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

[Truthseeker]

Are the people on the NSA or LSA perfect? No, as a governing body do they make perfect decisions? I doubt it. So somebody has to speak that old truth to power kind of thing. To me, it was meant to be helpful criticism. That's not allowed? Or, just through the right channels?

Notice the phrase "though that decision be not right". A person can politely ask the assembly to reconsider their decision and nothing more and not in public. This helps to maintain harmony and prevent estrangement. If the decision be not right, it will become apparent if the decision is carried out with the support of the community. This last sentence is an paraphrase from the Writings.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

There has been a time, and in some cases it still happens, where a person better believe or else. If given a choice whether to follow the laws of God? Then are you sure they really came from God? God allows people the option to obey the laws or not? So it's more like a suggestion and not a you must obey this kind of law?

The Law is written for all to see CG. We all get the chance to practice them.

Unfortunately men make of those laws what suits them and then attribute those choices to God.

Baha'u'llah has written in detail about the station of such people, no need to quote here, they are easy to find.

Regards Tony

 

[Truthseeker]

Yeah, just making the claim that the Holy Spirit is the only way to get true understanding doesn't make it so. You'll need to do more than make empty claims.

Indeed, there is an alternate quote from 'Abdu'l-Baha:

The fourth standard is that of inspiration. In past centuries many philosophers have claimed illumination or revelation, prefacing their statements by the announcement that “this subject has been revealed through me” or “thus do I speak by inspiration.” Of this class were the philosophers of the Illuminati. Inspirations are the promptings or susceptibilities of the human heart. The promptings of the heart are sometimes satanic. How are we to differentiate them? How are we to tell whether a given statement is an inspiration and prompting of the heart through the merciful assistance or through the satanic agency?
(The Promulgation of Universal Peace)
www.bahai.org/r/667006770

The question arises, is what inspires you the Holy Spirit? If it is it guides you. How do you know that difference is the question.

 

[Truthseeker]

I only looked at what was quoted here.

Look at the whole document, please, if you can go back in this thread and find it.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

"God's" laws in the older religions didn't work. A girl could be stoned to death if she was found not to be a virgin when she got married? God's law or man's law? Then really, God said to stone her to death? What good did it do? Even facing a death penalty, people had sex before marriage. Baha'is have a law about not having sex before marriage. Is God going to have the people stoned to death or has he eased up on the punishment?

I see all those laws are Abrogated by the Message of Baha'u'llah. The Kitab-i-aqdas contains the Laws for this age and many are for the future.

Meanwhile, men will still make our current laws in each Nation based on their chosen virtues and morality.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

Sorry to hear that you can't take having your numerous and repeated logical fallacies pointed out.

No, what I can't take is arguing about the same things over and over to no avail, being insulted, and being told how it is for me - what I think and why I believe what I do. That is disrespectful, but sadly people who are disrespectful rarely even realize why they are and even if they do they don't admit it because saving face is more important than another person's feelings.

I have only had any problems with one other person on this forum and I post to atheists all the time. Logically speaking, if the problem was me I would have problems with other people, but I don't. That is why I don't have anyone on Ignore.

You told me why you think I don't want to post to you anymore instead of listening to what I told you, which was the REAL REASON, my reason. So when you stated what you think is the reason, you spoke for me. Do you even understand that it is disrespectful to tell other people what the reasons are for doing what they do? That is a violation of another person's boundaries.

I committed no logical fallacies so there is nothing to point out. This is a typical atheist ploy. Accuse me but don't bring forth any evidence. Talk is cheap. If you could point them out you would explain how they were committed and I could explain you how they weren't.

There is no discussion to be had with people who believe they are always right and the other person is always wrong. The evidence of what I am saying is in your posts. Go back and read them.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Look at the whole document, please, if you can go back in this thread and find it.

Yes that is important, as I am aware of the circumstances and this document.

There will be no progress in the Faith until we are willing to let the administrative order mature and evolve and that will only happen when as individuals we do not think we make better decisions than the elected bodies.

