| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Douglas McAdam
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 4:39 am Post subject: Re: Alcohol Was: Re: God's Side? |
 |
|
On Oct 7, 2008, at 5:48 PM, compx2 wrote:
| Quote: | Hi Doug,
You: "> I cannot understand why you think that Baha'is are wanting to
ban
alcohol
You talk about God's Laws, God's punishment, that all your friends say
alcohol is bad. You said that you are"
"speaking of addictions. Paul said he likes to drink once in a
while and is putting up a sort of rationalization for this habit, a
rationalization I used myself when drinking and using drugs 40 yrs
ago and what I constantly here from many, many people and in my view
they are casting votes, dollar votes too for the entire alcohol
industry and the consequences of addiction and the cost to society
which in turn come back to hurt them in many ways. God did not say
it was OK to drink or use drugs once in a while or socially, He
forbid it except under a doctor's prescription. We can readily see
the punishment inflicted on society, on all of us for disobedience.
We are one family and so I will do what I can to help family
members."
Now you say that I am misinterpreting you. You do not want to forbid
the secular use of alcohol. Am I correct?
Obviously you are condeming Paul when you say he is employing "a
rationalization" you used yourself. It appears to me that you believe
Paul is rationalizing when he said he enjoys drinking. I don't think
he is. I think he enjoys drinking. I see no reason he should not
enjoy drinking, just as I see no reason for him to stop smoking or
stop hitting himself in the head, if he were to enjoy doing those
things.
|
Hi Kent-
I am not condemning Paul, I am simply saying that if God has banned
alcohol and he or anyone knows it and still tries to justify their
drinking then it is a rationalization. I separate behavior from the
individual and so I can say the behavior is wrong but that does not
condemn the person for I also know we are living souls in seed form.
| Quote: |
I see no reason not to brainwash and employ counter educational
methods like the ones used against smoking and for environmental
control. I am in favor of error on the side of caution. But those
who independently investigate and wish to drink alcohol or bury a lead
battery in a dry spot on their property, or smoke cigars, well, they
are entitled so far as I am concerned. I call it tolerance, and I
believe in it as a part of my religion.
|
I do not know what you mean by tolerance. How can we tolerate a
behavior that is harmful to all mankind? Have you not read all the
stats, the scientific information, the Baha'i Law and the many
references in the Writings about the harm of alcohol. How can anyone
know all this and tolerate its use is beyond me but that does not mean
I do not love and respect those who rationalize their habits.
| Quote: |
He prohibited all uses except if a doctor
prescribed it. It is a law of God and freedom is gained by obedience
to His Laws not in disobedience.
He prohibited drinking alcohol for Baha'is, not for humanity.
|
Not in my view Kent. Baha'u'llah came to cure the ills of all
mankind, not just those who accept Him. Are the Ten Commandments only
for Christian's? The Manifestations Revelation recreates and endows
Creation with a new potential. To remain back in the previous
Revelation or society would be like going back to the early grades of
education in my thinking.
regards,
doug
| Quote: |
-- Kent
On Oct 7, 12:34 pm, Douglas McAdam <douglasmca...@sbcglobal.net
wrote:
On Oct 6, 2008, at 9:39 PM, compx2 wrote:
The issue I have is that it should not be illegal or prohibited on
the
basis of the fact that those who voluntarily join the Baha'i Faith
have vowed not to drink alcohol.
If you want to urge Prohibition in the 21st century that is a
political, not a religious, issue.
I cannot understand why you think that Baha'is are wanting to ban
alcohol on this basis. I have not read any Baha'i post here saying
this. The bottom line is Baha'u'llah has prohibited alcohol period.
He said nothing about having a drink once in a while, or having
social
and recreational drinks, He prohibited all uses except if a doctor
prescribed it. It is a law of God and freedom is gained by obedience
to His Laws not in disobedience.
regards,
doug
|
|
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 9:08 pm Post subject: Re: Alcohol Was: Re: God's Side? |
|
|
| Quote: | I see no reason not to brainwash and employ counter educational
methods like the ones used against smoking and for environmental
control. I am in favor of error on the side of caution. But those
|
What you call brainwashing, I call exposing the facts that be about a
substance. It took close to thirty years before the tobacco industry
was brought legally to account for deliberately targeting kids with
the intent on addiction and hiding the truth about cancer. The alcohol
industry is not any different. I bet if a warning were posted on every
alcohol bottle labelling it as a carcinogen that alot of people would
think twice before drinking, instead (just like in the 50's) we have
shady medical reports about the good effects of alcohol on the heart,
but no mention of it's carcinogenic effects? Ironically, there's a
heaping mountain of evidence for its carcinogenic qualities, but scant
epidemiologic data supporting the heart issue. Why is this so, and why
are you afraid of the truth and letting people know the truth.
And for the last time. No, we're not advocating prohibition, just
knowledge. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
compx2
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 1:49 am Post subject: Re: Alcohol Was: Re: God's Side? |
|
|
Hi again, Mike.
| Quote: | What you call brainwashing, I call exposing the facts that be about a
substance.
|
One man's truth is another man's propaganda. But I don't care if a
single drop of alcohol kills thousands of instant cancer just by
proximity, it is not illegal, and it is not a Baha'i teaching that
alcohol should be illegal.
