A Christian becomes a nonbeliever

[setarcos]

It's a conclusion from observation.
You can call it a claim if you wish.

If the conclusion is contested then it remains a claim.
Why are you so averse to calling it a claim?

The fact is that if there actually were evidence, then after thousands of years of theists claiming there is evidence, that evidence would have been common knowledge by now.

It pretty nearly is common knowledge. Its just contested knowledge.

In the same way, I can say that there is no loch ness monster

Consider this, and I concur with you - that there is probably no large "prehistoric" like animal in the loch today - if someone took a fairly clear picture today of a large unidentified phenomena in the loch showing the characteristics of having intelligent movement you would automatically color your conclusions of what it is by your past experience and presumptions. That is that it is not a large living creature but a floating log, a submarine, a misidentified boat of some sort - in the absents of supporting evidence, anything but a large living creature. Most probably even coloring supporting evidence as discardable for one reason or another. This is confirmation bias and its been the culprit of many a missed opportunity of discovery in my opinion. And everyone is subject to this logical fallacy.
The fact of the matter is though is that there has been and is still recently unidentified phenomena happening within the lock on occasion. Intriguing enough phenomena that it has kept reputable scientists throughout the years continuously studying such possibilities as unknown natural phenomena or large unknown species somehow living or occasionally appearing within these bodies of water.
I guess my point is that every once in a while possibilities arise out of nowhere and nip us in the mental butt. Especially when we've fenced in our minds with certainty.
Peace be upon you always...you spaghetti topped, meaty ball head.

 

[Trailblazer]

You presented claims.

I presented evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

You said atheists aren't able to understand the supposed evidence and as support for that claim you said that atheists are a minority.

That is absolutely an argumentum ad populum.

That is absolutely NOT an argumentum ad populum.
Absolutely NOT. You are taking what I actually said and creating a straw man.

I did not say that God exists is true because many or most people believe in God, so it IS NOT ad populum.

the fallacy of argumentum ad populum

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

I presented evidence.

Words, either typed, written or spoken is not the same kind of evidence as physically showing someone through actions evidence. I disagree with the skeptics here that invalid evidence cannot be evidence, it definitely still can be, and scripture is a way for someone to point to something as infallible evidence. However, there are only a few thousand books deemed what is scripture, compared to hundreds of thousands of books that also empirically tell truths in non-fiction. Hell, even popular fictional books often have good, compelling stories, and often use analogies and metaphors to get their points across. My point is, what isn't important isn't the books themselves but understanding the conditions and reasons why they were being written. Your prophet, Baha'u'llah, intimately uses his background of Islam and ultimately rejects or alters many of the laws of Sharia Law when he wrote Aqdas, or the book of laws, the Baha'i most holy book.

To understand the background which Baha'u'llah addresses his audience and the reader allows us to understand not just what he wrote, but why he wrote it, which is fundamentally more important than just reading a book. I was captivated by Baha'u'llah not just from his words but also understanding his life, his background, and how someone who was essentially in exile much of his life ended up creating a world religion is renowned by itself and breathtaking. Baha'u'llah captures the essence of a human spirit and accelerates it though deep and mutual understanding of God and the divine. I am more interested in reading about the history of the Baha'i Faith than I am actually reading Baha'i scripture. It is unique and special and even divine to create a religion of millions of followers, no matter what the skeptics say.

Yes, I have disagreements with the Baha'i Faith. But most of those disagreements are in such that I still understand the motive, the reason behind doing things a certain way. And I also understand now why Iran and other Islamic countries outlaw the Baha'i Faith as a view of apostacy and political motivation, as the Baha'i Faith is essentially an extremely progressive version of Islam, similar to how Unitarian Universalism broke off of Christianity. It's ironic that the same apostacy Muslims declare Baha'is for committing is the same when non-orthodox Baha'is talk about divisions of the religion, and are often silenced by those looking to what they call "unify" the Baha'i Faith. The Baha'i Faith is apostacy from Islam, so the unity they were looking to create by establishing a religion emphasizing this was ultimately in vein, and if I recall correctly, every descendent of Baha'u'llah that is still alive has gone back to Islam instead of practicing his religion. There are over two billion Muslims in the world and just over five million Baha'is. Obviously Baha'u'llah didn't do something right when he was attempting to explain his evidence to non-believers.

