Do you think that God should communicate directly to everyone in the world?

[Unveiled Artist]

Is the car the SAME as the person who drives the car?

Pretty much, but its more complex than that. This is what makes sense to me since I cant speak for Hindu.

Its like you are part of the car. The driver, motor, etc are all part of how the car works. So, the car cant move without your pushing the gas pedal. It can run without a motor. There needs to be a flat surface for it to roll smoothly. All of these thins and person is a part of how the car moves and purpose of it. So when you talk about the nature of the car, you ideally talk about the driver as well as the car and environment in which he is driving.

Once you separate the car into little parts, it is no longer a car, just parts put together. In the creation/god view its the parts of the car and purpose and driver defines the parts as god rather than the parts separate define the concept of god.

I do not even know why anyone would want to. Why do people want to encompass everything? Why can’t some things just be a mystery?

I dont know. I dont see the difference between the two, just two different worldviews. Mysteries arent equal to god, though. It just means something we dont know. That doesnt mean its beyond our grasp of knowing its just right now we dont know.

Some people are happy when they know because they can encompass themselves in the whole of life without needing anyone else to do it. Its a relationship between themselves and life. We only know ourselves, so thats where we start to cultivate that mystery is getting to know ourselves.

To me, messangers, prophets, human incarnations, manifestations block that connection with life. Going back to your OP as Im typing, when there is a block between life and god because of someone else, you (people) are basically depedent on others.

In The Dharma, it is called an attachment. You are looking outside yourself to understand whats within. However, even more, you dont want to know it in full as The Buddha just inpart to keep the mystery.

Direct communication through meditation and prayer supersedes the middleman. Its through these things one knows he is within and as and of god. Not separate. Its still a mystery, if you like, but we are a part of it as it not looking at it from afar.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Using the Artist and clay pot as an example, I would say the part of the clay pot that is of the artist, is the design and perfection of the vessel, the outward clay vessel is only a result of the spirit that created it.

Then the created pot becomes evidence that a great potter is at work.

Regards Tony

In this case, thoug, the clay is the potter rather than -of- or -from- it. There is no separation in the nature of the potter and clay. There is not -they- because it is one.

I understand that, because life isnt separated into bits. We are apart of life just as everything else. There is no reason to think there is a creator because as life we are in constant formation and cycle of creation (a verb) in itself. We are in constant motion and our status changes as we are life in that change. Even In isnt a good word because that still separates. -Is- is more apropriate.

While I know the concept of both views, I cant see where they relate. I believe life is what it is and in that life, as life, we are within what people define life as god. While I dont have practice and culture to make it up, I do see the nature of life not seperate rom creation. That is just odd.

Its like separating the artist from his work. The artist IS his to work. It is very profound, though; so, I dont know if you guys would understand it.

 

[Vinayaka]

Show me where I separated other people as false.

I only said that if two beliefs are contradictory they cannot both be true. That is a logical impossibility. Therefore one of them has to be false.

You just demonstrated it right there. Baha'i view is true. All others are false.

 

[Vinayaka]

Its like separating the artist from his work. The artist IS his to work. It is very profound, though; so, I dont know if you guys would understand it.

Obviously they don't. You and I understand it merely as two differing POVs, not saying either is right or wrong. But for them, one just has to be right. It's no better that two people arguing whether Toyota or Nissan is better, neither giving in, but then a third guy (you or me) comes along and happily says, 'I'll take either." To top it off, they claim tolerance, and that we're the intolerant ones. It truly befuddles me.

 

[shunyadragon]

Actually, what we are debating is the nature of God, specifically how God should communicate. Which is why the Bible actually gets as much of a say as everyone else. That is, not to say much at all. However, given the weight of numerous shared opinions on the matter, it becomes a bit more than irrelevant no matter what you personally think about it.

My position has nothing to do with what I personally think about it.

