• 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!

The (mostly) unknowable God

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."
 

r2d2009

Member
1. One cannot cognize Tao* only by speaking about It.
Tao Te Ching


Knowing God is not a matter of theory or faith, it is a matter of spiritual practice.
Naturally, atheists and agnostics cannot deal with it, so for them God remains unknowable.



Faith — and Knowledge

The foundation of faith is our trust in what we heard or read. This concerns the religious subjects as well.
As for knowledge, it is acquired, first of all, through one’s own practical experience.
There are many different kinds of religious faith.
On the contrary, religious knowledge is one and universal, although there are different levels, more or less profound, of this knowledge, and there can be errors of particular spiritual seekers.
The personal cognition of oneself and of God is what allows an intellectually developed person to obtain the high and highest spiritual achievements.


* * *

Faith is needed for many people on the early stages of their spiritual development, because it lays down the foundations for their aspiration to the cognition.

Church ritualism is the most common socially-established form that helps to acquire and strengthen faith. The religious rituals can be more or less reasonable and effective. Some rituals can help one feel the presence of God. Others, on the contrary, can be regarded as felonious; such are, for example, those related to the bloody sacrifices or aimed at harming other people (the rituals of black magic).
Besides, one should take into account that on the background of ritualism, some kind of ideology, peculiar to this religious movement, is always offered to the believers. This ideology can vary from the true Teachings of God to a hatred towards humankind, robed in a religious form.
But even in the case of the best religious rituals, at some stage of self-development, one begins to understand that God has never taught people ritualism! It is people who invented rituals and imparted them to the next generations!
Moreover, God does not need our rituals! He needs from us something completely different: He needs that we develop ourselves (as souls)! And the “daily bread” that
Jesus suggested to ask from God-the-Father is not the food for our bodies but the higher spiritual knowledge and spiritual guidance from the Creator!

* * *

Let every reasonable person think and ask himself or herself the following questions: What does God want from me? What does He want me to be?

Jesus said: “Be perfect, as your Heavenly Father is perfect!” (Matt 5:48).
He also said: “I have cognized the Father” (John 17:25). “As the Father knows Me, so I know the Father” (John 10:15). “I and the Father are One” (John 10:30). So, “Learn (this) from Me!” (Matt 11:29).
What does the Perfection of the Creator consist in?
In order to find the answer to this question, it is necessary, first of all, to understand that God-the-Father is not an old man riding a cloud, as He is depicted sometimes. He is the infinite
Ocean of the subtlest Consciousness abiding in the multidimensional depth of the universe.
He is also the absolute Love, Wisdom, and Power.
It is what we should learn from Him! And we should ask Him to help us, first and foremost, with the fulfillment of this task!


* * *

One should begin this process of learning from God by studying the ethical principles suggested by Him in order to change oneself in accordance with His Will.

It is also important to understand what God, man, the meaning of human life on the Earth, and the principles of its realization are.
After this, one can use the methods for cleansing the body and its energy structures from energy contamination and begin to work on the “opening” and further development of the spiritual heart. The last one allows worthy spiritual seekers to fulfill the above-mentioned commandments of Jesus Christ.


-----------------------------

A source:
Faith — and Knowledge
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
....
One should begin this process of learning from God by studying the ethical principles suggested by Him in order to change oneself in accordance with His Will.
You speak of ethical principles as though there are a set of moral rules for us to learn. There aren't.

Our moral intuition (conscience) makes judgments case by specific case. These judgments emerge instantly from our unconscious mind.

For example, a soldier fighting for the allies in world war two feels nothing wrong in killing an enemy fighting for the Axis powers who would oppress the people of weaker nations. His conscience justifies killing in this cause. But he is given an order to kill civilians. He immediately feels the wrongness of the order. If he complies with the order, he will feel guilt the rest of his life when he remembers his immoral act.

Human acts happen in an almost infinite variety and yet our moral intuition gives us immediate guidance when needed. There are no "ethical principles" for us to learn. All we need is the resolve to follow the guidance of conscience.

It was conscience which moved our species to abolish legal slavery even though the sacred texts of religion didn't condemn it.

It is conscience that is moving our species to give equal rights to women and homosexuals even though the sacred texts of religion don't support that moral advance.

Agnostics, atheists, theists...we are all gifted with conscience at birth. It isn't something we have to learn.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium 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 do not think much of the above relates to what the Baha'i Faith teaches. Yes the Baha'i Faith believes in the Harmony of Science and Religion, but that does not give any break for atheists, nor anyone an easier transition. Scientists believe n many different religions and beliefs. The journey through the many worlds after ours is God's.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
If I followed the teachings 100%, I would be telling homosexuals to see a doctor. And if you followed science on a whim, you wouldn't make a whole lot of sense either.

This side comment does not change your problem that statements you made do not reflect what the Baha'i Faith teaches, and because of the belief in the Harmony of Science and Religion. Spiritual Laws do not change, but science must be taken into consideration in understanding the nature of human behavior.
 

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
This side comment does not change your problem that statements you made do not reflect what the Baha'i Faith teaches, and because of the belief in the Harmony of Science and Religion. Spiritual Laws do not change, but science must be taken into consideration in understanding the nature of human behavior.

It still doesn't change the problem that if you expect me to accept every conservative teaching of the Baha'i faith, I'm going to expect you to accept every established teaching of science exactly as it stands.

