Is God or Religious Truth Real?

[Milton Platt]

Yes, one religion can validate another by taking an opposing position and failing to show any basis for it.

No. both can be wrong.

 

[ManSinha]

Lastly, in the Baha'i Faith there is mention of the Oneness of God, the Oneness of religion, and the Oneness of humankind........Were it not for the sensible explanations of religion found only in the Baha'i Faith..............

That is an error - your faith has no monopoly on those ideas - you need to get off your high horse and acknowledge that if you want any favorable responses from people outside your faith. It would seem you are poorly educated about anything other than Abrahamic faiths - take some time and read up on the other faiths for a change. I have made this statement to other Baha'is on this site previously - something you guys don't seem to "get" - as @exchemist said to @Jim - loudly and repeatedly proclaiming the purported superiority of your faith brings nothing but indifference if not outright ridicule.

Oh and one more thing - I think the world would function fine without any religion whatsoever. Human kind's compassion is an inherent trait and not driven by any religious imperative.

 

[Unity of Mankind]

So your messengers aren't teaching Unconditional Love. Sadly, few parents are either.

Insofar as Unconditional Love is concerned in a religious context unless humans love God there can be no connection between God and humans in order for humans to be able to receive God's "Unconditional Love".

In a social context, parents have a duty not to be permissive by allowing children to do whatever they feel like doing! Restraints on natural selfish tendencies are required in order to foster social justice in a community setting. To do otherwise would be a betrayal of "Unconditional Love".

Also, children need to go through developmental stages in order to be able to ascertain what is in their own best interest.

Lastly, without parents setting parameters of behavior children would never have a realistic opportunity to learn to apply "Unconditional Love" toward others. They would learn the opposite of preferring themselves to others which would be totally opposite of the principle of "Unconditional Love." Children in such circumstances would also be more likely to fall victim of leading a life of antisocial behavior or crime.

I consider it a waste of time to dwell on the rest of your post with the exception of your comments about pain. To begin with pain is a natural outcome of the physical reality. No creature including humans escape it. From a physiological point of view without pain humans could not survive since it warns of danger.

Also you appear to be absolutely ignorant of any conception of justice, in a social context or otherwise. Allowing injustice in the name of "Unconditional Love" is a complete denial of it!

 

[Unity of Mankind]

I think the world would function fine without any religion whatsoever. Human kind's compassion is an inherent trait and not driven by any religious imperative.

I take the opposite view that without religion there would be no chance of the capacity for human compassion to be realized.

So how do you explain the failure of any "inherent trait" of "Human kind's compassion" being expressed in the world today?

I think you confuse capacity for something with your illogical belief it will unconditionally be realized. If that were true why would there be a need of schooling from elementary to university level of education?

In any context of human behavior learning is required including how to apply what is learned. For example, from a Baha'i perspective scientific learning outside of a spiritual context ultimately leads to destructive things occurring rather than constructive things occurring. Spiritual education comes from God through Prophets rather than from scientific inquiry or learning. Without the progressive education of spiritual reality human capacities can and has been misdirected toward destructive ends such as occurred in both WWI and WWII. In such scenarios humans become their own worse enemies!

Also, the various religions of the past had their seasons of birth or spring, fall and winter. You are only looking at past religions in their winter which is irrelevant to what progress to the human race they offered in their beginning. Thus the lens through which you are looking is inherently defective!

In order to conserve time I elected to only respond to the ultimate conclusions of your post rather than how you got there or the history you have had with other believers in the Baha'i Faith.

 

[ManSinha]

I take the opposite view that without religion there would be no chance of the capacity for human compassion to be realized.

Again you reply from ignorance - look up secular humanism - no "religion" involved there. Ignoring what exists does not make it go away

So how do you explain the failure of any "inherent trait" of "Human kind's compassion" being expressed in the world today?

Clarify - there is plenty of kindness and compassion demonstrated - particularly around difficult times for others - your blanket statement of failure of humankind's compassion falls flat on its face

n any context of human behavior learning is required including how to apply what is learned.

I never said no learning - I said no religion

For example, from a Baha'i perspective scientific learning outside of a spiritual context ultimately leads to destructive things occurring rather than constructive things occurring.