[/quote]
As it is, this thread is NOT a discussion of legal matters such that legal strictures on evidence should be imposed, nor is it a scientific matter such that scientific strictures should be imposed, nor is it even a historical matter such that provenance and authorship need be provided to validate the contents as factual. Its a purely hypothetical question with a few generally acceptable assumptions. Thus, the evidence of opinion is literally ALL THERE IS. So, yes. the Bible counts in THAT sense. Because THAT is the sense we are currently employing 'evidence'. I originally brought legal evidence into the equation specifically to show that the Bible has been used as evidence EVEN UNDER THOSE STRICTURES thus, it should be more than enough to qualify as evidence for the context of this debate. [/quote]

Regardless of the context, not the Bible does not represent evidence.

I need do no such thing. It was rhetorical intended to demonstrate very clearly that evidence does not have to be true to be evidence. Which you seem to have a tough time understanding. This further demonstrates my point that WHATEVER YOU USE TO DEMONSTRATE YOUR POINT IS CALLED EVIDENCE. That is true regardless of what you actually think of that evidence, and regardless of whether the point is actually true.

I did no such thing. What I described was not using the Bible as evidence in the courts. Using a Holy Book to pledge to to tell the truth, and using it to document a persons belief is the use of the Bible as evidence to support a legal argument.

Still waiting . . .

More objective evidence exists, yes. What's your point? I don't believe in the Bible. Or did you somehow miss that part? Just because better evidence exists does not mean lesser evidence is irrelevant or somehow 'not evidence' as you claimed.

It is not a matter of lesser or greater evidence, whatever that means for which there is delineation in Law. The Bible in and of itself is not evidence. There may be evidence, such as archaeological evidence to support events and the existence of persons in the Bible.

You apparently do not understand the meaning and application of evidence in science, law, and history.

 

[Trailblazer]

You just demonstrated it right there. Baha'i view is true. All others are false.

I did not say that the Bahai view is true. You said that.
I said that if two beliefs are contradictory they cannot both be true. That is a logical impossibility. Therefore one of them has to be false.
I did not say which one is true and which one is false.

 

[Vinayaka]

I did not say that the Bahai view is true. You said that.

You're a Baha'i. You don't have to say it. By definition, you believe the Baha'i view. If not, you wouldn't be a Baha'i. It's just a very logical deduction, and being of sound mind, I was somehow able to deduce that.

 

[Trailblazer]

You're a Baha'i. You don't have to say it. By definition, you believe the Baha'i view. If not, you wouldn't be a Baha'i. It's just a very logical deduction, and being of sound mind, I was somehow able to deduce that.

Yes, I believe the Baha'i view of God is true, because I am a Baha'i.
You believe the Hindu view of God because you are a Hindu.
The two views of God are logically contradictory so both cannot be true.
By believing your view is true you separate other people as false.

 

[Vinayaka]

Yes, I believe the Baha'i view of God is true, because I am a Baha'i.
You believe the Hindu view of God because you are a Hindu.
The two views of God are logically contradictory so both cannot be true.
By believing your view is true you separate other people as false.

I disagree. In Abrahamic faiths, there is exclusivity. In other words, the view of each group is the one and only true view according to them. In Dharmic faiths, more than one view can be accepted as valid. Within the sushumna where kundalini rises there are 16 smaller nadis, each having the ability to open and have kundalini rise. So since we actually do believe more than one path is valid., We're not exclusivist like that. In order to understand this, an individual would have to be able to step outside of the Abrahamic paradigm and not see it through coloured glasses or the subconscious mind programming there that is incredibly entrenched. This is nigh impossible for most people raised that way, so I don't have high expectations of you seeing this. It would literally destroy your entire world view if you were able to see beyond that box.
The dharmic faiths celebrate this diversity. Cars can be powered by electricity, gasoline, diesel, and more. So too with faith. There actually is more than one way. Hard to believe when you've been programmed over and over and over to believe otherwise. Very difficult to expand from that.