Leave my religion out of it. I am a Baha'i and I don't want your
intolerance to paint me the same color as you.
| Quote: | And for the last time. No, we're not advocating prohibition, just
knowledge.
|
You and I are the only ones in this discussion who are not advocating
a new Prohibition. Feels funny being in the same group with you. How
does it feel to you here, beside me, preaching tolerance to Baha'is?
--Kent
On Oct 8, 5:08 pm, mikera...@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: | I see no reason not to brainwash and employ counter educational
methods like the ones used against smoking and for environmental
control. I am in favor of error on the side of caution. But those
What you call brainwashing, I call exposing the facts that be about a
substance. It took close to thirty years before the tobacco industry
was brought legally to account for deliberately targeting kids with
the intent on addiction and hiding the truth about cancer. The alcohol
industry is not any different. I bet if a warning were posted on every
alcohol bottle labelling it as a carcinogen that alot of people would
think twice before drinking, instead (just like in the 50's) we have
shady medical reports about the good effects of alcohol on the heart,
but no mention of it's carcinogenic effects? Ironically, there's a
heaping mountain of evidence for its carcinogenic qualities, but scant
epidemiologic data supporting the heart issue. Why is this so, and why
are you afraid of the truth and letting people know the truth.
And for the last time. No, we're not advocating prohibition, just
knowledge. |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Douglas McAdam
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 8:03 am Post subject: Re: Alcohol Was: Re: God's Side? |
|
|
Hi Mike-
I agree except that my thinking is that if the Manifestation has
prohibited alcohol and drugs then I would advocate prohibition.
regards,
doug
On Oct 8, 2008, at 5:08 PM, mikeran37@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: |
I see no reason not to brainwash and employ counter educational
methods like the ones used against smoking and for environmental
control. I am in favor of error on the side of caution. But those
What you call brainwashing, I call exposing the facts that be about a
substance. It took close to thirty years before the tobacco industry
was brought legally to account for deliberately targeting kids with
the intent on addiction and hiding the truth about cancer. The alcohol
industry is not any different. I bet if a warning were posted on every
alcohol bottle labelling it as a carcinogen that alot of people would
think twice before drinking, instead (just like in the 50's) we have
shady medical reports about the good effects of alcohol on the heart,
but no mention of it's carcinogenic effects? Ironically, there's a
heaping mountain of evidence for its carcinogenic qualities, but scant
epidemiologic data supporting the heart issue. Why is this so, and why
are you afraid of the truth and letting people know the truth.
And for the last time. No, we're not advocating prohibition, just
knowledge.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Douglas McAdam
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 11:21 pm Post subject: Re: Alcohol Was: Re: God's Side? |
|
|
Dear Kent-
Please seem my inserted comments.
On Oct 8, 2008, at 9:49 PM, compx2 wrote:
| Quote: | Hi again, Mike.
What you call brainwashing, I call exposing the facts that be about a
substance.
One man's truth is another man's propaganda. But I don't care if a
single drop of alcohol kills thousands of instant cancer just by
proximity, it is not illegal, and it is not a Baha'i teaching that
alcohol should be illegal.
|
I hope you meant this as a metaphor because I'm sure you would care
if a single drop killed thousand of instant cancer... or was that a
typo? Also if the Baha'i Writings say it is prohibited doesn't that
make it illegal in the Baha'i Faith?
| Quote: |
Leave my religion out of it. I am a Baha'i and I don't want your
intolerance to paint me the same color as you.
|
Well Kent, I don't see Mike being intolerant because his view is
different than yours. We are Baha'is, diverse, all living souls in
seed form.
| Quote: |
And for the last time. No, we're not advocating prohibition, just
knowledge.
You and I are the only ones in this discussion who are not advocating
a new Prohibition. Feels funny being in the same group with you. How
does it feel to you here, beside me, preaching tolerance to Baha'is?
|
Why do you think it necessary to preach to your fellow Baha'is? I
thought we are supposed to consult? Or is your understanding of that
principle also different than the mainstream Baha'is?
doug
| Quote: |
--Kent
On Oct 8, 5:08 pm, mikera...@yahoo.com wrote:
I see no reason not to brainwash and employ counter educational
methods like the ones used against smoking and for environmental
control. I am in favor of error on the side of caution. But those
What you call brainwashing, I call exposing the facts that be about a
substance. It took close to thirty years before the tobacco industry
was brought legally to account for deliberately targeting kids with
the intent on addiction and hiding the truth about cancer. The
alcohol
industry is not any different. I bet if a warning were posted on
every
alcohol bottle labelling it as a carcinogen that alot of people would
think twice before drinking, instead (just like in the 50's) we have
shady medical reports about the good effects of alcohol on the heart,
but no mention of it's carcinogenic effects? Ironically, there's a
heaping mountain of evidence for its carcinogenic qualities, but
scant
epidemiologic data supporting the heart issue. Why is this so, and
why
are you afraid of the truth and letting people know the truth.
