daniel

What do you think - is man at his core is inherently bad? Of course, some would say that bad exists in the eye of the beholder, but do you use your own beliefs of bad or just go by what society today says is normally acceptable?

Jafar

wouldn't you have to determine what good and bad is first?

i guess there is good and bad according to your culture, or your particular group of friends. some friends of mine and i were talking about this at my house the other day... just because a culture accepts certain things as good does not mean mean that it is good according to other cultures.

in a similar way, some people would say certain things are okay or good while others would not.

shathaway

The measure of Good and Bad -- Would not your measure be tempered with the knowledge of the Laws of God and the writings of the prophets?

There is the Law of Moses, the Deuteronomic Codes as practiced by the Jews.

There is the humility, love, and forgiveness of Jesus.

There are the reflections of Budha.

There are the social and government laws of the Bab and Bahaullah.

Then there are the secular laws of political governments and the
dictates of various organizations.

--

By what measure do you determine Good and Evil?

Sincerely,
Steven J. Hathaway

Joshua

if anything couldn't be resolved or determined by any culture because of the inherent differences that exist between the cultures, then one and only one thing can help us determine that, and that is the Word of God.

If man was created by God and God doesn't create bad or evil, then this means that man is NOT inherently bad/evil. it's sais that bad/evil is non-existent, it's simply the absence of good.

regards,
Josh

Ameroux9

There are numerous quotes in the Baha'i Writings that stress the lofty station of humanity. One that springs to mind is "Noble have I created thee, wherewith doest thou abase thyself?" from the Hidden Words.

Humans also have a lower or more animal nature; religion is the means of teaching us to overcome that.

In short, no: Humanity is not inherently evil. We were created noble.

Thomitch

I just attended an ABS Conference in Vancouver (Association for Baha'i Studies) and the main theme of the conference was Rethinking Human Nature. There were numerous break out sessions and also some main talks given by some prominent Baha'i scholars such as Hooper Dunbar and Payam Akaavan.
And it became quite clear to me that we do not have a lower nature as much as we have baser desires. Through our deeds and thoughts our spiritual nature will begin to manifest itself and we can overcome our baser desires.
The animal kingdom relates to the plant kingdom in that they both need sustenance for energy, a means of reproduction, respond to their environment, grow, are composed of cells and have internal levels of organization. However though there are these commonalities between the animal and the plant kingdom the plant cannot begin to fathom the movement of the animal, or what it would be like to see, smell, taste, hear, or feel. We see that the animal has a capacity and a higher nature beyond that of the plant.
We in the same way share these seven characteristics of life with the animal and the plant kingdoms and can comprehend the essence of the animal because we understand the senses. And can do everything the animal can. However just like the animal to the plant we have a higher nature beyond that of the animal kingdom and no animal can begin to understand us.
Our higher nature comes from our soul and we are not inherently bad rather inherently good and we debase ourselves. "Noble I created thee why dost though abase thyself." We are born pure and accustom ourselves to poison and begin to believe that this poison is natural and right.

Boethiah

Noble might not necessarily mean "good". Like, a king can be of nobility, but if this king treats his people poorly then he is not much of a good king.

To me, a human at birth is neutral. The individual, at birth, is neither good or bad. He or she is just a human being. Humans are no doubt noble creatures. We are not simply animals. What sets us apart from animals is our ability to reason and hold morals. We have the ability to think cognitively.

There are good humans and there are bad humans. The good humans have the potential for evil, the bad humans have the potential for good. Is humanity as a whole good or evil? That's hard to say. We all do good and bad things. So, which is in our nature? Good or bad? I would still go with "something in between".

Orthodox

Man has an inherent goodness, but is also corrupted by this nature due to the fall. We have an inherent goodness because we are in the image of God, all humans are created in this image, it can be battered and smeared, but it cannot be destroyed.

arthra

Orthodox,

Baha'is don't subscribe to the "Fall" as in Christian theology where Adam sins and so on..

We believe man requires training and education but is not inherently sinful. :wink

Orthodox

Well aware of that, but once again, have to tell it as it is. I do not have to give the bahai answer of things for these questions, it would be weird and dishonest.

