There is no proof of God ...

['Amir Alzzalam]

Unfortunately my mother is no longer here to answer that question.

My mother was a born again Christian,the doctrine of no other Name was strong with her. As it was with my two sisters, the eldest has also passed on, the younger sister also strong in the doctrine of no other Name.

Regards Tony

I did a search for 'doctrine of no other Name', is that this? 'The conviction of the New Testament writers was that there is no salvation apart from Jesus.'

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

But from the human viewpoint there are different 'truths' and sometimes radically and fundamentally different – indeed opposed.

The Jews see one, we see another, Islam sees a third, and you a fourth ... and they're not the same, but they address the same reality, and of course each insists s/he has the right view of of it ...

That's why I tend towards the Traditionalists, to look to what is right in the other tradition, rather than what is wrong.

I see the different truths are a product of our own makings.

The Bahai Message reflects your tendency "to look to what is right in the other tradition, rather than what is wrong". Abdul'baha gave many talks and this is what he always encouraged, that is how we will find the Oneness of God and humanity, by finding and practicing the core virtues found in all God given Faith. The sundry laws and ordinances of those Revelations do not need to hinder that process.

On another Forum there is a person from the Hindu tradition that likes to offer how different the concepts are between Abrahamic and Hindu and used the example of they do not beleive in Evil. I offered Good and Evil is just another way to understand Karma, cause and effect. It is our own minds that want exclusive confirmation of our Faiths.

God desires our oneness. (Maybe I should not use desires)

Regards Tony

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

I did a search for 'doctrine of no other Name', is that this? 'The conviction of the New Testament writers was that there is no salvation apart from Jesus.'

Correct, thus a person can make their faith exclusive of all others, which is then a contradiction of many other aspects the Bible teaches. The Bible offers that Jesus, as Christ would return and that a "New Name" and a "New Jerusalem" was inclusive in that return, yet the doctrine of "No other Name', blinds a person so they would not even consider to search for another Prophet. Yet the Bible instructions are for us to test them, to find the true from the false prophets.

All the best, stay happy, stay well, stay safe, Regards Tony

 

[talib-al-kalim]

Look a Satanist shouldn't have to explain your book to you

"Matthew 5:48 Be perfect, therefore, as your Heavenly Father is perfect".​

And about 100 other verses . . .

We (believers in Abrahamic faith) understand God as perfect.
We read in Mt,

(5:45) Love your enemies, so that you may become sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous.
(5:48) You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

The hadith parallels to Lk 6,32-36. In Lk 6:36, we read,

Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.

The original word Jesus used is probably טוב, good, which can be interpreted in both senses.
God makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. That is the goodness of God.
We don't make rain. Our moral goodness is not to hate our enemies. The parallel is to have compassion for both good and bad people.

 

['Amir Alzzalam]

We (believers in Abrahamic faith) understand God as perfect.
We read in Mt,

The hadith parallels to Lk 6,32-36. In Lk 6:36, we read,

The original word Jesus used is probably טוב, good, which can be interpreted in both senses.
God makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. That is the goodness of God.
We don't make rain. Our moral goodness is not to hate our enemies. The parallel is to have compassion for both good and bad people.

Ok, so what is the problem or have you lost track of the conversation?
You just proved my point.

 

[Thomas]

The Bahai Message reflects your tendency "to look to what is right in the other tradition, rather than what is wrong".

And yet your writers seek to correct us regarding our doctrine.

But this is not really the topic in question.

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

And yet your writers seek to correct us regarding our doctrine.

But this is not really the topic in question.

That is the Quandary, as the Proof of God always contains a Message from God that proof while Imparting all that is good, is always seen by some as bad.

Thus when a person offers that proof of God, it is done for naught but good, but some may see it is looking for the worst.

This is why the greatest proof of God, the Messengers, are always rejected. All they do is offer Love and Unity, but what they offer challenges what men have devised as the "Truth", or a righteous path of faith.

As an example, to offer in all sincerity the Oneness of God and the Oneness of humanity both Islam and Christianity will have to let go of some doctrines.

How Abdul-Baha did that, when giving talks in churches and synagogues was always a challenge, as the proofs he gave were also a challenge to current thoughts.

