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

[samtonga43]

If they think they know it is the appropriate word.

No, it isn't. If you think you know, you just think you know. You don't know you know.

 

[samtonga43]

I never preached that I agree with Christian beliefs, only the scriptures. There is quite a wide disparity between the two.

I didn't but I do not see how it is related to what I just said.

I have evidence and that is what convinced me. I cannot make other people be convinced by the evidence and that is not my responsibility.

Have I ever told you that they show that He was a Messenger from God. I told you that such a claim cannot be proven, and that all we can do is believe Baha'u'llah was being truthful, based upon the evidence.

I am not deliberately misrepresenting the evidence. All I can so is present the evidence I know about. I cannot present any evidence that shows that I am wrong because I have no such evidence. If people believe I am wrong then they have to present the evidence that shows I am wrong.

That's not how it works. You have to present the evidence that shows you are right.

 

[CG Didymus]

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

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?

Wow, are you sure you believe in the Bible? As a good Baha'is is supposed to do? Actually, if you say, "no" I'd agree with you more.

You're right. Copying from what? First there was oral traditions. Which ones caught on? Which ones were forgotten? Were some traditions borrowed from other cultures, then adopted and adapted into the story of the Hebrews? Then, at some point, people, called scribes, wrote it down. How much did they write down? The first five books? If so, that's enough, because Ishmael and Isaac are in Genesis.

I wouldn't doubt that the religious leaders told these stories as if they were exactly true. And I'm sure many people had many of the stories memorized. And a story like God telling Abraham to sacrifice his son would very likely be a story that stuck in the people's memory.

There are ancient fragments of Genesis. Some of the fragments probably have that story. Those fragments might be more than 2000 years old. But even if they are a little less than that, we know that the story had Isaac as the one taken to be sacrificed. Are there any older fragments that have Ishmael? Maybe, but I've never heard of any. Have you? So, since those fragments until today the Genesis story always had Isaac, then if there was a change it had to be more than 2000 years ago. Long before Muhammad or the Baha'i Faith. That's why I wonder... what would have been their motive?

Now let's say it was a fictional story. We might even say there a chance that most all of Genesis is fictional. The creation story, the flood, the tower of Babel, Sodom and Gomorrah and Abraham being told by God to sacrifice his son. If fiction, why would Muhammad and Baha'u'llah say it wasn't Isaac but Ishmael? The story wasn't real. So to say that in fact in the "real" story it was Ishmael and in the fabricated, changed story it was Isaac, they are making it real, true and historical? What do you think? Is that what Baha'u'llah is saying? That the event really happened and Ishmael was the son taken?

I hope not. I hope that Baha'is at the most make the stories allegorical. But then again, why would the Hebrew scribes change a fictional, allegorical story to have Isaac instead of Ishmael? And then what a change. It's not a matter of crossing out one name and putting in another. They had to write in sending Ishmael and his mother away. They had to write in why Sarah wanted Abraham to send them away.

As most of us know, Isaac becomes a major figure in the story of the Hebrew people. He was the father of Jacob who had several sons and I think a couple of grandsons that became the twelve tribes of Israel. How does Ishmael fit into that?

Anyway, I don't know how much you read of these kinds of posts or if you even care, because, as very, very typical, you have made up your mind. Because you have "proof". Baha'u'llah said so. In case you deny that, let me quote you, "To me what Baha'u'llah said is the proof."

When did this change happen? Who did it? He answers nothing. All we can do is examine what we have. And, if it happened at all, it must have been earlier than the Dead Sea Scrolls. Really? Or, Baha'u'llah wants to support what is alluded to in the Quran. But the NT also support it being Isaac, Hebrews 11:17 "By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice." James 2:21 "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?" So is Baha'u'llah going to say that the NT is wrong too?

The greater point is.. most all religions have flaky beliefs mixed in. But most all are trying to get people to believe in something greater than themselves and this physical world. They talk of Gods, of angels, some have devils and demons, some have a heaven and a hell... They tell people what they must do to get to that heavenly place and how they should live. Each religions tells a different story. They have rising and dying God/men. They have fire coming from the sky to destroy evil people. Lots of fantastic stories. Some people believe those stories. Some people just take the spiritual wisdom that is found in those stories. With most all religions, to believe too strongly and too literally has been a bad thing.