 

[Trailblazer]

I disagree. In Abrahamic faiths, there is exclusivity. In other words, the view of each group is the one and only true view according to them. In Dharmic faiths, more than one view can be accepted as valid. Within the sushumna where kundalini rises there are 16 smaller nadis, each having the ability to open and have kundalini rise. So since we actually do believe more than one path is valid., We're not exclusivist like that. In order to understand this, an individual would have to be able to step outside of the Abrahamic paradigm and not see it through coloured glasses or the subconscious mind programming there that is incredibly entrenched. This is nigh impossible for most people raised that way, so I don't have high expectations of you seeing this. It would literally destroy your entire world view if you were able to see beyond that box.
The dharmic faiths celebrate this diversity. Cars can be powered by electricity, gasoline, diesel, and more. So too with faith. There actually is more than one way. Hard to believe when you've been programmed over and over and over to believe otherwise. Very difficult to expand from that.

I was not referring to the religions themselves, but rather to the views of One God who is separate from Creation (monotheism) as opposed to God being part of creation (pantheism). Certain religions have one view of God and other religions have the other view of God. Some religions such as Buddhism do not even have a God belief; although some Buddhists do believe in God, most don’t.

The Abrahamic faiths all agree that there is one God and that God is the Creator of the universe, separate from His Creation. By contrast, the pantheistic religions identify God with the universe, and regard the universe as a manifestation of God, so there is no separation. These views of God are mutually exclusive; one cannot be true if the other one is true. There can be only one Reality. God is what God is, regardless of what anyone believes about God.

Regarding the Abrahamic religions, most teach that only their religion is true, with the exception of the Baha’i Faith that teaches that all of the religions were true for their time in history. The spiritual verities all religions share, including non-Abrahamic religions, are eternal so they will always be true. Baha’is believe that God reveals a new message in every age (e.g., the oneness of mankind is the message for this age) and the social teachings and laws are updated in every age.

 

[Vinayaka]

I was not referring to the religions themselves, but rather to the views of One God who is separate from Creation (monotheism) as opposed to God being part of creation (pantheism). Certain religions have one view of God and other religions have the other view of God. Some religions such as Buddhism do not even have a God belief; although some Buddhists do believe in God, most don’t.

The Abrahamic faiths all agree that there is one God and that God is the Creator of the universe, separate from His Creation. By contrast, the pantheistic religions identify God with the universe, and regard the universe as a manifestation of God, so there is no separation. These views of God are mutually exclusive; one cannot be true if the other one is true. There can be only one Reality. God is what God is, regardless of what anyone believes about God.

Regarding the Abrahamic religions, most teach that only their religion is true, with the exception of the Baha’i Faith that teaches that all of the religions were true for their time in history. The spiritual verities all religions share, including non-Abrahamic religions, are eternal so they will always be true. Baha’is believe that God reveals a new message in every age (e.g., the oneness of mankind is the message for this age) and the social teachings and laws are updated in every age.

Yes you do understand that there is monotheism and pantheism. The two views are incompatible. Good to hear you admit that. I'm surprised. Doesn't mean we can't get along about other stuff more down to earth. Baha'i do believe their view is better or more true, because of the 'current age' idea. Of course other religions still believe their faiths are still valid for this age. Sanatana Dharma, and many other faiths have easily been able to keep up with science and new stuff. We're not stuck in a 4000 year old time machine. Baha'is because of the infallibilty of the prophet, do seem stuck about 150 years ago, and have been largely unable to change. What we know about homosexality and race has indeed really involved. Africans are clearly not pigs or animals as AB stated, and homosexuality is normal, within the range of sexual activity.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes you do understand that there is monotheism and pantheism. The two views are incompatible. Good to hear you admit that. I'm surprised. Doesn't mean we can't get along about other stuff more down to earth.

Most of my friends are atheists so I have problem getting along with those who do not share the same view. It is not that I do not like Baha’is or other believers, but I march to the beat of my own drummer. I also have an atheistic bent, given my dad was an atheist.

I think that we can get along about everything, as long as we do not insist on our view. We can still believe they are right though because to do otherwise would be dishonest.