Regards Tony

 

[RJM]

That is the Quandary, as the Proof of God always contains a Message from God that proof while Imparting all that is good, is always seen by some as bad ...

As an example, to offer in all sincerity the Oneness of God and the Oneness of humanity both Islam and Christianity will have to let go of some doctrines.

@Tony Bristow-Stagg

The whole issue is that while the Baha’i choose to accept Baha’u’llah as the returned Christ, others believe him to be just another of a long list of self-declared new messiahs -- each with their own group of dedicated followers and each cherry picking and selectively quoting out-of-context passages from the Bible (and other scriptures too) in order to justify their faith in their own chosen new messiah.

In the end, there is nothing new in the Baha’i teachings that is not already taught by Jesus the true Christ, imo. It doesn't require an upgrade.

And therefore there is no reason for followers of other faiths to ‘have to let go of some doctrines’ in order to entertain the Baha’i writings as definitive truth for all humanity for the next 800 years to come, imo

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

@Tony Bristow-Stagg

The whole issue is that while the Baha’i choose to accept Baha’u’llah as the returned Christ, others believe him to be just another of a long list of self-declared new messiahs -- each with their own group of dedicated followers and each cherry picking and selectively quoting out-of-context passages from the Bible (and other scriptures too) in order to justify their faith in their own chosen new messiah.

In the end, there is nothing new in the Baha’i teachings that is not already taught by Jesus the true Christ, imo. It doesn't require an upgrade.

And therefore there is no reason for followers of other faiths to ‘have to let go of some doctrines’ in order to entertain the Baha’i writings as definitive truth for all humanity for the next 800 years to come, imo

Good to hear from you RJM, I hope you are well rested, happy, safe and well.

Regards Tony

 

[otherbrother]

@Tony Bristow-Stagg

The whole issue is that while the Baha’i choose to accept Baha’u’llah as the returned Christ, others believe him to be just another of a long list of self-declared new messiahs -- each with their own group of dedicated followers and each cherry picking and selectively quoting out-of-context passages from the Bible (and other scriptures too) in order to justify their faith in their own chosen new messiah.

In the end, there is nothing new in the Baha’i teachings that is not already taught by Jesus the true Christ, imo. It doesn't require an upgrade.

And therefore there is no reason for followers of other faiths to ‘have to let go of some doctrines’ in order to entertain the Baha’i writings as definitive truth for all humanity for the next 800 years to come, imo

Tony,

I have been thinking a lot lately about Jesus Christ’s main intents. Was he mainly a Rabbi who wanted to help Jews and others to be more deeply spiritual, followers and practitioners of The Way? Or was he, as Rachel Held Evans, in her book Inspired, a revolutionary prophet to help others overcome systemic oppression?

After my recent commitment to an interpretation of the Book of Job as being a Koan to help us shift to a deeper spiritual perspective as basis for our faith, I leaned heavily toward believing that Christ’s main intent was to be the Rabbi of Enlightenment (The Way), and that Messiah/Rescuer/Savior was a necessary evil allowing his message to be heard by an oppressed people who longed to be saved from social injustice and oppression.

But then I remembered my own past appreciation of JC’s desire to create a more Holy and just “kingdom,” a heaven (or at least much more heavenly social order) on earth.

In our Sunday School discussion of Rachel Held Evans’ chapter about Christ’s (and other prophets’) role as social reformer, I decided that He probably realized that we need Both cultural reformation (a shared understanding and practice of a deeper spirituality called The Way) AND societal structure change need to happen together, as they have a reciprocal relationship.
At some point, external structures need to support the enlightenment-type teaching, if it is to catch on with more than an esoteric few. A climate of trust and goodwill must be created.

But I also doubt that revolution, per se, would be the goal, because of the “meet the new boss. Same as the old boss” phenomenon that plagues most revolutions. I feel that Christ would have embraced the relatively recent term Evolutionist, so the outer changes would not come way before the necessary critical mass of the new consciousness has occurred.

So, to address your point, I’m not sure we wouldn’t benefit from a Christ proxy to coordinate the necessary dual action (inside out consciousness change and outside in societal change). Perhaps the second coming is about such future proxies?

 

[otherbrother]

Truth is subjective, so if you do not see the given proof, does not mean that it is not proof. One must partake of the pudding to find the "proof in the pudding".

