Atheist looking for religious debate. Any religion. Let's see if I can be convinced.

[CG Didymus]

No, Baha'u'llah did not claim to unseal the Bible but that is what He did. I am the one who has interpreted what Daniel said to mean that and I have explained why it means that numerous times so I won't explain it again. I do not care one iota if people don't like my interpretation. They are free to have their beliefs or non-beliefs and I will have mine.

I think I have heard other Baha'is try and claim that the whole Bible is sealed. I wonder where they get that from? It almost sounds like something that Bill Sears would say? But you think you thought it up all on your own?

 

[Trailblazer]

But it is an indication how serious the followers of a religion are. And how practical the laws and rules are. If only a few people follow most of the laws, and the majority follow and obey only a few of the laws, then that religion isn't going to do much. And I'm concerned about the leadership of the Baha'i Faith. If they get too strict, that's no good. If they get too loose with the laws, that's no good. And then there is always, how well do the leaders obey the rules?

What other Baha'is do is no concern of mine because I am only responsible for myself. I do not know what other Baha'is do and it is none of my business. I don't care if the leaders obey the rules either because that is none of my business and it is no reflection on me. I am also not concerned about the future and what might happen. I live in the present.

 

[Trailblazer]

But, even though you see him way above ordinary people, he's still a "other people". He is not you. Yet, you listen and trust him. Baha'is probably trust Abdul Baha' and Shoghi Effendi. How about the Hands of the Cause? Or members of the UHJ or how about the NSA, then what about members of your LSA?

The reason we respect the authority of Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi and the UHJ and the other institutions of the Faith is because we are loyal to the Covenant, as ordained by Baha'u'llah.

The Bahá’í Faith began with the mission entrusted by God to two Divine Messengers—the Báb and Bahá’u’lláh. Today, the distinctive unity of the Faith They founded stems from explicit instructions given by Bahá’u’lláh that have assured the continuity of guidance following His passing. This line of succession, referred to as the Covenant, went from Bahá’u’lláh to His Son ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, and then from ‘Abdu’l-Bahá to His grandson, Shoghi Effendi, and the Universal House of Justice, ordained by Bahá’u’lláh. A Bahá’í accepts the divine authority of the Báb and Bahá’u’lláh and of these appointed successors.

Bahá’u’lláh and His Covenant

 

[Trailblazer]

And there is proof. That greatest proof... He said so. Which, I take that to mean that if you read what Baha'u'llah has written and find out what the Baha'i Faith teaches, it should be obvious this guy must be from God.

No, 'He said so' is no proof at all. Baha'u'llah wrote what the greatest proof is.

“He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men can never be known except through His Manifestation, and His Manifestation can adduce no greater proof of the truth of His Mission than the proof of His own Person.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 49

From my perspective if you read what Baha'u'llah has written and find out what the Baha'i Faith teaches, it should be obvious He was from God, but obviously most people do not share my perspective.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

No, Baha'u'llah did not claim to unseal the Bible but that is what He did. I am the one who has interpreted what Daniel said to mean that and I have explained why it means that numerous times so I won't explain it again. I do not care one iota if people don't like my interpretation. They are free to have their beliefs or non-beliefs and I will have mine.

There might not from memory be a specific reference to seaIs, but I have always consideded that Baha'u'llah in many passages, in different words, did offer the meaning is now made clear.

Verses such as this to the Pope no less.

".. The Word which the Son concealed is made manifest. It hath been sent down in the form of the human temple in this day. Blessed be the Lord Who is the Father! He, verily, is come unto the nations in His most great majesty. Turn your faces towards Him, O concourse of the righteous… This is the day whereon the Rock (Peter) crieth out and shouteth, and celebrateth the praise of its Lord, the All-Possessing, the Most High, saying: ‘Lo! The Father is come, and that which ye were promised in the Kingdom is fulfilled!…’ "

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, we already know. The supreme reason is that they are wrong and the Baha'i explanations of apparent contradictions are correct.

No the reason is because people and the world change over time so there are differences between religions, but differences are not contradictions. They only appear to contradict because man corrupted the older religions over time and as such we cannot even see what they taught originally anymore.

Except the "spiritual" teachings are supposed to never change, only the "social" teachings. So when a Hindu says that they have reincarnated, they are wrong. Because the Baha'i Faith says there is no such thing as reincarnation of a soul/spirit into a different human body. Some Christians say that some people, those that believe and follow Jesus, will go to heaven. Those that don't believe in the saving grace of Jesus will be sent to hell. Baha'is say different. Something about the soul progressing through many spiritual worlds of God? Is that right? Anyway, it's different. The Baha'is are right and Christians are wrong.

Those discrepancies are because the needs of people in those times were different at different times in history, they never had original scriptures, and/or the original scriptures and religious beliefs were altered over time. There is a logical explanation for everything.

 

[Trailblazer]

I think I have heard other Baha'is try and claim that the whole Bible is sealed. I wonder where they get that from? It almost sounds like something that Bill Sears would say? But you think you thought it up all on your own?