I read a little bit about the Dharmic systems today online, and how Hinduism is different from the others in that they believe in One God, but unfortunately I was too busy to read the whole website. My atheist friends have asked me to start up my forum again because they have decided to leave the forum that we have all been posting on, so now I have an added responsibility... but friends are friends and they are very important to me. What they “believe” is of no consequence to me. If they ever chose to believe in God, that would have to be their own choice. I am a affirm believer in free will.

In that forum group, I had a good friend who was a Hindu, but she has since left the forum we were on, as she was insulted by the atheists there and she finally got tired of it. She was very much into science and had done a lot of research so she had a lot to impart, especially about the afterlife. Of course the atheists did not see any of her work as scientific. She and I did not agree on the nature of God and the afterlife, but we came to have mutual respect for one another. Some of our beliefs about the afterlife did overlap.

Baha'i do believe their view is better or more true, because of the 'current age' idea. Of course other religions still believe their faiths are still valid for this age. Sanatana Dharma, and many other faiths have easily been able to keep up with science and new stuff. We're not stuck in a 4000 year old time machine. Baha'is because of the infallibilty of the prophet, do seem stuck about 150 years ago, and have been largely unable to change. What we know about homosexuality and race has indeed really involved. Africans are clearly not pigs or animals as AB stated, and homosexuality is normal, within the range of sexual activity.

Probably that is true that Baha'is believe their view is better or more true, but isn’t that true of most religious people? I cannot speak for your religion because I do not know enough about it but I am sure that Hinduism is a heterogeneous group.

I never had any interest in any religion or in God before I became a Bahai, and I was not raised in any religion. Both my parents had been raised Christian but dropped out before I was born, so I never saw the inside of a Church. The whole idea was actually pretty frightening to me as I recall. I was attracted to the Baha’i faith because of the teachings, not because of Baha’u’llah or God. Only much later did I to start dealing with those two, within the last five years or so. I did not have much to do with any Baha’i for about 42 years and I still don’t see any in person, except my husband. Organized religion was never my cup of tea but I always believed that Baha’u’llah was who He claimed to be so I never dropped out. To me, there is just too much evidence to refute His claim. I do not care what the UHJ does or what other Baha’is do, the bottom line is whether Baha’u’llah was the Manifestation of God for this age. People make mistakes and the Baha’i Faith is a new Faith that is still getting its bearings.

I really do not think that religion and science should overlap, but rather that they are like two wings of one bird that are both necessary to fly and are complementary. So I do not consider what Abdu’l-Baha said about scientific subjects to be infallible. He says in so many words that animals do not have an afterlife because the animal spirit is extinguished upon death, but he wrote that before new scientific discoveries were made. I forgot what those were because psychology was my subject area, not science.

I had a Naturopath who was in one of the Eastern religions and she thought that was ridiculous and not scientific at all, given matter cannot ever be extinguished. I do not want to believe anything that is not true, but I do not know what is true. Had Baha’u’llah revealed something about animals surviving death I would believe it, but He did not write anything, at least nothing that has been translated into English. One thing I like about the Eastern religions is the reverence for all life, and not elevating humans above all other species as the Abrahamic religions do. If I had one beef, that would be it.

I do not like discussing homosexuality because it is so controversial. I do not believe that homosexuality is “normal” just because science might now say that it is normal and within the range of sexual activity. Suffice to say, I believe the primary purpose of sex is procreation, so you can do the math. One thing the Baha’i Faith teaches that I fully agree with is that there is there is an overemphasis on sex in modern culture. Most people believe that any sex is “normal” as long as it is not hurting anyone, including sex out of wedlock, but I do not believe that is what God wants for us, which is all that really matters as far as I am concerned. Moreover, I never believed that sex out of wedlock was okay even before I became a Baha’i, even though I was not raised religious. To each his or her own, and I try not to judge anyone, but I have a strong opinion and many Baha’is even think it is a little too extreme. But I go by what Baha’u’llah wrote, not by what Baha’is think.

