Are Baha’u’llah’s prophecies coming true?

[Trailblazer]

Clearly others disagree.

Why would that matter?

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

How do you know I think I know what's going on inside your head, unless you know what's going on inside my head? Gasp! You are being arrogant!

Straw man. I never told you what was going in inside your head, NOT EVER.
I only know what you actually write and THAT is what I am responding to.
What you do is take what I write and tell me what is going on inside my head. That is arrogant.

Ask yourself why you have such a NEED to analyze me. You are not hurting me, you only hurt yourself. I know what my faults are because I look for them constantly. I also know what they aren't and they aren't what you say they are.

And how.

Prove it or retract it.

Thank you for illustrating my point so ably.

Typical atheist deflection.
No, you are not going to get off this easy. You did not prove that I am illogical. I am still waiting for that proof.
Claiming someone is illogical is not proof they are illogical, not anymore than Baha'u'llah claiming He was a Messenger of God is proof that He was a Messenger of God.
Logic 101.

 

[Trailblazer]

Not really. It is not in the Bahai Dir. So, anyone can participate and discuss. As you can see in that thread, some challenged, and tried to refute Bahaullah"s claim about the Book. So, no, it is not comfined to believers in Bahaullah or Iqan.

I saw that OP. The Iqan in the BRL is 257 pages, not 60 pages.
I love what is on page 256-257 and I hope God does exactly what Baha'u'llah says He will do. That's called justice.

"We perceive none, however, amongst the people of the earth who, sincerely yearning for the Truth, seeketh the guidance of the divine Manifestations concerning the abstruse matters of his Faith. All are dwellers in the land of oblivion, and all are followers of the people of wickedness and rebellion. God will verily do unto them that which they themselves are doing, and will forget them even as they have ignored His Presence in His day. Such is His decree unto those that have denied Him, and such will it be unto them that have rejected His signs."
The Kitáb-i-Íqán, p. 256-257

 

[ppp]

Bahaullah according to history did not have any education in religion. He was born in a noble family, that was not educated in any religion.
Yet, He wrote Book of Iqan in only two days.

I am not getting why this is supposed to be significant. Considering his station and the time and place in which he lived, he was far more educated about religion than I am. He was multilingual which means that his primary texts were religious and probably Greek and Arabic philosophy.

It means, that if you pick up any teaching from any previous Holy Books, such as Bible, Quran, Hinduism or Buddhism scriptures,... it is found in the Book of Iqan, in a condensed form.

Since religion is an attempt to relate human life to a greater philosophical meaning I would be very very surprised if there was not a commonality of themes between all the human religions. It's just a matter of practically. Like familial relations and house shapes our cultures and religions differ in details, but the themes and categories remain the same throughout our species.

What would be remarkable is if his ideas encompassed extra terrestrial religions. Assume that there is such a thing. But even that would not be a demonstration that any gods exist.

 

[ppp]

Why would that matter?

Look, @Trailblazer you didn't even know the difference between valid and sound until last month. And I am still not convinced you get it even now. Yesterday you thought you believed that there are things that are not bound by logic. And hell, you might still, despite the fact that you denied rejecting the absolute propositions that bound logic a few hours later. The reason that we don't believe that you understand what logical thought is is because you keep flubbing it then insisting that you are correct.

 

[Aupmanyav]

No, I am claiming that the Old Testament is not the claims of any deity. It is human anthropomorphism about a deity. No deity was involved in writing the OT or the NT for that matter. They are the writings of fallible men.

What is the proof that your Iranian is infallible or for existence of God or that God chose him to he his messenger? He was only establishing a family enterprise in countries where people believed in Imams and Mahdis (Shia Islam)? In the same way Ismailies, Dawoodis, Ahmadiyyas established their familial enterprises. The difference is that the Iranian's line petered out with his great grandson.

 

[rational experiences]

The warning to humanity is exact. If you believe an order by the falling star is humanities saviour and you follow its teachings all the human living world will die by a new order that unfolds against God.

Gods heavenly order is fixed and holy.

The meaning holy.

Every evolution is only cooling by the gods saviour terms is ice.

Ice keeps gases cooled to be the correct order of gases.

Ice keeps water cool as water can become hot.

Hot heavenly water would scald us to death.

We never owned any new world order. As God was exact.

Only star fall is a variable by body mass not a God.

O the moon the holy God O star.

God O.

The star hit Russia changed the mind of men instantly. Nuclear converting introduced. Man now copying the advice possessed.

The new world order theme had always been about one order on earth....man's by national.

As each nation God separated it goes against God teachings of relativity.

As DNA is each one nation by Multi nations.

If men tried to own earth as one nationality it would mean what God had caused man wants changed.

To infer one human rule is for current DNA to be eradicated to only express one type of being beginning again.

So basic human life gone. Animals maybe just a few basic same animal types only. Nature would be eradicated of trees bushes as base ground life would be similar.

Hence when a human began star advice on thesis it owns a review what is the new man of science thesis writing as Satan's body returned?

As gods origin life was no theist. No science. Father man holy mother human holy babies holy.

Man proved mind disturbed his thesis one human baby only. As holy.

 

[rational experiences]

Scientist fights religious science you are wrong hence I am wrong too..
we must convince ourselves by the behaviour human assessment.

 

[Aupmanyav]

God will verily do unto them that which they themselves are doing, and will forget them even as they have ignored His Presence in His day.

Who cares about your God and his manifestation except Bahais? Your God is welcome to forget us, we do not give two hoots for it.

You did not prove that I am illogical.