And for the last time. No, we're not advocating prohibition, just
knowledge.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
mike3
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 9:03 am Post subject: Re: Alcohol Was: Re: God's Side? |
|
|
On Oct 3, 7:12 pm, Douglas McAdam <douglasmca...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
<snip>
| Quote: | Here is the quote and there are others-
IN THE NAME OF HIM WHO IS THE SUPREME RULEROVER ALL THAT HATH BEEN AND
ALL THAT IS TO BE
The first duty prescribed by God for His servants is the recognition
of Him Who is the Dayspring of His Revelation and the Fountain of His
laws, Who representeth the Godhead in both the Kingdom of His Cause
and the world of creation. Whoso achieveth this duty hath attained
unto all good; and whoso is deprived thereof hath gone astray, though
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| Quote: |
he be the author of every righteous deed. It behoveth every one who
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
reacheth this most sublime station, this summit of transcendent glory,
to observe every ordinance of Him Who is the Desire of the world.
These twin duties are inseparable. Neither is acceptable without the
other. (Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 16)
snip |
Hmm. Does this therefore mean that even those people who are really
good in their hearts and have devoted themselves to helping the world
and
doing as much good as they can for humanity and everything, but who
do not recognize God's prophet, have _failed_ and so are "damned" and
are actually very miserable? Does this mean that in their Afterlife,
they
would be lost forever with no hope, despite all that good and stuff
(esp.
all the stuff about "no free will in the afterlife" suggesting no way
to alter
the course "away" from God that would _appear_ to be set up by
ignorance
of the prophet in spite of all the goodness)? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
compx2
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 5:59 pm Post subject: Re: Alcohol Was: Re: God's Side? |
|
|
Hi Doug,
You:
| Quote: | ...if a person is confronted by the
Manifestation and rejects Him then no matter how loving and kind they
may be their acts are useless in the eyes of God.
|
If I thought that quote said what you think it says I would fight
tooth and nail against the Baha'i Faith. What in intolerant thought!
If this were the Baha'i Faith I would not just reject it, I would
fight it with everything in me.
God is not spiteful, does not reject people, does not pronounce a life
"useless". Such a conception of God is, in my considered opinion,
petty, simplistic, foolish.
God is better than that.
I am a Baha'i and I am offended that some of my co-religionists are
this intolerant of their fellow humanity to pronounce that "their
understanding" is that God will reject them.
--Kent
On Oct 11, 10:46 am, Douglas McAdam <douglasmca...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
| Quote: | Dear Mike-
First of all I or any other Baha'i cannot judge the spirituality of
another soul. That is God's job. All I have done is produced quotes
relative to the discussion. However I can offer my understanding of
that quote, but in the context of other quotes relative to the twin
duties. My understanding is that if a person is confronted by the
Manifestation and rejects Him then no matter how loving and kind they
may be their acts are useless in the eyes of God. Here is the
specific portion of the quote relevant to this -
Whoso achieveth this duty hath attained
unto all good; and whoso is deprived thereof hath gone astray, though
he be the author of every righteous deed.
That seems pretty clear does it not?
My personal feeling is that if people were indeed living lives in
accordance with God's Laws and Teachings then they would readily
recognize the Manifestation when He appears. History seems to show
what happened when the previous religion's believers did not recognize
the new Manifestations.
I have learned over the years that many souls will reject what I am
teaching them about the Manifestation for today and His Revelation but
then after a spell they accept. I think this is due to an ego
problem, that the soul really accepts but the ego rejects because it
does want to lose control. I once had a psychologist reject for 15
yrs. my attempts to teach him about how the Baha'i Teachings relate to
addiction therapy and finally he told me he had been wrong because he
was only seeing things through his academic training and not by taking
into consideration the Baha'i Writings. So I don't judge souls, I
simply teach and show them love and understanding. I give them the
Writings and let them deal with it and I answer questions directly.
regards,
doug
On Oct 11, 2008, at 5:03 AM, mike3 wrote:
On Oct 3, 7:12 pm, Douglas McAdam <douglasmca...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
snip
Here is the quote and there are others-
IN THE NAME OF HIM WHO IS THE SUPREME RULEROVER ALL THAT HATH BEEN
AND
ALL THAT IS TO BE
The first duty prescribed by God for His servants is the recognition
of Him Who is the Dayspring of His Revelation and the Fountain of His
laws, Who representeth the Godhead in both the Kingdom of His Cause
and the world of creation. Whoso achieveth this duty hath attained
unto all good; and whoso is deprived thereof hath gone astray, though
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
he be the author of every righteous deed. It behoveth every one who
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
reacheth this most sublime station, this summit of transcendent
glory,
to observe every ordinance of Him Who is the Desire of the world.
These twin duties are inseparable. Neither is acceptable without the
other. (Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 16)
snip
Hmm. Does this therefore mean that even those people who are really
good in their hearts and have devoted themselves to helping the world
and
doing as much good as they can for humanity and everything, but who
do not recognize God's prophet, have _failed_ and so are "damned" and
are actually very miserable? Does this mean that in their Afterlife,
they
would be lost forever with no hope, despite all that good and stuff
(esp.
all the stuff about "no free will in the afterlife" suggesting no way
to alter
the course "away" from God that would _appear_ to be set up by
ignorance
of the prophet in spite of all the goodness)?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text - |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Douglas McAdam
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 7:46 pm Post subject: Re: Alcohol Was: Re: God's Side? |
|
|
Dear Mike-
First of all I or any other Baha'i cannot judge the spirituality of
another soul. That is God's job. All I have done is produced quotes
relative to the discussion. However I can offer my understanding of
that quote, but in the context of other quotes relative to the twin
duties. My understanding is that if a person is confronted by the
Manifestation and rejects Him then no matter how loving and kind they
may be their acts are useless in the eyes of God. Here is the
specific portion of the quote relevant to this -
| Quote: | Whoso achieveth this duty hath attained
unto all good; and whoso is deprived thereof hath gone astray, though
he be the author of every righteous deed.
|
That seems pretty clear does it not?