Livindesert

Welcome to the forum. I am a bit saddened as you seem to be comming here with a combative attitude. I hope I am mistaken about this though.

Baha'is are different from others in that we accept that other faiths will come to different conclusions about religion and spirituality. We also love learning about different faiths points of view. We just try to keep the disscusion as tolerant and friendly as possible.

It would be nice if you could state that you are an Orthodox Christian instead of your tag saying "Dedicated to Orthodoxy".This way people will know you are not a Baha'i and will not get the Eastern Orthodox view confused with the Baha'i faith view on the forum.

Thanks and again welcome to the forum

Orthodox

Thank you, i did not come here with a combative attitude, but I didn't come here simply to ask questions either. The nature of forums, is that you have contrasting views. Hopefully people will appreciate a different outlook.

LarryK32

Orthodox,
Help me understand something please. You believe we are all born with sin, correct? What do you believe if an infant dies shortly after birth? Does it go to some sort of Hell?
Never really understood this.

Orthodox

Actually we don't. The orthodox church maintains just the opposite, that we are not born with sin at all. This is something that St Augustine of Hippo proposed and something the orthodox categorically rejects as the earlier fathers did not hold to this view.

but we are still born corrupted. the world is not perfect, humanity is not perfect, we live in a world which leads or makes us head towards sin this is what the orthodox believe. Thus Christ came to bring us closer to God by the process of Theosis.

LarryK32

Ah, so it is just the Protestants and Catholics that believe so?

Orthodox

Yes the catholics followed the tradition of St Augustine and his teachings. Most protestants have inherited this belief from their mother church but not all protestants believe this view.

LarryK32

Okay. How are we born corrupted. We are born without knowledge of good and evil. We are not inclined to do evil things. We are not inclined to do good things, either.

We are inclined to do things.

Orthodox

We are born with a morality written in our hearts, the bible you believe claims that the law written on our hearts. Now we are born corrupted because man fell from the Grace God originally intended for him when he disobayed God. The world is a sad place full of sin.

LarryK32

Where does it say that?
I have a Bible.

Orthodox

Romans 2:14-15 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.

cire perdue

Beautifully said Thomitch. I have felt confirmed that man is basically good after seeing alcoholics and drug addicts overcome these diseases/disorders/addictions when they accept a spiritual solution. I have had the privilege of being acquainted with many who recovered and a few who did not. It is inspiring. AA states that the only person who is seen to fail in this program is he who is inconstitutionally incapable of honesty. I apply that to myself when I find myself at the unlearned end of a failed test.

whine of astonsihment

I think you are both right and wrong.
First of all, the 'nobility' you are basing your example on refers only to a social class distinction applied to inherited royal bloodlines and not to a 'spiritual attribute' of God, inherited by each soul created in His image. I don't think this a proper analogy. 'Spiritual nobility' is always good, whereas the 'social nobility' of kings is a toss of the coin.

I think you are right about our 'blank slate /neutrality' at birth because our inherent 'spiritual nobility' exists only as a potentiality then, like the oak in the acorn. What is written on that clean slate is the full responsibility of the 'goodness and nobility' of its parenting first, and this responsibility gradually extends to the 'goodness' its community, until this soul reaches its own 'spiritual maturity' when it has finally begun to 'write on its own slate' I think.

What Baha'u'llah refers to in the Hidden Words verse quoted serves 'brush away' of the concept of 'original sin', which is an early and spiritually immature umbrella-excuse to explain why we are not 'born good' and, in this day and age, has become a just cop-out of our responsibilities as both parents and world citizens.

An entire culture of religions, rituals, clergy, etc. based on the concept that we are born 'dirty slates' that must be 'purified' by them (for price) before it can be made 'worthy' to be acceptable to God. This is what Baha'u'llah rejects in this, the age of humanity 'standing on the threshold of our spiritual maturity'.

