MonkeyFire
Well-Known Member
If you dont have faith in God without (but, not away from) science you can be risking hope because for hope to be effective it must be absolute.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
He definitely has not.I believe that Baha'u'llah has met His burden of proof quote adequately.
“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106
No. It doesn't. I only have to have enough hope to allow me to try. Absolutes are unnecessary.If you dont have faith in God without (but, not away from) science you can be risking hope because for hope to be effective it must be absolute.
How do you know that, have you ever looked at that evidence?He definitely has not.
Yes. After the Universalists, but before Wicca. Though I admit it was many years ago. I recall that I had a mixed reaction to the doctrines, but fundamentally, it was a belief system that expected me to take some guy at his word.How do you know that, have you ever looked at that evidence?
No. It doesn't. I only have to have enough hope to allow me to try. Absolutes are unnecessary.
You said, "...because for hope to be effective it must be absolute." I said that was not true. And now you agree that what you said was not true?I agree, with need you can require something, and still not have it and that will make you suffer a great deal, and even hopelessness. Happiness is something you have.
You said, "...because for hope to be effective it must be absolute." I said that was not true. And now you agree that what you said was not true?
You are not supposed to take Baha'u'llah at His word. He told us to fully investigate in order to ascertain the truth of His claim.but fundamentally, it was a belief system that expected me to take some guy at his word.
You are not supposed to take Baha'u'llah at His word. He told us to fully investigate in order to ascertain the truth of His claim.
“Bahá’u’lláh asked no one to accept His statements and His tokens blindly. On the contrary, He put in the very forefront of His teachings emphatic warnings against blind acceptance of authority, and urged all to open their eyes and ears, and use their own judgement, independently and fearlessly, in order to ascertain the truth. ” Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, p. 8
He enjoined the fullest investigation and never concealed Himself, offering, as the supreme proofs of His Prophethood, His words and works and their effects in transforming the lives and characters of men.
With that I agree.If someone makes a claim, then the buren of proof rests with them to demonstrate the truthfulness of the claim. that's just how it works.
Thank you, knowing what is wrong, is already half of the solution. And I wish you the strength to deal with yours. Getting older can be toughI hope your health issues have a good resolution. I have some of my own to deal with.
I couldn't agree moreThat said, the burden of proof is not upon god...it is on those making the claim for a god.
"pray until something happens" is the polar opposite of independent investigation of truth.Yeah. Most religions tell you to investigate in some way. Usually by a methodology that falls well short of the mark. As for instance, I was raised Southern Baptist, and was told to pray until something happens.
His words -His words - that would be the '[expectation] that I take some guy at his word' that I mentioned earlier.
His works - I have no direct access to those.
Transforming lives - which is something that we see when people join any supportive community.
If you want to know what I mean by Independent Investigation of Truth you can watch this short video. It is only five minutes long.
Thanks for the recommendation of the short and concise video. I very much appreciate not being asked to read/listen to a rambling manifesto. I listened through a few times and took notes on what I took to be his primary points. Take a look and tell me if I am off base.If you want to know what I mean by Independent Investigation of Truth you can watch this short video. It is only five minutes long.
I fully agree, but he was from a Christian background so of course he has a bias. I was not raised Christian and I was never a Christian, so I don't have the bias that God is all about unconditional love. To me that is illogical; since God is about so many more things, that is an oversimplification. Also, from a psychological standpoint, people want to believe that that God is all about unconditional love, so they don't even look at the evidence for anything that might refute that.It all fell apart as soon at it got to the bit where he said he read the bible and came away with the idea that god is all about unconditional love. That in itself is a selective reading of the bible.
I agree that the Bible is a terrible, disjointed mishmash of contradictory messages, but of course I am a Baha'i so the only religious scriptures I ever read with serious intent are my own scriptures, and quite frankly I see no need to read older scriptures because I believe that the Baha'i Faith is the religion for this age, and it has everything I will ever need from a religion.When I first read all of the bible (as a young teen), I was not only surprised not to find the message of the faith that I'd been brought into by my family, but no coherent message whatsoever. The whole thing is a terrible, disjointed mishmash of contradictory messages.
I love logic and as I often say, to assume that all Holy Books are like the Bible and that all religions are like Christianity would be the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization and the Fallacy of Jumping to conclusionsSo, if I'm supposed to question everything, why should I arrive at any religious conclusion? Where is the evidence or reasoning to take any of any of the 'holy' books at all seriously?
How can you know that there is no religion with a clear and unambiguous message, unless you have looked?I find the whole notion of a just, fair, and loving god, with an important message for the well-being of humans to be totally contradicted by the reality that there is no such clear and unambiguous message at all. Just a lot of contradictory faiths that all look exactly like human superstitions.
That is a fairly good synopsis, although I think he was a bit overly optimistic when he said:Thanks for the recommendation of the short and concise video. I very much appreciate not being asked to read/listen to a rambling manifesto. I listened through a few times and took notes on what I took to be his primary points. Take a look and tell me if I am off base.
Independent Investigation of Truth
- Every aspect of every belief should be examined by each person to make sense that they are true
- This allows a person to free themselves of superstitions and beliefs that cannot be supported by facts
- A truth is a truth is a truth
- There is only one reality
- If each person thoroughly examined the truth, we would all come to a consensus
- In the end we would only have one religion, that completely agrees with itself
- Foundational truth -> God is all about love
- Investigation begins by admitting that I may hold some beliefs and traditions that are not true.
- I may be wrong about a great many things.
- There are people out that who I thought were wrong who may actually be right.
- There are people whom I thought I would never listen to, that I may be able to learn a great deal from.
- Beware of underlying prejudices
- Don't be afraid to examine the claims of other religions.
I agree about his optimism. He also made some assumptions that are not true:That is a fairly good synopsis, although I think he was a bit overly optimistic when he said:
- If each person thoroughly examined the truth, we would all come to a consensus
- In the end we would only have one religion, that completely agrees with itself
I agree.He said that nobody should follow religious beliefs just because it was what their family believes or because it is a long held tradition of a certain religion.
Sure. Those are fair things to consider, but he is missing the most important component in any investigation. A method by which to reliably determine whether or not the belief that one holds is rationally justified by reason and evidence. I have yet to see such a method applied non-fallaciously by any adherents from any system of belief involving what we colloquially refer to as the supernatural.
- He said our belief should not be something that we heard from another and have to believe on faith but rather it should be something that has been thoroughly examined and has been found to be solid enough to build a foundation of beliefs from. He said that once a person finds a real solid truth they can be completely confident in that truth.
- He said that truth is a truth is a truth so it cannot be contradicted by another truth.
- He said there reality is only one reality and we just need to discover the truth of this reality.
- He said that we should call into question any of the previously beliefs that we held dear.
- He said that we have to take everything we have been taught and put them into a box and call it the box of unproven beliefs, and then we have to carefully examine that belief to see where it came from -- does it makes sense logically, does it agree with other truths, do I have emotions that are informing this belief, a prejudice or past experience?
I love logic and as I often say, to assume that all Holy Books are like the Bible and that all religions are like Christianity would be the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization and the Fallacy of Jumping to conclusions...
How can you know that there is no religion with a clear and unambiguous message, unless you have looked?