 

[Trailblazer]

If your bliefs are based on good evidence, and theists follow evidence, then why aren't other believers being convinced by what you offer? You accuse atheists of being blind, so what about other believers that reject Baha'i? Are they blind too? Shouldn't they be the easiest to covert?

Baha'is are not trying to convert anyone.
I already told you the reasons that most people don't become Baha'is. If you were really a critical thinker, without biases, you would be able to figure this out yourself.

Below are the seven reasons why more people have not become Baha'is yet. Reason #4 is why other believers reject the Baha'i Faith.

1. Many people have never heard of Baha’u’llah, so they do not know there is something to look for. It is the responsibility of the Baha’is to get the message out, so if that is not happening, the Baha’is are to blame. However, once the message has been delivered the Baha’is are not to blame if people reject the message.

2. But even after people know about Baha’u’llah, most people are not even willing to look the evidence in order to determine if He was a Messenger of God or not.

3. Even if they are willing to look at the evidence, there is a lot of prejudice before even getting out the door to look at the evidence.

4. 84% of people in the world already have a religion and they are happy with their religion so they have no interest in a “new religion” or a new Messenger of God.

5. The rest of the world’s population is agnostics or atheists or believers who are prejudiced against all religion.

6. Agnostics or atheists and atheists and believers who have no religion either do not believe that God communicates via Messengers or they find fault with the Messenger, Baha’u’llah.

7. Baha’u’llah brought new teachings and laws that are very different from the older religions so many people are suspicious of those teachings and/or don’t like the laws because some laws require them to give things up that they like doing.

 

[Trailblazer]

Words, either typed, written or spoken is not the same kind of evidence as physically showing someone through actions evidence.

The evidence for Baha'u'llah is primarily His actions. This can be read about in the history of the Baha'i Faith.

God Passes By (1844-1944)
The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4, which cover the 40 years of His Mission, from 1853-1892.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

The evidence for Baha'u'llah is primarily His actions. This can be read about in the history of the Baha'i Faith.

God Passes By (1844-1944)
The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4, which cover the 40 years of His Mission, from 1853-1892.

I get that Trailblazer, but there is a huge difference between someone doing those actions right in front of you rather than reading about the actions someone performed in a book. People are more likely to believe what they can experience candidly rather than reading about those actions from books designed to persuade someone to think a certain way. When people start writing about people they don't personally know they can embellish the truth with many enhancements that make it seem more important than it actually is, like the legend of Jesus, his immaculate conception, and resurrection into Heaven. Many religious scriptures were written much later than when the events took place.

 

[Trailblazer]

You left out the most important one. Baha'u'llah's claim of being a messenger of a deity doesn't convince many.

Why would that be important? It is not important at all.
That is logically fallacious since how many people are convinced has nothing to do with what is actually true.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so." Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

The converse of this is that if many or most people do not believe it, it cannot be so, and that is fallacious.

Matthew 7:13-14 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

There are reasons why few people find it.

If you really were a critical thinker you would know why few people find the narrow gate and even fewer people enter through it, because it is narrow, so it is difficult to get through... but your bias prevents you from realizing that.

It is difficult to get through because one has to be willing to give up all their preconceived ideas, have an open mind, and think for themselves. Most people do not embark upon such a journey. They go through the wide gate, the easy one to get through – their own religious tradition or their own preconceived ideas about God or no god. They follow that broad road that is easiest for them to travel.... and that is why the NEW religion is always rejected by most people for a very long time after it has been revealed.

 

[Trailblazer]

I get that Trailblazer, but there is a huge difference between someone doing those actions right in front of you rather than reading about the actions someone performed in a book.

That's true, but it is logically impossible for Baha'u'llah to do those in front of people so we have no choice but to read about it in a book.

 

[setarcos]

I got a bit lost here. How did you go from "We need the concept of an imperfect sphere to define a perfect sphere" to "Therefore cancer, specifically, exists"?

Human beings identify and define things in comparative relation to other things. Say we have our first experience of a ball. We identify the balls unique characteristics in comparison to what is not a ball through that experience.

In theory we may define what a perfect ball would be like but only in comparison to what theoretically characteristics we conceive of that ball would have to meet in order to be considered as such in differentiation to what we consider not to have ball like characteristics.

