The Bahá'í Faith

Post Reply New Topic

In a theocratic state where Christians, Muslims, atheists, etc are too tiny to be relevant; yes, I would have to consider them marginalized. This isn't necessarily an attack on the proposed Baha'i state; simply by the nature of having a large society some people far outside the mainstream will be marginalized. The Baha'i predict a time when atheists, Christians, and almost every other religious group will be outside the mainstream and thus marginalized in the sense that they do not have any power or influence.

Not only that, but non-bahais will not be allowed to vote or take positions in the government - because the government is a Bahai body.

The OP already said that the Bahai position is not based on reason (in the sense of scientific evidence), and they are not bothering to convince anyone not believing the Bahai god to begin with.

I don't remember the OP explicitly saying that, only refusing to address your efforts earlier in a manner you would deem sufficient. At the same point, we still have issues with rationality and coherence with reality. If the Baha'i faith does not hold up to our epistemic scrutiny, then if we are motivate by concern for the truth, then not only is it reasonable for us to refuse the idea, but also to make reasonable attempts to get Khan_Sama to recognize that he is mistaken, and the ways in which he is wrong, even to act against any efforts of his to evangelize.

A man, back in the 7th century, asked Imam Jafar al-Sadiq - How can we see God. The Imam pointed to the sun, and the man tried to look into it. He immediately said that the sun blinds him, and he cannot look at it. Then, the Imam replied - "How can you see the creator when you can't see the created?"



It's a natural biological miscarriage - it's not murder. I honestly believe science will be able to prevent any such incident in the future.

My great-grandmother had 11 children, expecting 2/3rds of them to die of disease, as it was common those days. They didn't die. Medicines became more common in her area, and all of them lived to have healthy, productive lives.



There's no mention of any such thing in the writings. My understanding is the all human souls are inter-connected, and it's not necessary that the soul inhabits a body. The writings make it clear that the human soul does not exist in a physical plane.



This is what Abdul Baha stated regarding the lack of human characteristics - So also the formation of man in the matrix of the world was in the beginning like the embryo; then gradually he made progress in perfectness, and grew and developed until he reached the state of maturity, when the mind and spirit became visible in the greatest power. In the beginning of his formation the mind and spirit also existed, but they were hidden; later they were manifested. In the womb of the world mind and spirit also existed in the embryo, but they were concealed; afterward they appeared. So it is that in the seed the tree exists, but it is hidden and concealed; when it develops and grows, the complete tree appears. In the same way the growth and development of all beings is gradual; this is the universal divine organization and the natural system. The seed does not at once become a tree; the embryo does not at once become a man; the mineral does not suddenly become a stone. No, they grow and develop gradually and attain the limit of perfection.

Regarding the emergence - The wisdom of the appearance of the spirit in the body is this: the human spirit is a Divine Trust, and it must traverse all conditions, for its passage and movement through the conditions of existence will be the means of its acquiring perfections.



Do you mean to ask if Neanderthals had the human soul? I do understand that from recent research, they were a separate evolutionary branch and merely interbred with early cro-magnons.

There's no such mention in the writings if Neanderthals had the human soul, although the writings do make it clear that previous evolutionary forms did indeed posess the human soul, although it wasn't close to achieving the state it is in to this day.



The Baha'i writings state that the human soul existed from the beginning of the Earth's creation. For example, let's state that that the original proto-Earth was merely dust, helium, and hydrogen, and the conditions allowed single-celled organisms to exist, the human soul existed in one of those single-celled organisms.



I'm afraid I haven't come across any such mention of this in the writings. If I do, I'll PM you.

As for this timeline, Abdul Baha makes it clear that the human soul exists only in Homo Sapiens and not any other organism.



As mother figures, yes. It's just natural that a woman won't be as aggressive as a man - science explains this. I have little understanding of it as I haven't taken up science as a subject since the 10th grade, but I do understand that men have large amounts of testosterone compared to women, making them more aggressive.