I never said the whole Bible was sealed. I am saying that Christians did not fully understand the Bible... As Daniel said, we will know more at the time of the end.

4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased

Daniel Chapter 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. 8 And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? 9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

 

[Trailblazer]

So this evidence is not just subjective? Do you have some OBJECTIVE evidence to share with us?

Been there, done that.

All of which is based on the totally unproven assumption that there is an NON-material world.

So you make up a new tool to describe something that can't be shown to exist unless you use this new tool, and this new tool gives different results when it is used by different people...

... and yet you expect me to believe you when you say it can tell me real things about the world?

Please.

No, I don't expect you to believe anything. Belief is a choice.

 

[Trailblazer]

So this "evidence" is purely subjective.

No, it is objective.

And why should I believe a single thing if I can not test the accuracy of it?

I never told you you should believe a single thing.

Because you keep claiming that you have evidence to support your faith.

I do have evidence but it is not testable but rather it is researchable.

You are contradicting yourself. You just said that there is no testable evidence, and you have also made that same claim many times before. Now you are claiming that the evidence IS checkable. So which is it?

Or do you think that "checking" just means to decide something is true? Because that's not checking and it's not testing. That's called "leaping to conclusions."

The evidence is check-able and it can be checked by you, and only after checking to you come to any conclusions.

This is that "leaping to conclusions" thing I spoke of.

I'm not going to assume that there must be some record and then claim that the records exist. I want to see the records for myself, or at least know that researchers studying this have found a record that claims someone named Jesus was crucified in the right place at the right time.

That is what you should do if you are concerned about the topic.

Okay, this is getting into a different discussion completely, and I don't want to take this thread off topic. If you start a thread on the historicity of Jesus, I'll come over and answer this there.

I am not one to start a thread like that, as I already believe in Jesus and I am not proficient in history.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, you get to decide what you believe.

You do NOT get to decide that other people MUST be wrong, and you do not get to decide what beliefs are false.

I get to have an opinion which beliefs are false but God determines which beliefs are true or false.

And what OBJECTIVE evidence have I rejected?

And I will remind you that for evidence to be OBJECTIVE, it needs to be verifiable through some test or tool, etc.

Objective evidence definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Objective evidence - definition and meaning

Objective Evidence: An Auditor's Secret Weapon - The Auditor

The definitions don't say it needs to be verifiable through some test or tool, etc

• Objective information is based on facts.

• Objective evidence is evidence that we base on provable facts. In other words, we can prove the facts by measurement, analysis, and observation. It is possible to evaluate and examine objective evidence. It means the same as ‘compelling evidence.’

• Just because your evidence is subjective doesn’t mean that’s the end of the line. You can often turn subjective evidence into objective evidence by doing some additional digging. That’s what is referred to as following an audit trail. You might start out with biased or second-hand information, and then convert it to objective evidence by asking a few more questions.

Because personal judgement is SUBJECTIVE, not OBJECTIVE. And using the method you are proposing has lead to countless people around the world having countless different interpretations and conclusions. That does not indicate to me that they have discovered an OBJECTIVE truth.

That is the way it will be with religion, different opinions and conclusions. You can take it or leave it.

Rubbish. There is plenty of evidence that beliefs are false, and that is still evidence.

That's good because then we know they are false.

So then you admit that your capacity to recognise evidence might be flawed?

That is possible but why does it matter? That has no bearing on you or your capacity.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I think I have heard other Baha'is try and claim that the whole Bible is sealed. I wonder where they get that from? It almost sounds like something that Bill Sears would say? But you think you thought it up all on your own?

I look at it this way, Baha’u’llah offered this

"The Revelation, which from time immemorial, hath been acclaimed as the Purpose and Promise of all the Prophets of God, and the most cherished desire of His Messengers, hath now, by virtue of the pervasive Will of the Almighty and at His irresistible bidding, been revealed unto men. The advent of such a Revelation hath been heralded in all the sacred Scriptures."

Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 5-6

So if all those that practice all those Faiths, do not see revealed in their scriptures what was offerd above, then what else can they be but sealed in meaning?

Also offerered by Baha'u'llah is that the seals are broken to the Réunion with God through this Message.

"...Take heed lest anything deter thee from extolling the greatness of this Day—the Day whereon the Finger of majesty and power hath opened the seal of the Wine of Reunion, and called all who are in the heavens and all who are on the earth. Preferrest thou to tarry when the breeze announcing the Day of God hath already breathed over thee, or art thou of them that are shut out as by a veil from Him?"

Regards Tony

 

[Tiberius]

Been there, done that.

Yes, we have, and it's a NO from you.

No, I don't expect you to believe anything. Belief is a choice.

Except when it isn't, as you provided a whole bunch of exceptions.

 

[Tiberius]

No, it is objective.

Given that you have freely admitted that you can't show it to anyone else, no, it's not objective in any way whatsoever.