So human beings can have imperfect experiences and imperfectly theorize about what would make that experience perfect. Our theorizing cannot actualize in reality that perfection though.

It is arguable that a finite being could not recognize the experience of perfection let alone properly define it since it may very well take a perfect being to recognize perfection.
That is why we can theorize about Gods qualities but never recognize the experience of its perfection and may only imperfectly define that perfection.

Our conception of God however defines his being as such that its "thoughts" is reality.

Next we should understand that perfection must have the quality of possibility in reality since any theoretically impossible thing would lack a quality of possible realistic perfection. Impossibility renders perfection non existent.

Humans may conceive of a creation which lacks those characteristics of what we would consider as "evil", such as misery, heartache, pain, loneliness, cancer, basically any kind of suffering - mental or physical, and perhaps a lack of dying would be included in our conception of a perfect creation -immortality. But why stop there, we could go beyond what makes us human and make perfect intelligence, omnipresence, and omnipotence as well for ourselves in our quest for a perfect creation...just like we conceive of Gods qualities.

I'm sure we could keep adding but when would we finally have a perfect creation? When could we finally say - this is a perfect creation. We'd have to be a perfect being to know wouldn't we? Not just a perfect human but beyond human perfection since human perfection does not entail being omnipresent, omnipotent, or omniscient.
We'd have to be God wouldn't we.

So how is it that human beings can so readily conceptualize what a perfect creation would be like? They can't. They can only imperfectly conceive of an imperfect creation which they can't recognize as imperfect. Its imperfection is not so readily apparent since humans can't actualize their conceptions. Actualizing in reality and conceiving are not synonymous in humans. So theorizing perfection and the possibility of that perfection actualizing in reality are not so easily recognized by humans.

Remember, possibility is a necessary component of perfection.

Remember God's - as defined- conceiving and its actualization in reality are synonymous. Unlike in humans. What God conceives is reality and is why God cannot conceive of perfection without the possibility of imperfection. Good without evil. The one defines the reality of the other.
Even God is constrained by what is possible and not contradictory. God cannot create other Gods. God cannot un-create itself. God cannot lie. God cannot create the impossible. God in essence cannot actualize in reality, and consequently in its will, contradiction.
Why does cancer exist? Because, in a perfectly just creation it must be a possibility.
Why is God still good when evil exists in creation? Because God enables that perfect justice out of inevitably possible evil actualizations.

 

[Koldo]

Human beings identify and define things in comparative relation to other things. Say we have our first experience of a ball. We identify the balls unique characteristics in comparison to what is not a ball through that experience.

In theory we may define what a perfect ball would be like but only in comparison to what theoretically characteristics we conceive of that ball would have to meet in order to be considered as such in differentiation to what we consider not to have ball like characteristics.

So human beings can have imperfect experiences and imperfectly theorize about what would make that experience perfect. Our theorizing cannot actualize in reality that perfection though.

It is arguable that a finite being could not recognize the experience of perfection let alone properly define it since it may very well take a perfect being to recognize perfection.
That is why we can theorize about Gods qualities but never recognize the experience of its perfection and may only imperfectly define that perfection.

Our conception of God however defines his being as such that its "thoughts" is reality.

I must stop you right here to say that this is your conception of God. Not mine, nor anyone else I know. I mean, I have certainly heard this concept before but it is extremely rare one to come across someone that believes in that. I am not saying this to discredit what you are bringing to the table, by the way. Just pointing this out because I see it as worthy of a mention. But let's proceed this conversation with your conception of God.

Next we should understand that perfection must have the quality of possibility in reality since any theoretically impossible thing would lack a quality of possible realistic perfection. Impossibility renders perfection non existent.

Humans may conceive of a creation which lacks those characteristics of what we would consider as "evil", such as misery, heartache, pain, loneliness, cancer, basically any kind of suffering - mental or physical, and perhaps a lack of dying would be included in our conception of a perfect creation -immortality. But why stop there, we could go beyond what makes us human and make perfect intelligence, omnipresence, and omnipotence as well for ourselves in our quest for a perfect creation...just like we conceive of Gods qualities.