We have been assured that any injustice will be righted by our humble acceptance of the decisions and if we see the need, we can ask for a ruling from a higher body.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

It's unlikely, yes, but not impossible.

I also note you ignored completely much of what I said in my post.

I don't worry about what is only remotely possible. I have other things that are actually happening to worry about.

I read it but did not respond to it because it would just lead to another argument.

You decide... with your fallible Human mind...

As we all do, because all human minds are fallible, but that does not mean we never make any decisions!

That's just not true.

Yeah, just making the claim that the Holy Spirit is the only way to get true understanding doesn't make it so. You'll need to do more than make empty claims.

It was not my claim, I just posted the chapter as food for thought, mainly to point out how the other methods are fallible.

So why do you cling to it when we have testable methods? Especially when those methods have a proven track record.

I already told you there are no testable methods for religion. If you think there are any tell me what they are.

No you haven't.

This what I meant in my last post. Who do you think you are to tell me what I have verified?
I said I have verified that my religious beliefs are true, the only way they can be verified and I have.
Why do you have to contradict me?

 

[Secret Chief]

That's only one part, and quoting a small portion distorts the message.

The origin of these difficulties is twofold: One is the excessive greed and rapacity of the factory owners, and the other is the gratuitous demands, the greed, and the intransigence of the workers. One must therefore seek to address both.
‘Abdu’l-Bahá, "Some Answered Questions", 78.1

Now, the root cause of these difficulties lies in the law of nature that governs present-day civilization, for it results in a handful of people accumulating vast fortunes that far exceed their needs, while the greater number remain naked, destitute, and helpless. This is at once contrary to justice, to humanity, and to fairness; it is the very height of inequity and runs counter to the good-pleasure of the All-Merciful.
‘Abdu’l-Bahá, "Some Answered Questions", 78.2

Later:

For their part, the workers should not make excessive demands, be recalcitrant, ask for more than they deserve, or go on strike. They should obey and comply and make no demands for exorbitant wages. Rather, the mutual and equitable rights of both parties should be officially fixed and established according to the laws of justice and compassion, and any party that violates them should be condemned after a fair hearing and be subject to a definitive verdict enforced by the executive branch, so that all affairs may be appropriately ordered and all problems adequately resolved.
‘Abdu’l-Bahá, "Some Answered Questions", 78.9

The intervention of the government and the courts in the problems arising between owners and workers is fully warranted, since these are not such particular matters as are ordinary transactions between two individuals, which do not concern the public and in which the government should have no right to interfere. For problems between owners and workers, though they may appear to be a private matter, are detrimental to the common good, since the commercial, industrial, and agricultural affairs, and even the general business of the nation, are all intimately linked together: An impairment to one is a loss to all. And since the problems between owners and workers are detrimental to the common good, the government and the courts have therefore the right to intervene.
‘Abdu’l-Bahá, "Some Answered Questions", 78.10

Even in the case of differences that arise between two individuals with regard to particular rights, a third party, namely the government, is needed to resolve the dispute. How, then, can the problem of strikes, which entirely disrupt the country — whether they arise from the inordinate demands of the workers or the excessive greed of the factory owners — remain neglected?
‘Abdu’l-Bahá, "Some Answered Questions", 78.11

Or get rid of capitalism.

 

[samtonga43]

This is not about Baha'u'llah, it is about the birth of Jesus and whether He was born of a virgin. Why are you compelled to make everything about Baha'u'llah when that is not the subject of the conversation?

I thought it only fair to point out that your statement about Jewish bias applies equally to Bahai bias.

That fallacy does not apply because I did not say it is true ONLY because many people believe it is true.

The Bandwagon fallacy is an attempt to validate one’s belief by appealing to popularity or to the fact that many people do something. This is what you did.

I guess your only purpose here is to take pot shots at me every chance you get, not to have a fruitful discussion.