My personal feeling is that if people were indeed living lives in
accordance with God's Laws and Teachings then they would readily
recognize the Manifestation when He appears. History seems to show
what happened when the previous religion's believers did not recognize
the new Manifestations.
I have learned over the years that many souls will reject what I am
teaching them about the Manifestation for today and His Revelation but
then after a spell they accept. I think this is due to an ego
problem, that the soul really accepts but the ego rejects because it
does want to lose control. I once had a psychologist reject for 15
yrs. my attempts to teach him about how the Baha'i Teachings relate to
addiction therapy and finally he told me he had been wrong because he
was only seeing things through his academic training and not by taking
into consideration the Baha'i Writings. So I don't judge souls, I
simply teach and show them love and understanding. I give them the
Writings and let them deal with it and I answer questions directly.
regards,
doug
On Oct 11, 2008, at 5:03 AM, mike3 wrote:
| Quote: | On Oct 3, 7:12 pm, Douglas McAdam <douglasmca...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
snip
Here is the quote and there are others-
IN THE NAME OF HIM WHO IS THE SUPREME RULEROVER ALL THAT HATH BEEN
AND
ALL THAT IS TO BE
The first duty prescribed by God for His servants is the recognition
of Him Who is the Dayspring of His Revelation and the Fountain of His
laws, Who representeth the Godhead in both the Kingdom of His Cause
and the world of creation. Whoso achieveth this duty hath attained
unto all good; and whoso is deprived thereof hath gone astray, though
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
he be the author of every righteous deed. It behoveth every one who
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
reacheth this most sublime station, this summit of transcendent
glory,
to observe every ordinance of Him Who is the Desire of the world.
These twin duties are inseparable. Neither is acceptable without the
other. (Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 16)
snip
Hmm. Does this therefore mean that even those people who are really
good in their hearts and have devoted themselves to helping the world
and
doing as much good as they can for humanity and everything, but who
do not recognize God's prophet, have _failed_ and so are "damned" and
are actually very miserable? Does this mean that in their Afterlife,
they
would be lost forever with no hope, despite all that good and stuff
(esp.
all the stuff about "no free will in the afterlife" suggesting no way
to alter
the course "away" from God that would _appear_ to be set up by
ignorance
of the prophet in spite of all the goodness)?
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
mike3
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 8:50 pm Post subject: Re: Alcohol Was: Re: God's Side? |
|
|
On Oct 11, 8:46 am, Douglas McAdam <douglasmca...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
| Quote: | Dear Mike-
First of all I or any other Baha'i cannot judge the spirituality of
another soul. That is God's job.
|
It wasn't here to ask for a judgment on somebody, I was here to ask
about
something that seemed unfair, stuff that seemed, well, you know,
similar to
what those Christian preachers like to preach about. ("you don't
believe in
JESUS? You're going to BURN! Forever! A good heart is not enough,
you're
still damned and there is NO ESCAPE!")
| Quote: | All I have done is produced quotes
relative to the discussion. However I can offer my understanding of
that quote, but in the context of other quotes relative to the twin
duties. My understanding is that if a person is confronted by the
Manifestation and rejects Him then no matter how loving and kind they
may be their acts are useless in the eyes of God.
|
What about where they've never even _heard_ of the messenger? Ever,
in their whole life?
| Quote: | Here is the
specific portion of the quote relevant to this -
Whoso achieveth this duty hath attained
unto all good; and whoso is deprived thereof hath gone astray, though
he be the author of every righteous deed.
That seems pretty clear does it not?
|
So then it would *seem to suggest* that the vast majority of people,
who
have _not_ achieved that duty, would be lost, no matter how good.
That's
the thing that I'm hung up on, it doesn't seem right, to condemn
6.494 billion people like that. Because they've never even _heard_ of
the
Baha'i Faith, Baha'u'llah, etc. That's what doesn't seem fair or right
to me,
it just doesn't seem right.
| Quote: | My personal feeling is that if people were indeed living lives in
accordance with God's Laws and Teachings then they would readily
recognize the Manifestation when He appears. History seems to show
what happened when the previous religion's believers did not recognize
the new Manifestations.
I have learned over the years that many souls will reject what I am
teaching them about the Manifestation for today and His Revelation but
then after a spell they accept. I think this is due to an ego
problem, that the soul really accepts but the ego rejects because it
does want to lose control. I once had a psychologist reject for 15
yrs. my attempts to teach him about how the Baha'i Teachings relate to
addiction therapy and finally he told me he had been wrong because he
was only seeing things through his academic training and not by taking
into consideration the Baha'i Writings. So I don't judge souls, I
simply teach and show them love and understanding. I give them the
Writings and let them deal with it and I answer questions directly.
regards,
doug
On Oct 11, 2008, at 5:03 AM, mike3 wrote:
On Oct 3, 7:12 pm, Douglas McAdam <douglasmca...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
snip
Here is the quote and there are others-
IN THE NAME OF HIM WHO IS THE SUPREME RULEROVER ALL THAT HATH BEEN
AND
ALL THAT IS TO BE
The first duty prescribed by God for His servants is the recognition
of Him Who is the Dayspring of His Revelation and the Fountain of His
laws, Who representeth the Godhead in both the Kingdom of His Cause
and the world of creation. Whoso achieveth this duty hath attained
unto all good; and whoso is deprived thereof hath gone astray, though
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
he be the author of every righteous deed. It behoveth every one who
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
reacheth this most sublime station, this summit of transcendent
glory,
to observe every ordinance of Him Who is the Desire of the world.
