How to deal with "Every religion thinks it's the right one"

[tonyrey]

Indeed dear friend. It is for this reason that men cannot also be the recipients of Teachings which will be eternally binding.

It is for this EXACT reason that the Word becomes flesh from age to age.

As Krishna so aptly put it:

"When righteousness is weak and faints, and unrighteousness exalts in pride, then my Spirit arises on earth. For the salvation of those who are good, and the destruction of evil in men, I come to this world from Age to Age".

Jesus said words to the same effect:

And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.

John 10:16

Sanctity is not the monopoly of one religion.

God bless you Tony! Hope all is well

Thank you. I need your prayers because I foolishly damaged my hearing three weeks ago but, thank God, I can still communicate with others.

God bless you too, faithful Servant.

 

[Servant19]

Jesus said words to the same effect:

John 10:16

Sanctity is not the monopoly of one religion.

Thank you. I need your prayers because I foolishly damaged my hearing three weeks ago but, thank God, I can still communicate with others.

God bless you too, faithful Servant.

Dear Tony, God bless your pure soul.

I feel so blessed to have met you on these forums, your posts are a source of incredible learning for me and attract my heart closer to Catholicism.

I will say the Bahai healing prayer especially for you this week dear friend

.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

I agree. I wanted to know if that was what you were asking, because that’s exactly how I was going to answer.

Hmm. Well, consciousness isn’t very well understood. I think this is in part due to the language we use to describe our subjective experiences. For instance, psychology uses somewhat mysterious terms like “mind” to describe things that neuroscience is learning to grapple with in a much more concrete fashion by replacing problems of the mind with problems of the brain. Perhaps there is a more concrete approach to consciousness as well.

Like you, I don’t regard any aspects of the human condition as being independent of the natural world. I would consider consciousness to likely be an emergent property from simpler faculties, faculties which we can see in more primitive forms in other species. I think that, through evolution, we probably adapted to have a very sophisticated set of cognitive abilities which eventually culminated in our consciousness

Good afternoon Oreoracle: Thank you for the reply. As for consciousness being an emergent property, it will be interesting to see if we ever figure out whether consciousness evolved from matter, or if matter is an epiphenomenon of consciousness. Both have evolved over vast spans of time and they seem to have a strange interdependency.

Without dead stars, there is pretty much just simple helium, and the only place that the matter we or the observable world comes from is dead stars. I often like to amuse myself with the idea that stars die so that they can form matter that becomes sentient beings that in turn look back at stars and wonder about things. Kind of like us being the process by which starts come to know themselves. Of course there is always the possibility that plants created us as a mean of spreading seed and pollen. But I like the former idea better, because if you follow our development back to stars, you then have to go back to the Big Bang or Singularity. I would offer that we are not products of the Big Bang. Instead, I think we are its outermost reaches, or its current condition. Personally, I think it has always been attended by consciousness, and the purpose of the temporal world (if there is a purpose) is simply experience.

google.com/search?q=i+found+this+old+old+picture+of+you&rlz=1T4SAVL_enUS527US528&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=qmKwU_2gCZGYyASYxoDQDg&ved=0CB4QsAQ&biw=1422&bih=684#facrc=&imgdii=&imgrc=Ib6JLsqw8deS9M%253A%3BCCPxpWHwuW8gGM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.innermichael.com%252Fwp-content%252Fuploads%252F2012%252F09%252FGod-self-found-this-old-pix-of-you.png%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.innermichael.com%252F2012%252F09%252Fhigh-life-in-r-evolution-make-that-change%252F%3B404%3B404

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Dear Aloysium and Linus, friends.

I feel that the efforts and perspectives that I have presented have been completely misunderstood, maybe my English is poor, I’m not sure.

The concepts presented have been avoided, slammed as nonsense without any basis, or simply dodged and diverted.

As an example, I did not see one reference quoted from Catholic teaching indicating an abolition to slavery (aspects of which were endorsed by a Pope in the past). This is just ONE example.
Aloysium, you say the quote from the Bab makes no sense as if the “Abraham was, I am” quote attributed to Jesus is sooooo dissimilar. Again, maybe it’s the language dear friend
All I ask is some honesty

If you wish to construct a brick wall to dialogue with, let me know, and at least I know that conversation and mutual learning is not on the Catholic agenda for some of it’s adherents.