Fruitful discussion is not possible if the ‘fruits’ emerge from illogical seeds. You continually point out illogicality in the posts of others; perhaps you should learn to accept it when it is pointed out to you…?

 

[Tiberius]

No, what I can't take is arguing about the same things over and over to no avail, being insulted, and being told how it is for me - what I think and why I believe what I do. That is disrespectful, but sadly people who are disrespectful rarely even realize why they are and even if they do they don't admit it because saving face is more important than another person's feelings.

I have only had any problems with one other person on this forum and I post to atheists all the time. Logically speaking, if the problem was me I would have problems with other people, but I don't. That is why I don't have anyone on Ignore.

You told me why you think I don't want to post to you anymore instead of listening to what I told you, which was the REAL REASON, my reason. So when you stated what you think is the reason, you spoke for me. Do you even understand that it is disrespectful to tell other people what the reasons are for doing what they do? That is a violation of another person's boundaries.

I committed no logical fallacies so there is nothing to point out. This is a typical atheist ploy. Accuse me but don't bring forth any evidence. Talk is cheap. If you could point them out you would explain how they were committed and I could explain you how they weren't.

There is no discussion to be had with people who believe they are always right and the other person is always wrong. The evidence of what I am saying is in your posts. Go back and read them.

Sorry you feel that way, but you are doing exactly the same things that I've seen so many other religious people do. The same arguments, everything. So you'll have to forgive me when I conclude that you are no different.

 

[Tiberius]

As we all do, because all human minds are fallible, but that does not mean we never make any decisions!

Yes, all human minds are fallible. That's why we should strive to find a tool that allows us to reduce or eliminate any errors that this fallibilty introduces. And we've got one. It's called science.

It was not my claim, I just posted the chapter as food for thought, mainly to point out how the other methods are fallible.

Well, I'd appreciate it if you'd say what your purpose was, since that's not what came across.

In any case, I'd say that there is a fifth method. Testing. Use the first and second method to form an idea, but then see if this understanding allows you to make any predictions. Then make such a prediction and see if it comes true.

The problem with all of these methods is that none of them actually include any methods for verification. They all seem confined to the mind, which I think is unwise, since (as you have already said and to which I agreed) the Human mind is fallible. Since reality itself is not fallible, that is what we should rely on.

I already told you there are no testable methods for religion. If you think there are any tell me what they are.

I've already mentioned how religion does make testable claims, such as the Bible saying that you can pray to a mountain to move and it will. You arbitrarily claimed that these didn't count. I suspect that this was motivated by the realisation that any testable claims that a religion makes will fail (or prove things that do not show the religion to be true, such as the Bible's claim thatEgypt exists).

This what I meant in my last post. Who do you think you are to tell me what I have verified?
I said I have verified that my religious beliefs are true, the only way they can be verified and I have.
Why do you have to contradict me?

What you have done does not actually fit the definition of "verified". You have not eliminated other possible options. You have not demonstrated that what you have said is accurate. Thus, you have not verified it. If you keep using the word incorrectly, I will keep correcting you.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

when a believer says there is evidence and the atheist says “that’s not evidence” that is just the atheist’s personal opinion. It does not mean it is not evidence just because it did not cause that atheist to believe.

The proper interpretation of evidence is not as subjective as you suggest. Reason is not whatever one wants it to be. Reason is the rigorous path between premises and evidence to sound conclusions. There is only one proper method of doing this. I have offered the example of applying reason (the rules of addition) to a group of numbers to be added. There is only one correct answer.

As the definition says evidence is “anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened. “

Yes, evidence is that which is evident to the senses. That's all that the word means until one adds the preposition "of" - evidence of what?

I would quibble with the idea that whatever a person sites as the reason for their belief constitutes evidence for that belief. People misinterpret evidence continually. Look at what people offer as evidence for a god. Some offer scripture. The words say there is a god. Not evidence of a god. Some offer the world around us and its beauty and complexity as evidence of a god. They are also wrong. The universe is evidence, but of what, apart from it being there? To say that it is evidence that supports a supernatural explanation over a naturalistic one for its existence is simply wrong.