These twin duties are inseparable. Neither is acceptable without the
other. (Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 16)
snip
Hmm. Does this therefore mean that even those people who are really
good in their hearts and have devoted themselves to helping the world
and
doing as much good as they can for humanity and everything, but who
do not recognize God's prophet, have _failed_ and so are "damned" and
are actually very miserable? Does this mean that in their Afterlife,
they
would be lost forever with no hope, despite all that good and stuff
(esp.
all the stuff about "no free will in the afterlife" suggesting no way
to alter
the course "away" from God that would _appear_ to be set up by
ignorance
of the prophet in spite of all the goodness)? |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
mike3
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 2:30 am Post subject: Re: Alcohol Was: Re: God's Side? |
|
|
On Oct 11, 8:46 am, Douglas McAdam <douglasmca...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
| Quote: | Dear Mike-
First of all I or any other Baha'i cannot judge the spirituality of
another soul. That is God's job. All I have done is produced quotes
relative to the discussion. However I can offer my understanding of
that quote, but in the context of other quotes relative to the twin
duties. My understanding is that if a person is confronted by the
Manifestation and rejects Him then no matter how loving and kind they
may be their acts are useless in the eyes of God. Here is the
specific portion of the quote relevant to this -
Whoso achieveth this duty hath attained
unto all good; and whoso is deprived thereof hath gone astray, though
he be the author of every righteous deed.
That seems pretty clear does it not?
snip |
See, and it's this type of stuff that gives me all the confusion, and
makes
me wonder just exactly how good a path the Baha'i Faith is, vs. other
religions or non-religions or whatever.
Because to me, on one hand we have this stuff about peace, about
wonders
and goodness being in the future for all of humanity, something that
seems
incredible and would be a great thing to have, which makes me more
interested
in the religion.
But then, on the _other_ hand, we have stuff like the above, which
doesn't
seem to jive. It *seems* to be saying that God would diss or punish
quite
a bit, someone who devoted their whole life to bettering the world,
went
through much trouble to try and make things better and make people's
lives
more good, but yet be either simply ignorant of the messenger due to
not
hearing about them, or maybe they did hear but they honestly did not
understand that who they heard of _was_ the messenger, etc. etc., and
because of that, all this good to be utterly reduced to nothing at all
in the
eyes of God, and seemingly thus put on the same level as someone like
Hitler who did the exact opposite of everything they did, who
succumbed to
dark evil and committed atrocities that would make the vast majority
of
people sick to the stomach. And also it would suggest 6.494 billion
human
beings are going to all end up horribly miserable in the realms and
universes
the afterlife takes place in. ("Burn in hell" as the Christians call
it though it
probably does not involve literal fire or a specific place called
"hell". But great
torment, despair, and other very negative things nonetheless, right up
there
with Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, Saddam Hussein, Emperor Qin, and so on
and
so on, despite having worked all their life to help make the world
_better_ than
that.) That doesn't seem to be like a good God to me, more like a bad
God
(DysTheism -- literally "bad God" -- which I don't subscribe to
either).
Of course one cannot say, yes this *will* happen, as that is making a
judgment
that is impossible (except for God) to make correctly, and so would
not be
fair, but it is the *drift* that I seem to be getting from the quote.
And that is
what I am wondering: am I getting the right *drift* or not (i.e. have
I properly
understood what is really being said by the quote?)? The question is
not
to ask for someone to judge other people's fate, but to ask whether
this
disturbing *drift* is indeed "right on the money" or not.
Anyway, I have not actually committed to the Baha'i Faith, and still
do not
know if I want to, and it's things like these that always create more
controversy
and questions in my mind. Now there are some rules I do not yet grasp
the
logic of, e.g. the head shaving prohibitions (why exactly is that
_bad_ to do?)
and hair length prohibitions (for men), but these don't seem to give
anywhere
near the type of fundamental troubles this stuff I'm discussing here
does. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Douglas McAdam
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 5:06 am Post subject: Re: Alcohol Was: Re: God's Side? |
|
|
On Oct 11, 2008, at 1:59 PM, compx2 wrote:
| Quote: | You:
...if a person is confronted by the
Manifestation and rejects Him then no matter how loving and kind they
may be their acts are useless in the eyes of God.
If I thought that quote said what you think it says I would fight
tooth and nail against the Baha'i Faith. What in intolerant thought!
If this were the Baha'i Faith I would not just reject it, I would
fight it with everything in me.
|
So what does that quote say Kent? It is plain English isn't it. I
gave you the sentence several times. Please tell me your
interpretation if you disagree.
Also keep in mind that I qualified what I said by also saying it is
not my job to judge the spiritual condition of a soul it is God's
job. I am just offering the quote relevant to statements you make
about intolerance. What about a CB who rejects Baha'u'llah and His
Faith? Should we shun them or tolerate them?
| Quote: |
God is not spiteful, does not reject people, does not pronounce a life
"useless". Such a conception of God is, in my considered opinion,
petty, simplistic, foolish.
|
Well there again one could make a strong case from the Word of God
about God's revenge etc. However my own belief is that this refers to
the fact that inherent in God's Laws are the punishments for
violations. So we punish ourselves by disobedience.
| Quote: |
God is better than that.