If my English is poor, please advise what it is you cannot understand?

Otherwise, I will happily leave you to revel in your own certainties

God bless you both.

Your English is fine, it is your logic and reasoning that is faulty.

Cheers.

Linus2nd

 

[Peter_Plato]

I think you inadvertently made my point for me. A civilization with a dominant religion may become a utopia due to that religion but, according to Jesus, that would prove nothing. The wrong religion could make someone rich, healthy, intelligent, and magnanimous, yet still be wrong, and the correct religion could do the opposite. So the veracity of religion is not correlated with tangible results. Every religion believes it is correct independently of the physical state of the universe.

Well, no. Jesus’ words specifically address the possession of material goods - the “things” of the world. The veracity of religion need not be correlated to tangible results, if by “tangible” you mean things you can grasp or hold in the palm of your hand. The veracity of a religion is correlated with meaningful results - the difference made in the lives of individual human beings.

This need not mean how rich, healthy, intelligent or magnanimous individuals are, but how sanctified or holy they are - the extent to which the cardinal virtues are embodied in the lives of individual human beings.

If human beings are potentially eternal, and sharing in the divine life of God a possibility, then that good far outshines the temporal possession of any material thing, the magnanimous sharing of such things or possession of a limited good such as the intelligent capacity to solve a scientific or mathematical problem. If God is omniscient, then his sharing of divine life with human beings means unlimited intellectual understanding, among other eternal goods.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Thankyou Peter

Can you offer an explanation, therefore, of this quote from the Bab, please?

“Before I chose the womb of my mother, I discoursed with Muhammad about the future of Islam”

Thankyou friend

.

The Bab wrote in the mid-1800 and was obviously familiar with the Gospels and Jesus’ words. Anyone can claim they “chose the womb of their mother” in a pre-existence, but unless some cogent reason exists for believing such a claim, it carries no compelling force for thinking that it might be true.

Jesus rose from the dead. There are many reasons for confirming that as an historical fact, beginning with the attestation of his disciples, the growth of the Church and that the enemies of the early Church could have dispelled and disproved the claim of the empty tomb and resurrection, but did not.

There are many small and large compelling reasons for believing in the Resurrection which together attest to the authenticity of Jesus’ claim to be God. The Bab, besides producing fanciful, quixotic writings leaves no historically plausible reason for thinking what he wrote was anything but idealistic longing.

 

[Servant19]

The Bab wrote in the mid-1800 and was obviously familiar with the Gospels and Jesus’ words. Anyone can claim they “chose the womb of their mother” in a pre-existence, but unless some cogent reason exists for believing such a claim, it carries no compelling force for thinking that it might be true.

Jesus rose from the dead. There are many reasons for confirming that as an historical fact, beginning with the attestation of his disciples, the growth of the Church and that the enemies of the early Church could have dispelled and disproved the claim of the empty tomb and resurrection, but did not.

There are many small and large compelling reasons for believing in the Resurrection which together attest to the authenticity of Jesus’ claim to be God. The Bab, besides producing fanciful, quixotic writings leaves no historically plausible reason for thinking what he wrote was anything but idealistic longing.

Dear Peter, I agree with your reasoning here, however, can you claim familiarity with the miraculous life of the Bab, as testified by the chronicles of numerous individuals, both within and (most importantly) outside the Faith?

You seem to make this claim about the Bab as if you have studied Nabil’s Narrative and the works of E.G. Browne. Is this the case?



.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Dear Peter, I agree with your reasoning here, however, can you claim familiarity with the miraculous life of the Bab, as testified by the chronicles of numerous individuals, both within and (most importantly) outside the Faith?

You seem to make this claim about the Bab as if you have studied Nabil’s Narrative and the works of E.G. Browne. Is this the case?



.

Browne seems to have been unconvinced concerning any supernatural basis for Bahai and seems to have been more interested in Iranian nationalism than spiritual concerns.

iranicaonline.org/articles/browne-edward-granville#pt2

In addition, he was a translator, not an eyewitness to any aspect of the claim you made.

