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

[CG Didymus]

Personally I can see there are frames of references that reconcile many of the doctrinal differences,

Yes, one way is the way born again Christians do it. They say all those doctrines in the other religions are false. Baha'is change it up a little and say that some of the doctrines were based on misinterpretations of their Scriptures. Which still makes those doctrines in the other religions false. But, at least, Baha'is can say that "originally" the religion was true.

 

[night912]

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

That's a flawed epistemological method to knowing the truth. What's important here is knowing the truth about a particular thing. By simply just knowing what's false, it does not necessarily take you to the truth.

EX:
If a person asked me, "I have one thing in my pocket, is it?"
A. a real live adult elephant
B. a metal coin
C. a small finger ring

Thinking about it, I can logically say that "A" is not true because reality shows that a real live adult elephant would not fit in the pocket. But I still don't know what's truly in his pocket. But either the coin and ring can be what's in his pocket, because both of them can fit in it. With this information, I don't know if it's a coin, a ring or even something else, that's in his pocket.

So one can come to a rational conclusion that, since you claimed to know that Baha'u'llah is a messenger of God, and only give your opinions about it but cannot provide any evidence to support your claim.

 

[CG Didymus]

Isaiah 7:14 does not prophecy a virgin birth. That is a mistranslation in the Septuagint. Also it it cherry picked because it is taken out of context. In context it is not even a prophecy, but a declaration of an event taking place at that time. Many of the so called prophecies about Jesus are merely quote mines by authors attempting to give the Jesus story validity.

I totally agree. The Baha'is reject the resurrection but believe in the virgin birth. Here's what was said earlier...

What is chapter 7 of Isaiah about?

It appears to be foretelling the events before and after the birth of Jesus.

It appears to be saying that before Jesus is accepted another 2 religions "Kings" of that land will be rejected.

Tony, I didn't know you were going to look it up. Well, if it weren't for the gospels saying that Jesus was born of a virgin... From the rest of the context why would a Jew, especially before the time of Jesus, think that chapter was a Messianic prophecy? It says it's a sign for this King Ahaz and there were two kings preparing to attack Judah. But, in the sign, it says that by the time this child gets older, those two kings will be dead.

Verse 14 does not have to be plucked out and made into a prophecy for Jesus. It is clear from the context that it is a prophecy referring to Jesus.

(Verse 10) The lord spoke to Ahaz.
(Verse 11) Asking for a sign of the Lord thy God.
(Verse 14) The Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, (Jesus)
(Verses 15) Refers to Jesus, who would know to refuse the evil, and choose the good

Isaiah 7
King James Version

10 Moreover the Lord spake again unto Ahaz, saying,

11 Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.

12 But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord.

13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?

14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

NIV Isaiah7 When Ahaz son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, was king of Judah, King Rezin of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel marched up to fight against Jerusalem, but they could not overpower it.

2 Now the house of David was told, “Aram has allied itself with Ephraim”; so the hearts of Ahaz and his people were shaken, as the trees of the forest are shaken by the wind.

3 Then the Lord said to Isaiah, “Go out, you and your son Shear-Jashub, to meet Ahaz at the end of the aqueduct of the Upper Pool, on the road to the Launderer’s Field. 4 Say to him, ‘Be careful, keep calm and don’t be afraid. Do not lose heart because of these two smoldering stubs of firewood—because of the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram and of the son of Remaliah. 5 Aram, Ephraim and Remaliah’s son have plotted your ruin, saying, 6 “Let us invade Judah; let us tear it apart and divide it among ourselves, and make the son of Tabeel king over it.” 7 Yet this is what the Sovereign Lord says:

“‘It will not take place,
it will not happen,
8 for the head of Aram is Damascus,
and the head of Damascus is only Rezin.
Within sixty-five years
Ephraim will be too shattered to be a people.
9 The head of Ephraim is Samaria,
and the head of Samaria is only Remaliah’s son.
If you do not stand firm in your faith,
you will not stand at all.’”