Like you say, "They are just stories." Yet, with your religion, we have the same thing... a call to believe it totally and completely. I think there are enough things in the religion to make it worth holding back and taking a deeper look into it. Does everything Baha'u'llah says have to be dead on true? For Baha'is yes. But it puts them on the spot and having to "prove" what he says is true. And for most all of them, there is no proof... Just talk.

 

[CG Didymus]

I see it more of putting a puzzle together.

Each piece is part of a larger picture, and each pice tells its own part of the story that must be examined to see how it fits.

Look how Abdu'lbaha interprets Daniel and Chapters 11 and 12 of Revelation, the prophecy unfolding traverses centuries.

Now if I spend time adding my ideas, it will only muddy the water further.

Regards Tony

I did have a Daniel question. It was when did the daily sacrifice stop and the abomination start?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I did have a Daniel question. It was when did the daily sacrifice stop and the abomination start?

457BC is seen to be the starting point of that prophecy. William Miller of the Advent movement had determined that from his study of the Bible.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

No, it isn't. If you think you know, you just think you know. You don't know you know.

I said: "If they think they know it is the appropriate word."
I was talking about they, not me.

I do not think I know, I know, because I am to be aware of the truth or factuality of, convinced or certain of.

Definition of know

1a(1): to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2): to have understanding of importance of knowing oneself(3): to recognize the nature of : discernb(1): to recognize as being the same as something previously known(2): to be acquainted or familiar with (3): to have experience of

2a: to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of b: to have a practical understanding of knows how to write

Definition of KNOW

 

[Trailblazer]

That's not how it works. You have to present the evidence that shows you are right.

That's not how it works. I do not have to present the evidence that shows I am right because I did not make any claims.
I am just a believer in the claims and believers have no burden of proof.

Baha'u'llah made the claims so it is He who bears the burden of proof. That is why Baha'u'llah delineated the evidence that shows His claims are true. I presented that evidence.

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106

I cannot help it if people don't think the evidence proves anything. It is still the evidence.

Evidence is evidence whether you think it proves anything or not. When the jury is presented with the evidence that a crime has been committed they don't say "that is not evidence." They look at all the evidence that was presented to them and decide if the person is guilty or not guilty. Likewise, people can look at all the evidence for Baha'u'llah and decide to believe or disbelieve that He was a Messenger of God.

 

[Trailblazer]

Wow, are you sure you believe in the Bible? As a good Baha'is is supposed to do? Actually, if you say, "no" I'd agree with you more.

You're right. Copying from what? First there was oral traditions. Which ones caught on? Which ones were forgotten? Were some traditions borrowed from other cultures, then adopted and adapted into the story of the Hebrews? Then, at some point, people, called scribes, wrote it down. How much did they write down? The first five books? If so, that's enough, because Ishmael and Isaac are in Genesis.

I wouldn't doubt that the religious leaders told these stories as if they were exactly true. And I'm sure many people had many of the stories memorized. And a story like God telling Abraham to sacrifice his son would very likely be a story that stuck in the people's memory.

There are ancient fragments of Genesis. Some of the fragments probably have that story. Those fragments might be more than 2000 years old. But even if they are a little less than that, we know that the story had Isaac as the one taken to be sacrificed. Are there any older fragments that have Ishmael? Maybe, but I've never heard of any. Have you? So, since those fragments until today the Genesis story always had Isaac, then if there was a change it had to be more than 2000 years ago. Long before Muhammad or the Baha'i Faith. That's why I wonder... what would have been their motive?

Now let's say it was a fictional story. We might even say there a chance that most all of Genesis is fictional. The creation story, the flood, the tower of Babel, Sodom and Gomorrah and Abraham being told by God to sacrifice his son. If fiction, why would Muhammad and Baha'u'llah say it wasn't Isaac but Ishmael? The story wasn't real. So to say that in fact in the "real" story it was Ishmael and in the fabricated, changed story it was Isaac, they are making it real, true and historical? What do you think? Is that what Baha'u'llah is saying? That the event really happened and Ishmael was the son taken?