I do have evidence but it is not testable but rather it is researchable.

If I can research it but not test it, it sounds like it's nothing more than, "Listen to the opinions of these people and if you agree with them, then you've verified it."

The evidence is check-able and it can be checked by you, and only after checking to you come to any conclusions.

So are you claiming there is a difference between "testable" and "checkable"? If so, what is it?

That is what you should do if you are concerned about the topic.

You are the one who said, "There must be some records of the crucifixion or else scholars would not concur that it was a historical fact." If you make this claim (and yes, it is a claim, since you said there MUST be some records and weren't talking about your own opinion), then it is up to you to support it.

 

[Tiberius]

I get to have an opinion which beliefs are false but God determines which beliefs are true or false.

And what if that belief is false?

The definitions don't say it needs to be verifiable through some test or tool, etc

• Objective information is based on facts.

• Objective evidence is evidence that we base on provable facts. In other words, we can prove the facts by measurement, analysis, and observation. It is possible to evaluate and examine objective evidence. It means the same as ‘compelling evidence.’

• Just because your evidence is subjective doesn’t mean that’s the end of the line. You can often turn subjective evidence into objective evidence by doing some additional digging. That’s what is referred to as following an audit trail. You might start out with biased or second-hand information, and then convert it to objective evidence by asking a few more questions.

I don't think you actually understood that.

Objective information is based on facts, yes.

How do we determine something is a fact? We test it. That's what the second point spoke of when it said, "we can prove the facts by measurement, analysis, and observation."

And it also clearly says that if you have subjective evidence, you need to do more work to develop it into an objective evidence - which you do by putting it to the test.

That is the way it will be with religion, different opinions and conclusions. You can take it or leave it.

There can not be multiple truths about the same aspects of the universe all at the same time. Thus, your religious method of finding out information is fundamentally flawed and should be abandoned as an information gathering tool. Any conclusions it has provided should be considered suspect and unreliable.

That's good because then we know they are false.

But you just ignore that, because you only consider it evidence if it says the belief is true.

That is possible but why does it matter? That has no bearing on you or your capacity.

I'm not talking about my capacity. I'm talking about YOURS.

 

[Trailblazer]

Except when it isn't, as you provided a whole bunch of exceptions.

What were those exceptions?

 

[Trailblazer]

Given that you have freely admitted that you can't show it to anyone else, no, it's not objective in any way whatsoever.

I can show it but I can't prove it to anyone else. They have to prove it to themselves.

If I can research it but not test it, it sounds like it's nothing more than, "Listen to the opinions of these people and if you agree with them, then you've verified it."

No, it is research it by looking at the evidence and determine if it is worthy of belief.

So are you claiming there is a difference between "testable" and "checkable"? If so, what is it?

Checking something out is not the same as testing it. Checking something out is looking at it to determine if you think it is true. I don't know what you mean by testing.

You are the one who said, "There must be some records of the crucifixion or else scholars would not concur that it was a historical fact." If you make this claim (and yes, it is a claim, since you said there MUST be some records and weren't talking about your own opinion), then it is up to you to support it.

When I said "there must be" I meant there probably are some records because otherwise most scholars would not believe it, since scholars do research and look at records. That is not a claim.

 

[Trailblazer]

And what if that belief is false?

You might be but I am not worried about that.

I don't think you actually understood that.

Objective information is based on facts, yes.

How do we determine something is a fact? We test it. That's what the second point spoke of when it said, "we can prove the facts by measurement, analysis, and observation."

No, we do not have to test things to know if they are facts. How do you think that historical facts can be tested?
Measurement, analysis, and observation is for science, not for religion.

There can not be multiple truths about the same aspects of the universe all at the same time. Thus, your religious method of finding out information is fundamentally flawed and should be abandoned as an information gathering tool. Any conclusions it has provided should be considered suspect and unreliable.

There are not multiple truths about the universe but there are multiple religions that were revealed by Messengers in different ages that are all true.

But you just ignore that, because you only consider it evidence if it says the belief is true.

I know what is false because I know what is true. Whatever contradicts true is false.

I'm not talking about my capacity. I'm talking about YOURS.

You have no way of knowing what my capacity is, only God knows that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You might be but I am not worried about that.

No, we do not have to test things to know if they are facts. How do you think that historical facts can be tested?
Measurement, analysis, and observation is for science, not for religion.

I think that a historian would disagree with you. And it appears that you are claiming that there is no reliable evidence for religious beliefs.

 

[Trailblazer]

I think that a historian would disagree with you. And it appears that you are claiming that there is no reliable evidence for religious beliefs.

Why would a historian disagree with me?
That all depends upon what you consider reliable evidence. People have different ideas as to what constitutes reliable evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why would a historian disagree with me?
That all depends upon what you consider reliable evidence. People have different ideas as to what constitutes reliable evidence.

Because historians do rely on evidence. They do test their ideas. And yes, some people do not understand the concept of evidence. Most of the theists here, for example.