Not who, what: Experience (Trance/Meditation), Intuition, and the Stories that bring meaning to my life. Through that I experience the Gods, and Source.
-
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!
Monotheism < Polytheism
- Thread starter The Hammer
- Start date
Not who, what: Experience (Trance/Meditation), Intuition, and the Stories that bring meaning to my life. Through that I experience the Gods, and Source.
You can't use the word of men (scriptures) to prove or disprove any one God(s). Regardless of where they come from they are wrong, because men will always filter the true intent, for their perceived intent.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Baha'u'llah wrote that certain religious traditions have been corrupted by man. I think He was referring to all of them. I think the older they are the more corrupted they have become because time has a tendency to change things that were originally revealed.
“This is the Day when the loved ones of God should keep their eyes directed towards His Manifestation, and fasten them upon whatsoever that Manifestation may be pleased to reveal. Certain traditions of bygone ages rest on no foundations whatever, while the notions entertained by past generations, and which they have recorded in their books, have, for the most part, been influenced by the desires of a corrupt inclination. Thou dost witness how most of the commentaries and interpretations of the words of God, now current amongst men, are devoid of truth. Their falsity hath, in some cases, been exposed when the intervening veils were rent asunder. They themselves have acknowledged their failure in apprehending the meaning of any of the words of God.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 171-172
In my opinion, anyone who thinks they have a personal relationship with God is imagining it. That is what I believe because Baha'u'llah wrote that God has no partners:
“And now concerning thy reference to the existence of two Gods. Beware, beware, lest thou be led to join partners with the Lord, thy God. He is, and hath from everlasting been, one and alone, without peer or equal, eternal in the past, eternal in the future, detached from all things, ever-abiding, unchangeable, and self-subsisting. He hath assigned no associate unto Himself in His Kingdom, no counsellor to counsel Him, none to compare unto Him, none to rival His glory. To this every atom of the universe beareth witness, and beyond it the inmates of the realms on high, they that occupy the most exalted seats, and whose names are remembered before the Throne of Glory.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 192
How do you think anyone can have a “relationship” with an entity that is incomprehensible, exalted above anything that can either be recounted or perceived? Baha'is believe we can have a personal relationship with God through His Manifestation, but not directly.
“It is He Who hath called into being the whole of creation, Who hath caused every created thing to spring forth at His behest. Shall, then, the thing that was born by virtue of the word which His Pen hath revealed, and which the finger of His Will hath directed, be regarded as partner with Him, or an embodiment of His Self? Far be it from His glory that human pen or tongue should hint at His mystery, or that human heart conceive His Essence. All else besides Him stand poor and desolate at His door, all are powerless before the greatness of His might, all are but slaves in His Kingdom. He is rich enough to dispense with all creatures.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 192
It does not matter how many people believe they can relate to God on a personal level because that does not prove they are right.
In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."
This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy (also known as a vox populi),[2] and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea.
It is logically fallacious because the mere fact that a belief is widely held is not necessarily a guarantee that the belief is correct; if the belief of any individual can be wrong, then the belief held by multiple persons can also be wrong. The argument that because 75% of people polled think the answer is A implies that the answer is A fails, because, if opinion did determine truth, then there would be no way to deal with the discrepancy between the 75% of the sample population that believe the answer is A and 25% who are of the opinion that the answer is not A. However small a percentage of those polled give an answer other than A, this discrepancy by definition disproves any guarantee of the correctness of the majority. In addition, this would be true even if the answer given by those polled were unanimous, as the sample size may be insufficient, or some fact may be unknown to those polled that, if known, would result in a different distribution of answers.
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia
This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy (also known as a vox populi),[2] and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea.
It is logically fallacious because the mere fact that a belief is widely held is not necessarily a guarantee that the belief is correct; if the belief of any individual can be wrong, then the belief held by multiple persons can also be wrong. The argument that because 75% of people polled think the answer is A implies that the answer is A fails, because, if opinion did determine truth, then there would be no way to deal with the discrepancy between the 75% of the sample population that believe the answer is A and 25% who are of the opinion that the answer is not A. However small a percentage of those polled give an answer other than A, this discrepancy by definition disproves any guarantee of the correctness of the majority. In addition, this would be true even if the answer given by those polled were unanimous, as the sample size may be insufficient, or some fact may be unknown to those polled that, if known, would result in a different distribution of answers.