I hope not. I hope that Baha'is at the most make the stories allegorical. But then again, why would the Hebrew scribes change a fictional, allegorical story to have Isaac instead of Ishmael? And then what a change. It's not a matter of crossing out one name and putting in another. They had to write in sending Ishmael and his mother away. They had to write in why Sarah wanted Abraham to send them away.

As most of us know, Isaac becomes a major figure in the story of the Hebrew people. He was the father of Jacob who had several sons and I think a couple of grandsons that became the twelve tribes of Israel. How does Ishmael fit into that?

Anyway, I don't know how much you read of these kinds of posts or if you even care, because, as very, very typical, you have made up your mind. Because you have "proof". Baha'u'llah said so. In case you deny that, let me quote you, "To me what Baha'u'llah said is the proof."

When did this change happen? Who did it? He answers nothing. All we can do is examine what we have. And, if it happened at all, it must have been earlier than the Dead Sea Scrolls. Really? Or, Baha'u'llah wants to support what is alluded to in the Quran. But the NT also support it being Isaac, Hebrews 11:17 "By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice." James 2:21 "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?" So is Baha'u'llah going to say that the NT is wrong too?

The greater point is.. most all religions have flaky beliefs mixed in. But most all are trying to get people to believe in something greater than themselves and this physical world. They talk of Gods, of angels, some have devils and demons, some have a heaven and a hell... They tell people what they must do to get to that heavenly place and how they should live. Each religions tells a different story. They have rising and dying God/men. They have fire coming from the sky to destroy evil people. Lots of fantastic stories. Some people believe those stories. Some people just take the spiritual wisdom that is found in those stories. With most all religions, to believe too strongly and too literally has been a bad thing.

Like you say, "They are just stories." Yet, with your religion, we have the same thing... a call to believe it totally and completely. I think there are enough things in the religion to make it worth holding back and taking a deeper look into it. Does everything Baha'u'llah says have to be dead on true? For Baha'is yes. But it puts them on the spot and having to "prove" what he says is true. And for most all of them, there is no proof... Just talk.

You *seem* to be obsessed with whether it was Ishmael or Issac. Why is this so important to you? Why would it matter now, thousands of years later? I think that is a question you should be asking yourself because I cannot possibly know why.

I cannot say whether Baha'u'llah believed the story of Ishmael and Isaac was literally true or just a fictional story but even if it was literally true, why would it matter what happened thousands of years ago? How does that have any bearing on the present day? Doesn't humanity have enough problems facing it in the present day? the Bible has absolutely no solutions for those problems. Logically speaking, if the Bible had solutions to those problems those problems would not exist, since we have had the Bible for about 2000 years yet the problems persist.

God sent a new Messenger/Prophet to solve the problems that humanity is facing today. Why is this so difficult for people to understand and accept? This is not rocket science.

“The Prophets of God should be regarded as physicians whose task is to foster the well-being of the world and its peoples, that, through the spirit of oneness, they may heal the sickness of a divided humanity. To none is given the right to question their words or disparage their conduct, for they are the only ones who can claim to have understood the patient and to have correctly diagnosed its ailments. No man, however acute his perception, can ever hope to reach the heights which the wisdom and understanding of the Divine Physician have attained. Little wonder, then, if the treatment prescribed by the physician in this day should not be found to be identical with that which he prescribed before. How could it be otherwise when the ills affecting the sufferer necessitate at every stage of his sickness a special remedy? In like manner, every time the Prophets of God have illumined the world with the resplendent radiance of the Day Star of Divine knowledge, they have invariably summoned its peoples to embrace the light of God through such means as best befitted the exigencies of the age in which they appeared.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 80

But no, most people do not accept and believe in Baha'ullah because they are clinging to the religious traditions of the past. This is the whole problem humanity is facing right now in a nutshell. They are living in the past, as if in a time warp, believing that what God revealed thousands of years ago still applies to days world. This is illogical.

