An Analysis of an Ancient Religious Quote

[Ostronomos]

“Death proffereth unto every confident believer the cup that is life indeed. It bestoweth joy, and is the bearer of gladness. It conferreth the gift of everlasting life.

As to those that have tasted of the fruit of man’s earthly existence, which is the recognition of the one true God, exalted be His glory, their life hereafter is such as We are unable to describe. The knowledge thereof is with God, alone, the Lord of all worlds.” [Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 345-346


This quote holds knowledge as sacred and exclusive to an omniscient Being. But it is quite clear to me that we exist on a scale to which God assumes the highest rank. Therefore knowledge on a universal level is accessible to he who is of highest genius (like myself while high off weed). As we are but images of God we can aspire to be like the most high in all His glory. But we can never obtain truth on His level.

[Zinjanthropos]

“Death proffereth unto every confident believer the cup that is life indeed. It bestoweth joy, and is the bearer of gladness. It conferreth the gift of everlasting life.

Means the guy who wrote it OD'd on a more potent drug than you've managed to consume so far. Ahead of his time, wise indeed. 

Gray Death: a potent mixture of synthetic opioids. Samples containing heroin, fentanyl and designer drugs are known to be out there. Inject, smoke, snort or gulp it. You can use a cup for the last one. You'll be happier than a pig in shit for a little while at least, and if you weren't paying attention then the everlasting peace you seek will manifest itself. But at least that way you get out of your parent's basement for good. Much gladness for them no doubt.

[Yazata]

This thread would be more fitting in 'religion' than here in the 'philosophy' category.

“Death proffereth unto every confident believer the cup that is life indeed.

So death is life? That sounds like a contradiction on the face of it. The intention seems to me to be to redefine what 'life' and 'death' mean.

These clearly can't be life and death as those are understood by the biological sciences.

It bestoweth joy, and is the bearer of gladness. It conferreth the gift of everlasting life.

I suppose that death might be welcome to somebody who believes in an everlasting heavenly paradise. So it's a little telling how so many people who claim to believe in such a thing struggle so frantically against death, which promises to deliver them to paradise.

(I'll add that one of the really striking things about ISIS fighters and Muslim suicide bombers is that they show by their actions that they really do believe it. They welcome death, which to them is the gateway to a greater existence.)

As to those that have tasted of the fruit of man’s earthly existence, which is the recognition of the one true God, exalted be His glory, their life hereafter is such as We are unable to describe. The knowledge thereof is with God, alone, the Lord of all worlds.” [Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 345-346

This  quote holds knowledge as sacred and exclusive to an omniscient Being.

Even assuming that what the quote says is true, why would such knowledge be exclusive to an omniscient being? It seems to me that anyone who passes through death into this paradisical state would know about it.

And if this knowledge can only be known to an omniscient being, how did Baha'u'llah know about it? He never claimed to be omniscient to my knowledge. In his Islamic-derived scheme, omniscience would be a divine attribute.

And how do you, a being who is clearly not omniscient, know about it? 

But it is quite clear to me that we exist on a scale to which God assumes the highest rank. Therefore knowledge on a universal level is accessible to he who is of highest genius (like myself while high off weed). As we are but images of God we can aspire to be like the most high in all His glory. But we can never obtain truth on His level.

So this whole thread is really about you boasting about your supposed revelations? It gets annoying after a while. Especially when it pretends to be philosophy or logic.

[confused2]

Nirvana - the release we all seek.
Place two slices of bread in the toaster. When done cover with margarine or butter (doesn't matter) then add Marmite. Place the two slices on top of each other (this allows the slices to share virtue) and cut into slivers (aka soldiers). Eat slowly savoring each and every nuance. Aaaah.

[Ostronomos]

Even assuming that what the quote says is true, why would such knowledge be exclusive to an omniscient being? It seems to me that anyone who passes through death into this paradisical state would know about it.

And if this knowledge can only be known to an omniscient being, how did Baha'u'llah know about it? He never claimed to be omniscient to my knowledge. In his Islamic-derived scheme, omniscience would be a divine attribute.

And how do you, a being who is clearly not omniscient, know about it? 

I believe I provided the reason as to the source of my divine revelations (my localized omniscient perspective). Baha'u'llah was certainly not omniscient. However he perceived the divine realm as did a relative few of History's divinely inspired (including myself). Death is a doorway to the divine realm.

[C C]

This thread would be more fitting in 'religion' than here in the 'philosophy' category.

Or the Alternative Theories sub-forum. What spurred the latter's very creation was to provide a place for any specific motley of religion, physics, and ontological speculation to obsessively play itself out over weeks/months/years to its heart's intent without monotonously dominating Logic. Metaphysics & Philosophy and others.

[Yazata]

This thread would be more fitting in 'religion' than here in the 'philosophy' category.

Or the Alternative Theories sub-forum. What spurred the latter's very creation was to provide a place for any specific motley of religion, physics, and ontological speculation to obsessively play itself out over weeks/months/years to its heart's intent without monotonously dominating Logic. Metaphysics & Philosophy and others.

A quote from Baha'u'llah (the founder of the Bahai faith) certainly looks like religion to me, particularly when it's interpreted by Ostro by appeal to what he believes are his own personal revelations. (Ostro seems to be trying to play prophet more than philosopher or scientist.)

I think that alternative theories might be a better home for Christopher Langan's almost incomprehensible ideas. Langan does try to present argument and justification for some of the things he says. (I could actually follow that paper that Ostro posted this morning for a paragraph or two.) Langan's "CTMU" scheme is nothing if it isn't an alternative theory.