Dear Farhan,

“A confirmatory evidence of this is that today we observe a people called Christians, who believe devoutly in rewards and punishments in a future state.”

Actions based on belief in rewards in a future state are self serving, but not enlightened self interest because the rewards and the future state do not exist as the parable writer would have the Christians believe.

Isn’t it time to put these pretty falsehoods as well as unjustified fears aside? Isn’t it time to act based on truth?

Frank

Dear Farhan,

“A confirmatory evidence of this is that today we observe a people called Christians, who believe devoutly in rewards and punishments in a future state.”

Actions based on belief in rewards in a future state are self serving, but not enlightened self interest because the rewards and the future state do not exist as the parable writer would have the Christians believe.

Isn’t it time to put these pretty falsehoods as well as unjustified fears aside? Isn’t it time to act based on truth?

Frank

Dan wrote: “I don’t see the need to go to the Bab for such advice. It’s easy enough to see with ones own eyes.”

Perhapss easy enough for you and others who have the advantage of an education and exposure to various moral principles. I’ve been on teaching trips in some extremely dangerous ghetto areas in Kingston, Jamaica, which are dominated by drug barons and organized gangs. The murder rate in Kingston is among the highest in cities the world. While we engage in interesting intellectual discussions the children and youth growing up in these (and other similar neighborhoods in many countries) become inured to violence and other harmful actions/attitudes at an early age. It’s not so easy for them to see with their own eyes. They need a little help.

Carmen

Hi Farhan,

There is an old religion whose fundamental law is love. This religion predates Galen, and owes much to Stoicism. Its scriptures say that love is the law and that in love is the fulfillment of the law, and those same scriptures even go so far as to say that God is love. Those scriptures even say that the Kingdom is within you. Ever heard of it?

I’m not associated with that religion, but I think it’s still a step ahead of your Baha’i variant of Islam.

We all have our idols. Some idols are mightier than others. You say you need a manifestation to say something for it to be true, but you must authorize your manifestation, and if you should err in your judgment with respect to whom you authorize, what then? Always keep your eyes open, even after you’ve employed a guide. You are the judge, my friend; like it or not.

-Dan

Hi Carmen,

These Jamaicans that you speak of: do you think them so incapable of love and empathy that they must be motivated by threats and treats? If that is the case with them, so be it: make empty threats and promises to them, so that they may behave; but is that the role of faith? Or is that the role of government?

-Dan

Thanks, Louise, for the Milgram link.

Farhan wrote:

[quote comment=""]If we say Dan and Farhan say so, there is no weight in that statement, but if we say that the Mnifestation of God said so, it has weight today and throughout human history;
[/quote]

I would like to contest that if I may. The words of a Manifestation of God only have weight if the person who hears them is prepared to listen and believe in them.

It seems from personal experience that you get far better results from internalising the concepts, writings etc, and putting it across in your own words. People seem more likely to listen.

Grove wrote: “It seems from personal experience that you get far better results from internalising the concepts, writings etc, and putting it across in your own words. People seem more likely to listen.”

This has been my experience also. I do find sometimes that someone will respond when I quote from the Writings as that seems to resonate very deeply with some people. In terms of internalising, when I have had discussions about topics like chastity, for example, I’ve noticed much more receptivity when I mention my own struggles. This has always been very difficult for me as my sex drive is very high and I’ve often clicked with members of the opposite sex. When I discuss how hard this has been and use very concrete examples from my experiences it seems that most people I’ve spoken with are really able to relate to what I have to say and really listen.

Another interesting discovery I’ve made is that when discussing some topics I get a much more receptive response when I mention related data and experiences rather than simply saying Baha’u'llah said so. Alcohol is one example. I’ve collected a great deal of information on the high positive correlation between alcohol and crime (including rape), the billions of dollars in damage each year due to work-related accidents and other problems, deaths from road accidents, MADD (mothers against drunk driving) and lots of other material. Once at Christmas when my cousin offered me a drink I began mentioning these facts without mentioning the Faith and then an uncle began saying that he left Jamaica partly because there was nothing to do in his village except drink. I didn’t know this had been a factor in his move to Montreal. They were all very receptive to the discussion about alcohol as they had seen the effects of drunken behavior. If I had just said I don’t drink because I’m a Baha’i (which I do at times) they might have had a knee jerk – here’s another religious nut – reaction.