You are saying we are neither 'good or bad' and Baha'u'llah says we are already 'good' and if we believe in, protect, and nurture that 'goodness' we gradually become the Kingdom of God on earth. I think I like His perspective just a teensy bit more than yours - but I can be flexible for the sake of our spiritual and social unity. I'm sure He will understand ... and forgive :wink

bwb

A few quotations from Baha'u'llah,'Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi:

The child when born is far from being perfect. It is not only helpless, but actually is imperfect, and even is naturally inclined towards evil. He should be trained, his natural inclinations harmonized, adjusted and controlled, and if necessary suppressed or regulated, so as to ensure his healthy physical and moral development.

(Shoghi Effendi, The Compilation of Compilations vol. I, p. 303)

Every child is potentially the light of the world -- and at the same time its darkness; wherefore must the question of education be accounted as of primary importance. From his infancy, the child must be nursed at the breast of God's love, and nurtured in the embrace of His knowledge, that he may radiate light, grow in spirituality, be filled with wisdom and learning, and take on the characteristics of the angelic host.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p. 130)

The Great Being saith: Regard man as a mine rich in gems of inestimable value. Education can, alone, cause it to reveal its treasures, and enable mankind to benefit therefrom.

(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 259)

Man is the supreme Talisman. Lack of a proper education hath, however, deprived him of that which he doth inherently possess.

(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 259)

My wish is that these children should receive a Bahá'í education, so that they may progress both here and in the Kingdom, and rejoice thy heart.
In a time to come, morals will degenerate to an extreme degree. It is essential that children be reared in the Bahá'í way, that they may find happiness both in this world and the next. If not, they shall be beset by sorrows and troubles, for human happiness is founded upon spiritual behaviour.

('Abdu'l-Bahá, Selections from the Writings of 'Abdu'l-Bahá, Sec. 100, p. 127)

Boethiah

Yes, my analogy is a bit different, but "nobility" is very relative. Merriam-Webster defines "Noble" as:

"possessing outstanding qualities"

Noble - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

This raised the question of where we seek our qualities from. In the sense of morality, we take it from the Laws of God which are revealed to us in religions of the world while they also exist in our constructs. For instance, murder is generally viewed as immoral regardless of religion. However, differing viewpoints mean differing views of nobility and goodness. To call humans noble or good at birth raises questions. What is the true definition of good? Can the infant be good if it does not understand what good and evil is?
Does this lessen the impact or importance of the parents' moral values? If the baby is already good, will the baby become bad if taught values that are wrong?


Precisely.

Indeed, to an extent. The concept of Original Sin can be manipulated for sure. For example, a religious denomination of Christianity that teaches that implements original sin in its teachings might also advance the idea that the church is the supreme word of God on Earth, and that only through the complete acceptance of Jesus Christ and the church will a person seek salvation. This can be fine. When the person ceases to think for him/herself, the goal no longer becomes being a better person, instead following the doctrines of a church. Or, the individual can realize his/her sinful nature and do good deeds/have faith here on Earth. Again, it is a tossup.

Incredibly true. Also, what is the difference between doctrine based on original sin and doctrine based on "original nobility" as I call it? One says that we are born evil and must purify ourselves through certain actions (depending on the situation), while the other says we are born good and must stay good based on certain actions (depending on the situation).

I am saying we are born neither good or bad. We grow into adult human beings over time. Our experiences effect our actions, making us either "good" or "bad". Baha'u'llah states that "It is essential that children be reared in the Bahá'í way, that they may find happiness both in this world and the next." The Baha'i way is surely loving all humanity, recognizing the inherent worth and potential in all humans, and recognizing the worth in all religions the world over, which is the single Faith of God. Even with growth, we do not become "good" or "bad". At what point can we say "I am good" or "I am bad"? We are simply human beings.

Only God can tell who is good and who is bad. I suppose my main point is that fussing over issues of what is good and what is bad and what we are can detract from actually serving mankind and imparting love on all.

I'm sure your flexibility won't go unnoticed

BruceDLimber

You are of course most welcome to your opinion, but I'm afraid that as noted in post #5, the Baha'i scriptures clearly state otherwise!

Peace,

Bruce

whine of astonsihment

Absolutely Steve! That's why we do not judge the actions of a 5 year old using the same 'measuring stick' as we do with a 25 year old.

whine of astonsihment

@ Boethiah;
Yes, my analogy is a bit different, but "nobility" is very relative. Merriam-Webster defines "Noble" as:

"possessing outstanding qualities"

Noble - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Yes but you did not use 'definition 1a' you used 'definition 2'

For instance, murder is generally viewed as immoral regardless of religion. However, differing viewpoints mean differing views of nobility and goodness.