 

[Servant19]

Your English is fine,

Phew, I was about to call my local “English as a Second Language” course facilitator

it is your logic and reasoning that is faulty.

Cheers.

Linus2nd

This, I feel is unfair. Let us recap dear friend:

I will keep it simple and stick to one example.

You asked: “What is it that is new about the Baha’i Faith? It all just seems a rehash of Christianity!”

To which I replied: “Abolition of slavery” (amongst other examples)

To which you replied: “Look at Vatican II”

To which I replied: “Baha’u’llahs revelation was BEFORE Vatican II, Vatican II is a rehash of Baha’u’llah therefore”

To which you replied: “Of course all the above can easily be gleaned from reading the Old and New Testaments”

This statement is intellectually dishonest, in my humble opinion and itself is faulty reasoning.

Firstly Mosaic Law does not abolish slavery, it encourages mercy to slaves (Exodus 21; Leviticus 25)…so the Old Testament part of your statement is in itself “faulty” (to use your own words)

In Christian civilizations, what to do with slaves was poorly understood, obviously they were treated well by Christians, but the very “act” was not abolished at all. There was a time that the concept of “serfdom” replaced it, giving back some liberties to these souls, but this was eventually again replaced with slavery. It is clearly stated in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

" Though these slaves were generally well-treated, and set at liberty if they asked for baptism, this revival of slavery, lasting until the seventeenth century, is a blot on Christian civilization."

newadvent.org/cathen/14036a.htm

…sounds a bit like modern Iran to me. Become a Muslim or you will not be released. Be baptised or we cannot guarantee your freedom.

So, by your own “non-faulty” reasoning, can you explain how the abolition of slavery was simply and “easily gleaned” (I repeat "easily) from the OT and NT, if it was a blot on Christianity for 1700 years?

I hope my presentation of reasoning is valid enough for you dear friend

As part of my religious beliefs I am forbidden to engage in idle arguments in order that I may “advance myself over my brother” and I will never entertain such dishonesty to simply argue to just to prove that I am “better than you”.

I hope you forgive me if it comes across in this manner, it most certainly is not my intention. I am simply sharing reasons why I feel I have been mistreated

God bless you



.

 

[Oreoracle]

Well, no. Jesus’ words specifically address the possession of material goods - the “things” of the world. The veracity of religion need not be correlated to tangible results, if by “tangible” you mean things you can grasp or hold in the palm of your hand.

Yes, that is what “tangible” is usually taken to mean.

The veracity of a religion is correlated with meaningful results - the difference made in the lives of individual human beings.

This need not mean how rich, healthy, intelligent or magnanimous individuals are, but how sanctified or holy they are - the extent to which the **cardinal virtues **are embodied in the lives of individual human beings.

But you can’t assess how holy someone is without committing yourself to some religious belief beforehand, which makes using that holiness as evidence for the religion a circular enterprise. For example, I can’t say something like “Look at how this person turned their life around by embracing the cardinal virtues. That means his religion is true.” This doesn’t work because “cardinal virtues” are a Christian concept to begin with, so I have to already be committed to the Christian philosophy before using this as evidence for Christianity.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yes, that is what “tangible” is usually taken to mean.

But you can’t assess how holy someone is without committing yourself to some religious belief beforehand, which makes using that holiness as evidence for the religion a circular enterprise. For example, I can’t say something like “Look at how this person turned their life around by embracing the cardinal virtues. That means his religion is true.” This doesn’t work because “cardinal virtues” are a Christian concept to begin with, so I have to already be committed to the Christian philosophy before using this as evidence for Christianity.

It seems to me that your position of “tangible” as the criterion by which to judge the value of a person’s life is also a “religion,” which makes your argument just as circular. That someone’s life is valuable because of the amount of property they own, their status in society, their philanthropy, etc., is just as much a commitment to a presumed metaphysic (and fundamentalist “religion” replete with its own myths and presumptions) than any religious view, so I would have to be committed to some form of materialism before I would agree to your “tangible” criteria as evidence for an atheistic value system (if such a beast can even be inferred.)

