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

[CG Didymus]

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

I'm questioning if they ever were "God's" laws or if the religious leaders made them up. Since there were religions that we don't believe are true that had similar laws and similar penalties and attributed those laws to their Gods.

 

[CG Didymus]

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

But they read it and could have had them rewrite it. Instead they lost a few very smart and observant people.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I'm questioning if they ever were "God's" laws or if the religious leaders made them up. Since there were religions that we don't believe are true that had similar laws and similar penalties and attributed those laws to their Gods.

You can read them yourself in the Bible and Quran, as we know these are a sure guide to past laws.

In this day they are in the Kitab-i-aqdas.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

But they read it and could have had them rewrite it. Instead they lost a few very smart and observant people.

We are not privy to what happened, nor do I need to be. There are confidentiality rules that must apply. Most likely advice was given. Whatever did transpire, Baha’u’llah says submission to the elected Institutions is binding under the Covernant for the sake of unity, has given avenues of appeal and has assured us submission brings the mercy of God to right any error of judgement.

I would offer there are many many more smart and observant people that have not left. As such I leave that with you to Ponder.

P/S I have written to the Universal House of Justice to clarify a decision made by National Spiritual Assemblie. The reply I got made me think deeply about my own thoughts having a priority over the chosen whole. In the end, I see I was very wrong to even ask the questions.

Now one could have pursued that by saying I know better and walked out in protest, but who lost in that battle, but the fight with your own self.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

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

And equally to Christian bias.

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.

That is not what I did. I said it is highly unlikely that so many people are wrong about Jesus and that only the Jews are right. Part of the reason it is unlikely is because there are only 14.7 million Jews and I explained that a loving God would not prefer a small handful of people to have the one true religion and leave everyone else in the world in the lurch. I did not conclude that Jesus is true because many people believe in Jesus.

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

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…?

Whenever I point out illogicality I explain why I think what was said is illogical. If others point out why they think what I say is illogical, that would be fair, but just to call someone illogical is not fair.

I do not accept being called illogical without an explanation of why I am illogical. Where is the evidence that shows I was illogical? Does a court of law reach a guilty verdict with no evidence?

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

I do not care if you think I am no different from any other religious person, although I know I am different. How would you like it if I said that you are no different from any other atheist? Do you think all atheists are the same? To say that would be the fallacy of hasty generalization.

But what does that have to do with what I said in my post? What you just said has nothing to do with what you are replying to.

Even if I do what other religious people do that does not mean I deserve to be treated with disrespect. I see atheists posting to Christians all the time and they stick to the points they are discussing rather than getting personal and criticizing the person they are posting to. If what I say bother you that much then perhaps it is best to not post to me or read anything I write.

I am willing to let bygones be bygones because we all say things in the fly and I am not a person to hold grudges. I think what you said was based upon a misunderstanding of me so all I can do is explain what I really think and feel and hopefully you will believe me.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

Please explain how science can be used to prove a religion is true.

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.

Please explain how a religious belief can be tested. Do you think we can test beliefs by seeing is the predictions a Messenger predicted actually came true? Would that be enough to prove He was actually a Messenger of God?

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 do not believe that anyone can ever verify that God exists or that a man was a Messenger of God, except in their own mind, and I believe that is what God expects us to do. The human mind is fallible but that is all we have.

I do not know what you mean by reality itself. If you mean what we can observe in the physical reality how could that lead us to verify that a religious belief is true?

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 that Egypt exists).

Jesus never intended for the verse to be taken literally since Jesus knew that actual mountains would be moved by faith. The following is not a Baha'i interpretation, it is a Christian interpretation, with which I fully agree. It concludes as such:

"Faith that can move mountains is not meant to imply a faith that can literally move literal mountains. The point Jesus was making is that even a little bit of faith—faith the size of a tiny mustard seed—can overcome mountainous obstacles in our lives."

Read more: Can faith really move mountains? | GotQuestions.org

Now, that might be testable, but first you would have to be a believer. I can say for myself that my faith has allowed me to overcome numerous obstacles in my life but that would not be meaningful to you.