I believe in Baha'u'llah because of the evidence that shows that He was a Messenger of God but the main reason I believe in the Baha'i Faith is because it is the ONLY religion that makes logical sense and it is also the only religion that has the remedy for the problems humanity is facing in the present time and it is the only religion that has the remedy for what humanity will need in the future.

 

[Trailblazer]

Because I'm not a liar and I would be lying if I was to say that.

Then why can't you tell me how my beliefs have been refuted and who refuted them?

You need to ask yourself that question.

I do not need to ask myself that question since I have presented evidence for what I believe. However you have presented no evidence that shows that anyone has refuted my beliefs so why would you expect anyone to believe you have something you cannot even present?

Just because someone denys it being refuted, doesn't mean that it wasn't refuted.

Just because someone claims to have refuted something that does not mean they have refuted it, especially when they cannot even present any evidence of that refutation. Claims require evidence and otherwise they are just bald assertions.

 

[Trailblazer]

I already covered and said what was needed to deniers.

I have no idea what you mean by "what was needed to deniers." Can you cite the post where you covered that? I went all the way back to the beginning of what you said and I could not figure out what you are referring to.

That statement is only true if those facts actually do exist.

Of course. Those facts actually do exist but those facts don't have the same significance to everyone who reads about them.

Apparently it does hurt you, enough to make a threat towards me.

And there's no need for me to repost it since you're just going to deny it.

What you say or what anyone on this forum says does not hurt me at all because I am firm in my beliefs and I also know that I am not dishonest.

What I know to be true is not anyone else's business, it is personal to me. You can disagree and say I don't really know it but you cannot change what I know to be true unless you can prove it is false, in which case I would reconsider what I believe.

That was not a threat, it was a warning. Why would I deny what I posted? It is all there in black and white.

I don't care what you say about my beliefs but I will not tolerate being called dishonest. I have many character defects but dishonesty is not one of them. Would you like it if I called you dishonest? Did I ever call you or anyone else dishonest? That is a personal insult and it is uncalled for. When people can stick with the subject matter and hold their positions they have no need for personal insults.

I disagree that I have been refuted but you believe you have refuted me so you are not being dishonest.
You disagree that I have evidence but I believe I have evidence so I am not being dishonest.

 

[samtonga43]

That's not how it works. I do not have to present the evidence that shows I am right because I did not make any claims.
I am just a believer in the claims and believers have no burden of proof.

But you KNOW. You have not just belief, but knowledge. Have you forgotten this?

 

[samtonga43]

I said: "If they think they know it is the appropriate word."
I was talking about they, not me.

The 'you' was generic.

 

[Trailblazer]

But you KNOW. You have not just belief, but knowledge. Have you forgotten this?

That does not change the fact that I am just a believer in the claims and believers have no burden of proof.
In other words, I have no burden to prove what I KNOW is the truth because I did not make the claim that it is true.

 

[Trailblazer]

The 'you' was generic.

Only in your opinion.

 

[Tiberius]

But you are not going to get that kind of evidence because those passages were never intended to be interpreted literally and as such they cannot be tested.

This is exactly what I was talking about. People who claim that a religious text holds some kind of truth always make sure the texts are unfalsifiable.

Sorry, that is not possible for obvious reasons. We can never know what God is doing at any time.

Again, making sure that the claims are unfalsifiable.

One cannot know if what they got was just their believing or if it was an answer from God. They can believe but they cannot know.

Have you heard about the people who tried praying to their toasters and found that they got pretty much the same results as when they were praying to God?

Because certain people keep posting to me and asking me questions, so I answer them.

I try to answer all posted that are posted to me, unless someone is disrespectful.

Then it seems you have the answer to your own question.

 

[Tiberius]

I am saying it is a perceived reality we look at, it is a creation and we are created to be part of it in a specific state of being. If we were not in this state of being, we would not be perceive it as we do now.

When we pass on we are still part of this world,but in a different state of being, so where are all those that have passed on, why do we not see or hear them? (well not most of us anyway, maybe some indeed do).

This talk by Abdu’l-Baha offers what I am thinking in this discussion.

