Baha'i faith is not blind faith.

[TransmutingSoul]

It means the fires in hell.

That does not change the explanation given?

Hell is not a literal place, neither is fire a literal fire, they are a state of being.

Regards Tony

 

[firedragon]

That does not change the explanation given?

Hell is not a literal place, neither is fire a literal fire, they are a state of being.

Regards Tony

Yeah. Thats the usual "when needed it's not literal" argument given all the time. And you are making the wrong argument because you have dropped in to someone else's conversation.

Cheers.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Yeah. Thats the usual "when needed it's not literal" argument given all the time. And you are making the wrong argument because you have dropped in to someone else's conversation.

Cheers.

That is Bahaullah's explanation of Heaven and Hell and Baha'u'llah tells us that is the true intent of all the Holy books inclusive of the Quran.

That they are not literal places, that they are a state of being.

This is one of the things that attracted me to the teachings of Bahá’u’lláh, to me it is so reasonable and logical in the spiritual sense.

Regards Tony

 

[firedragon]

That is Bahaullah's explanation of Heaven and Hell and Baha'u'llah tells us that is the true intent of all the Holy books inclusive of the Quran.

That's irrelevant Tony.

That they are not literal places, that they are a state of being.

I did not say it's a literal place. This is another strawman.

This is one of the things that attracted me to the teachings of Bahá’u’lláh, to me it is so reasonable and logical in the spiritual sense.

It's irrelevant. This is proselytising IMO.

Speaking of blind faith, this is exactly that nevertheless. And I keep telling you what Bahaullah and Shirazi says in his own books which you don't seem to have read. This is truly strange to me.

Tell me. What are you arguing for? Let me try and understand because you are making statements that aren't relevant to me.

 

[shunyadragon]

It means the fires in hell.

The descriptions of Hell in the Baha'i and Babi writings are descriptions of a state rejecting God and God's attributes and making egocentric choices and not an actual place in the spiritual realms of our existence,

The descriptions describe well the Hell here on earth that results in rejecting God's will and the attributes of God, such as justice, and unselfish love toward all humanity and our physical existence.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yeah. Thats the usual "when needed it's not literal" argument given all the time. And you are making the wrong argument because you have dropped in to someone else's conversation.

Cheers.

Hell is described as the state of the condition of the soul, and not an actual place in the Baha'i writings.

Baháʼí Faith on life after death - Wikipedia.

Teachings and beliefs
The soul is not considered to be subject to natural law - rather it is subject to spiritual law as a covenant between man and God and it takes identity at the conception of the embryo, but not "in" the body, rather, associated with it like light to a mirror.[1] The Baha'i writings describe the mind–body dualism using various analogies to express the independence of the soul from the body. Human nature is likened to a rider on a horse or steed, a bird in a cage, or the sun shining on a mirror.[2][3]

Heaven is a soul being close to God, not a place but a condition, as it undergoes an eternal spiritual evolution.[4] Anyone who learns and applies virtues and guidance of God "goes to" heaven. Hell is similarly being far from God, not a place, but of failing to understand and apply virtues and guidance from God. Progress from even the worst condition is possible even in the next world but not until the individual fundamentally overcomes rejecting Godly virtues. Labels we call ourselves by and theologies we claim to adhere to are not as important as the reality of spiritual virtues like courage, justice, love, understanding, etc., actually expressed by choice in our lives.[4][5] Development of the spiritual life reaches a milestone whether in this life or the next in developing the "spirit of faith"[1] a gift of the Holy Spirit, which then continues to grow in the individual's soul. But if our ability to express Godly virtues is conditional so is our condition in the afterlife

 

[Clara Tea]

I don't think any religion really teaches blind faith. At least, I know Judaism and Christianity don't. I don't think Islam does, either.

Taught, not learned.

Definition of "blind faith" = unquestioning belief, even when it's unreasonable or wrong.

So, Jonah lived in the belly of a whale? Were there whales that big? How did he breath? What did he eat?

Noah's flood covered the whole earth, including tall mountains?

Talking in tongues is God's language? Those writhing on the floor have been taken over and controlled by God?

Faith healing works? Why have phony faith healers been arrested?

We have to accept that God is love and kindness (flooding the world, destroying Sodom, allowing suffering)?

It's blasphemy to even question (in your own thoughts) anything about God. So, no one questions, they just blindly accept.

 

[Clara Tea]

The descriptions of Hell in the Baha'i and Babi writings are descriptions of a state rejecting God and God's attributes and making egocentric choices and not an actual place in the spiritual realms of our existence,

The descriptions describe well the Hell here on earth that results in rejecting God's will and the attributes of God, such as justice, and unselfish love toward all humanity and our physical existence.

Shouldn't God realize that His imperfect creations are imperfect? Why make genitals then object when they are used? God places temptation in front of us, then blames us for being tempted. We are guilty of original sin, and some is not ours (but Adam's).