You are logical only to Bahais and not to any other people. You are illogical to others because you have accepted that you do not have any proof of existence of God or that this God chose the Iranian to be his messenger other than his own words. The problem is the different definition of being logical.

 

[Trailblazer]

Look, @Trailblazer you didn't even know the difference between valid and sound until last month. And I am still not convinced you get it even now.

And here you are telling me what I know again.
That is a straw man. I know the difference. I know that an argument is not necessarily sound just because it is valid.

Yesterday you thought you believed that there are things that are not bound by logic.

There are things that are not bound by logic. I have never changed my position on that.
Unknowable things are not bound by logic. God is not bound by logic, the human soul is not bound by logic and the spiritual world is not bound by logic.

And hell, you might still, despite the fact that you denied rejecting the absolute propositions that bound logic a few hours later.

I never said that nothing is bound by logic. That is just you projected onto me because if how I answered your post.

The reason that we don't believe that you understand what logical thought is is because you keep flubbing it then insisting that you are correct.

The reason that I don't believe that you understand what logical thought is is because you atheists deep flubbing it then insisting that you are correct but I catch it every time and point out which fallacy has been committed.

 

[ppp]

And here you are telling me what I know again.

Yes. When you say false things about a subject and claim that your words are true, then you do not know that subject, That is just the way it is. If all you are going to do is to try to spin it otherwise, then you have nothing to say that is worth my time.

 

[Trailblazer]

Who cares about your God and his manifestation except Baha'is? Your God is welcome to forget us, we do not give two hoots for it.

Did I say that any atheists cared? Obviously they don't care, because if they cared they would do something to show they care.

You are logical only to Bahais and not to any other people.

You are illogical to others because you have accepted that you do not have any proof of existence of God or that this God chose the Iranian to be his messenger other than his own words. The problem is the different definition of being logical.

Not having any proof that God exists is not illogical. It is just something atheists don't like, but that is just too bad because God chooses not to prove that He exists. That is why there is no proof, because God is the only one who could prove that He exists. I am not the one who is illogical. The atheists who cannot figure this out are the ones who are illogical.

No, it is not only Baha'u'llah's own words that we have because it would be illogical to believe based upon a claim. It is the other evidence that supports His claim that show who He was.

A person is either logical or not. Thus far nobody has been able to point out any logical fallacies I have committed but I have pointed out numerous logical fallacies atheists have committed.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

What is the proof that your Iranian is infallible or for existence of God or that God chose him to he his messenger? He was only establishing a family enterprise in countries where people believed in Imams and Mahdis (Shia Islam)? In the same way Ismailies, Dawoodis, Ahmadiyyas established their familial enterprises. The difference is that the Iranian's line petered out with his great grandson.

Proof?

The Baháʼí Faith - Home

Bahá’í Reference Library | The Bahá’í Faith



Also Isaiah 35:2 Tells us that

"It shall blossom abundantly, and rejoice even with joy and singing: the glory of Lebanon shall be given unto it, the excellency of Carmel and Sharon, they shall see the glory of the LORD, and the excellency of our God."

It is the exact opposite of petering out.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes. When you say false things about a subject and claim that your words are true, then you do not know that subject, That is just the way it is. If all you are going to do is to try to spin it otherwise, then you have nothing to say that is worth my time.

What false things did I say about what subject? If you think that things that cannot be known are subject to logic you are the one who does not know anything about logic.

Fine, if I am not worth your time then please leave me alone.

Happy trails, again.

 

[ppp]

And here you are telling me what I know again.
That is a straw man.

First, I'm not telling you what you know. I'm telling you what you incorrectly claim to be true. Maybe you really understand that it's not true and you are merely pretending. Either way, I can only go by what you say. What you might actually think is not my problem. But I'm going to assume that you're not lying.

Second, saying that what you claim to be true is actually false is not a straw man. Get your fallacies correct please.

 

[ppp]

What false things did I say about what subject?

I already told you an explicit detail. I'm not insisting what you believe me. But at the very least you can recognize a statement on the subject you're asking about when you see it.

 

[Trailblazer]

First, I'm not telling you what you know. I'm telling you what you incorrectly claim to be true. Maybe you really understand that it's not true and you are merely pretending.

Yet you cannot tell me what it is that you think I incorrectly claim to be true.
It's called communication.
What is "it?"

 

[Trailblazer]

I already told you an explicit detail.

You did not tell me jack squat.

But at the very least you can recognize a statement on the subject you're asking about when you see it.

What subject?

 

[ppp]

You did not tell me jack squat.

What subject?

Remember your earlier post when you said you lost track of the conversation? Well you probably don't remember. But it's happened again.

 

[CG Didymus]

Simply, No, once cut off they are no longer part of the tree and are in the process of death, not growth.

Regards Tony

And some Christians feel that way about JW's or Mormons. The point is some people have started what they believe to be the true Baha'is. So, even though small, they are still a sect.

 

[CG Didymus]

I don't want to say they don't have enough members to be called sects. But I leave that Judgement to you.
All other religions had several sects within 150 years after their beginning.
Do you know why they did have sects after their founder passed, and why the Bahai scriptures say, this will not happen in Bahai Faith?

But people did break away after each leader died. There were divisions. And it sounds like there wasn't always a smooth transition, especially after Shoghi Effendi died without appointing the next guardian. Baha'is worked it out okay. They elected the UHJ and declared the dissenters covenant breakers. And those other people started their own sect of the Baha'i Faith. So, what is the big deal. They are small and no threat to the main body of Baha'is, but they are there.