10 Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz, 11 “Ask the Lord your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights.”

12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask; I will not put the Lord to the test.”

13 Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. 15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. 17 The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah—he will bring the king of Assyria.”

So, this is what I learned from reading what Jews believed about these verses. Ahaz is the king of Judah and the other two kings made an alliance to go conquer Judah. Isaiah tells Ahaz what's going to happen.. Those two enemies of his will be dead. Ahaz won't ask for a sign as proof, so Isaiah says that God will give him a sign anyway. The sign then goes into all that virgin stuff. One problem right away, there is a different Hebrew word that means "virgin" and the word used here typically means "a young maiden", but it is translated as "virgin".

Next, the boy is born. When is he born? In Isaiah's time or 700 years later in Jesus' time? I think it was in Isaiah's, because this boy is the sign for King Ahaz. By the time this kid can choose good and reject evil the two kings are going to be dead and gone.

I don't think either of the Baha'i followed up on this.

 

[Trailblazer]

They are not "you", so that makes them "other" people. But I understand why you trust and believe them. It's just those other "other" people you don't believe in. These people are from God.

Here is what you apparently do not understand. I do not USE the words and deeds of anyone except Baha'u'llah as a standard by which to understand God and His Prophets.

 

[CG Didymus]

why it bothers other people so much that I believe with certainty.

Not you, but some "true" believers are wrong... but they think they are absolutely right and they end up doing some radical things. Like crashing planes into buildings. Drinking Kool-Aid. Blowing up clinics they believe are killing living souls.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Verses saying who and what God is, or who the Gods are, are not social teachings. Now if you say that the people wrote these things and later made them "Scripture" and they described their God or Gods with the things their culture believed to be true, I'd say that is fine. It was their truth. It was not "The Truth". Therefore, other people and cultures had different ideas, that they made up, to describe God.

Also, something like the creation story in the Bible. That is not a "social" teaching. You say it is allegorical. That's fine with me. But would that make it a "social" teaching? The problem is that I don't think the religious leaders took it and taught it as allegorical... not until more liberal forms of the religion developed. And, if it were taught that it is just an allegorical story, why believe the characters in the story were real? Like God and Adam? Why wouldn't they be fictional too?

Every thing said about God is but a relative truth, God is unknowable.

The only thing we can know is what has been explained by the Mesengers, or explained by their authority, but that again is relevant to our spiritual state of being and a firm link to a given authority.

They one and all tell us to live the life of Virtues and Morality. That is our given spiritual foundations, the rest is our understandings.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

You came to trust that he spoke the truth by what you had read. But, you haven't read everything. If something gets translated that is little fishy, you've already committed yourself to believe it. That's not "free" thinking anymore. And maybe you don't trust your opinions anymore anyway. Maybe you think that "God knows best, not me" and you're willing to believe whatever the writings say?

I do not need to read everything in order to come to believe in Baha'u'llah. I know a Baha'i who has been a Baha'i a lot longer than me who only read one page of Baha'u'llah's Writings and He became a Baha'i based upon that. I know another Baha'i who had to study the Baha'i Faith for six years before He became a Baha'i.

Apparently, what you and others on this thread do not understand is that the basis for believing is different for different people because all people are different in how they think and come to believe.

 

[CG Didymus]

Yes, the desired conclusion is that the Baha'i Faith is the truth. All the religions had different things they called "true". Just to take one "truth" about the universe. God created it in six days less than 10,000 years. Baha'is don't believe that is true. But, since it is in the Bible, it can't be "false", so it must be allegorically true, not literally true. Which, to me, is a nice way of saying it's a made up fictional story that is not based on anything true.

You do not know what I desire. You only know what you desire.

I didn't mention your name in there. That's just a generalization. What, not you, would a Baha'i desire the conclusion of anything to be? That the Baha'i Faith is right. I gave the example of the Creation Story. Baha'is come to a different conclusion than born again Christians.