 

[Clara Tea]

So far you have only responded with aggressive accusatory accusations, and nothing to backit up, nor have you responded to the content of my posts.

The bottom line is the religions and beliefs that make less 'exclusive belief claims,' and acknowledge the diversity of very human beliefs are open to the 'Independent search for truth.' Judaism, Christianity, and Islam and their divisions do make absolute exclusive truth claims,

My accusations are never accusatory.

 

[Clara Tea]

Your history of the Modus Operandi of selective citations to justify a biased agenda without knowledge of the subject does not provide a coherent argument. In fact, it reflects badly on you as usual in the past in our dialogues.

Random selective Google searches are not a competent way of constructive dialogue.

Hell on earth is a reality we live with described in your references,

Nonetheless . .

Baháʼí Faith on life after death - Wikipedia..

Heaven is a soul being close to God, not a place but a condition, as it undergoes an eternal spiritual evolution.[4] Anyone who learns and applies virtues and guidance of God "goes to" heaven. Hell is similarly being far from God, not a place, but of failing to understand and apply virtues and guidance from God. Progress from even the worst condition is possible even in the next world but not until the individual fundamentally overcomes rejecting Godly virtues. Labels we call ourselves by and theologies we claim to adhere to are not as important as the reality of spiritual virtues like courage, justice, love, understanding, etc., actually expressed by choice in our lives.[4][5] Development of the spiritual life reaches a milestone whether in this life or the next in developing the "spirit of faith"[1] a gift of the Holy Spirit, which then continues to grow in the individual's soul. But if our ability to express Godly virtues is conditional so is our condition in the afterlife - there is a spectrum of achievement so a purgatory-like environment is possible for those who have not well embraced Godly virtues and those that have not largely rejected them. Indeed, the next world's life is sometimes delineated in stages.[6][7] Baháʼís believe a significant purpose of revelation is to guide the spiritual development of the individual and that accepting the prophet of God is important as a significant chance at advancing the conditional achievement of discovering the virtues themselves and expressing them.[4] If one succeeds in achieving these to a superlative degree then that person will be of benefit to all mankind from the afterlife[4] while those who are far from God have no power to affect the living any more.[1][8][9] Indeed, evil is not viewed as a power in the next world - people who are evil are described as "atrophied" and "enfeebled"[10] and that accounts of "possession" are about people who have yielded to their own darker passions and baser nature.[9]

If God made all, nothing (not even hell) is far from God. If God is all powerful, he could eliminate hell and Satan. Could it be that keeping Satan is part of God's plan? Maybe Satan is doing God's work without realizing it? Satan captures the evil souls, holds them in hell (away from everyone and everything), and this could be exactly what God wants. God sees the future. Could it be that sometime in the future, Satan might repent? Is it possible to escape hell? Apparently, God cast Satan from heaven to hell. So, heaven is apparently not the permanent residence that many Christians believe it to be.

 

[Clara Tea]

I have never understood that argument.
I you don't believe in god in the first place, how is separation from him a punishment?
And for those who would be affected, the believers, they believe so aren't going to be separated anyway.
Just another meaningless religious platitude that unravels on close examination - something that believers rarely subject their beliefs to.

How can the religious have such heated arguments? If they can't get along, what chance does everyone else have?

I am mellowing out listening to the gentle tunes of Simon and Garfunkle.

Perhaps God wants gentle music and restful souls?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

This is not the kind I'm familiar with. Especially in Christianity, as I'm reminded of the passage in the New Testament to always be ready to give an answer for the hope that is within you etc.

Many answers amount to the Bible told me so.

 

[Clara Tea]

The argument is worth investigating. It's not proven to be false. My bad, valid isn't what I meant.

As far as is known energy might be eternally existing, or something else exists as an anchor to everything that exists and is the foundation for all things that are contingent.

If our universe is a part of reality then the whole picture of reality is not yet known. Can we know that some part of reality is foundational and self existing through logic?, Or must it be demonstrated.

Is the argument good enough to begin to answer the next question, is there a necessary being?

How do we even know that physics won't change over the long haul? What makes known laws fundamental throughout the whole of the Universe's history?

I see that Josh Rasmussen has a Phd in philosophy. Do you think he is totally ignoring science to arrive at his conclusions?

The acceleration of the expansion of the universe isn't fully understood. So, we don't know if there is some kind of antigravity pushing things apart. We don't really know if the laws of physics are the same everywhere and always.

Existentialist philosophers question whether or not we exist. Descarte said "I think, therefore I am."

But where does that leave me? I don't think, therefore I'm not?

 

[Clara Tea]

I'm afraid that is the same thing. You are defining something by an assumption of your conclusion and by negatives.


Looks like an average of about 400 milliseconds. Far from instantaneous.
Conscious intention and human action: Review of the rise and fall of the readiness potential and Libet’s clock
The brain takes time to process intent and the impulse from then travel time to the appropriate muscles.