Personally, I think it is self-evident that truthfulness, courage, self-discipline, temperance, faithfulness, generosity, wisdom, prudence, kindness and, in general, personal virtues are far, far more valuable than material goods. I don’t need to be a Christian to view a sound ethical system as superior to amorality. Though atheistic materialism doesn’t, by itself, provide any substantial ground for viewing personal virtues as valuable in themselves, but Christianity, and most religions, certainly do because these prioritize person over matter.

If reality is, at ground, intentional and personal, subjectively qualitative values can be inferred.

If reality is, at base, merely material in its essence with no teleological ends, purpose, or intention, no ethical or value system can be logically inferred. Atheistic materialism is constrained to IS, OUGHT does not follow. Certainly, an atheist can claim to be a moral agent, but atheism provides no logical ground or basis for being one. Indeed, atheism is quite compatible with serial killing and raping since any particular merely physical outcomes are no more or less qualitatively prescribed as better than others by the mere nature of matter.

There is nothing in the nature of matter that says organic is to be preferred to inorganic, living tissue to dead or a living human being to a corpse.

So your charge of circularity is just as applicable to your own atheism as to Christianity.

If atheistic materialism is true anything is permissible and nothing obligatory. No compelling, non-self-interested reason exists for acting morally. If you want to claim mere “tangible, materialistic results” should speak for themselves. Hitler would have been lauded by your ethical system had he succeeded in some tangible way in his quest.

That is the difficulty with prioritizing quantity over quality, tangible over intangible. Quality assumes non-material, metaphysical presumptions concerning inherent value. According to your argument, every metaphysical presumption, whether religion-based or not (and including your atheistic materialism) is going to involve a circular argument.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If reality is, at ground, intentional and personal, subjectively qualitative values can be inferred.

And a reason for thinking it is…

subversivethinking.blogspot.ca/2014/05/mathematics-laws-of-logic-naturalism.html

 

[Oreoracle]

It seems to me that your position of “tangible” as the criterion by which to judge the value of a person’s life is also a “religion,” which makes your argument just as circular.

I’m not the one who brought the value of lives into this. I was saying that religion doesn’t make claims about the tangible world. To be perfectly clear, what I mean is that religion usually doesn’t make claims of the form “If my religion is true, we would be able to observe ___ in the universe.”

My assertion is that “holy people” would not fill in the blank because the whole idea of holiness presumes the truth of a religion from the outset. I can’t observe holiness anymore than I can observe someone’s relationship with their deity.

Personally, I think it is self-evident that truthfulness, courage, self-discipline, temperance, faithfulness, generosity, wisdom, prudence, kindness and, in general, personal virtues are far, far more valuable than material goods.

Again, this isn’t the crux of my disagreement with you, but on this particular point, you’re offering a tautology. Virtues are valuable by definition.

If reality is, at base, merely material in its essence with no teleological ends, purpose, or intention, no ethical or value system can be logically inferred.

It cannot be inferred from objective claims alone, yes. As Hume put it, you cannot derive an ought from an is. This doesn’t make logic useless, however. For example, consider the utilitarian argument:

1. If something increases the net happiness of sentient beings, it is good.
2. Social safety nets increase the net happiness of sentient beings (namely, humans).
   Conclusion) Therefore, social safety nets are good.

Modus ponens still works splendidly, you just have to accept some moral as axiomatic for a first premise. It doesn’t have to be a utilitarian moral. For example, a Christian may use as their axiom that God is good. They often skip this step and simply define God to be good, which accomplishes the same thing. A utilitarian could use the same trick by defining happiness to be good.

 

[Servant19]

Browne seems to have been unconvinced concerning any supernatural basis for Bahai and seems to have been more interested in Iranian nationalism than spiritual concerns.

iranicaonline.org/articles/browne-edward-granville#pt2

In addition, he was a translator, not an eyewitness to any aspect of the claim you made.

Yes, he was an orientalist and collated eye witness reports to all the events and miracles in the Babs life.

