Re: The Point

Hi Larry,

The burning of those that burn houses does not and no amount of
finagling will make such a statement correspond to reason or to
reality. <

Of course many of us disagree. But let just find out how far off we
are, in your estimation.

Does an "eye for an eye" correspond to reason? To reality?

Does the dictionary definition of "justice"? (...a concept involving
the
fair, moral, and impartial treatment of all persons, especially in law)
correspond to reason? To reality?

If so, is there a difference between this justice and "an eye for an
eye" or "Should anyone intentionally destroy a house by fire, him also
shall ye burn; (Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 41)"?

Does reason and reality want justice? If so, what would be justice for
a
wanton, diabolical arsonist? What about a second offender?

Is justice only that those who offend should be kept from offending
again? If a person destroys property or a human life, is it enough to
imprison the person for a period of time to achieve justice? Or is the
aim something other than justice?

Thanks, I just can't help wondering why I am so wrong in your eyes.
This
might help straighten me out.

--Kent



"diamondsouled" <rowe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1157231842.283970.79040@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hello Carl,

While we're examining the scientific soundness of certain beliefs Carl
lets examine the religious belief that certain human beings receive
supernatural guidance from a supernatural being and actually express
the words of this supernatural being.

Well we wouldn't get very far with this, scientifically speaking,
would we. What needs to be done is to weight those actual words to see
if they correspond to reason as well as reality. Undoubtedly much of
what Baha'u'llah said corresponds both to reason as well as reality.
The burning of those that burn houses does not and no amount of
finagling will make such a statement correspond to reason or to
reality. The only reason I mentioned fetal alcohol spectrum disorder is
because it is a scientific fact that was unknown in Baha'u'llah's day
and age and which should be used to weight the wisdom of a law that
states that those who burn houses should themselves be burned.

As well when Baha'u'llah states that disbelievers in God can not be
trusted * such a statement needs to be weighed as to its truth and
wisdom. If Baha'is atomatically distrusted every human being who
disbelieves in God would this be a good thing? Even though it would be
based on what Baha'is believe is the actual word of God itself? To
unquestionly obey what is stated by Baha'u'llah about those who
disbelieve in God would require that Bahai's distrust all Buddhists and
atheists; would such a thing correspond to reason or science even
though it would be based on words which are concidered to be the words
of God themselves?

I am simply encouraging Baha'is to use their God given gray matter to
examine the reality that not each jot and tittle that came from
Baha'u'llah's pen, or Abdu'l-Baha's, or Shoghi Effendi's, or the
Universal House of Justice's, is infallible or worthy of blind
imitation. This does not discount in any way the many Baha'i teachings
that make profound sense and which correspond to reason as well as
science.

The Baha'i myth of infallibilty needs to be put to rest if the Baha'i
faith is to ever contribute to humanities progress in any meaning way.

Yours

Larry Rowe

* Know thou for a certainty that whoso disbelieveth in God is neither
trustworthy nor truthful. This, indeed, is the truth, the undoubted
truth. He that acteth treacherously towards God will, also, act
treacherously towards his king. Nothing whatever can deter such a man
from evil, nothing can hinder him from betraying his neighbor, nothing
can induce him to walk uprightly.

(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 232)


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Gross National Happiness
    ... our reason, we can never know the answers. ... time imply that reason leads us into contradiction, therefore reality ... it breaches the fundamental principle of empiricism (all postualtions ... God, we cannot know that there is not a God. ...
    (uk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: Gross National Happiness
    ... our reason, we can never know the answers. ... time imply that reason leads us into contradiction, therefore reality ... it breaches the fundamental principle of empiricism (all postualtions ... God, we cannot know that there is not a God. ...
    (uk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: The Point
    ... if they correspond to reason as well as reality. ... what Baha'u'llah said corresponds both to reason as well as reality. ... As well when Baha'u'llah states that disbelievers in God can not be ...
    (soc.religion.bahai)
  • Re: The Science of Belief
    ... If 'reason' is the framework, ... to define what God even is. ... that some significant aspects of reality are beyond reason and the tools ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Why atheism is false
    ... One concerning knowing God ... I think those who say they know God CAN have a reason to believe beyond ... However, when this knowledge is based on the person of Jesus Christ, ... hell because if he created this reality, he didn't have to make it this ...
    (soc.religion.christian)