You are introducing a number of variables to your hypothesis(es) that will have us chasing our tails in a moment. Should you not say instead: Murder is immoral, and perhaps even worthy of capital punishment depending on differing views, but would you view or punish a cold-blooded serial killer the same as a soldier who killed many in battle? A man protecting himself, his wife and child from being killed? A drunken driver who caused the death of another? Or a pilot who caused his own death, as well as the death of all on board?

Also, you are using the 'negative' immoral standard of a 'murderous act' and applying it to a 'positive' spiritual attribute of nobility.

Does this lessen the impact or importance of the parents' moral values? If the baby is already good, will the baby become bad if taught values that are wrong?

Possibly as much as the impact of being raised by wolves or apes like Tarzan, as opposed to your own parents


Also, what is the difference between doctrine based on original sin and doctrine based on "original nobility" as I call it?

In a nutshell, I guess I would describe the first as 'you buying your way out of Hell, Limbo, or Purgatory jail' first and them cashing your check before you know whether your "parole certificate is valid". And the second as 'you naming and claiming your right to your "get out of jail for free card' and them as "just obsolete."

The Baha'i way is surely loving all humanity, recognizing the inherent worth and potential in all humans, and recognizing the worth in all religions the world over, which is the single Faith of God. Even with growth, we do not become "good" or "bad". At what point can we say "I am good" or "I am bad"? We are simply human beings.

I think you might be trying to use the short and simple journey from white to black to describe the somewhat longer and more complex journey, through all the colors of the rainbow to get to the pot of gold at the end. I'm not sure if that house of reasoning will withstand hurricane-force winds...

I'm sure your flexibility won't go unnoticed

I'm in betting His capacity for judgment and mercy is even greater than ours. But for now, I just wish He would enlighten me about how to use the 'multi' option to reply because I'm just 'winging it' at present ....

Boethiah

A valid point. However, nobility in the sense of social status is comparable. I don't seek to debate the origins of the word "nobility", but it is fair to say the two common definitions are "having outstanding qualities" and "being apart of a royal/high class". If Man is born inherently good and noble, then they are both apart of a "royal" (a better word escapes me) class among the animal kingdom as mankind is spiritual in nature.

This illustrates the differing scenarios in which morality comes into question.

If we call murder "un-noble" and spirituality "noble", they can be compared and contrasted because one can only exist with the other. Bad can only exist with good, and vice versa. For something to be noble there has to be something un-noble to compare it to.


There are poor parents in the world. There are also parents who perhaps do not agree with some of the tenets of the Baha'i Faith.

If you are alluding to Catholicism's infamous scheme of extorting its people for money with the fear of hell and purgatory, I would argue that many Christian denominations around the world (including Catholic) do not agree with this view. Rather, it is through good works and/or faith in Jesus does one seek salvation. This is similar to the Baha'i way of seeking "salvation" (nearness to God and the oneness of humanity) through spiritual growth. Both have the same essential goal (with different details), but from different starting points.

So if the Baha'i way is to not love all of humanity and recognize the inherent worth and dignity in all people, and recognizing the worth in all religions, what is the Baha'i way? All religions have differences that need to be addressed, but only God can know what is right and what is wrong for sure.

whine of astonsihment

@ Boethiah
OK I see your point of defining man as being 'royal' compared to the rest of the animal kingdom. I think I misunderstood and took your statement as comparing kings and the social class known as 'nobility' to that of other human beings or 'common people', not compared to other non-humans or animals. However, to reduce everything down to black and white or good and bad, might be a case of over-simplifying in order to create and apply a contrast that may not necessarily be appropriately applied. Defining murder as 'un-noble' and spirituality as 'noble' in order to create a good/bad contrast scenario seems inappropriate to me because they are not true opposites or antonyms.