That opinion of yours about the Baha'i perspective is utter nonsense - again see secular humanism as an example - there are plenty of atheists that are kind upstanding human beings without any religious imperative to direct them so. And many, if not most of them have studied religion deeply. In many ways the world is a better place with advances in medicine, social sciences and technology. Not all of the inventors of these vaccines, surgeries and medications are Baha'i or even religious for that matter.

Also, the various religions of the past had their seasons of birth or spring, fall and winter. You are only looking at past religions in their winter which is irrelevant to what progress to the human race they offered in their beginning. Thus the lens through which you are looking is inherently defective!

And where did you get your degree to judge other religions other than through your own? That alone makes it a false narrative. If you cannot see that - then you are more misinformed than I thought. Where, for instance, is the document that describes a "religion's winter" other than in the fertile recesses of your own mind? You are calling my lens defective - ever hear of the pot calling the kettle black? Where does someone come off prescribing nineteen mithquals of gold as dowry? What kind of "modern" religion does that?

n order to conserve time I elected to only respond to the ultimate conclusions of your post rather than how you got there or the history you have had with other believers in the Baha'i Faith

I have time to spare - it is you that are running out of arguments by merely making assertions. I have not seen you supply a single shred of proof as to what you are saying

Like I said before - stating something over and over again does not make it true. It makes you look like a cheap used car salesman who does not have a better product or pitch. One final thought - next time you try to negate one of my arguments - supply peer reviewed acceptable evidence. Else all you are doing is making unfounded assertions.

 

[Ebionite]

No. both can be wrong.

No, I said "can", not that it always is the case.

 

[Bird123]

Insofar as Unconditional Love is concerned in a religious context unless humans love God there can be no connection between God and humans in order for humans to be able to receive God's "Unconditional Love".

In a social context, parents have a duty not to be permissive by allowing children to do whatever they feel like doing! Restraints on natural selfish tendencies are required in order to foster social justice in a community setting. To do otherwise would be a betrayal of "Unconditional Love".

Also, children need to go through developmental stages in order to be able to ascertain what is in their own best interest.

Lastly, without parents setting parameters of behavior children would never have a realistic opportunity to learn to apply "Unconditional Love" toward others. They would learn the opposite of preferring themselves to others which would be totally opposite of the principle of "Unconditional Love." Children in such circumstances would also be more likely to fall victim of leading a life of antisocial behavior or crime.

I consider it a waste of time to dwell on the rest of your post with the exception of your comments about pain. To begin with pain is a natural outcome of the physical reality. No creature including humans escape it. From a physiological point of view without pain humans could not survive since it warns of danger.

Also you appear to be absolutely ignorant of any conception of justice, in a social context or otherwise. Allowing injustice in the name of "Unconditional Love" is a complete denial of it!

You are mistaken. There has always been a connection between God and God's children. No requirements necessary. Your religion attempts to create requirements, however they do not really know God and they want followers. I'm sure they can help you with the requirements they decided to create.

Unconditional Love does what is best for the other. This does not include Control. God teaches and yet God allows your free choice. God does not Control your actions. Do your children have free choice?

What are you teaching the children that you are not aware of? Children can be taught how to deal with the so called evils of the world without control, however one must be sure not to teach them to value all those petty things mankind holds so dear along the way. I find most children are eager to learn when they learn their input is crucial to making the right choices.

Want to be a Great parent or teacher? It's so easy. Copy God. That doesn't mean copy that holy book. There is a Great difference between the two.

If Justice is so all important to you, perhaps you should define your concept of Justice. If Unconditional Love always does what is Best for the other, one must work at fixing the problems, guiding everyone forward to greater knowledge and a Higher Level.

Payback and revenge serves no purpose to this. Further, payback and revenge will never prove as satisfying as many want it to be. Nothing is really accomplished by it except a continuation of the existing problems. They has never been Intelligent actions.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Unity of Mankind]

Again you reply from ignorance - look up secular humanism - no "religion" involved there. Ignoring what exists does not make it go away

So according to secular humanism does it assert all humans are inherently compassionate? Also, is secular humanism theoretical such as one would find various theories when it comes to scientific inquiry? I never asserted, by the way, religion is always directly involved when it comes to anyone expressing compassion! Nevertheless, I think there are historical examples of religion impacting cultures and societies worldwide.

