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

[Trailblazer]

The ancient Hebrew word Tsiyon (Zion) is “a Canaanite hill fortress in Jerusalem captured by David and called in the Bible ‘City of David.’" So again, Baha'is find ways to make things into whatever best suits them. And then it becomes the truth.​

No, that is what you are doing, trying to find ways to make things into whatever best suits you.
There are hundreds of verses in the Bible so you can always find verses or other information you believe prove you are right and I can find other verses or other information that proves that you are wrong. What's the point? I am getting really tired of this game and I have no need to play it because I already know that the Baha'i Faith is true.

 

[CG Didymus]

I do not really know. Only Abdu'l-Baha knows since he said that.

Maybe it is age 15 because that is the age when a person can first become a Baha'i.

Even if it was younger, kids are not sinless.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Again, I am NOT talking about what we perceive the world to be! I am talking about the world that ACTUALLY EXISTS, separate to our perception of it!

As I am saying that the world, as it actually exists, is just a perception, do we need to do it again?

It is refracted light sent as signals sent to neurons that is interpreted in a flesh brain that eventually does not exist. Same as all our senses, they perceive a reality that is a construct, and when deconstruction takes place, it all becomes another reality.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

This doesn't come anywhere close to answering my question.

For some fact to be "knowable," it has to be true. You can not KNOW that the moon is made of cheese, since that claim is demonstrably false.

I can't understand how you are so consistently not understanding the points I am trying to make.

We have different frames of references.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

From your link...

Ezekiel's prophetic vision of a city centered on the rebuilt Holy Temple, the Third Temple, to be established in Jerusalem, which would be the capital of the Messianic Kingdom, the meeting place of the twelve tribes of Israel, during the Messianic era.​

If that is how you choose to see it, then I am not going to press another view upon you. Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

And just a reminder, I don't need to refute claims that has no evidence to support it.

Then why did you say you had refuted my evidence?

You said: You're still a Baha'i, even after your so called "evidence" were refuted. So clearly, that statement above is not true.

One more post where you call me dishonest and I will report you to the staff.

 

[Trailblazer]

Even if it was younger, kids are not sinless.

So what? We are not talking about Christianity here.

 

[CG Didymus]

What is the source of this information?
Copying what? God's Word? What makes you think that the scribes knew what God's Word was? How would they know? Did God speak to them? It is amazing you would believe this is God's Word and you don't wonder why while you wonder so much about other things that do not even matter, such as whether it was Ishmael or Issac.

We do not know if it was historically accurate or not, but Baha'u'llah knew what God intended to convey because
Baha'u'llah had the knowledge of God.

Why does it worry you, because you believe that Jewish scribes were better able to know what God said than a Manifestation of God would knows?

Sometimes you make no sense. Copying what? The Bible! Hello!

The process of making copies of the Bible

The link is there. Check it out. This was what they said was the process the scribes went through when they made copies of the Bible. It's your guy who made the claim that it was Ishmael. All you have is his word, no proof. Since I see no evidence of the story ever having Ishmael taken to be sacrificed, what am I supposed to believe? So again I ask... Who did it and when did they do it? Do you know? It doesn't sound like it. So all you have is a person's word. A person you believe cannot lie. I try and verify one his claims, and it can't be verified. Great... just great.

Oh, this is interesting too... "We do not know if it was historically accurate or not, but Baha'u'llah knew what God intended to convey." Okay, what did God want to convey?

 

[CG Didymus]

So what? We are not talking about Christianity here.

So what? This is what? We are talking about Abdul Baha.

Question.—What is the condition of children who die before attaining the age of discretion or before the appointed time of birth?

Answer.—These infants are under the shadow of the favor of God; and as they have not committed any sin and are not soiled with the impurities of the world of nature,

So no age is mentioned. But an infant doesn't sound like a fifteen year old.

 

[Trailblazer]

Sometimes you make no sense. Copying what? The Bible! Hello!

But copying it from where? Where did the original Bible come from?