Abdul Baha has given many examples why women administrators are necessary. Mainly, however, it's clear that women are less likely to be as aggressive as men are.



There's no mention in the Baha'i writings that those tribes were massacred. The Baha'i writings state that of previous holy books, only the Qur'an has not been altered. As far as I know, the Qur'an only states the annihilation of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. This I won't deny.

I think if the whole population is going to gang-rape any visitor to their land, despite repeated acts of kindness from a certain prophet, something is seriously wrong.

But we can't compare that social environment to this. It's like comparing the Sentinelese or the Jarawa to the people of Iceland or Finland.

If you want to read apologia on the old testament, I would recommend you consult Jews and Christians.



Yeah, and that's why I stated that the spirituality and humanity in previous dispensations is critically endangered. More people fight in the name of religion than end war in the name of faith.

Look at the Manhattan project - How many scientists were involved? If a fraction of those scientists devoted their knowledge for the betterment of mankind, think of how different this world would be today.

I don't deny that many atheist scientists work towards humanity. But the overall implementation of human values in science is absent. The Baha'i faith's aim is to abolish any scientific work which will create chaos and destruction towards humanity.



From a Christian or Islamic pov - yes. But the Baha'i faith supports anything scientific. We don't believe science goes against religion at all, in fact, they complement each other.



They can't vote for the Baha'i body, that's true. But that doesn't imply that other bodies won't be created to incorporate them . While Baha'i administration has a basic structure that will be followed, alterations can be made according to the situation. We can't expect non-Baha'i populations to jump from let's say 30% to 0.01% overnight, right?

This is merely an individual's opinion. There are claims in this thread that we are not prepared for certain events hypothesized by individuals discussing here. However, the Universal House of Justice was designed to judge on administrative and economic issues not dealt with in the Baha'i writings. It acts accordingly to the situation.

We strongly believe in reason and cooperation when it comes to issues of this world. However, mystical issues, such as in affirming the existence of God - this is left to the individual.

Work on the Manhattan project did not just create a bomb—it also prepared the way for a new power source. The scientists working on that project often had significant peacetime careers outside of it. And finally, it is a very small portion of scientists who are engaged in such projects.

What do you mean by claiming that human values are "absent" in science? Scientists, regardless of their personal religious beliefs, have been working to eradicate disease and feed the hungry, and they are blocked at every turn by certain religious groups. How do the Baha'i feel about stem cell research? Genetically modified food? Genetic engineering in general?

How are you defining "chaos and destruction towards humanity?" Would you oppose anything that has the mere potential for abuse?

I really do not trust anyone who speaks of "abolishing" science.


You contradict yourself.


Remember that if we are talking about a world system of government, 0.01% of people being marginalized still means 700,000 people disenfranchised.

Indeed. I'm aware that military experts believed a mere 10-15,000 would perish in the first bombing of Hiroshima. The high casualty rate was unexpected. However, if I were working on such a project and believed that the experiment had the potentiality to take a handful of lives, I would have nothing to do with it (unless the government gave me no other choice).

As for stem cell research - this is the official Baha'i position as of now -





Now that you mention it, I'm a little confused myself. Let me ask a friend who has more thoroughly researched this topic, and get back to you.



You do have a point. But as I explained - the UHJ will surely create separate institutions to represent those communities and align them with the state's policies.

The situation when the Manhattan project was very different from anything either of us could really imagine. Physicists in Nazi Germany were on their way to creating their own atomic bomb. The world was in one of the most ideologically important wars in human history. Defeat could have spelled the end of civilization as we know it.

And I also wish to reiterate: the Manhattan Project cannot possibly be taken as representative of what scientists do. It was an exceptional case. Almost all scientists spend their entire careers trying to bring some benefit to humanity.


No update since a refusal to take a stance 9 years ago? Is it still "premature" to consider scientific research that can save lives? Very well, are there any Baha'i opinions on genetic engineering, specifically GMO foods?