I'm sure we could keep adding but when would we finally have a perfect creation? When could we finally say - this is a perfect creation. We'd have to be a perfect being to know wouldn't we? Not just a perfect human but beyond human perfection since human perfection does not entail being omnipresent, omnipotent, or omniscient.
We'd have to be God wouldn't we.

Nobody is questioning why we are not absolutely perfect, also known as God on this case. I am saying this because what you are eventually going to say (I have read the rest of your post) is that God can't create other Gods for that would not possible or contradictory. If you can show anyone stating that God should have created everyone else as Gods on this topic, I will take my words back. While creating another Gods could be impossible (and that is not necessarily the case for there is room to debate over that too, but I am going to accept this because I have no reason to reject it), this doesn't entail that creating beings that don't suffer from evil would also be contradictory. Not being able to do the 'most' doesn't entail not being able to do the 'least', do you get what I am saying?

So how is it that human beings can so readily conceptualize what a perfect creation would be like? They can't. They can only imperfectly conceive of an imperfect creation which they can't recognize as imperfect. Its imperfection is not so readily apparent since humans can't actualize their conceptions. Actualizing in reality and conceiving are not synonymous in humans. So theorizing perfection and the possibility of that perfection actualizing in reality are not so easily recognized by humans.

Remember, possibility is a necessary component of perfection.

Remember God's - as defined- conceiving and its actualization in reality are synonymous. Unlike in humans. What God conceives is reality and is why God cannot conceive of perfection without the possibility of imperfection. Good without evil. The one defines the reality of the other.

Now you lost me. You mentioned that possibility is a necessary component of perfection. I take it you mean logical possibility, right?
I can agree with that. But why must the possibility of imperfection be actualized?
For instance, why must suffering be possible in our world? The absence of suffering itself requires the absence of suffering, not it's presence.
Are you suggesting that every single possibility of imperfection is being actualized?

Even God is constrained by what is possible and not contradictory. God cannot create other Gods. God cannot un-create itself. God cannot lie. God cannot create the impossible. God in essence cannot actualize in reality, and consequently in its will, contradiction.
Why does cancer exist? Because, in a perfectly just creation it must be a possibility.

You have not explained why cancer specifically must be a possibility in a perfectly just creation.

Why is God still good when evil exists in creation? Because God enables that perfect justice out of inevitably possible evil actualizations.

There are multiple ways to continue this conversation from this sentence alone, but I don't want to get side-tracked, so I will focus on what I have already said so far.

 

[CG Didymus]

Words, either typed, written or spoken is not the same kind of evidence as physically showing someone through actions evidence. I disagree with the skeptics here that invalid evidence cannot be evidence, it definitely still can be, and scripture is a way for someone to point to something as infallible evidence. However, there are only a few thousand books deemed what is scripture, compared to hundreds of thousands of books that also empirically tell truths in non-fiction. Hell, even popular fictional books often have good, compelling stories, and often use analogies and metaphors to get their points across. My point is, what isn't important isn't the books themselves but understanding the conditions and reasons why they were being written. Your prophet, Baha'u'llah, intimately uses his background of Islam and ultimately rejects or alters many of the laws of Sharia Law when he wrote Aqdas, or the book of laws, the Baha'i most holy book.

To understand the background which Baha'u'llah addresses his audience and the reader allows us to understand not just what he wrote, but why he wrote it, which is fundamentally more important than just reading a book. I was captivated by Baha'u'llah not just from his words but also understanding his life, his background, and how someone who was essentially in exile much of his life ended up creating a world religion is renowned by itself and breathtaking. Baha'u'llah captures the essence of a human spirit and accelerates it though deep and mutual understanding of God and the divine. I am more interested in reading about the history of the Baha'i Faith than I am actually reading Baha'i scripture. It is unique and special and even divine to create a religion of millions of followers, no matter what the skeptics say.

Yes, I have disagreements with the Baha'i Faith. But most of those disagreements are in such that I still understand the motive, the reason behind doing things a certain way. And I also understand now why Iran and other Islamic countries outlaw the Baha'i Faith as a view of apostacy and political motivation, as the Baha'i Faith is essentially an extremely progressive version of Islam, similar to how Unitarian Universalism broke off of Christianity. It's ironic that the same apostacy Muslims declare Baha'is for committing is the same when non-orthodox Baha'is talk about divisions of the religion, and are often silenced by those looking to what they call "unify" the Baha'i Faith. The Baha'i Faith is apostacy from Islam, so the unity they were looking to create by establishing a religion emphasizing this was ultimately in vein, and if I recall correctly, every descendent of Baha'u'llah that is still alive has gone back to Islam instead of practicing his religion. There are over two billion Muslims in the world and just over five million Baha'is. Obviously Baha'u'llah didn't do something right when he was attempting to explain his evidence to non-believers.