Who defines what valid reasoning is? What is valid to one person might not be valid to another person as people all reason differently and two different ways of reasoning can both be valid.

Once again, the matter is not as subjective as you suggest. Valid reasoning is that which, because it is fallacy-free, leads from evidence to sound conclusions. Conclusions are not called sound because they follow that path, but because following that path is the only known method for arriving at conclusions that can be demonstrated to be correct. I refer you once again to the example of reason (the rules of arithmetic) applied to a column of numbers. Somebody who can't add properly might reject the consensus of men and machines that add meticulously all coming to the same conclusion (sum), and say, "Well, that's not how I choose to add those numbers, those aren't my rules. Who is to say that your rules of addition are the only proper way to combine addends?"

Incidentally, valid in the discussion of reason means correctly reasoned without fallacy, and leading to conclusions that are demonstrably correct. There aren't two paths or two conclusions that are equally valid. There may be two choices such as the naturalistic and the supernaturalistic, and reason might not be able to rule one out or the other in, but that doesn't mean that there are two valid conclusions. There is still only one. The valid conclusion is that both ideas remain possible. Other opinions, such as that the supernaturalistic one is correct, are simply fallacious reason, and the conclusion that one of these is correct is a non sequitur, that is, a fallacious conclusion not adequately supported by what has come before.

The other problem is when people think that they know how another person arrived at their belief when they don’t know the half of it.

I get that from the antivaxxers as well. They think that we don't know what evidence they evaluated or how they came to their present position to refuse the vaccine, and so shouldn't challenge the validity of their reasoning or the soundness of their conclusions. But they are also apparently unaware that skilled critical thinkers can do exactly that. It is glaringly apparent to such people that those refusing vaccines are not going from evidence to sound conclusion. We hear their arguments. We see what evidence they claim supports them, and we reject their reasoning, because their conclusions are not derived from any prior evidence or valid reasoning applied to it.

So yes, it is very possible to conclude that somebody else's reasoning and conclusions are invalid. I think that you might not be aware of that given your implied claim that without knowing exactly how they arrived at their conclusions, we can't call them unsound.

Look at how many people come onto RF and star threads with arguments that they call proof that a god exists or that evolution is wrong or whatever, and then present arguments that are easily dismissed. They become indignant that such ideas are rejected. They tell us that we are indoctrinated and need to learn to think outside the box or be less demanding regarding the rigorous evaluation of evidence. The tell us that they are certain of their conclusions, as if that would make them more valid. They have a better way of thinking, more open-minded, and we are pig-headed to reject their conclusions. If they're talking about some condemnation of evolution, they lament that their papers are rejected by the referees of credible scientific journals.

But we reject their claims nevertheless base on their merit. If their so-called proof doesn't convince anybody, it fails to be a proof, even if they call it that.

Who is a skilled critical thinker, is there a college degree one gets for that? No, there isn’t. Some people just ‘believe’ they are skilled, more skilled than someone else. I consider that arrogant.

No, there is no degree in critical thinking, although those who learn to do it properly generally learned while acquiring an academic degree.

And you may consider it arrogant that critical thinkers can recognize one another and agree about what constitutes sound reasoning, but it is simply a fact, just as they can recognize those who can add properly. Saying that the group that uses the rules of arithmetic properly to come to the same sum which can be demonstrated to be correct empirically if needed (one can show that 67+112+678=857 by combining 67 apples with 112 more and 678 more and counting how many one has) - calling these people arrogant for believing that they are more skilled adders than those who can't come to their conclusion is wrong. Calling others incorrect when they are demonstrably so using the techniques of critical analysis to demonstrate that they are incorrect is not arrogance. it is a useful service. It is a gift to humanity.