But I'm so sorry God is making you do something you don't have any desire to do. What's up with that?

 

[CG Didymus]

That's a flawed epistemological method to knowing the truth. What's important here is knowing the truth about a particular thing. By simply just knowing what's false, it does not necessarily take you to the truth.

EX:
If a person asked me, "I have one thing in my pocket, is it?"
A. a real live adult elephant
B. a metal coin
C. a small finger ring

Thinking about it, I can logically say that "A" is not true because reality shows that a real live adult elephant would not fit in the pocket. But I still don't know what's truly in his pocket. But either the coin and ring can be what's in his pocket, because both of them can fit in it. With this information, I don't know if it's a coin, a ring or even something else, that's in his pocket.

So one can come to a rational conclusion that, since you claimed to know that Baha'u'llah is a messenger of God, and only give your opinions about it but cannot provide any evidence to support your claim.

What's screwed up is that all the good things they teach and believe in are over-shadowed by having to believe in everything. We rarely hear about those good things, because they are always making "claims" that Baha'u'llah and God are the truth.

I wonder, did they come to believe in God and Baha'u'llah first, then read what he taught and said, "Well, looky here. This stuff is awesome." Or, did they read what the Baha'i Faith taught and said, "Well, that's a lot of practical teachings. Lot better than my stupid religion. I think I'll join." Of course all the meetings I went to did include, "Oh, by the way. He is the Promised One from God." But it was some of the basic teachings that were most impressive. Then the deeper teachings? Well, a little troublesome.

 

[Trailblazer]

No one is debating whether you believe in your faith. The problem is that you are not approaching your belief rationally. Now if you simply admit that you belief is irrational people will let you be, for the most part. It is when one tries to claim a rational belief that one takes on both a burden of proof and needs at least a touch of humility.

I am not to admit that because my belief is not irrational. Just because you think it is irrational that does not make it irrational. Do you understand that you do not determine what is rational or irrational for anyone except yourself?

The very minute people start labeling other people as irrational they are wrong. Whether you think so or not, it is not right to speak for other people and tell them what their problems are, as if you know them better than they know themselves. If anything is arrogant that is. Do I speak for other people and tell them how it is for them?

I do not claim a rational belief because belief is not rational or irrational, belief just is. I have no burden to prove my belief to anyone just because I believe it is true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not to admit that because my belief is not irrational. Just because you think it is irrational that does not make it irrational. Do you understand that you do not determine what is rational or irrational for anyone except yourself?

The very minute people start labeling other people as irrational they are wrong. Whether you think so or not, it is not right to speak for other people and tell them what their problems are, as if you know them better than they know themselves. If anything is arrogant that is. Do I speak for other people and tell them how it is for them?

I do not claim a rational belief because belief is not rational or irrational, belief just is. I have no burden to prove my belief to anyone just because I believe it is true.

It has been explained to you why it is irrational. You have demonstrated why it is irrational. Denying that does not work.

 

[Trailblazer]

And that's what I was saying... I think spiritual teachings have changed. Are there multiple Gods? Is there a Satan? Some people will go to heaven some will go to hell?

The spiritual teachings have not changed.

The spiritual part of religion is faith, knowledge, certitude, justice, piety, righteousness, trustworthiness, love of God, benevolence, purity, detachment, humility, meekness, patience and constancy. This has not changed.

 

[CG Didymus]

Here is what you apparently do not understand. I do not USE the words and deeds of anyone except Baha'u'llah as a standard by which to understand God and His Prophets.

Oh, now I understand. So you reject the words and deeds of the other manifestations, including The Bab. And don't USE anything Abdul Baha, Shoghi Effendi or any of the things from the UHJ. Only the words of Baha'u'llah. Hmmm? It's okay to trust others. They might be wrong sometimes. But you might learn something important from them. But, you know what, I'm sure you do. But I could be wrong, because like you keep saying, "You're not me. How would you know what I think." What a delightful attitude. "What's wrong with my attitude? You don't know me. You don't know what's like being me." Thank God. "What do you mean by that? That's so arrogant." Like I said, What a delightful attitude. "What!!!"