1) We can see the sun, it just tends to blind us if we look too long.
2) That still doesn't answer the question. I phrased it thus: "the issue is that you will lack epistemic justification. If truth is anywhere involved in this quest, as it seems it must be, then we need a basis to believe something is true." Your answer doesn't address how you prove your position true, or provide a basis for it.


I said "relatively murderous", and my justification was "if you knowingly bring any human being to a position where they are likely to die, then by our basic intuitions, you have done something wrong."


Ok, but I am still not going to regard that as necessarily the same. I suppose the issue lies partially in when they die though, or whether she counts as a person who is "knowingly bringing a human being to a position where they are likely to die", given that part of the reasoning was a high base-rate for human death period. Today, a sperm-egg combination is much much more likely to die than any normal human being will ever put any other normal human being.


I don't understand how this really engages the matter. You seem to have expressed that ensoulment happens at conception, but I don't know how inter-connection, or "not inhabiting a body", or "souls do not exist in a physical plane" really address the problems with merging and splitting human beings. Even if we hold to a metaphysical connection between the soul and body, if we hold to anything similar to a one soul per person belief, then we still have a problem. If we do not have anything like that, then what is meant by personhood? Do you hold that people have souls? I thought the latter question would have been answered by a yes.


I am not sure that you answer a why question at all. Even further, you didn't answer the confidence question. How do I know that Baha'i scholars weren't crazy or that they didn't just make this up, or anything else like this? If I can't have a reason to believe that Baha'i isn't just full of nonsense, then I have no reason to believe in Baha'i at all, and I have plenty of reason to argue that a person promoting Baha'i has proven themselves in some sense dishonest.


I already asked if Neanderthals were human.

What evidence is there of "the human soul", and how can it be distinguished from the results of neurology? Even further, do all evolutionary forms have "the human soul"? If not, then why? If so, then when did they start having it? Do viruses have it? If not, then what distinguishes a bacterium from a virus for your purposes. If so, then do rocks have it?


Why only ONE of those single celled organisms?


Ok, but even if we only take Sodom and Gomorrah, you still have the annihilation of children. That being said, my real complaint was that the nature of the God of the Old Testament was corrupt, not any specific act done. I don't think cultural comparison really justifies a murderous being like that, and the notion "it's all alterations" just seems rather bizarre.

As for the Koran being unaltered, well, so, you're saying that Christian historical texts affirming the death of Jesus on the cross are COMPLETELY mistaken about the matter because the Koran, which is less historical on the matter, is unaltered. If the Koran is a text of truth, then we have bizarre issues involved here.


The Manhattan project wasn't a bad project. Even if we just hold to the bomb, it is arguable that MAD, was a factor in keeping the peace.

I agree with Orwell's skepticism towards halting scientific progress as well.


Umm.... you misunderstood the argument. The argument is THIS: "You see, if science aims to provide an explanation for everything, and if it seems very successful, then religious truths begin to lack justification. We already explain them away with the ontologically simpler view of naturalism. The issue is that the success of methodological naturalism gives us reason to believe in the truth of ontological naturalism."

This impacts ANY belief that makes supernatural claims. So, saying "the Baha'i faith supports anything scientific" is a gross misunderstanding of the argument. Is the Baha'i faith ontologically naturalistic? NO! This means that science will exist in tension with it, because the scientific support of naturalism undercuts our reasons for believing supernatural claims. By doing so, we lose the ability to have them "complement each other", as we have science doing all the work, and so we see religion as the faker it is. If you suspect this, then watch this comedian, as his attitude is kind of one that science often breeds:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIaV8swc-fo[/youtube]


So, basically you affirm that individuals should believe in absurd nonsense because of their feelings??? Ok, but are you saying that truth is irrelevant? Because if you abandon epistemic norms, you accept all sorts of stupid nonsense as equally valid. The issue is then, that if you hold to this, then how do we know that your beliefs are not as nonsensical as beliefs in murder gods and other things? If we have good reason to think that you are full of nonsense, and you yourself can follow the reasoning, then how can we regard you as a moral or honest person when it has been effectively proven that you are full of crap?