The antonyms listed for the verb 'murder' or 'kill' are 'save', 'protect', 'guard', etc., whereas there is no verb for 'spirituality' or 'spiritual' and its antonyms are 'bodily', 'irreligious', 'irreverent', 'physical', etc. And the antonyms listed for 'noble' are 'lowborn' and 'base'.

I just honestly don't think it's a good idea to be too absolutist in our thinking at present and if we must, then I choose to err on the newest and more positive, noble side of the Baha'i teachings on this issue. Perhaps instead of a black/white contrasts like good/bad we should think in more relative and progressive terms like ignorant/knowledgeable and good/better/best, recognizing the journey from the darkness of ignorance to the light of knowledge is one of achieving progressively higher levels of understanding or consciousness as though we were progressing through grades in school. We would not expect a 3rd grade student to grasp the mathematical concepts of calculus, but the much more mature student of calculus should be able to understand and even teach the 3rd grader what they need to learn to successfully achieve their next grade level.

Yes, there are poor or bad parents, some are simply ignorant because they never learned any parenting skills and some know better but choose self-centered convenience over parental responsibility. And parents who don't agree with certain tenets of the Baha'i faith are not necessarily bad parents either. They might not believe as we do regarding partisan politics for instance, and our differing beliefs on this will not make make either of us a better or worse parent - so there's no problem. But if the topic of discussion is parenting and they believe in the tenet of 'spare the rod and spoil the child' it certainly does affect parenting and as Baha'is we have a certain obligation to stand up and speak out - not to necessarily promote the superiority of our Baha'i tenet but to protect the child.

It's all well and good that many Catholics and other Christians believe in salvation through goods deeds, we certainly don't disagree with that as Baha'is, but that doesn't change the fact that the concept of 'Original Sin' is still 'officially on the books' of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, is it not? Baha'u'llah simply 'officially took it off the books' and this is why we maintain that man is born potentially noble and should be not be regarded as 'inherently bad' but as a potential mine full of gems. Granted, it's only a 'different starting point' in achieving our parental goals but I think it's an important one. And if the 'differing details' you're referring to is the belief it's permissible to 'strike and vilify' your children rather than just differing perspectives on home-schooling vs public/private schools, as Bahais, we're likely going to try and use every permissible means at our disposal, be it theological debate, scientific evidence, or just logical reasoning, to try and bring you over to our way of thinking rather than seeking to find common ground with the principle of corporal punishment for children. And if that doesn't work and I'm seeing odd bruises and scars on your kids, I'm likely going to call Childrens Aid or the police and ask them to investigate. That 'starting point' and those 'details' seem very important to me. That's why double-blind studies and consideration of the placebo effect are both important in determining the effectiveness of a new drug or other treatment modality.

The Baha'i teachings replacing the concept of 'Original Sin' with the concept of 'a mine rich in gems and in need of education' are not for the benefit of those who have already abandoned 'spare the rod and spoil the child' or the idea that if you die without the rituals of baptism, confession, and holy communion you go to Hell, but rather for the benefit of those who have not yet abandoned this immature and archaic concept of both God and ourselves.

LarryK32

Actually, I don't think Muslims believe in Original Sin, either. I may be wrong but I think they believe that God forgave Adam and Eve for eating the fruit.

Boethiah

I see your point and it is true. Morality can be a very relative thing, and it exist in different forms.
I used those as examples. When I needed to think of an attribute that was viewed as immoral to contrast with spirituality, I chose murder. Just to illustrate what I was saying.
This is an excellent point. Mankind has grown progressively over time, and in our individual lives we grow and learn.
I can agree with this, no issue.
No problem with this either.
Most definitely. The Baha'i view does solve the issue of the guilt and pain of the Original Sin doctrine.

I understand where you are coming from now. :wink

whine of astonsihment

Ahhhh ... common ground! Isn't it lovely? Now we can roll out a blanket and have a picnic!:wink

whine of astonsihment

I think you're probably right on that Larry.
I confess (yikes!) I'm not too knowledge about many details of Islam.:huh
It's all I can do to absorb the many aspects of Baha'u'llah's Revelation in the short time I have left - thanks to my late start. :unsure

Orthodox

I should point out original sin is not a belief held by all Christians, the Orthodox and other protestant groups believe in Ancestral sin, not original sin.