I imagine that you also think it arrogant to say that there is no rational reason to refuse a vaccine apart from it being medically contraindicated. You might say that nobody can know the reasons that led another to the decision to refuse, or that they interpreted the evidence differently, as if that were just as valid. There is this idea that if people don't reveal their innermost thoughts, one cannot judge the merit of their conclusions, which might be just as valid as those from critical thinkers that reject them

I take you back to the summing of addends. One doesn't need to know what tortured thinking another used to arrive at an incorrect answer, nor to reject the objection that he need to be a little less rigorous in my thinking, or that he is arrogant for calling a wrong answer wrong.

Same with the antivaxxer. A skilled critical thinker can accurately define their position as irrational, that is, not derived from the proper application of valid reasoning to the relevant evidence. It is based either in fear or tribalism, not fact. I know that such people dislike being thought of this way, and several here on RF have pleaded with others not to judge them for their antivax position, but as they have seen, that's just not how it works. Don't the pedophiles say the same thing - don't judge our love of children, you don't understand it, it is just as pure as adult-adult love. Or insurrectionists who want to be judged as patriots because that's how they like to frame their crimes.

We judge them as well, and possibly so do you. And so will the courts, just as the court of popular opinion will judge the antivaxxers.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

According to my beliefs, it is wrong to judge other people and call them names such as irrational, illogical and unreasonable. That is also a Christian belief, judge not lest ye be judged. Why are people compelled to do this?

Calling an idea irrational is not judging people. It is judging the idea according to the standards of rational thought. I understand that the religions discourage this, but judging is exactly what both the reasoning and moral faculties do. The decide what is true, and what is good and right. It is typical of faith-based thought to ask the adherent to suppress those faculties and submit to authority regarding what is true, good, and right. If one's internal faculties tell him that an idea doesn't make sense or isn't moral, he is asked to suppress such thinking, being reminded that the devil speaks to him and him trying to steal his soul. If this is what is meant by judge not, then I reject that advice.

It's unreasonable to ask the critical thinker to not judge the ideas of others. Critical in critical thinking refers to the process of forming and expressing an informed judgment. That's what it is, and all that it is - judgment. Analysis.

No, nobody can know what another person can know and it is hubris to assume that can know.

Disagree. I know, for example, that you cannot rule in or out the existence of a god. What is hubris is to claim otherwise and to expect to be believed.

It's a common mistake to think that because one has not learned to do something, that it can't be done. For example, it is common to read that science is just another form of faith because it involves belief, unaware that there are other ways of thinking that can produce knowledge some others might not know or believe can be done.

Atheists just say “that’s not evidence” because they expect there to be some other kind of evidence other than what exists, and that desire and expectation is based upon their own biases that make it impossible to see the evidence that is standing right before them.

The evidence theists offer doesn't suggest that a god exists to the skilled critical thinker. There are skilled critical thinkers here on RF that will agree with that. They will tell you that they believe by faith, not evidence, because they know how to evaluate evidence, and they know that the evidence for gods is not compelling.

Why does it never occur to most theists that the most likely reason that they cant provide evidence that convinces an open-minded thinker qualified to recognize a compelling argument and willing to be swayed by it is because they are wrong? It never seems to come up in their analysis of why the critical thinker rejects what is offered as confirming evidence. What would happen if one believed in any other false idea, such as that the election was rigged? They would discover the same phenomenon - the evidence doesn't support them. At what point - after how many months of failed lawsuits and recounts - do they begin to consider, hey, maybe we're wrong, maybe it was a fair election. Answer: never. Likewise with the theistic apologist bemoaning the skeptic's demand for compelling evidence. Rather that wonder what it means that they can't do that, they just assume that the evidence is being rejected according to an irrational bias as you suggested above. It never enters into their analysis of why they are rejected that they might be wrong.