Ken Wilber is mostly an epistemological philosopher who points out different types of truths that he maps out into four quadrants. This taste of pudding you mention would fall in Wilber’s upper left quadrant of, as you say, subjective truth.
My first post on this thread was mostly in line with your response about tasting the pudding. Mine had a little more William James pragmatism “flavor” to it though: if worshipping God improves your life, then “God”, or at least the “God-function,” must be valid. It proves any reality worth talking about. When “God works” becomes an operational definition of what God is. God is what works when you pray to it.

 

[Thomas]

As an example, to offer in all sincerity the Oneness of God and the Oneness of humanity both Islam and Christianity will have to let go of some doctrines.

And there we have it ...

Speaking of Christianity, which doctrines, I wonder?

I'm guessing the Doctrine of the Incarnation, and the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, to start?

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

And there we have it ...

Speaking of Christianity, which doctrines, I wonder?

I'm guessing the Doctrine of the Incarnation, and the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, to start?

Anything that prevents us embracing the One God in the Messengers of Muhammad and Jesus, to name but a couple.

Anything that prevents us from embracing the Councels sent by God.

Otherwise, the Unity, peace and security of all of humanity is not possible.

Regards Tony

 

[otherbrother]

Anything that prevents us embracing the One God in the Messengers of Muhammad and Jesus, to name but a couple.

Anything that prevents us from embracing the Councels sent by God.

Otherwise, the Unity, peace and security of all of humanity is not possible.

Regards Tony

Tony, Your comments and line of thought converges with my spiritual empowerment (growth) passion. I think God or Ultimate Reality must be even more accessible than Traditional Christianity has led is to believe and behave. We think and act as though there is a gap that puts God power out of reach unless we get an external agent or tool. Grace theology seems heading in the same direction as our thoughts here. Perhaps grace got interfered with by someone’s clinging to, and preaching of, law. Tribal forms of both those religions would opt to take the shortcut of do the right thing to protect the tribe, as opposed to fully actualizing your human and spiritual potential. Sin theology scares the tribal participants into a compliance which the Tribal leaders think is necessary for the Tribe’s survival. Any “growth” that risks breaking tribal law is considered too risky.
But the emergence of a “self” and notion that cooperation of each self can occur in such situations as a democracy, liberates us from Tribal, Theocratic, authoritarian, tendencies.
Of course, isolated individualism with a means of unified action and shared identity, is also a real problem that the Modern era left us with. But we would be wise to push the individual self arrow through to self transcendence than to rip out our collective guts by reverting to the tribal forms of those two (and other) religions.
Sorry my two cents worth is so wordy and “costs” so much investment of time to read.

 

[otherbrother]

WITHOUT a means of unified action…
Instead of “with.”

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Tony, Your comments and line of thought converges with my spiritual empowerment (growth) passion. I think God or Ultimate Reality must be even more accessible than Traditional Christianity has led is to believe and behave. We think and act as though there is a gap that puts God power out of reach unless we get an external agent or tool. Grace theology seems heading in the same direction as our thoughts here. Perhaps grace got interfered with by someone’s clinging to, and preaching of, law. Tribal forms of both those religions would opt to take the shortcut of do the right thing to protect the tribe, as opposed to fully actualizing your human and spiritual potential. Sin theology scares the tribal participants into a compliance which the Tribal leaders think is necessary for the Tribe’s survival. Any “growth” that risks breaking tribal law is considered too risky.
But the emergence of a “self” and notion that cooperation of each self can occur in such situations as a democracy, liberates us from Tribal, Theocratic, authoritarian, tendencies.
Of course, isolated individualism with a means of unified action and shared identity, is also a real problem that the Modern era left us with. But we would be wise to push the individual self arrow through to self transcendence than to rip out our collective guts by reverting to the tribal forms of those two (and other) religions.
Sorry my two cents worth is so wordy and “costs” so much investment of time to read.

Thank you for your responses.

Personally I see self transcendence is total submission unto God.

I see that is the apex of our capacity. The apex of our mind all resides in this submission. It results in the releasing of our full potential as an individual, and it is the foundation to our unity of mind as a species.

When we acheive that unity of mind in submission unto God's given Councels, there is no limit to our progress.

Regards Tony

 

[otherbrother]

"Gods don't exist because there is no evidence."
"Aliens exist because with such a large universe, it would be ignorant NOT to believe they exist."