Carmen

Dan wrote:
“We all have our idols. Some idols are mightier than others. You say you need a manifestation to say something for it to be true, but you must authorize your manifestation, and if you should err in your judgment with respect to whom you authorize,…”

Dan, I like what you write; yes, we certainly need idols or standards, norms, and references as a vital need for organising our social lives, just like weights and measures, traffic regulations and standardised electric plugs. Agnostics and atheists can be considered as passive benefitors of standards that others have established. In the US you can benefit from a social structure based on Judeo-Christianity, without ever opening a Bible or going to church. Without that spiritual heritage, the US constitution might have been similar to that of the many other political systems around the world.

The monotheistic religions say that we can appeal to love and detachment, spiritual reward and retribution to have people adhere to the ONE reference for all, aiming at ending wars on differing idols.

Political ideologies believe that we can impose these idols with Goulags and Kalachnikovs.

Grover wrote:

“I would like to contest that if I may. The words of a Manifestation of God only have weight if the person who hears them is prepared to listen and believe in them.”

I agree with the need to internalse; Baha’u'llah speaks in the Hidden Words of “sowing the seeds in our hearts”

At the same time, historically speaking, the message of the Divine Manifestations has a very special “power of penetration”. Jacques Monod, the French Nobel winner who wrote “Hazard and Necessity” which considers that scinece can produce it’s own system of ethics admits that the ethics resulting from religion with reference to something sacred happens to have an exceptionnal power of penetration.

When we mirror forth ideas “sown in our hearts” it is the power of those ideas and not our own power of persuasion that inspires the hearts of others.

Farhan, I presume that by “monotheistic religions” you mean truly monotheistic religions, as opposed to those idolatrous (polytheistic) faiths claiming to be monotheistic, such as the Baha’i Faith, Catholicism, and Shi’a Islam, that are overburdened with a variety personalities possessing superhuman powers of prophecy, immaculate revelation, military prowess, and various forms of infallibility.

Dan wrote: “Farhan, I presume that by “monotheistic religions” you mean truly monotheistic religions, as opposed to those idolatrous (polytheistic) faiths claiming to be monotheistic, such as the Baha’i Faith, Catholicism, and Shi’a Islam, that are overburdened with a variety personalities possessing superhuman powers of prophecy, immaculate revelation, military prowess, and various forms of infallibility.”

Dan, could you kindly list the religions you consider to be “truly” monotheistic? If they include Judaism, Christianity and Sunni Islam, which are usually considered monotheistic religions, then they should not be on your list. Christianity, for example, has several individuals who fit the “variety of personalities” you mention. These personalities include Jesus, John the Baptist, St. John the Divine (author of the Book of Revelations), St.Paul and the various Old Testament Prophets who Christians revere as having had “superhuman powers of prophecy”. So is Christianity also idolatrous and polytheistic by being “overburdened” as you see it?

Carmen

Dan wrote:
“I presume that by “monotheistic religions” you mean truly monotheistic religions, …

Dan, without analysing deeply, i only meant to say that the concept of “One God” implies one creation, one common universal law and not a multitude of social systems, without judging who has truly applied this principle and who has not.

Carmen writes, “Dan, could you kindly list the religions you consider to be “truly” monotheistic? If they include Judaism, Christianity and Sunni Islam, which are usually considered monotheistic religions, then they should not be on your list.”

Gladly, Carmen. My favorite example of a truly monotheistic religion is , as the name indicates, Unitarianism.

It is quite easy to be a Christian and not believe that Jesus is God or that the Bible is the immaculate word of God.

Sunni Islam and Judaism, though tainted by their own idols, are arguably monotheistic. Some Muslims and Jews practice a monotheistic religion as a personal matter, because Sunni Islam and Judaism put such a high priority on monotheism and not assigning partners to God.

The Baha’i Faith, probably due to its Shi’a roots, is fundamentally adverse to monotheism because it emphasizes the divinity of its founders. Many Muslims believe that Muhammad was a mere man. Muhammad never said “I am God”.

-Dan

Farhan writes, “Dan, without analysing deeply, i only meant to say that the concept of “One God” implies one creation, one common universal law and not a multitude of social systems, without judging who has truly applied this principle and who has not.”

You mean that monotheism is any universal system that inhibits cultural and political diversity, like Stalinism, for instance?

I thought that monotheism meant that there is only one God, and no man or ideology can lay claim to God (what Muslims call partnership).