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.

verify
make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, accurate, or justified.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=verified+means

I said I have verified that my religious beliefs are true the only way they can be verified. I have demonstrated to myself that my beliefs are accurate and justified. I have not demonstrated that my beliefs are accurate and justified to other people because that is not my responsibility and that would be impossible.

You can replace the word conditioned with the word justified in the following quote.

“For the faith of no man can be conditioned by any one except himself.” Gleanings, p. 143

 

[samtonga43]

And equally to Christian bias.

Of course.

That is not what I did. I said it is highly unlikely that so many people are wrong about Jesus and that only the Jews are right.

Yes. As I said, saying that it is unlikely that so many people could be wrong because there are so many of them. You are jumping on a bandwagon with one hand and using argumentum ad populum with the other. Sorry about the mixed metaphors!

In argumentation theory, an (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

Well, I am so glad you shared this Wikifact. I would never have known otherwise.

Whenever I point out illogicality I explain why I think what was said is illogical. If others point out why they think what I say is illogical, that would be fair, but just to call someone illogical is not fair. I do not accept being called illogical without an explanation of why I am illogical. Where is the evidence that shows I was illogical? Does a court of law reach a guilty verdict with no evidence?

I promise that I will explain, every time you are illogical, exactly why I think so. (Although, I think I have been doing quite a bit of this already.)

Edit to add: Just noticed this... "Please explain how science can be used to prove a religion is true".
Nodody has ever said that science can be used to prove a religion is true.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes. As I said, saying that it is unlikely that so many people could be wrong because there are so many of them. You are jumping on a bandwagon with one hand and using argumentum ad populum with the other. Sorry about the mixed metaphors!

No, it is not ad populum because I never said it is true because many or most people believe it is true.
Please quote me saying that or stop claiming I said it..

Oh, wait a minute. Thanks to what CG said in a post I was able to find what I had originally said:

The Jewish interpretation is biased because it is based upon what Jews want to be true, that Jesus was nobody. This is ludicrous and why only there are only 14.7 million Jews in the world and 2.5 billion Christians. The Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament is messed up because they are still waiting for the Messiah. They don't believe any of the prophecies are about the Messiah because they are still waiting for the Messiah that has already come, twice. They believe that the Messiah is coming just for them, to vindicate them and restore the Torah so they, the chosen people, can be the ones who are above all others in the world. Nothing could be more wrong. It is much more elitist than Christianity because at least Christians want everyone to be saved.

#2356 Trailblazer, Yesterday at 3:49 PM

I never said it is true because many or most people believe it is true.
I said: "The Jewish interpretation is biased because it is based upon what Jews want to be true, that Jesus was nobody. This is ludicrous and why only there are only 14.7 million Jews in the world and 2.5 billion Christians."

So I did not commit the fallacy of Argumentum ad populum

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

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

We are not going to come to a meeting of the minds on this. For one thing I know who Baha'u'llah was so I can see how the prophecies were fulfilled by Him. It is not just one prophecy that points to Baha'u'llah, it is all of them, as Sears clearly demonstrated in his book.

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 do not know how many there are but I have seen some on this forum. However, that is irrelevant since even they only have part of the truth since they rejected the Messengers who came after Jesus.

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.

Catholics and Protestants teach Hinduism as true? But even if they do, do their Scriptures address Hinduism? If not, why should the Baha'i Writings address Hinduism?

I will remind you that Baha'u'llah enjoined us to sanctify ourselves from the sayings of past religions and to turn to Him Who is the Day Spring of His Revelation, which was Baha'u'llah.

“Our purpose is to show that should the loved ones of God sanctify their hearts and their ears from the vain sayings that were uttered aforetime, and turn with their inmost souls to Him Who is the Day Spring of His Revelation, and to whatsoever things He hath manifested, such behavior would be regarded as highly meritorious in the sight of God….