I'm wondering how there can be world-wide peace and unity unless a large majority of the people in the world believe in Baha'u'llah and his teachings and become Baha'is. But then I'm not so sure the Baha'i administrative order will really work. It depends too much on the leaders being honest, just and not letting themselves become corrupted by power.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

I'm wondering how there can be world-wide peace and unity unless a large majority of the people in the world believe in Baha'u'llah and his teachings and become Baha'is. But then I'm not so sure the Baha'i administrative order will really work. It depends too much on the leaders being honest, just and not letting themselves become corrupted by power.

Unlike the Baha'is I don't believe that the unity of God is synonymous with the unity of sovereignty. Unity simply means that every nation respects each other's sovereignty. Free trade is a prime example of what unity is. In fact, in Penn and Teller's episode of BS, they explained at the end of their world peace episode that it can be achieved with free trade and a global economy. When nations realize and recognize the sovereignty of other nations, and try not to enter wars to dismantle their sovereignty for better or for worse, this is where the unity of nations come. The Baha'is were looking to do something similar but instead of unifying nations they wanted to unify religions and recognize all religions, whether monotheistic or not, as coming from the same source, the same God. However, the unity that I am interested in is not that, I am more interested in sovereign unity instead. I do believe in one God, which I simply call reality, but the ideas and term of God is so ambiguous now days that there will never be one unified concept of it. Fortunately.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Why would that be important? It is not important at all. That is logically fallacious since how many people are convinced has nothing to do with what is actually true.

You wrote, "Below are the seven reasons why more people have not recognized Baha’u’llah yet" and I added an eighth, the reason I don't consider your messenger to be more than an ordinary man.

one has to be willing to give up all their preconceived ideas, have an open mind, and think for themselves.

Agreed. I would add becoming adept at critical thought.

If you cannot help but conclude that every discussion concerning God is about proving Gods existence and thereby base all your arguments upon that then you should refrain from debating every argument here with that as a basis with which to begin.

I don't know what that means, but I have little interest in proving or disproving the existence of gods.

This seems to me to be a statement that is no better than simply saying the universe has a purpose if God exists.

I wrote, "The universe has no apparent purpose, nor need it have one." I don't see the statements as equivalent. Maybe a god exists and the universe has no purpose to it.

There is no reason to suppose that a creation must have the ready appearance of its creator to itself, that is to its conscience self - humankind for instance.

Agreed. That doesn't change my position that the universe has no apparent purpose, nor need it have one.

What makes you think the universe has no purpose for instance?

I didn't say that.

Why wouldn't it behoove us to know if the universe had a purpose

Would it behoove the microorganisms living in us to know what our purpose is? How about our mitochondria? Right now, mine is writing this post in order to convey ideas in a public forum. Those critters don't need to know that and wouldn't care if they could and did. It's not their purpose that I do that.

Funnily enough in claiming "it's not our purpose" your suggesting that you've thought about it, even as an atheist.

What's odd about that?

Anything without purpose is arid, sterile and stirs nothing within the soul.

Disagree. I find nature stirring even if was created naturalistically and for no purpose.

In essence, we seek purpose in the universe because we are inexorably made to be drawn towards that state. I think, normally, the human mind rebels at meaninglessness.

I don't rebel at the idea that nature may be nobody's idea.

Skeptics and many believers alike mistakenly apply human standards to God.

Did you mean the description the individual theist's god? Of course I'm going to apply my standards there, the first of which is that I have no reason to believe any gods exist.

God is good because it is the only concept which allows for perfect justice in reality.

You don't have that, unless you define justice as whatever happens.

If reality hasn't shown you that that is exactly what some people need then you need to open your eyes.

That was in response to, "If you want to call it good, but I deem it evil, then my choices are to reject your claims or paralyze my conscience and begin accepting that I can't tell good from bad and have to read it from a book." You might be right, but you seem to think I'm one of those people.