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia
Most people want what they want and then they imagine they have it. That is how the human mind works. Imo, that is why we need an authoritative source of Truth, because otherwise we can imagine any number of things about God.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
In my opinion, it is not possible to experience God directly, as I just explained in this post:
#103 Trailblazer, 5 minutes ago
Perhaps we can have some kind of connection to God through meditation but tat still does not give us any reliable information about God. I am interested in information, not experience, because I want to know the truth about God.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
As I said in the other post to you, #100, I do not believe that Manifestations of God are ordinary men, they are ethereal beings, a different order of creation. I believe their Will is identical with the Will of God. As such, they are infallible because God is infallible.
“The essence of belief in Divine unity consisteth in regarding Him Who is the Manifestation of God and Him Who is the invisible, the inaccessible, the unknowable Essence as one and the same. By this is meant that whatever pertaineth to the former, all His acts and doings, whatever He ordaineth or forbiddeth, should be considered, in all their aspects, and under all circumstances, and without any reservation, as identical with the Will of God Himself. This is the loftiest station to which a true believer in the unity of God can ever hope to attain. Blessed is the man that reacheth this station, and is of them that are steadfast in their belief.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 167
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I did not have to meet Baha'u'llah to know about Him. What if I did meet Him, I could still be fooled. I can go by what others wrote about Him because I believe it is accurate. His life and His mission and His scriptures cannot be faked, they are what they are.
God does not want to communicate with us directly, it is you and some other people I know who want God to communicate to them directly. So God did not make any mistakes, since God never wanted to communicate to us directly.
There is absolutely no reason why humans need to hear from God directly; they just want to, like a little kid wants a lollipop. But we do not always get what we want and when it comes to God we only get what God wants to give us.
“God witnesseth that there is no God but Him, the Gracious, the Best-Beloved. All grace and bounty are His. To whomsoever He will He giveth whatsoever is His wish. He, verily, is the All-Powerful, the Almighty, the Help in Peril, the Self-Subsisting.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 73
Next time you want discourse without referencing scripture you let me know.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Anytime.
This is all circular reasoning and you've contradicted yourself in a huge way. It all comes down to you believing it because you want to believe it (it suits you). Which is fine but when you're making exclusive truth claims like you were, it doesn't look good since you can't demonstrate to others the truth of your religion's claims. It's all hearsay.
Oddly, you and some of your fellow Baha'is border on atheism with how you describe your god, at least functionally. You say god can't communicate with ordinary humans and doesn't want to and that this deity is so incomprehensible to humans. So what's the point? Your deity sounds like a thought experiment and not an actual being.
And I stick by what I said about your deity. At the very least, it seems to be playing games by sowing confusion which leads to discord. Whatever this entity is, it strikes me as malicious. I do happen to think that this Yahweh entity went "bonkers" some time ago and started believing that it is the only deity and the supreme being, which is nonsense.
Last edited:
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
How do you know that I WANT to believe what I believe? are you God?
I do not believe what I believe because I WANT to believe it, I believe it because I have evidence that it is the truth from God. It does not suit me one single bit, it is a huge responsibility and it means I have to put all my personal desires aside.
It is not my job to demonstrate the truth of my beliefs to others. If they want to know they have to investigate it for themselves.
You only say that because you have expectations of what God would do if God was real... It is all about YOU and what you want. This is psych 101 stuff.
Again, you say that because you think the deity should be doing what you want it to, instead of what it does.
You don't have any evidence. You just writings with unverifiable claims and hearsay. You don't even have personal experience.
No, it's not really what I expect aside from expecting a deity to be logical (as the universe itself is logical). Your deity's system of revelation has caused much unneedes strife and confusion, when even humans can come up with a better system.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Personal experience is not evidence to anyone but that person.
I have evidence that everyone can look at and verify.
You expect God to do what YOU consider logical.
If humans could come up with a better system, why haven't they?
Strife and confusion was all part of God's Plan, but now there is no reason to continue in strife and confusion, because God cleared it all up when He sent Baha'u'llah. The strife and confusion only persists because most people have rejected Baha'u'llah. That is not God's fault because people have free will to accept or reject what God reveals.