 

[CG Didymus]

Every thing said about God is but a relative truth, God is unknowable.

The only thing we can know is what has been explained by the Mesengers, or explained by their authority, but that again is relevant to our spiritual state of being and a firm link to a given authority.

They one and all tell us to live the life of Virtues and Morality. That is our given spiritual foundations, the rest is our understandings.

Regards Tony

Yes, and I explain that by saying that I think it is possible that the spiritual leaders of a society wanted to find a way to make their people obey certain rules and to obey them, and to live a good virtuous, moral life. So they said,

"There is an invisible God watching you. And he knows when you've been good or bad. Just listen to this story that happened many years ago. This invisible God warned the bad people he was going to send fire and brimstone and burn them all up. The little snots continued to do evil in the sight of God, so he had no choice but to destroy them. Now if we as a people obey these rules given to us by God, he will insure we have good crops and that we will win our battles with our enemies. But, if we mess up... all bets are off. He will keep back the rain and send armies in to kill us."​

So, naturally, all the stories are different. All the rules are different. The Gods are different and what they do is different, because it all depended on what the people came up with as their beliefs and traditions.

With your prophet, it's probably different. Maybe it's all true. And I think some things are true. But still, there's some things I don't believe are true. So what can I do but keep asking questions.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, the two and two you are talking about do add up to whatever you say it does. But those verses don't necessarily mean what you and the Baha'i Faith says they mean. I believe the Christian interpretation of their own Scriptures. I might not believe their Scriptures are true, but I believe how they interpreted them.

I agree with them, this is about their Holy Spirit. It is not a prophecy about Baha'u'llah. It was written well after the event at Pentecost and could easily have been made to fit.

You are free to believe whatever you want to, but you might as well can the Baha'i Faith if you believe what Christians believe these verses mean because the Christian interpretation and the Baha'i interpretation are incompatible.

You cannot have it both ways. If Baha'u'llah was not the Comforter and the Spirit of truth that the Bible verses refer to then he was a liar, a false prophet, not a Manifestation of God. You are free to believe that if you want to but in that case I cannot understand why you would still be considering the Baha'i Faith and if you aren't then why keep talking about it? Why not just become a Christian and call it a day?

Baha’u’llah clearly refers to Himself as the Comforter and the Spirit of Truth in these passages:

“Give ear unto that which the Dove of Eternity warbleth upon the twigs of the Divine Lote-Tree: O peoples of the earth! We sent forth him who was named John to baptize you with water, that your bodies might be cleansed for the appearance of the Messiah. He, in turn, purified you with the fire of love and the water of the spirit in anticipation of these Days whereon the All-Merciful hath purposed to cleanse you with the water of life at the hands of His loving providence. This is the Father foretold by Isaiah, and the Comforter concerning Whom the Spirit had covenanted with you. Open your eyes, O concourse of bishops, that ye may behold your Lord seated upon the Throne of might and glory.” The Summons of the Lord of Hosts, p. 63

“O kings of Christendom! Heard ye not the saying of Jesus, the Spirit of God, "I go away, and come again unto you"? 2 Wherefore, then, did ye fail, when He did come again unto you in the clouds of heaven, to draw nigh unto Him, that ye might behold His face, and be of them that attained His Presence? In another passage He saith: "When He, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth." 3 And yet behold how, when He did bring the truth, ye refused to turn your faces towards Him, and persisted in disporting yourselves with your pastimes and fancies. Ye welcomed Him not, neither did ye seek His Presence, that ye might hear the verses of God from His own mouth, and partake of the manifold wisdom of the Almighty, the All-Glorious, the All-Wise. Ye have, by reason of your failure, hindered the breath of God from being wafted over you, and have withheld from your souls the sweetness of its fragrance. Ye continue roving with delight in the valley of your corrupt desires. By God! Ye, and all ye possess, shall pass away. Ye shall, most certainly, return to God, and shall be called to account for your doings in the presence of Him Who shall gather together the entire creation.”The Summons of the Lord of Hosts, p. 191

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, explain the Baha'i Faith. Explain how the Baha'i Faith believes all the major religions are true, yet... have many false teachings in them. And some are in the Scriptures of the religions. They are not later additions.