Presuming gratuitousness and actually being gratuitous are two quite different things.

I'm satisfied with my ability to make that judgment.

That rejection is based in ignorance perpetuated by well meaning believers and disbelievers who reject any and all answers based upon what they expect of such a God in relation to what they think they know about reality.

None of my opinions are based in the opinions of others about gods.

Atheophobia - vocabulary word of the day. Sadly your right. That just goes to show that religious people are normal human beings just like atheists when it comes to being subject to judging others.

You said earlier, "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil." The Christian Bible teaches that unbelievers offend its god and are immoral. I consider that teaching immoral, and atheistic humanists to be mostly good people. You probably feel the opposite.

Terms like mine? And what terms are those? Theological terms?

These:

• 1) People are mad at having to suffer and/or see others suffer but they can't blame God since in order to do that one has to acknowledge its existence.
• 2) Because of 1) people are mad at those who believe in Gods existence and so they militantly attack those beliefs and condemn those who believe as fools or worse.
• 3) Some people just enjoy criticizing those who believe -regardless of ethics- which because of their finite abilities cannot perfectly transmit why they believe despite not having all the answers.

It doesn't seem to occur to you that people aren't mad at gods and don't care what others believe until it affects them.

You seem to be angry at the thought of God and "evil" existing in the same reality.

And there it is again - I make a dispassionate argument for a tri-omni deity not existing a la Epicurus and you frame it as the angry atheist. Do you know why you think that way about me? I think I do. I assume it's Abrahamic religion, which is responsible for most atheophobic and homophobic thinking in the West, both groups marginalized and demonized by religions that teach that such people are abominations in the eyes of a good god. Other humanists never describe me like you did. Nor do the polytheists.

 

[CG Didymus]

You left out the most important one. Baha'u'llah's claim of being a messenger of a deity doesn't convince many. You write as if it is assumed that if people only saw the message and carefully considered it, that they would be convinced. You've posted uncounted thousands of words of that message. After looking at several of them, I stopped reading them, and I'm sure that I'm not alone. There's nothing there but vague, flowery language calling for piety.

Exactly. And I looked into the alleged "fulfilled" prophecies. And it's not just Bible prophecies, he has to fulfill the prophecies from every major religion. Some aren't too bad but some are. Which led me to ask the Baha'is the question... What prophecies have Krishna, Buddha, Jesus and all the others coming back to restore and fix the world or to even usher in a Golden Age or God's kingdom on Earth... and they get rejected, thrown in jail, and get exiled?

Plus, how many Bible prophecies have four Messiahs coming? Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah. It's bad enough that Christians believe the Messiah will come twice, the first time he gets rejected but the second time he conquers Satan and all the evil doers.

But the worst is how the Baha'is handle criticism. Much the same as Fundy Christians.

 

[CG Didymus]

You wrote, "Below are the seven reasons why more people have not recognized Baha’u’llah yet" and I added an eighth, the reason I don't consider your messenger to be more than an ordinary man.

That's another good point. The Baha'i claim is that he isn't an ordinary man... that he is a "manifestation" of God, a perfectly polished mirror that reflects God. Trouble is, they add more people to the list of who were manifestations. In some lists I've seen Adam and Noah are included. As if they were real, historical people, but in the stories about them they weren't "perfect". They were very ordinary. But, I think, so was Abraham and even Moses. And they too weren't perfect. And Judaism nor Christianity makes them out to be anything special like the Baha'i concept of a "manifestation."

But, as far as I know, Baha'u'llah didn't include Krishna or Buddha as being manifestations. They were a later addition by his son, Abdul Baha. But with Krishna, I keep asking Baha'is about the other incarnations of the God Vishnu. Why include Krishna and not mention the others? I think it is just them doing the minimum to include someone from all the major religions. But then again, I don't understand why they include so many from Judaism.

 

[Trailblazer]

Sure, if we look at that verse in isolation, one could reach the conclusion that it is not what it means. But if we take the promise given in Revelation into account, I don't see how it would not have to hold true.