So I am assuming that you think that (and this is only one miracle in so many to choose from) 18 people independently finding the Bab before the Bab made any form of public declaration is not a miracle, then?

How about the fact that 1 of those who believed in him never even met Him face-to-face, but was informed of Him in a dream. She eventually started the modern day women’s rights movement and was killed for her beliefs.

Nothing special to see here?

If it’s nothing special, what do you think happened in mid-1800’s Iran, where thousands upon thousands of Babis were killed for their belief in the Babs “signs” which you have evidently not read about?

Why is it that defeating death is the “only” sign that a Divine Being is God or “of God”? Do you not think that the Bab overcame death too during the events around His martyrdom?

Finally, what evidence is there of Jesus having been resurrected and why is His resurrection (if it actually happened) any different to all the saints also being resurrected from the dead at the time. Are they all God too?

Your reasoning is a can of worms, it really can be argued very strongly against I feel

.



.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Finally, what evidence is there of Jesus having been resurrected and why is His resurrection (if it actually happened) any different to all the saints also being resurrected from the dead at the time. Are they all God too?

Your reasoning is a can of worms, it really can be argued very strongly against I feel.

The saints never claimed to BE God even if it was an act of God that raised them from the dead. Jesus DID make the claim to be God. The fact that he was raised from the dead means God (the Father) endorsed his claim. It was also endorsed at Jesus’ baptism when a voice from Heaven said, “This is my beloved Son.”

If my reasoning is a can of worms, then I see even bigger issues with yours. You claim the mere endorsement of 18 witnesses is sufficient to make someone’s claims to divinity true. I say that isn’t so. It is the endorsement of God through actions like resurrecting the dead, miracles and an outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles that serves as a powerful testament. Having 18 individuals agree to a claim is insufficient as far as corroboration goes.

 

[Servant19]

The saints never claimed to BE God even if it was an act of God that raised them from the dead. Jesus DID make the claim to be God. The fact that he was raised from the dead means God (the Father) endorsed his claim. It was also endorsed at Jesus’ baptism when a voice from Heaven said, “This is my beloved Son.”

If my reasoning is a can of worms, then I see even bigger issues with yours. You claim the mere endorsement of 18 witnesses is sufficient to make someone’s claims to divinity true. I say that isn’t so. It is the endorsement of God through actions like resurrecting the dead, miracles and an outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles that serves as a powerful testament. Having 18 individuals agree to a claim is insufficient as far as corroboration goes.

Peter, how about 20,000 people within the space of 4 years?
All endorsing that the Bab was either God, or a Messenger of God with Divine Revelation at His beckon and call.

…and all this, please remember, in a social climate of strict, fundamental Islam, where the thought of claiming to follow a Man God (remember that in Islam there is no God but Allah) was resulting in death, or believing in a Man who claimed a Revelation after Muhammad was met with death too.

20,000

…please read some of their chronicled life stories, and tell me if all of them were simply suddenly, and spontaneously gone mad…



.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Peter, how about 20,000 people within the space of 4 years?
All endorsing that the Bab was either God, or a Messenger of God with Divine Revelation at His beckon and call.

…and all this, please remember, in a social climate of strict, fundamental Islam, where the thought of claiming to follow a Man God (remember that in Islam there is no God but Allah) was resulting in death, or believing in a Man who claimed a Revelation after Muhammad was met with death too.

20,000

…please read some of their chronicled life stories, and tell me if all of them were simply suddenly, and spontaneously gone mad…



.

It’s a pseudo-Christ story. It has borrowed from the true story and, therefore, reflects the truth of the original story. There is a recognition among those 20 000 former Muslims that humanity is missing in the Islamic conception of God. In Christianity, the humanity of God is fully formed in Christ. The 20 000 had a profound intuition into the nature of spirituality, but that intuition had previously been fully formed in Christianity.

 

[Servant19]

It’s a pseudo-Christ story. It has borrowed from the true story and, therefore, reflects the truth of the original story. …

So you think all these people just got together and brainstormed for a few days on how they can re-enact a situation that can be reported as a “pseudo-Christ” story???

I’m really not sure where you’re going with this dear friend…



.