Magnify His Name, and be thou of the thankful. Convey My greetings to My loved ones, whom God hath singled out for His love, and caused them to achieve their objects. All glory be to God, the Lord of all worlds.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 172

 

[CG Didymus]

Maybe it isn't an allegorical story, we just don't know. We have beliefs but we don't know.

Really? You're the first Baha'i to say that. I thought Abdul Baha said it was allegorical?

 

[CG Didymus]

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

Sorry I didn't make that clearer. Baha'u'llah also didn't say anything about Hinduism.

Yeah, just like Hinduism wasn't a concern of his.

Just like he didn't concern himself with the resurrection of Jesus. But, since the resurrection is a big part of the beliefs of several major sects of Christianity.

I think it was something (the resurrection) that should have gotten a little clarification considering Catholics teach it as true and so do lots of Protestants.

But it is interesting that Christianity doesn't support Hinduism, Buddhism and some others as being part of a progression.

 

[Trailblazer]

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 better solid to me. But what do I know.

But of course Jews would explain it that way, they do not believe that Jesus was the Messiah.

 

[CG Didymus]

As I have told you several times, Baha'is believe in the Virgin Birth because it was confirmed by Baha'u'llah and Abdul-Baha.

Again... Because Baha'u'llah said so. That's sad. I really, really don't think Isaiah 7:14 has anything to do with Jesus. I thought an open-minded, unbiased study of the chapter would make that obvious. But if a person has Baha'i/Christian bias that a virgin did give birth to Jesus, of course they won't see it. Still, what are the rest of the verses about then? Who were these two kings?

 

[Trailblazer]

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 that come after that are way worse? Just a small technicality.

Do you even know what the tribulation of those days is referring to? What are these tribulations? What did Jesus mean by immediately? Do you see the problem?

 

[CG Didymus]

You can read them yourself in the Bible and Quran, as we know these are a sure guide to past laws.

In this day they are in the Kitab-i-aqdas.

Regards Tony

So all the laws regarding the animal sacrifices, God really needed animals killed and offered to him?

 

[Trailblazer]

Again... Because Baha'u'llah said so. That's sad. I really, really don't think Isaiah 7:14 has anything to do with Jesus. I thought an open-minded, unbiased study of the chapter would make that obvious. But if a person has Baha'i/Christian bias that a virgin did give birth to Jesus, of course they won't see it. Still, what are the rest of the verses about then? Who were these two kings?

I think you are biased by the Jewish interpretation. Anyone who does not believe that Jesus was the Messiah won't believe any of the Servant Songs are about Jesus. Jews try to make them about the nation of Israel, which is ludicrous. "He" is not a nation, it is a man.

I was just pointing that out on another thread.entitled Jesus as Christ.

 

[CG Didymus]

Do you even know what the tribulation of those days is referring to? What are these tribulations? What did Jesus mean by immediately? Do you see the problem?

I'm referring to all the stuff that is prophesied in Revelation. There is a gospel verse that I quote all the time about there being wars and rumors of wars, but that is not the end. To me, if there are still wars and rumors of wars, then the end hasn't happened yet. But, since it's one of those questions that I ask over and over again, don't worry about it.

 

[CG Didymus]

I think you are biased by the Jewish interpretation. Anyone who does not believe that Jesus was the Messiah won't believe any of the Servant Songs are about Jesus. Jews try to make them about the nation of Israel, which is ludicrous. "He" is not a nation, it is a man.

I was just pointing that out on another thread.entitled Jesus as Christ.

I'm biased by Judaism? Because I read the verses in context and agreed with them?

 

[CG Didymus]

We are not going to come to a meeting of the minds on this. For one thing I know who Baha'u'llah was so I can see how the prophecies were fulfilled by Him. It is not just one prophecy that points to Baha'u'llah, it is all of them, as Sears clearly demonstrated in his book.

Bill Sears "clearly" demonstrated? There you go. You say the same stuff again and again and I ask... again and again.... How could an earthquake in Portugal, a smoky day and a meteor shower in I think it was Canada... be a fulfillment of a prophecy about a guy in Persia?