Revelation 21:1-8
1 - Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.
2 - And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3 - And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.
4 - He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”
5 - And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” Also he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.”
6 - And he said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment.
7 - The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his God and he will be my son.
8 - But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

If there is no mourning, nor pain, nor crying in this new heaven on Earth, then you can't have animals running around eating each other as they do. One could get their pet eaten or killed which would result in pain.

Do you really believe those verses in Revelation 21:1-8 are to be interpreted literally? I sure don't. I believe they are figurative.
Baha'is believe that the new heaven and the new earth is the new world order Baha'u'llah wrote about.

Toward a New World Order?

“Beseech ye the one true God to grant that all men may be graciously assisted to fulfil that which is acceptable in Our sight. Soon will the present-day order be rolled up, and a new one spread out in its stead. Verily, thy Lord speaketh the truth, and is the Knower of things unseen.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 7​

​

“The world’s equilibrium hath been upset through the vibrating influence of this most great, this new World Order. Mankind’s ordered life hath been revolutionized through the agency of this unique, this wondrous System—the like of which mortal eyes have never witnessed.” Gleanings, p. 136​

​

“By My Self! The day is approaching when We will have rolled up the world and all that is therein, and spread out a new order in its stead. He, verily, is powerful over all things.” Gleanings, p. 313​

I do like 8, that will get rid of a lot of people

Yes, it certainly would, but there is no reason to think that God wants to get rid of any people, let alone in a lake of fire.
There is no lake of fire and that is one reason we know this is figurative, not literal.

Outdated is definitely a word one could use, or one could use the word immoral as well

I cannot argue with that.

That is all good. But try to explain that to people that lost a child during birth. What does it even mean that they will be recompensed, how on Earth could that even remotely work?

We cannot know how they will be recompensed, that is a faith-based belief.

Answer.—These infants are under the shadow of the favor of God; and as they have not committed any sin and are not soiled with the impurities of the world of nature, they are the centers of the manifestation of bounty, and the Eye of Compassion will be turned upon them.

This answer doesn't answer anything, it could just as well be this:

Question.—What is the condition of children who die before attaining the age of discretion or before the appointed time of birth?
Answer.—Don't think about it, it's all good... somehow.

Yes, it could just as well be that.

Sure they are outdated, but I think you are missing the greater point here, it is not remotely important whether that is the case or not. But that God made them and that they are immoral. Doesn't matter, at what time they were made. And even if they are just made up by humans and God had nothing to do with them, it doesn't change the fact that he clearly didn't bother to tell them to correct them and to make sure that they are indeed morally defendable, not even Jesus cared to do it.

TBH, I do not think that God made them, I think they were written by humans. Humans wrote the Old Testament, not God.

 

[Trailblazer]

You wrote, "Below are the seven reasons why more people have not recognized Baha’u’llah yet" and I added an eighth, the reason I don't consider your messenger to be more than an ordinary man.

The eighth reason you added is that not many people are convinced about the Baha'i Faith?
How many people are convinced has nothing to do with what is actually true. That is ad populum, so it is logically fallacious.

 

[CG Didymus]

Agreed. I would add becoming adept at critical thought.

Hmmm? Have an open mind with no preconceived ideas and think for oneself? Yeah, let's do that and first look at the Baha'i concept of God. What should I examine to find something that can convince that their concept is the one true one? What are the reasons that I should reject the Christian one or the Jewish one or the Hindu one? Ah, because Baha'u'llah, a person who knows the truth, says why those others are wrong and he alone is right.

Or wait, what if I look at the Christian evidence that has God as being a Trinity? Or the evidence from a Hindu sect that believes there are many Gods? Hmmm? So let me look at this without any bias. Okay, I know they all say that what they believe is true, but is there any more evidence? Anything more tangible and objective? Oh, okay Baha'is have looked at it critically, and have studied the evidence, and they say I can trust their guy.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

Do you really believe those verses in Revelation 21:1-8 are to be interpreted literally? I sure don't. I believe they are figurative.

I'm sorry Trailblazer but if you believe that all the religious scriptures except Baha'u'llah's (or maybe his too I don't know) are figurative, you can come up with any conclusion you want in prophecy, God, the afterlife, etc. A practicing Christian typically believes the Bible is literal. And pretty much every other religion's scripture, according to that religion, is not meant to be taken figuratively. I could say that I take Harry Potter figuratively too. Does that change anything? Not really.