Dan wrote” “It is quite easy to be a Christian and not believe that Jesus is God or that the Bible is the immaculate word of God.”

The fact that it is “easy” does not mean that this is the belief of the majority of Christians and many branches of Christianity. The Trinity and the belief in the Bible as the word of God is a fundamental aspect of the belief of many Christians. It is certainly the belief of all the Christians I have known and what I was taught in the Christian elementary and high schools I attended. They also believe that several personalities in the Old and New Testaments have varying degrees of divine powers including powers of prophecy. Based on this, it seems to me that they would be puzzled and probably astounded by what seems to be your view that they are idolatrous and polytheistic.

Carmen

Dan wrote:
“You mean that monotheism is any universal system that inhibits cultural and political diversity, like Stalinism, for instance?”

Dan, I mean that one important implication of monotheisme is that we are all members of one human family, brothers and sisters, leaves of one branch, and not of two trees, one of good and the other of evil.

Monotheism aims at uniting through love in diversity and in service to humanity, political ideologies attempt to unite through violence and exclusion towards the interests of one category over those of others.

Hi Carmen,

Liberal Christians may not be the majority of Christians, but there are plenty of them. I know of plenty of liberal churches in my area that I could attend regularly that value Nature, life, the human spirit, inclusiveness, science, God, etc. It’s *very* easy to see Jesus as a flaming anarchist revolutionary liberal.

If I wanted to be a member of a liberal Baha’i congregation, I’m afraid it would need to be a virtual congregation, and I’ll wager it would be rather controversial.

The Baha’i Faith is essentially Islam plus a few idols. It’s basically a trinitarian corruption of Islam, though the idolatry doesn’t stop there.

What’s new? Baha’u'llah preached world peace through strength, and through strength of force when necessary.

So did Muhammad.

Muhammad, however, did not claim to be God, or even to being infallible. The Muhammad of the Qur’an made mistakes. Muhammad is, at his grandest, a perfect exemplar, but alas, an exemplar who made mistakes! He was not even at the level of ‘Abdu’l-Baha’, that grand idol whose countenance graces so many Baha’i homes, offices, temples, etc.

Many Christians are good ol’ fashioned idolators who take the tales of the prophets literally and believe the world is 6000 years old. Ignorance comes in all colors. They may indeed be shocked at how others see them, just as you may be shocked at how many non-Baha’is see your religion, once they get beyond the brochures.

Yours truly,
Dan

Dan,

You keep shifting the goal posts. Of course there are liberal Christians. However, you began only with Roman Catholics. Now you are saying that “many Christians are good old fashioned idolaters.” I know liberal Christians who do not believe humanity is 6000 years old or some other literal ideas but they still believe in the Trinity and that Jesus was God and the Bible is the word of God. You have to try to determine what it is you really believe rather than changing your answers and positions in response to questions seeking clarification.

Ignorance comes in all colors and this includes the ignorance of non-Christians who think they can impose their inconsistent categorizations on Christians and their beliefs based on their personal opinions.

I am quite happy to let others determine their opinions of the Faith based on what they read beyond the brochures. Indeed, many have become Baha’is precisely because they have been able to do this. I became an agnostic at age 14 in high school and it took me 8 months of intensive study of many Baha’i books and many questions during my freshman year at university before I became a Baha’i.

I have recently been in contact with some wonderful people who believe their lives have improved tremendously because of their new found belief in Christ and their in-depth study of the Bible. One had been a drug addict for five years. His belief in Christ has not only saved him from drugs but set him on a path of service in which he has fed addicts in his home and offered help to the homeless. Shifting semantic goal posts makes no diifference in the lives of such people as they do really not care what you and others think of them.

Carmen

[quote comment=""]Dan, You keep shifting the goal posts. Of course there are liberal Christians. However, you began only with Roman Catholics. Now you are saying that “many Christians are good old fashioned idolaters.”[/quote]

Hi Carmen. Sorry if I wasn’t clear. It wasn’t that I was moving the goal posts, but rather that I was at the other end of the field. I was simply conceding to you that there are indeed many ignorant Christians, and in so doing I was pointing out that your discovery of ignorant Christians ought not prejudice you against a religion of such diversity.

A general disclaimer: my fundamental intention is not to trash the Baha’i Faith, or to trouble the meek among the Baha’is. I only seek to humble the arrogant. I’ve known too many Baha’is that give a strong impression that they have all the answers. As a Baha’i, I found this quite frustrating.