I have already explained that many times, but you do not accept my explanations so why should I explain it again?

 

[CG Didymus]

I do not need to read everything in order to come to believe in Baha'u'llah. I know a Baha'i who has been a Baha'i a lot longer than me who only read one page of Baha'u'llah's Writings and He became a Baha'i based upon that. I know another Baha'i who had to study the Baha'i Faith for six years before He became a Baha'i.

Apparently, what you and others on this thread do not understand is that the basis for believing is different for different people because all people are different in how they think and come to believe.

All I said is that if something gets translated that has something in it that strikes you as being off base a little, what are you going to do? I know what some of my Christian friends did. Some of them closed their minds to the possibility that the Bible could ever be wrong. So matter what, it was literally the truth. If the world was flooded about 4000 years ago it was... and they find evidence. But, by what you and I believe, they are wrong.

Right now I think Christians and Baha'is are wrong about using Isaiah as a prophecy of Jesus being born by a virgin. Why do you believe it? Probably not because Christians believe it, but because Baha'u'llah said so. I think an honest, unbiased study of it would lead a person to see that it has nothing to do with Jesus some 700 years later, but is about a boy born then.

 

[Trailblazer]

But some of these guys got pushed out. That's divisive.

Nobody got pushed out unless they were Covenant-breakers, and they deserved to get pushed out.

 

[CG Didymus]

The spiritual teachings have not changed.

The spiritual part of religion is faith, knowledge, certitude, justice, piety, righteousness, trustworthiness, love of God, benevolence, purity, detachment, humility, meekness, patience and constancy. This has not changed.

And what about this?

love of God,

Love of which God? YHWH? Zeus? Vishnu? Jesus? Lots of Gods... Some of them are called "false" Gods. Some we call mythological. But I don't see why there's a problem believing that different people, at different times, believed in many different concepts of God? I think some of those Gods were made up. Baha'is say the God of all the major religions is the one and same God... The real God. But even that God has had people define him differently.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't think either of the Baha'i followed up on this.

I did. I explained more than once what Baha'is believe in the Virgin Birth. It is because Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha, and Shoghi Effendi validated it. A such, I don't give a rip how Jews or how anyone else interprets the Bible.

1637. Christ, Virgin Birth of

"First regarding the birth of Jesus Christ. In light of what Bahá’u’lláh and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá have stated concerning this subject it is evident that Jesus came into this world through the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit, and that consequently His birth was quite miraculous. This is an established fact, and the friends need not feel at all surprised, as the belief in the possibility of miracles has never been rejected in the Teachings. Their importance, however, has been minimized."

(From a letter dated December 31, 1937 written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer)

1639. Bahá’í Teachings in Agreement with Doctrines of Catholic Church Concerning the Virgin Birth

"With regard to your question concerning the Virgin Birth of Jesus: On this point, as on several others, the Bahá’í Teachings are in full agreement with the doctrines of the Catholic Church. In the 'Kitáb-i-Íqán' (Book of Certitude) p. 56, and in a few other Tablets still unpublished, Bahá’u’lláh confirms, however indirectly, the Catholic conception of the Virgin Birth. Also ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in the 'Some Answered Questions', Chap. XII, p. 73, explicitly states that 'Christ found existence through the Spirit of God' which statement necessarily implies, when viewed in the light of the text, that Jesus was not the son of Joseph."

(From a letter dated October 14, 1945 written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer)

Lights of Guidance/Christ - Bahaiworks, a library of works about the Bahá’í Faith