And so, do you wish to go on and on of an age-old topic man has argued on since ancient times? I can give you a link to what Abdul Baha said on the existence of God. You can judge as you feel fit.

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/SAQ/saq-2.html



Quite like the Jainism philosophy, isn't it? 'The greatest form of non-violence is death by starvation'.



And your point is?

If you don't want to have kids, you're free to do so.



I've made the Baha'i view clear. There are many spiritual worlds, all different from each other as this world is different from the world in our womb. We cannot imagine them as a foetus cannot imagine this world.




Why the hostility?

An orator is most vehement when his cause is weak - Marcus Tullius Cicero

Also, neither Baha'u'llah nor Abdul Baha had any formal education. At most, they were taught only how to read, write, and recite the Qur'an. A crazy person does not write many volumes of theology, philosophy, and literature that baffles numerous scholars of that age and period. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahá'í_literature

Abdul Baha was made a Knight of the British Empire by the order of the King. Does the English monarchy give such titles to individuals who are not of sound health? I think you should read about their lives before making any baseless comments on their mental health.



The writings are clear that only homo sapiens have the human soul. Just as how minerals are different from plants, humans are different from animals.



Just my example.



Whatever judgement you make on my character - it's fine by me. I bear no ill will against you.

Ok.



None that I'm aware of. It's up to the individual to decide.

I am the Plus-Alpha Atheistic Anti-Theist and a member of the WP Strident Atheists, of course I would.

"One of the proofs and demonstrations of the existence of God is the fact that man did not create himself: nay, his creator and designer is another than himself."
Doesn't work because of evolutionary theory.

"Can the creation be perfect and the creator imperfect? Can a picture be a masterpiece and the painter imperfect in his art? For it is his art and his creation. Moreover, the picture cannot be like the painter; otherwise, the painting would have created itself. However perfect the picture may be, in comparison with the painter it is in the utmost degree of imperfection."

Well, the issue here is that we don't actually get to the existence of God, because creation by committee is a possibility. As it stands, the proof ends up failing because using techniques such as division of labor, specialization, and so on, we can avoid having a perfect creator, but still have a created universe. As well, that the painting didn't create itself isn't a reasoning that any atheist will really accept.

"The imperfections of the contingent world are in themselves a proof of the perfections of God.
For example, when you look at man, you see that he is weak. This very weakness of the creature is a proof of the power of the Eternal Almighty One, because, if there were no power, weakness could not be imagined. Then the weakness of the creature is a proof of the power of God; for if there were no power, there could be no weakness; so from this weakness it becomes evident that there is power in the world. Again, in the contingent world there is poverty; then necessarily wealth exists, since poverty is apparent in the world. In the contingent world there is ignorance; necessarily knowledge exists, because ignorance is found; for if there were no knowledge, neither would there be ignorance. Ignorance is the nonexistence of knowledge, and if there were no existence, nonexistence could not be realized."

I don't see this working, as we can compare these things to idealized constructs, and even between other existing things in the universe. Basically, I think Platonism is assumed and then objective traits projected onto God.

"It is certain that the whole contingent world is subjected to a law and rule which it can never disobey; even man is forced to submit to death, to sleep and to other conditions—that is to say, man in certain particulars is governed, and necessarily this state of being governed implies the existence of a governor. Because a characteristic of contingent beings is dependency, and this dependency is an essential necessity, therefore, there must be an independent being whose independence is essential."

This seems to be an argument by analogy, but we are given no reason to think that the analogy holds. Even further, the notion that the world is contingent and that contingent things depend upon a necessary being that we can call God, also seems problematic. There could be another necessary fact. It could really be that reality is only contingent without all of the necessary facts we think there are.


No. Not at all. Jains are against killing animals. I am questioning a matter because if your claim is true, then we have an act that necessitates the death of people. People dying is a problem in most philosophies.


My point is that this claim on your part leads to what seems to be a significant ethical problem, that most people would think needs to be owned up to.