The Other World is Within This World
"… The answer to the first question: The souls of the children of the Kingdom, after their separation from the body, ascend unto the realm of everlasting life. But if ye ask as to the place, know ye that the world of existence is a single world, although its stations are various and distinct. For example, the mineral life occupieth its own plane, but a mineral entity is without any awareness at all of the vegetable kingdom,…

"As to the second question: The tests and trials of God take place in this world, not in the world of the Kingdom.

"The answer to the third question is this, that in the other world the human reality doth not assume a physical form, rather doth it take on a heavenly form, made up of elements of that heavenly realm.

"And the answer to the fourth question: The centre of the Sun of Truth is in the supernal world—the Kingdom of God. Those souls who are pure and unsullied, upon the dissolution of their elemental frames, hasten away to the world of God, and that world is within this world. The people of this world, however, are unaware of that world, and are even as the mineral and the vegetable that know nothing of the world of the animal and the world of man."
(‘Abdu’l-Bahá: Selections from the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, pp. 194-95)

I see we are but one heart beat away from being removed from this matrix, into the worlds to come.

Regards Tony

But what is it that we are perceiving?

 

[Tiberius]

I never preached that I agree with Christian beliefs, only the scriptures. There is quite a wide disparity between the two.

Are you unfamiliar with the phrase "practice what you preach"?

I didn't but I do not see how it is related to what I just said.

How do you expect to find truth if you don't eliminate biases?

I have evidence and that is what convinced me. I cannot make other people be convinced by the evidence and that is not my responsibility.

How can it be evidence if it can't be verified?

Have I ever told you that they show that He was a Messenger from God. I told you that such a claim cannot be proven, and that all we can do is believe Baha'u'llah was being truthful, based upon the evidence.

They show no such thing. They make a claim, that is all, and that claim can't be supported in any way.

I am not deliberately misrepresenting the evidence. All I can so is present the evidence I know about. I cannot present any evidence that shows that I am wrong because I have no such evidence. If people believe I am wrong then they have to present the evidence that shows I am wrong.

I am not talking about what you are saying. I am talking about what Mr B was saying.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

But what is it that we are perceiving?

Would not that question have as many answers as there are people that can perceive?

Regards Tony

 

[Tiberius]

That is because I was backed into a corner and I can only tell the truth about what I believe.

Backed into a corner? Please. Regardless of that, you admit that you actually believe that, so it seems that you're just saying that you wouldn't have said what you actually believe unless being forced. Why do you wish to keep your beliefs secret?

I know that, but that is not what I claimed. I did not say that the larger religions such as Christianity and Islam are truer than Judaism just because they are larger than Judaism. They are also not truer than the Baha'i Faith just because they are larger than the Bahai Faith. All these religions are true religions of God and there are logical explanations as to why some are smaller than others.

Irrelevant. You established a clear connection between size and how true it is.

I said that the teachings of the religions have been corrupted by the religious leaders and that means that in some cases the way other religions interpret their own holy texts is wrong. If/when Baha'is get it right that is because Baha'u'llah or Abdu'l-Baha explained what the verses mean.

And the Christians can say that Jesus explained what the passages mean, or they can say God told them what the passages mean. So what? There are countless ways for people of any faith to claim that they know what passages ACTUALLY mean.

 

[YoursTrue]

You *seem* to be obsessed with whether it was Ishmael or Issac. Why is this so important to you? Why would it matter now, thousands of years later? I think that is a question you should be asking yourself because I cannot possibly know why.

I cannot say whether Baha'u'llah believed the story of Ishmael and Isaac was literally true or just a fictional story but even if it was literally true, why would it matter what happened thousands of years ago? How does that have any bearing on the present day?

??? You don't think that what happened thousands of years ago has an effect on our lives and thinking today?

Doesn't humanity have enough problems facing it in the present day? the Bible has absolutely no solutions for those problems. Logically speaking, if the Bible had solutions to those problems those problems would not exist, since we have had the Bible for about 2000 years yet the problems persist.

The Bible has the answers we need in order to be understanding what is going to happen. I believe it is impossible to understand it, however, without the right direction. And also it has the answers we, as humanity, really need in order to live our lives properly in God's eyes. He has eyes. No matter how you take it, He sees...