Some claims in a book are not verifiable. Sometimes I wonder if you're trolling or if you actually know what you're saying. There's no way to verify anything your "messanger" says. He's dead. Might as well try to verify what a fictional novel says is true.Personal experience is not evidence to anyone but that person.
I have evidence that everyone can look at and verify.
You expect God to do what YOU consider logical.
If humans could come up with a better system, why haven't they?
Strife and confusion was all part of God's Plan, but now there is no reason to continue in strife and confusion, because God cleared it all up when He sent Baha'u'llah. The strife and confusion only persists because most people have rejected Baha'u'llah. That is not God's fault because people have free will to accept or reject what God reveals.
Most people in the world don't know who the hell this Baha guy is and most of us could go our entire lives without ever meeting a Baha'i. That your deity's fault, not humanity's fault. You can't "reject" something or someone you've never even heard of! He had a stupid plan and so cannot be some omnimax being. Of course he will just blame humans for his own failures. Baha'is are a tiny little sect that is fairly insignificant but your belief system has an extreme amount of arrogance in it.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
We know exactly what Baha'u'llah wrote because He wrote it in His Own Pen, and we have the original scriptures which have been authenticated. It would not matter if Baha'u'llah was still alive, we would either believe what He said or not.
How could that possibly be God's fault? It is the fault of the Baha'is who are not getting the message out, that's who is to blame.
Of course humans are to blame because humans are fallible so they make mistakes.
God is never to blame for anything because God is infallible and never makes any mistakes
Where is your evidence of any arrogance on the part of the Baha'is?
If anyone is arrogant it is you because you think you know more than an All-Knowing God about how to run a universe.
More circular logic and hearsay.
First off, I didn't say we don't know if he is the author. I was saying that you have no way to verify if anything he wrote about God or his status as some prophet or whatever was true. You have no way to confirm or demonstrate. It's just a matter of you believing it because you agree with it. That's all.
I don't really blame anyone. I don't believe your version of the Supreme Being even exists. If there is one, I see no reason why it has to be the petty, inept Abrahamic version of it. I'm criticizing your concept of the Supreme Being. It was part of what you say was your deity's plan, so your deity can take the blame for choosing such a dumb method of getting its message across when it could speak directly into our hearts if it wanted to.
As for arrogance, I'm not the one claiming only my gods are real and only my religion has all the truth so everyone should convert to it.
Now, at this point I'm pretty much done with you on this. It's derailing the thread, which is supposed to be a debate over the superiority of polytheism. It's not supposed to be another thread where you hog it up with your religion's claims and spam it up with your scripture. You have plenty of other threads for that, and I've heard it all before from you so I don't need or want to hear it again and again. This thread is for a perspective not much heard. I do notice that no one responded to my lengthy post about the superiority of polytheism. Tsk tsk.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
That is true, there is no way to confirm that Baha'u'llah got communication from God. I never said there was.
But no, it is not just a matter of believing because I agree with it. I believe because I see the evidence that indicates that the claim of Baha'u'llah is the truth.
God does not want to speak directly to everyone and one reason is because God wants people to prove their worthiness. If God spoke to everyone, some of the everyone would be unworthy. It would not be just for the sincere seekers of truth who put forth an effort if everyone heard from God even when they did nothing to deserve it. So there you have it. God is just.
Arrogance means having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities. I do not think I am important or have any special abilities. I have no Gods of my own and no religion of my own. I just belong to a religion and believe in God. I did not say everyone should convert, I said eventually everyone will convert of their own free will.
I'm glad.
Last edited:
MikeDwight
Well-Known Member
Monotheism runs into scandals. Think about the comfort Women scandal.
It's called child abuse when human parents treat their children in such a way, so how much more when it's the Creator of the universe who is responsible for the existence and nature of all things.
Here's an example of that arrogance.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
You think you are so important that God owes it to you to communicate directly to you.
Definition of arrogance
: an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions Definition of ARROGANCE
That is not arrogance. It is a belief based upon what Baha'u'llah wrote.
I don't believe I'm owed anything. It has nothing to do with my wishes. I'm just saying that I could think of a better system of revelation.