I would never judge a homosexual. Just because I am a Baha’i and I am bound by the Laws, that does not mean I judge others. If a Baha’i is homosexual they have to deal with that but it is not my business. Personally, I think it is worse for a heterosexual couple to have sex out of wedlock than for married homosexuals to have sex. As far as I am concerned it is all about love and commitment, because that says seething about the character of the person. Sex is just sex; most people need it, but some people don’t. It is a very personal matter.

Anyhow, I have rambled on far too long, I have to get back to my forum to answer the many posts I got today... I have miles to go before I sleep.

 

[Vinayaka]

I read a little bit about the Dharmic systems today online, and how Hinduism is different from the others in that they believe in One God, but unfortunately I was too busy to read the whole website.

I do not like discussing homosexuality because it is so controversial.

I only quoted the parts I felt worthy of some response from me. Firstly, Hinduism isn't strictly monotheistic. It's incredibly diverse, and includes a wide range of isms, including henotheism, polytheism, atheism, and the aforementioned monotheism. Our diversity is wider than the 3 Abrahamic faiths combined.

Yes, I've noticed Baha'i generally do like to avoid all of the controversial topics others bring up. It's common to put your best side forward. The fact remains the Baha'i faith is homophobic.

 

[Trailblazer]

I only quoted the parts I felt worthy of some response from me. Firstly, Hinduism isn't strictly monotheistic. It's incredibly diverse, and includes a wide range of isms, including henotheism, polytheism, atheism, and the aforementioned monotheism. Our diversity is wider than the 3 Abrahamic faiths combined.

Yes, I did pick up on that Hinduism is monotheistic. As large as Hinduism is, about 14% of the world population, it makes sense that it would be very diverse.

Yes, I've noticed Baha'i generally do like to avoid all of the controversial topics others bring up. It's common to put your best side forward. The fact remains the Baha'i faith is homophobic.

You know what the Baha'i Laws are so there is not much more that can be said about that. However, the Bahai Laws are what Baha'u'llah wrote, they do not represent the Baha'is and how they feel about homosexuals. People are all individuals, so some Baha'is might be homophobic whereas others are not. I do not know many Baha'is who are homophobic and I certainly am not. However, I am not going to drop out of the Baha'i Faith just because of one Law. I simply accept that Baha'u'llah knows more than I do because I am not infallible. I do not judge homosexuals. Sex is just sex and it does not make a person who they are. There are so many more important things in life.

 

[Vinayaka]

Yes, I did pick up on that Hinduism is monotheistic.

Again, Hinduism is NOT monotheistic. It has many variations. The problem is that some Hindus like to speak as if their version of Hinduism is the only version. So if you read about Hinduism for a monotheistic person who does that, it is what you get.

 

[Trailblazer]

The problem is that some Hindus like to speak as if their version of Hinduism is the only version.

Sounds a lot like most religions, everyone has their own version and they believe it is the right version.

 

[Vinayaka]

Sounds a lot like most religions, everyone has their own version and they believe it is the right version.

I would say that in Hinduism, that sentiment is far less common though. Many Hindus go to any temples of any variety. The vast majority are 'village' Hindus, not knowing at all where they stand at all philosophically. Life, and direct communication with God is far more important than philosophy. Besides, mostly the reason is just that they haven't gotten around much, not some egotistical I'm right, you're wrong' attitude. Once they find out other types of Hinduism exist, they get better. It also has a lot to do with just what you're comfortable with.

 

[Trailblazer]

I would say that in Hinduism, that sentiment is far less common though. Many Hindus go to any temples of any variety. The vast majority are 'village' Hindus, not knowing at all where they stand at all philosophically. Life, and direct communication with God is far more important than philosophy. Besides, mostly the reason is just that they haven't gotten around much, not some egotistical I'm right, you're wrong' attitude. Once they find out other types of Hinduism exist, they get better. It also has a lot to do with just what you're comfortable with.

That sounds good to me. Hopefully, someday I will have more time to learn more about Hinduism.

 

[tayla]

Do you think that God should communicate directly to everyone in the world?

God should do whatever he wants.

 

[Trailblazer]

God should do whatever he wants.

And He does.