 

[Peter_Plato]

So you think all these people just got together and brainstormed for a few days on how they can re-enact a situation that can be reported as a “pseudo-Christ” story???

I’m really not sure where you’re going with this dear friend…



.

Have you read any of C.S. Lewis’ works on how God uses patterns in nature, archetypes and myths to reveal in subtle ways his plan for redemption? The Winter season turning to spring, or butterflies emerging from their coffin-like chrysalises are both revelatory of life after death.

Lewis [wrote]… that God reveals himself [and his plan for humanity] in history to different people at different times with differing degrees of clarity and fullness. For example, pagan mythology offers archetypal patterns and stories about a god who dies and comes to life again to bring life to men. These stories, combined with the general revelation we see in natural patterns of seasons and the cycle of life, provide us a dim foreshadowing of God’s nature and his redemptive plan. The history of Israel is a clearer picture of that plan, with its revelation of the moral demands of God and typological events that foreshadow the Messiah. … this history is also mythological according to Lewis, whether it actually happened or not. Finally, the Christ event, which certainly did happen, is the clearest and fullest revelation of God. The incarnation is “myth become fact." In Jesus all the foreshadowing, whether in pagan myths, natural cycles, or the history of Israel finds its fulfillment. “The process of myth is actualized and complete."
Excerpt from…
donjohnsonministries.org/c-s-lewis-on-scripture/#sthash.YQ7A4wMf.dpuf

In other words, the “common” psyche of humanity is deeper and far more extensive and encompassing than we are led to believe by modern science. The 20 000 may have been led by God away from the beliefs of their Islamic culture TOWARDS a deeper truth but that does not mean they held the complete truth, only that relative to what they formerly believed the newly revealed truth was positively crystaline.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

=Servant19;12127685]Phew, I was about to call my local “English as a Second Language” course facilitator

You asked: “What is it that is new about the Baha’i Faith? It all just seems a rehash of Christianity!”

To which I replied: “Abolition of slavery” (amongst other examples)

To which you replied: “Look at Vatican II”

To which I replied: “Baha’u’llahs revelation was BEFORE Vatican II, Vatican II is a rehash of Baha’u’llah therefore”

To which you replied: “Of course all the above can easily be gleaned from reading the Old and New Testaments”

This statement is intellectually dishonest, in my humble opinion and itself is faulty reasoning.

Firstly Mosaic Law does not abolish slavery, it encourages mercy to slaves (Exodus 21; Leviticus 25)…so the Old Testament part of your statement is in itself “faulty” (to use your own words)

In Christian civilizations, what to do with slaves was poorly understood, obviously they were treated well by Christians, but the very “act” was not abolished at all. There was a time that the concept of “serfdom” replaced it, giving back some liberties to these souls, but this was eventually again replaced with slavery. It is clearly stated in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

1. The whole law is summed up in the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount. And in the greast Commandment of all, " Love the Lord your God with you whole heart, mind, and soul, and your neighbor as yourself. "

It does no good to write a Papal Bull which is directed to society as a whole. The faithful knew their obligations.

…sounds a bit like modern Iran to me. Become a Muslim or you will not be released. Be baptised or we cannot guarantee your freedom.

Don’t know what you mean.

So, by your own “non-faulty” reasoning, can you explain how the abolition of slavery was simply and “easily gleaned” (I repeat "easily) from the OT and NT, if it was a blot on Christianity for 1700 years?

You need to read the article in the Catholic Encyclopedia again:

newadvent.org/cathen/14036a.htm

I hope my presentation of reasoning is valid enough for you dear friend

There was nothing in it to demonstrate that Baha’ u’ ullha’ was anything but an intelligent man of good repute, similar to perhaps Ghandi. A man and no more.

As part of my religious beliefs I am forbidden to engage in idle arguments in order that I may “advance myself over my brother” and I will never entertain such dishonesty to simply argue to just to prove that I am “better than you”.

Glad to hear it.

I hope you forgive me if it comes across in this manner, it most certainly is not my intention. I am simply sharing reasons why I feel I have been mistreated

A difficult task that few can pull off.

God bless you

Linus2nd



.