I am a Baha'i and I am offended that some of my co-religionists are
this intolerant of their fellow humanity to pronounce that "their
understanding" is that God will reject them.
|
Could that be because you are misunderstanding your fellow Baha'is?
Why do you think your interpretation is authoritative and thus you can
judge your fellow Baha'is?
This too is another subject that should be dropped in my opinion.
God bless,
doug
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
tsuki190
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 1:46 am Post subject: Re: Alcohol Was: Re: God's Side? |
|
|
If someone has never heard of the messenger, then obviously they have
not rejected
the messenger. QED.
I would also personally apply that to people who have heard of the messenger in
an ineffective way, e.g. an african native who heard about Jesus from a drunken
pedophile missionary accompanying an army of conquerors and rapists. It would
be reasonable to reject out of hand anything promoted by such a gang of thugs.
Surprisingly some people actually perceived the divine beauty of the messenger
even under those conditions!
Cheers,
Tom
| Quote: |
What about where they've never even _heard_ of the messenger? Ever,
in their whole life?
|
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 1:50 PM, mike3 <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Oct 11, 8:46 am, Douglas McAdam <douglasmca...@sbcglobal.net
wrote:
Dear Mike-
First of all I or any other Baha'i cannot judge the spirituality of
another soul. That is God's job.
It wasn't here to ask for a judgment on somebody, I was here to ask
about
something that seemed unfair, stuff that seemed, well, you know,
similar to
what those Christian preachers like to preach about. ("you don't
believe in
JESUS? You're going to BURN! Forever! A good heart is not enough,
you're
still damned and there is NO ESCAPE!")
All I have done is produced quotes
relative to the discussion. However I can offer my understanding of
that quote, but in the context of other quotes relative to the twin
duties. My understanding is that if a person is confronted by the
Manifestation and rejects Him then no matter how loving and kind they
may be their acts are useless in the eyes of God.
What about where they've never even _heard_ of the messenger? Ever,
in their whole life?
Here is the
specific portion of the quote relevant to this -
Whoso achieveth this duty hath attained
unto all good; and whoso is deprived thereof hath gone astray, though
he be the author of every righteous deed.
That seems pretty clear does it not?
So then it would *seem to suggest* that the vast majority of people,
who
have _not_ achieved that duty, would be lost, no matter how good.
That's
the thing that I'm hung up on, it doesn't seem right, to condemn
6.494 billion people like that. Because they've never even _heard_ of
the
Baha'i Faith, Baha'u'llah, etc. That's what doesn't seem fair or right
to me,
it just doesn't seem right.
My personal feeling is that if people were indeed living lives in
accordance with God's Laws and Teachings then they would readily
recognize the Manifestation when He appears. History seems to show
what happened when the previous religion's believers did not recognize
the new Manifestations.
I have learned over the years that many souls will reject what I am
teaching them about the Manifestation for today and His Revelation but
then after a spell they accept. I think this is due to an ego
problem, that the soul really accepts but the ego rejects because it
does want to lose control. I once had a psychologist reject for 15
yrs. my attempts to teach him about how the Baha'i Teachings relate to
addiction therapy and finally he told me he had been wrong because he
was only seeing things through his academic training and not by taking
into consideration the Baha'i Writings. So I don't judge souls, I
simply teach and show them love and understanding. I give them the
Writings and let them deal with it and I answer questions directly.
regards,
doug
On Oct 11, 2008, at 5:03 AM, mike3 wrote:
On Oct 3, 7:12 pm, Douglas McAdam <douglasmca...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
snip
Here is the quote and there are others-
IN THE NAME OF HIM WHO IS THE SUPREME RULEROVER ALL THAT HATH BEEN
AND
ALL THAT IS TO BE
The first duty prescribed by God for His servants is the recognition
of Him Who is the Dayspring of His Revelation and the Fountain of His
laws, Who representeth the Godhead in both the Kingdom of His Cause
and the world of creation. Whoso achieveth this duty hath attained
unto all good; and whoso is deprived thereof hath gone astray, though
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
he be the author of every righteous deed. It behoveth every one who
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
reacheth this most sublime station, this summit of transcendent
glory,
to observe every ordinance of Him Who is the Desire of the world.
These twin duties are inseparable. Neither is acceptable without the
other. (Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 16)
snip
Hmm. Does this therefore mean that even those people who are really
good in their hearts and have devoted themselves to helping the world
and
doing as much good as they can for humanity and everything, but who
do not recognize God's prophet, have _failed_ and so are "damned" and
are actually very miserable? Does this mean that in their Afterlife,
they
would be lost forever with no hope, despite all that good and stuff
(esp.
all the stuff about "no free will in the afterlife" suggesting no way
to alter
the course "away" from God that would _appear_ to be set up by
ignorance
of the prophet in spite of all the goodness)?
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
compx2
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 2:38 am Post subject: Re: Alcohol Was: Re: God's Side? |
|
|
Hi Doug,
| Quote: | So what does that quote say Kent?
|
..... recognition of Him Who is the Dayspring of His Revelation and the
Fountain of His laws, Who representeth the Godhead in both the
Kingdom of His Cause and the world of creation. Whoso achieveth this
duty hath attained unto all good...