For example Islamic Civilization in Moorish Spain, which was based on the religion of Islam, impacted Medieval Europe in many positive ways that is outlined in the book entitled "Islamic Contributions to Civilization" by Stanwood Cobb. For only a brief period, according to my recollection, Moorish Spain enabled Europe to establish the university system of education, established the Arabic numeral system, advanced medical science and, in short, ushered in the Renaissance at a time when Orthodox Christianity was persecuting pioneers in science such as Galileo. When sewage ran freely in the streets in Europe in Islamic Moorish Spain there was a well established sewer system and fully developed aquatic water system. It also had well lit cities where a single woman could walk from one end of the city to the other without being molested. Both Christians and Muslims lived in peace under an impartial justice system. So I think I could go on and on and on. Nevertheless, as time went on religions decline as did Islam.

Clarify - there is plenty of kindness and compassion demonstrated - particularly around difficult times for others - your blanket statement of failure of humankind's compassion falls flat on its face

Are you thinking I was asserting all humans in existence are without compassion? If so I made no such assertion! From a religious perspective I was only asserting all humans are created by a real God with the capacity for compassion which is no guarantee such a capacity will be realized.

I never said no learning - I said no religion

I was merely making the point that learning is involved in the religious process which is referred to in the Baha'i Faith as progressive revelations from a real God through Prophets or Manifestations of God. What I think is relevant here has to do with a workable morality for society. Perhaps you think there can be a scientific bases for morality? So if that is true it didn't work out very well in preventing both WWI and WWII. It also didn't prevent a whole lot of ugly developments such as racism, corruption in governments, and I could go on and on and on.

That opinion of yours about the Baha'i perspective is utter nonsense - again see secular humanism as an example - there are plenty of atheists that are kind upstanding human beings without any religious imperative to direct them so. And many, if not most of them have studied religion deeply. In many ways the world is a better place with advances in medicine, social sciences and technology. Not all of the inventors of these vaccines, surgeries and medications are Baha'i or even religious for that matter.

It is not true I ever claimed advances in medicine, social sciences and technology depends on people having a direct belief or affiliation to any religion including Baha'i. My only point about religion was in an historical context of its impact on the cultures and societies of the world.

And where did you get your degree to judge other religions other than through your own? That alone makes it a false narrative. If you cannot see that - then you are more misinformed than I thought. Where, for instance, is the document that describes a "religion's winter" other than in the fertile recesses of your own mind? You are calling my lens defective - ever hear of the pot calling the kettle black? Where does someone come off prescribing nineteen mithquals of gold as dowry? What kind of "modern" religion does that?

In regard to "religion's winter" I was merely enunciating a Baha'i principle which you can either ignore or consider. For valid religions to be in competition with one another would be, from a Baha'i perspective, God competing with Himself. So what makes you an authority of what constitutes a false narrative? Would that not depend on from what perspective you are coming from?

Like I said before - stating something over and over again does not make it true. It makes you look like a cheap used car salesman who does not have a better product or pitch. One final thought - next time you try to negate one of my arguments - supply peer reviewed acceptable evidence. Else all you are doing is making unfounded assertions.

I'm not making any assertions at all! Baha'u'llah is! All the great religions of the world in their beginning were subject to "peer reviewed acceptable evidence" and were squarely rejected by the current religious clerics and public at the time. Later, however, against all odds, they overcame all resistance and made significant impacts toward progressing the welfare of the human race. So where is your evidence to the contrary?

 

[ManSinha]

In regard to "religion's winter" I was merely enunciating a Baha'i principle which you can either ignore or consider. For valid religions to be in competition with one another would be, from a Baha'i perspective, God competing with Himself. So what makes you an authority of what constitutes a false narrative? Would that not depend on from what perspective you are coming from?

Of course the Baha'i religion would have to say that to make itself relevant - if you cannot see that argument for the utter foolishness that it is - you are more indoctrinated than I thought

I am not an authority on this - I am a critic - you are making statements - I am questioning certain aspects of them. If you claim you invented a car that can fly in addition to drive along roads - I would accept the road travel but ask you to provide evidence for the flying part. I do not need to be an authority. Are you that intellectually feeble that you cannot understand how criticism works?

All the great religions of the world in their beginning were subject to "peer reviewed acceptable evidence" and were squarely rejected by the current religious clerics and public at the time.