The link is there. Check it out. This was what they said was the process the scribes went through when they made copies of the Bible. It's your guy who made the claim that it was Ishmael. All you have is his word, no proof. Since I see no evidence of the story ever having Ishmael taken to be sacrificed, what am I supposed to believe? So again I ask... Who did it and when did they do it? Do you know? It doesn't sound like it. So all you have is a person's word. A person you believe cannot lie. I try and verify one his claims, and it can't be verified. Great... just great.

All you have is what the Bible says, no proof. To me what Baha'u'llah said is the proof.
It cannot be verified they way you want it to be verified. Why does it matter so much to you?

Oh, this is interesting too... "We do not know if it was historically accurate or not, but Baha'u'llah knew what God intended to convey." Okay, what did God want to convey?

Whatever Baha'u'llah wrote.

 

[Trailblazer]

So what? This is what? We are talking about Abdul Baha.
So no age is mentioned. But an infant doesn't sound like a fifteen year old.

Why did you mention sin?
You said: Even if it was younger, kids are not sinless.

I don't know what age of children he was referring to.

 

[Truthseeker]

Baha'is took the KJV where it say "He" shall come to you from Assyria. But other translations have "They" will come to you. So by the time we're done examining the prophecies, like TB says, anyone can make them say anything they want.

I agree with you on that one. But that was an interpretation by William Sears, not by Baha'u'llah or 'Abdu'l-Baha. William Sears is fallible. I think William Sears was wrong on that one.

Yet, he might have more followers than Baha'u'llah. How can that be?

I see looking at the site, that he does have more followers than Baha'u'llah. So does Joseph Smith. Neither one proves anything at all. Baha'u'llah created an independent religion. Ahmad is considered an heretical part of Islam:

The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, which comprises by far the majority of Ahmadis, believes that Ghulam Ahmad's prophetic status does not in any way infringe the finality of Muhammad's prophethood – to which it is wholly subservient and from which it is inseparable – and is in accordance with scriptural prophecies concerning the advent of the Messiah in Islam.

Although it has expanded to over 200 countries and territories of the world, numbering an estimated 10 to 20 million,[105][106] it has received a largely negative (often hostile) response from mainstream Muslims who view Ghulam Ahmad as a false messiah and his teachings as heretical, particularly the teaching that he was a prophet.

My point is that many of Ahmad's followers consider themselves Muslims. It would be natural that since they recognize the finality of Muhammad's prophethood this accords better with conventual Islam, and he would attract more followers, and not by that much. Also it a seems a contradiction to claim to be prophet and accept the finality of Muhammad's prophethood.

Smith created a sect of Christianity so he would attract Christians.

The Bab and Baha'u'llah made claims that are hard for both Christians and Muslims to accept. They made interpretations of scriptures that were non-literal, which didn't accord with the way many of them looked at scripture. Islam and Christianity became more literal over time. They lost the spirit of scripture.

What are the "proofs" to his claims? What prophecies did he fulfill?

Prophecies fulfilled are not the fruits that I talked about. They are not proofs. You are obsessed with prophecies, in my opinion.

 

[CG Didymus]

With this CG we must Balance Science and Faith. Faith tells me that God created and can do as God wills. Baha'u'llah offerd he could utter one word and make all beleivers, but that would alter this reality, its purpose.

Scientifically could it be possible for a virgin to give birth, most likely not, but here is the thing, we have no way of knowing what happened now either way.

So what is the spiritual ramifications of such a story? It could be a simple reality that as a Messenger is born from a womb, in our reality they are born of the Holy Spirit. That Spirit is given and not conceived.

Personally I see no need to dwell on it, there is much more practical things to pursue.

This is part of verifying that a prophecy was actually fulfilled. I've given my reasons why I don't think Isaiah 7:14 was a Messianic prophecy. If you're okay with taking verse fourteen and making about an event that happens centuries later, then fine. But, then don't tell me that you don't cherry-pick. 'Cause I won't believe you.

 

[Truthseeker]

When I ask how she knows, she says that MrB said so. It is irrational.

I don't think she said that. This is an obvious distortion. I know her, she would never say that. What I have always heard her say is that she investigated His claim, and upon the evidence she found she believed in Him. Later when she read The Gleanings of Baha'u'llah it had such an effect on her that she then knew, which is what Baha'u'llah calls certitude.