That is a far cry from Doug: " ...if a person is confronted by the
Manifestation and rejects Him then no matter how loving and kind they
may be their acts are useless in the eyes of God. "
It is my duty, my first duty, to recognize God on earth. If the
Baha'i Faith keeps moving in this totalitarian, intolerant, whimsical
direction it will not represent much about God at all anymore. It
fails in many ways to manifest God on earth now. But that does not
absolve anyone, especially not me, from my duty to find Him and
recognize His power and devote myself to it.
It is not something we do once and are done with it. It is a constant
struggle to find God wherever you are, whatever you are doing. It is
everyone's duty all the time.
It has nothing to do with the name "Baha'u'llah" or "Baha'i", it is
God's Manifestation, His Existence, His Being on earth. That is the
responsibility, the duty I have as a Baha'i, and if I had to say so,
your intolerance is telling of the fact that you have missed that
Mark.
Of course it is not my job to judge.
| Quote: | What about a CB who rejects Baha'u'llah and His
Faith?
|
Working against a group who sincerely believes they have humanity's
best interest at heart, a group like the Baha'is, is another
indication that the person has missed God and His Signs and His
Attributes on earth.
| Quote: | Should we shun them or tolerate them?
|
We should obey the institutions of the Faith if we want to remain
Baha'is. But should the Baha'i Faith become stacked with intolerant
slime buckets we will be on our own again, like we were before the
Baha'i Revelation. At some future point beyond 1000 years all of the
good servants of God will leave the Baha'i Faith.
But no matter what religion we belong to we are never absolved of that
constant, all important duty to God.
| Quote: | Why do you think your interpretation is authoritative and thus you can
judge your fellow Baha'is?
|
I didn't say my interpretation was authoritative, I said yours was
intolerant. Further that opinion you expressed, I would be ashamed to
try to defend it in polite company.
| Quote: | This too is another subject that should be dropped in my opinion.
|
Apparently you are ashamed of it as well.
--Kent
On Oct 11, 8:06 pm, Douglas McAdam <douglasmca...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
| Quote: | On Oct 11, 2008, at 1:59 PM, compx2 wrote:
You:
...if a person is confronted by the
Manifestation and rejects Him then no matter how loving and kind they
may be their acts are useless in the eyes of God.
If I thought that quote said what you think it says I would fight
tooth and nail against the Baha'i Faith. What in intolerant thought!
If this were the Baha'i Faith I would not just reject it, I would
fight it with everything in me.
So what does that quote say Kent? It is plain English isn't it. I
gave you the sentence several times. Please tell me your
interpretation if you disagree.
Also keep in mind that I qualified what I said by also saying it is
not my job to judge the spiritual condition of a soul it is God's
job. I am just offering the quote relevant to statements you make
about intolerance. What about a CB who rejects Baha'u'llah and His
Faith? Should we shun them or tolerate them?
God is not spiteful, does not reject people, does not pronounce a life
"useless". Such a conception of God is, in my considered opinion,
petty, simplistic, foolish.
Well there again one could make a strong case from the Word of God
about God's revenge etc. However my own belief is that this refers to
the fact that inherent in God's Laws are the punishments for
violations. So we punish ourselves by disobedience.
God is better than that.
I am a Baha'i and I am offended that some of my co-religionists are
this intolerant of their fellow humanity to pronounce that "their
understanding" is that God will reject them.
Could that be because you are misunderstanding your fellow Baha'is?
Why do you think your interpretation is authoritative and thus you can
judge your fellow Baha'is?
This too is another subject that should be dropped in my opinion.
God bless,
doug
--Kent- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text - |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
compx2
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 2:53 am Post subject: Re: Alcohol Was: Re: God's Side? |
|
|
Hi Mike,
I know what you mean. I grew up Baha'i and the form the Faith often
took made me rebel and, golly, I still hate a lot of what Baha'is say
about the Baha'i Faith I love. I disagree with just about everything
Doug says, and he seems to represent the norm.
I am the fringes, but the vocal fringes. I don't care what any other
Baha'i says, I am commanded by God to investigate independently. If
what Doug says sounds intolerant to you, if when he reads that verse
it means to him "believe in Baha'u'llah or you are lost" well, don't
take his word for it. What does it say to you?
I had to start from scratch myself. I knew it all when I was 12, and
I could argue against the intolerance and silly laws with the best of
them until I lost interest entirely around age 15 or so. But when I
saw all the other spiritual ideas floating around I realized, around
age 30 or so, that the Baha'i Faith deserved another look.
I just started looking at the Writings of Baha'u'llah and did not
assume that when He said "God" He meant "Me". What He meant was what
He said. In my opinion "The religion of God" is not necessarily the
Baha'i Faith. We can but hope.
Anyway, the laws, some of the, are just silly. I look upon it like
training my dog. A dog who obeys and does tricks is admired, while a
wild dog is shot. Sometimes discipline is good for discipline's own
sake. And the hair thing has been specifically un-instituted. Hair
length on men is not institutionally sanctioned according to the
Universal House of Justice, though I try to follow the law anyway. I
don't really know those guys that well, you know?
