wish you will and happy and you are free to consider it as you have.

My search has found God's promise is fulfilled and will bring forth the promised fruit, where this day will not be followed by night.

The Covenant given by Baha'u'llah in this day has given great certainty. Faith cannot ever be divided again. All those that attempt to take control outside that Covernant will be and have been cut off. After they are cut off, they may survive a little while, but they will eventually wither and die to be heard of no more.

Regards Tony
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
A religious leader is one who is recognised by a religious body as having some authority within that body. The leader of a religious order.
Are you saying the above definition did/does not apply to Baha’u’llah?

Yes, Baha'u'llah is a 'Manifestation' of God, the 'Self of God' amongst us. The reason we all have life in this, the promised 'Day of God'.

There are no individal religious leaders in the Baha'i Faith. At this time there are Local spiritual assemblies , National spiritual assemblies and a Universal House of Justice to which, at this time, 9 people are elected. They lead the way into the future.

Regards Tony
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
How clever of him. It sounds just like Donald Trump. I can't bring shame upon myself. If there is shame on me it's because of someone else.

The issue with this statement, it is obvious one knows nothing about the life of Baha'u'llah. If one did they would see the shame in such a statement.

Baha'u'llah was known as the 'Father of the poor' prior to accepting the Message of the Bab and expended the wealth he was born into to help those less fortunate. His wife Ásíyih Khánum was known as the Mother of Consolation.

He willingly lost all that wealth, but still gave all he had.

If mankind is to survive, one must embrace justice in all things.

Regards Tony
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
The issue with this statement, it is obvious one knows nothing about the life of Baha'u'llah. If one did they would see the shame in such a statement.

Baha'u'llah was known as the 'Father of the poor' prior to accepting the Message of the Bab and expended the wealth he was born into to help those less fortunate. His wife Ásíyih Khánum was known as the Mother of Consolation.

He willingly lost all that wealth, but still gave all he had.
So Tony, essentially what you are saying is that Baha'u'llah was the 'polar opposite' of Donald Trump. :rolleyes:
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
So Tony, essentially what you are saying is that Baha'u'llah was the 'polar opposite' of Donald Trump. :rolleyes:

I prefer to say that one should know about Baha'u'llah and His life, before making a comparision with any person. I see we would all fall short when compared with that life. :);)

Hope you are happy Trailblazer.

:hugehug:
Regards from downunder, Tony
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I prefer to say that one should know about Baha'u'llah and His life, before making a comparision with any person. I see we would all fall short when compared with that life. :);)
Are there any books or websites you can point us to that would describe His life?
This is very important for Baha'is and others to know...

The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4, which cover the 40 years of His Mission, from 1853-1892.
Is there anything else we can read?
 
Top