IIRC, our thoughts are generated at the chemical level via the change in action potential of sodium and potassium ions across the synaptic gap. Or millions of synaptic gaps. And those chemical interactions are standard interactions. How does something non-material interact with those ions, and what exactly does it change about the physical substrate of the brain?


Out of line? No. You have been nothing but pleasant and interesting.

The Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle says that if we know position, we can't know momentum, and vice versa. This is because bouncing something (like light) off of a particle detects it but also moves it.

Aharonov (famous for the Aharonov-Brohm effect that provides one proof of quantum mechanics), used small particles to detect position, so they would perturb it less.

Could we define where something likely is by probing where it is not? That way, we wouldn't disturb it, and still gain some understanding of it (until we accidentally collide with it)?

 

[Ella S.]

I genuinely don't think that most people who believe in a religion do so out of blind faith, and I think that's especially true of converts.

I don't believe what they believe, though, and I think one of us has to be wrong about what we think is true to arrive at different conclusions about reality. I want to either gain whatever knowledge they have that I lack, or impart my knowledge on them if they turn out to be the one in the wrong.

There's no moral or intellectual failure in being wrong. None of us are omniscient. We're going to disagree about what's true simply by virtue of having different information.

I also think that religion is often a cultural phenomenon and surrounds communities of those with shared values, often encompassing traditional holidays and ceremonies. This has virtually nothing to do with any truth-claims, and even if everyone agreed with me that there are no gods I would imagine that we would still have a diversity of religious traditions. This makes me wonder why the truth of particular religious claims become so important to some people, especially given how no two believers have identical agreement on all such issues, anyway.

So, yes, I agree that the Baha'i faith is not blind faith. It's a lot more than that. But I also don't believe that Baha'u'llah was a prophet of God, even if the people who come to that conclusion might do so for perfectly rational and understandable reasons.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Tell me. What are you arguing for? Let me try and understand because you are making statements that aren't relevant to me.

I replied as you made a comment that made no sense to a Baha'i, yet quote it as Baha'i doctrine. I was not arguing and I am still not.

What you said made no sense in the context of the OP to me and no further context has been offered by you, as such that point was lost some time back.

Would you like to go back and make some sense of what it was you offered in that post?

You even mentioned the Pope out of context to Baha'i understanding.

Maybe we should just leave it alone, as you have a view of the Baha'i Faith that is not the same conclusion my study has produced.

Regards Tony

 

[ppp]

.

The Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle says that if we know position, we can't know momentum, and vice versa. This is because bouncing something (like light) off of a particle detects it but also moves it.

Aharonov (famous for the Aharonov-Brohm effect that provides one proof of quantum mechanics), used small particles to detect position, so they would perturb it less.

Could we define where something likely is by probing where it is not? That way, we wouldn't disturb it, and still gain some understanding of it (until we accidentally collide with it)?

We already do inference to minimize interaction, but it cannot be eliminated. Not yet, at least.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0910994107

 

[firedragon]

I replied as you made a comment that made no sense to a Baha'i, yet quote it as Baha'i doctrine.

That was your absolute lack of knowledge Tony. I can't help with that.

What you said made no sense in the context of the OP to me

It was an answer to someone else.

Would you like to go back and make some sense of what it was you offered in that post?

You even mentioned the Pope out of context to Baha'i understanding.

Maybe we should just leave it alone, as you have a view of the Baha'i Faith that is not the same conclusion my study has produced.

It's not easy to do all of that because you have not even read up on your own scripture. Your faith seems to be personal, taught by others, and not based on your own scripture. That could be the reason you don't recognise some things said in your own books.

Also both Bahai's who engaged with the post have got emotionally involved, not intellectually. That's the reason even the understanding of an analogy is out of the window, while talking about adoption of a part of another faith has become the "Bahai faith" in your grasp.

).

 

[Trailblazer]

Unfortunatly many people seem to think all religions are blindly followed without asking questions, and in discussion, i seen this been the case when some people look at Baha'i faith too

You mean many atheists.

 

[Trailblazer]

Blind faith is to be certain of something being true without any reason for doing so.

That is a good definition of blind faith. However, some believers have a 'reason' for their faith so it is not blind.

What atheists are simply saying is, sure we also hope we win the lottery, but we want to wait and see if we actually won before acting as if we did.

That is a perfectly valid position, especially if those atheists don't have a 'reason' to believe that they could win (that God exists).

In the case of Bahais, or any religion for that matter, the limitation comes with the source material, whether that is Baha'u'llah, the bible or the Quran. Since none of them can tell you if the "numbers" being drawn are the one's you chose on your lottery ticket, so to speak. But you can again, choose to have faith in these telling you the truth, opposite of the atheists, that basically just say: "Well, we can't really verify whether these source materials are telling the truth or not, but based on what we know, have experienced etc. there doesn't seem to be a good reason to assume that they are true.". Again we are not claiming they aren't true, simply that we see no good reason for it, and therefore no reason to have faith in them being so either.

Again, that is a perfectly valid position.