Years ago I posted these quotes on a forum (that is now defunct). They were from the same person. I was amazed at how twisted the "burden of proof" definition became when people were trying to defend both statements. I was amazed at how the definition of "evidence" became twisted as well. Uniformity in logic is something lacking in most people when they debate religion, politics, sex, etc.

We are not as open minded as we think we are.
My imaginary test of open-mindedness and intellectual integrity is:

If, on my death bed, I realized that a theory or philosophical position that I had spent the last 40 years promoting was wrong, I would be able to say so with what few words I had left.

“Tell my wife I love her with all my heart, and, by the way, I decided that the book that made me famous was based on a flawed premise.”

 

[otherbrother]

Truth is subjective, so if you do not see the given proof, does not mean that it is not proof. One must partake of the pudding to find the "proof in the pudding".

The Baha'i Writings offer this.

"KNOW thou of a certainty that the Unseen can in no wise incarnate His Essence and reveal it unto men. He is, and hath ever been, immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived. From His retreat of glory His voice is ever proclaiming: “Verily, I am God; there is none other God besides Me, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise. I have manifested Myself unto men, and have sent down Him Who is the Dayspring of the signs of My Revelation. Through Him I have caused all creation to testify that there is none other God except Him, the Incomparable, the All-Informed, the All-Wise.” He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men can never be known except through His Manifestation, and His Manifestation can adduce no greater proof of the truth of His Mission than the proof of His own Person."

Thus God says the Person of the chosen Messengers are proof enough.

That is Faith 101.

Regards Tony

I haven’t read Baha’i writings (even though I like Seals and Crofts’ music!) , so I found your post interesting. Based on a deep-down sense of an Ultimate (deeper?) Reality behind the apparent (surface?) reality we participate in, the prophet’s words ring true as good “evidence” (not necessarily certain proof ) of that deeply sensed truth? The prophet/messenger becomes the mouthpiece of our deepest sense of reality/truth? Seems in line with Paul Tillich’s Ground of Being and Deepok Chopra’s Pure Potential.
All hinges, I suppose, on how much weight one gives to the subjective truth (Ken Wilber’s upper left quadrant) you mentioned. I’m on the same or similar page with you here, as I do give a lot of weight to subjective truth. As long as there is a true/honest soul searching and deep dive into one’s psyche, listening to that “inner voice.”

 

[otherbrother]

The Baha'i Wrirings tell us that God can only be known through the Messengers.

There is a lot of writings on this topic.

Regards Tony

Tony and Thomas,
May I be so bold as to act as a go-between? Since I see merit in both your sides of the argument or discussion. I just posted something on my God and Good discussion thread

Good and God

I am in dialogue with a friend of mine who is an atheist. We are exploring common ground. The fact that he has replied suggests that I have not turned him off too much with my talk about spirituality. It is an ongoing experiment that I thought would be helpful to share here. ; Today, my...

www.interfaith.org

that might provide a bridge between your two different viewpoints . It involves an analogy of a tangled fishing line.
The main idea is that the end of the fishing line that’s nearest us IS an untangled expression of at least an aspect of God’s “nature.” God-touches, God-fingerprints.
Doesn’t look like a live link. My tech skills suck! May have to search for the discussion thread if interested.
Love,
Darrell (otherbrother)

 

[otherbrother]

Tony and Thomas,
May I be so bold as to act as a go-between? Since I see merit in both your sides of the argument or discussion. I just posted something on my God and Good discussion thread

Good and God

I am in dialogue with a friend of mine who is an atheist. We are exploring common ground. The fact that he has replied suggests that I have not turned him off too much with my talk about spirituality. It is an ongoing experiment that I thought would be helpful to share here. ; Today, my...

www.interfaith.org

that might provide a bridge between your two different viewpoints . It involves an analogy of a tangled fishing line.
The main idea is that the end of the fishing line that’s nearest us IS an untangled expression of at least an aspect of God’s “nature.” God-touches, God-fingerprints.
Doesn’t look like a live link. My tech skills suck! May have to search for the discussion thread if interested.
Love,
Darrell (otherbrother)

Looks like it does navigate to the thread, but not to the specific post I was referring to. Hopefully you can find the post about a fishing line!