Imagine me coming to you with a wrong idea, say that using astrology, one can predict what people are like and how their lives will unfold. You ask me why you should believe that, and I tell you because I am certain. I have studied the evidence and come to a rational and sound conclusion that the stars can be used this way. Still, you want to know why YOU should believe it, not why I do. I offer some answer that doesn't convince you - maybe because the Magic-8 Ball confirmed it, or it is written in some book. You still aren't convinced that astrology is a valid predictive science, so I offer you something else unconvincing, then something else also unconvincing. Eventually, you tell me that you don't accept my claim, and I call you arrogant for wanting more evidence than I can provide you, and too demanding for wanting it before believing me. That's exactly where I am with the theists claiming to have evidence of a god, but condemning the skeptic for rejecting it as evidence of such.

It might be helpful to consider what the characteristics of a correct idea are, and what those of a wrong idea are, in order to be more skilled at determining which is which. Why is evolution correct and biblical creationism/ID wrong? Why is astronomy a science and astrology not? Why are some therapies considered efficacious and others quackery?

The answer is the same in each case - one has evidence to confirm that it is correct, the other does not. One can make useful predictions about reality, the other cannot. One is derived from observation (evidence, empiricism), the other by faith absent sufficient evidence.

It is not rational to expect to procure evidence that does not exist.

It's not rational to believe an idea for which insufficient evidence exists. It is rational to expect that if somebody has what they consider to be a correct idea, they can show why they believe it is correct, and to reject ideas that can't be supported as likely wrong, but certainly irrelevant even if correct. I'm thinking of the deist god, who is said to have designed and created the universe, then disengaged from it leaving no evidence that it had done so or that it even exists.

Suppose that does or did exist, but that it has left no evidence of that, and has had no detectible impact (evidence) on our world. Being indistinguishable from the nonexistent makes both ideas irrelevant even if one is in some sense correct, but not demonstrably so even in principle. Knowing whether something is nonexistent or merely undetectable isn't useful information, since both will be experienced the same, or more correctly, neither will be experienced at all.

That missing evidence is not just a reason to not believe. It's a reason to not care even if the claim is correct.

 

[CG Didymus]

I suppose that is the case for some believes but it has never been true for me. I do not believe because of any miracles, I believe because of the evidence.

I agree there's lots of problems, especially when we are taking the word of a book written a couple thousand years ago. I've been to "healing" services at this one "charismatic" church. They would speak in tongues and the whole bit. But their healing services were nuts. But, because the NT says those things happened and believers would be able to do them also, they go for it. I think a lot of them are closing their minds to what is really going on and our being duped. But, what is really bad is the dupers. There were stories of "faith healers" telling people with some disease that needed medication to stop taking the meds, and some of them died. That is an irrational believe that everything your religion teaches is true.

Nothing that radical happened at the church I'm talking about, but the founding pastor's son, Marjoe Gortner, did write a book about how he was faking it. But anyway, a friend went up and had "hands laid" on him. Some people get "slain in the spirit" and collapse. He didn't, but he said that it felt like warm honey being poured on him. So real or BS? Or something in between?

 

[CG Didymus]

And in my opinion the prophecies were strongly fulfilled.

There you go. We go round and round, and I ask again, Why do you think they've been "strongly" fulfilled? The "three Woes" The six times Baha'is interpret things to be 1260 lunar years? The gate facing east? Is it "he" or "they" will come to you from Assyria? Unto us a child will be born? God will send a comforter? An earthquake, a dark day, and a meteor shower from half way around the world that happened years before 1844? Those "strongly" fulfilled ones? They are as weak as Christians snatching one verse and saying Jesus was born of a virgin. And again, only two gospel writers mention, and they didn't agree on how it all went down. Paul, John, Mark, Peter didn't mention it.

2.5 billion Christians

And how many of those Christians do Baha'is believe have the truth, know the truth and teach the truth? Right off the bat we can eliminate any of them that believe in the literal creation story and flood. We can eliminate all those that believe Satan is real. We can eliminate any of them that believe in original sin. And, if there's any left, we can eliminate any of them that believe Jesus bodily rose from the dead. Maybe, maybe, some very liberal Christian might be left. How many are they?

I don't think Baha'u'llah concerned Himself with the bodily resurrection because it was not important enough to write about,

Yeah, just like Hinduism wasn't a concern of his. I think it was something that should have gotten a little clarification considering Catholics teach it as true and so do lots of Protestants.