It has nothing to do with whether I personally want children or not, as I don't actually accept personhood at conception.


Who knows that a fetus can imagine in the first place? Some of them can't imagine period.

That being said, you've made a claim about how things work. Trying to drape that in "layers of mystery" is just obfuscation.


A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire

I am hostile because I am trying to drill down to get something that could be labeled an answer.


Honestly, I am not going to limit the abilities of crazy people that much. Nietzsche is oft believed to have been losing his mind. John Nash had schizophrenia. Both are considered to be brilliant minds. However, my point really had more to do with whether what they said could be considered reliable.


They very well might give such titles to madmen. Who knows? The question was rhetorical, and I gave multiple issues: "How do I know that Baha'i scholars weren't crazy or that they didn't just make this up, or anything else like this?" Trying to argue that they couldn't have been insane, still leaves open things like "were they lying?", or "were they deceived?" and so on, which still doesn't give us anything. Did I make a baseless comment on their mental health though? No, I asked a question on whether or not they were trustworthy sources of information.


Ok, that boils it down more. The issue is that "homo sapiens" is not a rigid group. After all, there are believed to have been half-breeds, in which homo sapiens bred with other groups, such as neanderthals. So, that brings us a question about this whole process..


Ok, so you are saying that you are full of nonsense? I am just trying to get this whole issue nailed down, rather than chasing wisps.

Yeah, I used to be in a group like that in an anime forum when I was 15 years old. Would go around flaming anyone who didn't like the mecha genre. >_>



Baha'i writings make it clear that physical death is merely the beginning of a new life. There's a book by John S Thatcher called 'Understanding Death', and he explains the Baha'i view of the afterlife. Murdering someone, however, has a serious negative effect on the soul of the murderer. A natural or accidental death has no negative effect.



Actually, there are many discussions on whether fetal memory exists or not. You should check them out.



Touché!



And is the answer you seek a triumph in this discussion? If it is such a frivolous outcome you seek, I shall be only too glad to pave the way for you, for I have no such goals in mind.



Like I said - you're free to read their biographies.



Many leading scholars of different fields consulted Abdul Baha on many matters, especially when he travelled to western countries such as France and the USA. The audience that could contact Baha'u'llah was limited due to his banishment and subsequent imprisonment in the fortress of Akka.



Like I said, there is no information in the writings pointing out if other branches contain the human soul or not.



Not at all, it's your opinion. I'm a fallible person who can make mistakes. However, when I quote the Baha'i writings, I consider them as authoritative. Since you are Nihilistic in your views, I'm not surprised.

Some people don't like the mecha genre? THE NERVE!! !


I am going to think that this lacks some nuance, as the line between negligence and murder isn't as clear as I think this requires.


Honestly, I have great skepticism given the overall lack of neural development at that time. I suppose it depends on the age of the fetus, but seriously, the mind is very dependent upon external stimulus for a lot of elements of development.


Ideally triumph, but that isn't necessarily the case.


Honestly, I am not sure what this proves. I mean "scholars" also have converted to Marxism and done all sorts of other things that we know recognize is silly.


I get the feeling that this won't go further. I mean, the authoritativeness must come from some source, and I would think that understanding the foundations of the process would be necessary.

Can Bahia's eat pork products? in particular bacon.

Not being able to eat bacon is a show-stopper for me.

I'm skeptical myself. The foetus-womb concept is only used an example and not meant to be taken literally.



Yeah, it won't go any further.



There's no prohibition on meat or any food product in the Baha'i faith, although the writings encourage a healthy vegetarian or vegan diet. Most Baha'is in my community are non-vegetarian. You need not worry about the lack of meat at a 19-day feast or devotional.

The Baha'i faith forbids the consumption of alcohol and drugs for recreational purposes. Smoking is strongly discouraged, although not forbidden. However, alcohol and drugs can be consumed if prescribed by a doctor for medical purposes.

If a common over-the-counter medicine contains alcohol, it is acceptable to use it without any prescription.