 

[CG Didymus]

Why did you mention sin?
You said: Even if it was younger, kids are not sinless.

I don't know what age of children he was referring to.

"as they have not committed any sin" Abdul Baha' said it.

 

[Trailblazer]

I agree with you on that one. But that was an interpretation by William Sears, not by Baha'u'llah or 'Abdu'l-Baha. William Sears is fallible. I think William Sears was wrong on that one.

Why is the interpretation of Sears wrong? All the translations are different; some say he and some say they and some say the people. How do you know which one is correct? Below is an interpretation of the whole chapter that CG asked for a while ago.

Micah 7 King James Version (KJV)

7 Woe is me! for I am as when they have gathered the summer fruits, as the grapegleanings of the vintage: there is no cluster to eat: my soul desired the firstripe fruit.

2 The good man is perished out of the earth: and there is none upright among men: they all lie in wait for blood; they hunt every man his brother with a net.

3 That they may do evil with both hands earnestly, the prince asketh, and the judge asketh for a reward; and the great man, he uttereth his mischievous desire: so they wrap it up.

4 The best of them is as a brier: the most upright is sharper than a thorn hedge: the day of thy watchmen and thy visitation cometh; now shall be their perplexity.

5 Trust ye not in a friend, put ye not confidence in a guide: keep the doors of thy mouth from her that lieth in thy bosom.

6 For the son dishonoureth the father, the daughter riseth up against her mother, the daughter in law against her mother in law; a man's enemies are the men of his own house.

I think that the gist of verses 1-6 is summarized in verse 2 -- The good man is perished out of the earth: and there is none upright among men – and verses 1-6 are a lead-in to the verses that come after that.

7 Therefore I will look unto the Lord; I will wait for the God of my salvation: my God will hear me.

8 Rejoice not against me, O mine enemy: when I fall, I shall arise; when I sit in darkness, the Lord shall be a light unto me.

9 I will bear the indignation of the Lord, because I have sinned against him, until he plead my cause, and execute judgment for me: he will bring me forth to the light, and I shall behold his righteousness.

10 Then she that is mine enemy shall see it, and shame shall cover her which said unto me, Where is the Lord thy God? mine eyes shall behold her: now shall she be trodden down as the mire of the streets.

Then, in verses 7-10, he says he will look to the Lord, because man has failed (which he described in verses 1-6).

7 Therefore I will look unto the Lord; I will wait for the God of my salvation: my God will hear me.

Verse 7 is a lead-in to verses 11-20, which are about the Lord, the Lord of Hosts who will come in the Person of the Messiah. Micah describes what will happen in that day. All these things happened in the days of Baha’u’llah.

11 In the day that thy walls are to be built, in that day shall the decree be far removed.

The decree was removed in 1844:

Edict of Toleration 1844

An edict of toleration is a declaration, made by a government or ruler and states, that members of a given religionwill not be persecuted for engaging in their religious practices and traditions. The edict implies tacit acceptance of the religion rather than its endorsement by the ruling power.

Edict of toleration - Wikipedia

Verse 12 describes where the Messiah will come from and go to:

12 In that day also he shall come even to thee from Assyria, and from the fortified cities, and from the fortress even to the river, and from sea to sea, and from mountain to mountain.

Verses 13-20 describe what the lands looked like and what the Messiah would do.

13 Notwithstanding the land shall be desolate because of them that dwell therein, for the fruit of their doings.

14 Feed thy people with thy rod, the flock of thine heritage, which dwell solitarily in the wood, in the midst of Carmel: let them feed in Bashan and Gilead, as in the days of old.

15 According to the days of thy coming out of the land of Egypt will I shew unto him marvellous things.

16 The nations shall see and be confounded at all their might: they shall lay their hand upon their mouth, their ears shall be deaf.

17 They shall lick the dust like a serpent, they shall move out of their holes like worms of the earth: they shall be afraid of the Lord our God, and shall fear because of thee.

18 Who is a God like unto thee, thatpardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? heretaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth in mercy.

19 He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us; he will subdue our iniquities; and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea.