 

[CG Didymus]

If Jews has the 'one true religion' as they believe they do that would mean that all the other religions in the world are false and that makes no logical sense because no 'loving' God would single out that small handful of people to be 'chosen'

I think the Bible does say they are his chosen people and all the other religions of the people in the Bible had false Gods. But, who amongst us really believes in what the Bible says? Oh yeah, supposedly Baha'is.

 

[CG Didymus]

This is not about Baha'u'llah, it is about the birth of Jesus and whether He was born of a virgin.

Baha'is make it about the Baha'i Faith too, because, apparently, they teach that Isaiah 7:14 was a prophecy about the Messiah. Which, it seems incredibly obvious by the context, that verse 14 can't be separated from the rest of what's going on in chapter 7. Here's part of the Jewish explanation...

God dispatched the prophet Isaiah and one of his sons to warn King Ahaz that the northern kingdom had formed an alliance with this King Rezin They had joined forces to “wage war against Jerusalem.” Isaiah tells King Ahaz (verse 4) that he should not be afraid because God will be with him and the invasion with fail. Additionally, within 65 years the northern kingdom will cease to exist and its 10 tribes would be led into exile by Assyria. This is where the idea of ten lost tribes originates.

Although Ahaz was an evil king, God would continue to protect Jerusalem in the merit of his righteous predecessors. When Ahaz ignores Isaiah’s warning the prophet tells him to request a sign from God. After Ahaz refuses this offer, Isaiah informs him that God will give him a sign despite his stubbornness. He tells King Ahaz that “The Lord Himself will give you a sign. Behold the Almah (הָעַלְמָה) shall conceive and give birth to a son and she shall call his name Immanuel.” Isaiah 7:14

The word Almah has been mistranslated by most Christians as “virgin.” In truth, this word means "young woman." Additionally, the definite article (Ha-ה) means "the" and indicates that the prophet is speaking about a specific woman who he can point to. Interestingly when Matthew quotes this passage he not only mistranslates “young woman” as “virgin” but, to deflect the reference from a specific woman standing before Isaiah, he intentionally mistranslates “the young woman” as “a virgin.”

The word “Almah” should always be translated as “a young woman.” This word alone does not teach us anything about her sexual status... "Betulah" means "a virgin who has not had physical relations with a man," regardless of her age. She could be 100 years old or 18 years old. If Isaiah had wanted to tell us the physical status of the woman he would have used the specific word “Betulah,” a word he was familiar with and uses in his writings (see Isaiah 47:1).

The sign mentioned in verse 14 to Ahaz is that the two kings who threatened King Ahaz would be destroyed quickly. This sign is described in the next verse: “before the child knows enough to refuse evil and choose good the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken” Isaiah 7:15
​

Of course... that's their explanation, and it could be wrong. But it sounds pretty solid to me. But what do I know.

 

[CG Didymus]

Immediately after the tribulation of those days

That's what bothers me... What's happening now still seems like we are in the midst of a bunch of tribulations. So is it "immediately" after or before or during, or immediately after some tribulations he comes but then there are more tribulations that come after that... and they are way worse? Just a small technicality.

 

[CG Didymus]

Notice the phrase "though that decision be not right". A person can politely ask the assembly to reconsider their decision and nothing more and not in public. This helps to maintain harmony and prevent estrangement. If the decision be not right, it will become apparent if the decision is carried out with the support of the community. This last sentence is an paraphrase from the Writings.

Right now or back fifty years ago, I didn't expect the decisions to be perfect. But, what I did see, like with the people involved with the Dialogue magazine and my Baha'i friends, there was a tension between the Baha'i in leadership positions and these other Baha'is.

If and when the Baha'i Faith gets to a place where it is the majority, I hope they can do a better job. 'Cause that would show that the Faith is the truth, and we all will be depending on them to make the right decisions that will unite the world and bring peace and harmony.