Religion is no special case, especially not progressive revelation like the Baha'I faith.
 

r2d2009

Member
Agnostics, atheists, theists...we are all gifted with conscience at birth. It isn't something we have to learn.

Of course, people have a conscience ...
But here is the problem - someone does not hear it at all, and someone is convinced that it is good to kill the “infidels” and so on.

If everyone knew how to listen and hear conscience, there really would be no need for the development of ethics.
 

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
@shunyadragon - see entry 3 on this long
Iist:

20190905_065108.jpg


20190905_065127.jpg


"The first Baha’i principle is the independent investigation of reality. Not found in any sacred Book of the past, it abolishes the need for clergy and sets us free from imitation and blind adherence to unexamined, dogmatic beliefs"

More is said after that.


Independent Investigation of Truth
 

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
"Furthermore, know ye that God has created in man the power of reason, whereby man is enabled to investigate reality. God has not intended man to imitate blindly his fathers and ancestors. He has endowed him with mind, or the faculty of reasoning, by the exercise of which he is to investigate and discover the truth, and that which he finds real and true he must accept." `Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, page 291
 

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
To be fair, I didn't realize I was debating with a fellow Baha'I. Oh well, it might make for an interesting discussion, either way.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
"Furthermore, know ye that God has created in man the power of reason, whereby man is enabled to investigate reality. God has not intended man to imitate blindly his fathers and ancestors. He has endowed him with mind, or the faculty of reasoning, by the exercise of which he is to investigate and discover the truth, and that which he finds real and true he must accept." `Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, page 291

Good citation!
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
It still doesn't change the problem that if you expect me to accept every conservative teaching of the Baha'i faith, I'm going to expect you to accept every established teaching of science exactly as it stands.

Religion is no special case, especially not progressive revelation like the Baha'I faith.

I am a scientist and accept science. I do not differentiate Baha'i teachings as liberal nor conservative. I avoid over stating Baha'i teachings. I do believe the spiritual laws are relevant and worth following to the best of my ability.
 

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
I am a scientist and accept science. I do not differentiate Baha'i teachings as liberal nor conservative. I avoid over stating Baha'i teachings. I do believe the spiritual laws are relevant and worth following to the best of my ability.

In the context of respecting Baha'I religious leaders, I would try not to argue with them. But in the context of my personal relationship with God, it's too important to take established teachings at face value, at times.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Which goes back to the question, is it better to have no assertions, or risk greatly having false assertions?
I sorta bridge the gap between the two, refusing to make any "assertions" beyond that I do believe there's Something out there, and this is based on a lengthy series of "experiences" that I have covered here at RF in some detail before. It was strong and convincing enough, spanning over three years, to send me back into the Church after being gone for over 20 years.

Also, one may look at "My Faith Statement" at the bottom of my posts for at least some clarification. .
 

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
I sorta bridge the gap between the two, refusing to make any "assertions" beyond that I do believe there's Something out there, and this is based on a lengthy series of "experiences" that I have covered here at RF in some detail before. It was strong and convincing enough, spanning over three years, to send me back into the Church after being gone for over 20 years.

Also, one may look at "My Faith Statement" at the bottom of my posts for at least some clarification. .

I might soon. Food for thought, when you're on Mobile, you can't see a member's signature.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Of course, people have a conscience ...
But here is the problem - someone does not hear it at all, and someone is convinced that it is good to kill the “infidels” and so on.

If everyone knew how to listen and hear conscience, there really would be no need for the development of ethics.
I agree that the problem is that we don't always do the right thing. However, since conscience always guides us properly, what training would children need beyond the commonly heard advice to "let your conscience be your guide?"

You spoke of "ethical principles" that needed to be studied. What principles? Do you have an example?

What ethical principle would guide us when it is OK to kill and when it is not OK? And how would it improve on the guidance of conscience?
 
Last edited:

r2d2009

Member
I agree that the problem is that we don't always do the right thing. However, since conscience always guides us properly, what training would children need beyond the commonly heard advice to "let your conscience be your guide?"

You spoke of "ethical principles" that needed to be studied. What principles? Do you have an example?

What ethical principle would guide us when it is OK to kill and when it is not OK? And how would it improve on the guidance of conscience?



One of the basic ethical principles is as follows:
"act with others the way you want them to do with you."

Experience shows that good parenting is better than lack of parenting.



But this is not all that is worth teaching.

The full realization of ethics is possible only against the background of emotions of cordial love.
This is the foundation of what Jesus taught.
This knowledge is now forgotten and pushed into the shadows.
The first places in religions are “faith” and “prayers”, but not the realization of the principles of love.

It is precisely these principles that are really worth teaching.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
One of the basic ethical principles is as follows: "act with others the way you want them to do with you."
How should we act if we are attacked by someone who intends to kill us? Our conscience allows us to defend ourselves and even kill if necessary. Your ethical principle, if taken as an absolute rule, would get all the good people in the world killed.

The full realization of ethics is possible only against the background of emotions of cordial love. This is the foundation of what Jesus taught.
The caring kind of love is always unconditional. Conditional love (I'll love you if you please me) threatens that the love will be withheld if conditions aren't met. Conditional love is manipulative and hardly loving.

Traditional Christianity teaches of a god that will allow us to be punished eternally in Hell if we don't accept Christian doctrine. That's a god that doesn't know how to love. You Christians can't claim that Jesus teaches unconditional love and then, in the next breath, tell us that you worship a god who offers love conditionally.
 
Top