20 Thou wilt perform the truth to Jacob, and the mercy to Abraham, which thou hast sworn unto our fathers from the days of old.

All of this can be tied in with what William Sears wrote in his book Thief in the Night.

Sears listed many things the Messiah would do but I am clipping out only the parts that pertain to Micah 7. In the book, Sears explained exactly how Baha’u’llah fulfilled these prophecies.

1. He would come from Assyria.
2. He would come from the fortified cities.
3. He would come from a fortress to a river.
4. He would come from sea to sea.
5. He would come from mountain to mountain.
6. The land to which he came would be desolate.
7. He would feed his flock in the midst of Mount Carmel.
8. He would work his wonders for a period equal to the days which the Jews spent coming out of Egypt.

Thief in the Night, p. 122

 

[Tiberius]

They believe they know but the evidence contradicts what they believe.

I'm not asking if the evidence contradicts what they believe.

I'm asking if the word "know" is the appropriate word for what they believe.

But if they believe they know they are not being untruthful. Sure, if something is not true, we may think we know, but we don't. The presidential election being stolen was proven not to be true but it is not possible to prove a religion is not true. All we have is the evidence for the religion and some people will believe that evidence indicates the religion is true and some people will not believe that evidence indicates that the religion is true. Nobody can refute actual evidence, all they can do is say it does not prove anything to them.

I'm not talking about honesty here.

I'm using "truth" in the sense of "What is actually real, not just what they perceive to be real."

 

[Trailblazer]

"as they have not committed any sin" Abdul Baha' said it.

Okay, sorry I missed that. This thread is moving so fast!

 

[Tiberius]

As I am saying that the world, as it actually exists, is just a perception, do we need to do it again?

Then what are we perceiving? A figment of our imagination? Are you saying that there is absolutely nothing at all unless someone is looking at it?

It is refracted light sent as signals sent to neurons that is interpreted in a flesh brain that eventually does not exist. Same as all our senses, they perceive a reality that is a construct, and when deconstruction takes place, it all becomes another reality.

Regards Tony

And that is our perception of the world, not the real world that exists and that we perceive.

 

[CG Didymus]

I agree with you on that one. But that was an interpretation by William Sears, not by Baha'u'llah or 'Abdu'l-Baha. William Sears is fallible. I think William Sears was wrong on that one.

I see looking at the site, that he does have more followers than Baha'u'llah. So does Joseph Smith. Neither one proves anything at all. Baha'u'llah created an independent religion. Ahmad is considered an heretical part of Islam:

The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, which comprises by far the majority of Ahmadis, believes that Ghulam Ahmad's prophetic status does not in any way infringe the finality of Muhammad's prophethood – to which it is wholly subservient and from which it is inseparable – and is in accordance with scriptural prophecies concerning the advent of the Messiah in Islam.

Although it has expanded to over 200 countries and territories of the world, numbering an estimated 10 to 20 million,[105][106] it has received a largely negative (often hostile) response from mainstream Muslims who view Ghulam Ahmad as a false messiah and his teachings as heretical, particularly the teaching that he was a prophet.

My point is that many of Ahmad's followers consider themselves Muslims. It would be natural that since they recognize the finality of Muhammad's prophethood this accords better with conventual Islam, and he would attract more followers, and not by that much. Also it a seems a contradiction to claim to be prophet and accept the finality of Muhammad's prophethood.

Smith created a sect of Christianity so he would attract Christians.

The Bab and Baha'u'llah made claims that are hard for both Christians and Muslims to accept. They made interpretations of scriptures that were non-literal, which didn't accord with the way many of them looked at scripture. Islam and Christianity became more literal over time. They lost the spirit of scripture.


Prophecies fulfilled are not the fruits that I talked about. They are not proofs. You are obsessed with prophecies, in my opinion.

Well the other point I've tried to make is that even these religious movements that most all of us think are false have some very good and spiritual people in them. Who believes in the Golden Plates and all that, but lots of Mormons are very good people. We could even say that about the born again Christians. Who believes in Satan and that Jesus is God? But because they believe that, they are also expected to do good. So lots of them give being good a try. But there's also the problem when some religious extremists take their beliefs too far.