--Kent
On Oct 11, 10:30 pm, mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Oct 11, 8:46 am, Douglas McAdam <douglasmca...@sbcglobal.net
wrote:
Dear Mike-
First of all I or any other Baha'i cannot judge the spirituality of
another soul. That is God's job. All I have done is produced quot
es
relative to the discussion. However I can offer my understanding of
that quote, but in the context of other quotes relative to the twin
duties. My understanding is that if a person is confronted by th
e
Manifestation and rejects Him then no matter how loving and kind they
may be their acts are useless in the eyes of God. Here is the
specific portion of the quote relevant to this -
Whoso achieveth this duty hath attained
unto all good; and whoso is deprived thereof hath gone astray, thoug
h
he be the author of every righteous deed.
That seems pretty clear does it not?
snip
See, and it's this type of stuff that gives me all the confusion, and
makes
me wonder just exactly how good a path the Baha'i Faith is, vs. other
religions or non-religions or whatever.
Because to me, on one hand we have this stuff about peace, about
wonders
and goodness being in the future for all of humanity, something that
seems
incredible and would be a great thing to have, which makes me more
interested
in the religion.
But then, on the _other_ hand, we have stuff like the above, which
doesn't
seem to jive. It *seems* to be saying that God would diss or punish
quite
a bit, someone who devoted their whole life to bettering the world,
went
through much trouble to try and make things better and make people's
lives
more good, but yet be either simply ignorant of the messenger due to
not
hearing about them, or maybe they did hear but they honestly did not
understand that who they heard of _was_ the messenger, etc. etc., and
because of that, all this good to be utterly reduced to nothing at all
in the
eyes of God, and seemingly thus put on the same level as someone like
Hitler who did the exact opposite of everything they did, who
succumbed to
dark evil and committed atrocities that would make the vast majority
of
people sick to the stomach. And also it would suggest 6.494 billion
human
beings are going to all end up horribly miserable in the realms and
universes
the afterlife takes place in. ("Burn in hell" as the Christians call
it though it
probably does not involve literal fire or a specific place called
"hell". But great
torment, despair, and other very negative things nonetheless, right up
there
with Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, Saddam Hussein, Emperor Qin, and so on
and
so on, despite having worked all their life to help make the world
_better_ than
that.) That doesn't seem to be like a good God to me, more like a bad
God
(DysTheism -- literally "bad God" -- which I don't subscribe to
either).
Of course one cannot say, yes this *will* happen, as that is making a
judgment
that is impossible (except for God) to make correctly, and so would
not be
fair, but it is the *drift* that I seem to be getting from the quote.
And that is
what I am wondering: am I getting the right *drift* or not (i.e. have
I properly
understood what is really being said by the quote?)? The question is
not
to ask for someone to judge other people's fate, but to ask whether
this
disturbing *drift* is indeed "right on the money" or not.
Anyway, I have not actually committed to the Baha'i Faith, and still
do not
know if I want to, and it's things like these that always create more
controversy
and questions in my mind. Now there are some rules I do not yet grasp
the
logic of, e.g. the head shaving prohibitions (why exactly is that
_bad_ to do?)
and hair length prohibitions (for men), but these don't seem to give
anywhere
near the type of fundamental troubles this stuff I'm discussing here
does.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text - |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Number Eleven - GPEMC!
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 8:07 am Post subject: Re: Alcohol Was: Re: God's Side? |
|
|
"Enty Ell" <michael.alcorn1@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:FrqdnfZX-5y3F3fVnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
| Quote: | "divers" - archaic adjective meaning many and different!
Also a plural noun in modern use.
Cheers
Mike
|
Unless you are artistically representing a specifically historical context,
using archaic terms in place of modern terms is incorrect, especially when
the archaic term refers in modern usage to something else. This is not a
matter of "who says", but of how many understand what you are trying to say
at 1200wpm or better. I've made this mistake myself, often enough to know it
is an error.
Also, I doubt that using "divers" as a adjective would pass peer review, and
this also makes it a bad example of English usage.
Using little known words such as "eschew", when a synonym (eg. "avoid")
exists in standard English (after Ogden), is just obfuscation. Obfuscation
is bad English because it is the degree of ambiguity inherent in uncertain
definitions that ultimately limits the magnitude of grammatical structure
comprehensible to the reader. That last sentence of mine was a mouthful
despite the relatively simple structure. Notice how the pun on "uncertain
definitions" (IE uncertain in general or to the reader?) as well as the
uncommon mix of terms, "magnitude", "structure", and "comprehensible" really
slow down comprehension.
This is why the unnecessary use of archaic terms is not as meaningful. Take
a look at:
http://speed-reading-comprehension.com/grade/index.shtml
for a demonstration of how archaic language can rob expression of its
meaning.
____________________________________________________________
Timothy Casey GPEMC - Eleven is the number@timothycasey.info to email.
Philosophical Essays: http://timothycasey.info
Speed Reading: http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Software: http://fieldcraft.biz; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security.
Science & Geology: http://geologist-1011.com; http://geologist-1011.net
Technical & Web Design: http://web-design-1011.com
--
GPEMC! Anti-SPAM email conditions apply. See www.fieldcraft.biz/GPEMC
The General Public Electronic Mail Contract is free for public use.
If enough of us participate, we can launch a class action to end SPAM
Put GPEMC in your signature to join the fight. Invoice a SPAMmer today! |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