Again you spout utter nonsense without a study of history

- Jesus: a number of then-Jewish people followed him - including some of whom became his apostles
- Muhammad: A number of pagan and other individuals converted to Islam during Muhammad's time - that is not tantamount to "rejection"
- Buddha: Undertook journeys and touched the lives of many - many of those chose to follow his principles

You have no idea how to debate - making declarative statements with no evidence to it is not the way.

 

[Muffled]

No, I said "can", not that it always is the case.

I believe it can't. Invalidating one religion does not validate another religion. A religions has to be validated on its own merits.

 

[Ebionite]

I believe it can't. Invalidating one religion does not validate another religion. A religions has to be validated on its own merits.

The point is that when someone attacks a religion without just cause, there's reason to think that there's something significant about that religion, even if only for the attacker.

 

[Trailblazer]

The point is that when someone attacks a religion without just cause, there's reason to think that there's something significant about that religion, even if only for the attacker.

That's true, because they would not be attacking the religion if they did not feel threatened by it in some way.

 

[Unity of Mankind]

Again you spout utter nonsense without a study of history

- Jesus: a number of then-Jewish people followed him - including some of whom became his apostles

A very small number of Jews followed Jesus whereas clerics of Judaism roundly rejected Jesus accusing Him of blasphomy.

- Muhammad: A number of pagan and other individuals converted to Islam during Muhammad's time - that is not tantamount to "rejection"

The greater number of pagans who did not convert to Islam were remnants of the followers of Abraham Who had forbidden Idle Worship but such followers had regressed back to that practice which is why Mohammad forcefully destroyed such idols. Later, as a result of Mohammad's Revelation from God, Islamic Civilization was established which was responsible in its brief time in Moorish Spain for enlightening European darkness.

Buddha: Undertook journeys and touched the lives of many - many of those chose to follow his principles

Buddha also foretold the appearance of a universal Buddha which coincides with an ultimate fulfillment in other religions all of which Baha'u'llah claimed to fulfill. Meanwhile, the pillars of all previous religions have been weakened which is why I think Baha'u'llah wrote "The vitality of man's belief in God is dying out in every land."

From my Baha'i point of view all past valid religions are involved in one process which has most recently been carried forward by Baha'u'llah Who has delivered a truly universal message for uniting the world into one planetary system.

Ever hear of the saying divided we stand divided we fall? I think such a saying not only applies to religion as a process but also to the governments and peoples of the world. So when a crisis such as the Corona Virus strikes the world is caught flat footed. Mixing an antiquated 17th Century politics with present day challenges the world is now facing is at least one view as to why from what I heard in mainstream media on TV. Whereas a united world community could easily face such challenges by harnessing and coordinating all world resources.

 

[ManSinha]

A very small number of Jews followed Jesus whereas clerics of Judaism roundly rejected Jesus accusing Him of blasphomy

A "small number of followers" does not equate rejection - again what is your basis for "small numbers" as compared to the local population at the time. Provide statistics else drop the argument

From my Baha'i point of view all past valid religions are involved in one process which has most recently been carried forward by Baha'u'llah Who has delivered a truly universal message for uniting the world into one planetary system.

From my vantage point Baha'u'llah was nothing but a megalomaniac who tried unsuccessfully to impersonate prophets of earlier religions with spectacular failure as reflected in the way Bahai's pick and choose ideas from both Islam and Christianity while professing to accept both. He also got history wrong in at least one major way when he called Krishna a "Manifestation" - one cannot call god himself - a "manifestation" - ask any Vaishnavite - and yes they know their god better than you Bahai's and you will get your answer. Also your UHJ still decides to keep 50% of humanity out - how is that explained in the current day and age?

Ever hear of the saying divided we stand divided we fall? I think such a saying not only applies to religion as a process but also to the governments and peoples of the world. So when a crisis such as the Corona Virus strikes the world is caught flat footed. Mixing an antiquated 17th Century politics with present day challenges the world is now facing is at least one view as to why from what I heard in mainstream media on TV. Whereas a united world community could easily face such challenges by harnessing and coordinating all world resources.

Political unity and cooperation has nothing to do with religious unity. At least my Masters recognized that there will never be uniform religious unity - and there does not need to be.