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

[YoursTrue]

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.

Well, well, this is interesting, and men have been studying this for a long time, but I was reading this in the book of Joshua, chapter 3, (quoting from two versions):
"American Standard Version
And Joshua said unto the people, Sanctify yourselves; for tomorrow Jehovah will do wonders among you.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
And Yeshua said to the people: “Be hallowed, because tomorrow LORD JEHOVAH does a wonder among you”
So the scriptures are very specific in many cases as to what happened and what will happen. That's Joshua 3:5. There are a couple of things here very interesting. The first that impresses me greatly is the specificity of the location and the occasion (as the people were entering the Promised Land). The second, really for another subject though, is that the Aramaic Bible translated Joshua into Yeshua. (Not wrong.)

 

[Tiberius]

Well then, "I think" would be a better way to say it.

So then we are agreed. Claiming to "know" a fact carries with it the implication that the fact is true.

That's correct. You can perceive or believe something exists that is nonexistent and conversely something can exist even though you do not believe or perceive it exists.

Again, we are agreed.

How do I know what truth is actually real? I know by various means. I know the the truth about the physical world is real because I can see it and experience it and it is confirmed to be real by science.

Very good.

I know of the spiritual world is real because the Bible and the Baha'i Writings say it is real and I can sense its presence.

Not so good. This method is very unreliable. Anyone can write something that makes a claim, and it is very easy to provide people with reasons to believe that something is true even if it actually isn't.

For example, there are these cheap plastic wristbands called Powerbalance or something like that, and the makers have vague claims that it increases wellness and enhances athletic performance by using mystical holograms based on eastern philosophies. There's a famous demonstration that they use to show how effective it is. They get a volunteer to stand on one leg and hold their arms out. The demonstrator then pushes down on one of the arms, and the volunteer is easily knocked off balance. Then they put one of the bracelets on the volunteer and the demonstrator does the same thing and this time, the volunteer is much more stable. Of course, the demonstrator claims that the wristband has made the difference here. What's really going on is that the demonstrator is cheating. The first time, they push down on the volunteer's arms and also push sideways AWAY from the volunteer's body. This will very easily put them off balance. But when the volunteer has the wristband on, the demonstrator pushes down and TOWARDS the volunteer's body, which makes it very hard to push them off balance. But this trick is enough to convince many people that the wristband is actually making some difference. A lot of people who try it claim that they can feel the wristband having some sort of effect. But it's nothing. What they feel is nothing more than their imaginative wishful thinking. It feels real to them. But they have no way of verifying what they feel, and as such they are taken in by a belief that is just plain wrong.

So, believing something is true because you have a source that tells you and then believing you can feel that the source is correct can lead you to accept things that are still wrong.

 

[YoursTrue]

Hello, I'm new to online forums. I chose this one specifically because I think it is very thought provoking. I love understanding and questioning different religious beliefs. I hope to have a debate that is robust, intriguing, and intellectually honest. I'm happy to debate anyone from any religious discipline and educational background. I currently do not have anyone to debate. I'll edit my title post, if possible, once the affirmative position has been occupied. Thanks in advance to anyone who will agree to debate. I'm ready to be convinced. Are you?

Hi, I just saw this thread, noticed there are many pages on it. The only One that convinced me was God and my relationship with Him. First came God into my life, before that I declared that I did not believe in God for many years (total confusion), then I began reading the promises of the Bible, then my relationship (friendship) with Him was developing. Which is being worked on. God is God and I am not.

 

[Tiberius]

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

Regards Tony

No. Remember the story of the blind men who are perceiving an elephant? They have many different perceptions, but there is only one elephant.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

No. Remember the story of the blind men who are perceiving an elephant? They have many different perceptions, but there is only one elephant.

What I am offering is that the real elephant can not be seen in this sate of being and that is why it is relative truth.

The more we gain spiritual eyes and ears, the more we can understand what this material world is, but will ever have the full picture.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

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

No, I don't think it would have any effect if people were not stuck with their minds in the past. It only has an effect on people's thinking today because people are thinking about it and it only has an effect on people's lives today because people live by it and allow it to affect their lives.

From my perspective time has marched on yet most religious people are living in the past, following a set of scriptures that were written for the past. The problem with that is that as long as people are stuck in the past they cannot move on to the present time and see what is really going on in the world and what the new Messenger of God has revealed as a remedy for the problems humanity faces in the present.

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...

I believe that what the Bible says is 'going to happen' has already happened, is continuing to happen, and will continue to happen into the future. The Bible is useful for people to look at the prophecies and figure out how they have been fulfilled and are continuing to be fulfilled, but I do not believe it is needed as a guide to living in this new age because it was written for a previous age, an age we no longer live in.

That said I believe that spiritual truth is eternal, it never changes, so the Bible can be used as a guide for living a spiritual life, to live our lives properly in God's eyes as you said. The Bible is a source of divine guidance for the individual in order to have a right relationship to God, but the Bible does not have the solutions to the real life problems that humanity as a whole faces in this age, the social and economic and political problems.

In the following passage, God is the All-Knowing Physician who sends His Messengers with the remedy humanity needs in every age.

“The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and center your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 213

 

[Tiberius]

What I am offering is that the real elephant can not be seen in this sate of being and that is why it is relative truth.

The more we gain spiritual eyes and ears, the more we can understand what this material world is, but will ever have the full picture.

Regards Tony

But you still agree that the real elephant actually exists outside of the people who are perceiving it, yes?

 

[Trailblazer]

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 am not going to say what I believe about the Bible or Christianity unless it is related to a discussion I am having or a thread that someone posted.

I do not want to keep my beliefs secrets but I don't want to share them with people who are not interested either.

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

I already explained that so In am not going around that block again.

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.

They can SAY that if they want to but Jesus did not explain what those passages mean and God does not talk to anyone except His Messengers. If God was telling Christians what the verses mean why is it that Christians do not all agree on what the verses mean? The All-Knowing God would know what they mean and He would not give Christians different interpretations.

Just because there are countless ways for people of any faith to claim that they know what passages ACTUALLY mean that does not mean that there is not one faith that knows what they actually mean. Baha'u'llah unsealed the book as it says in Daniel 12 and that is why the Baha'is are better able to know what it means. It always helps to have a logical explanation.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

But the religious people who make the claims did not write those texts so they did not make them unfalsifiable.

Again, making sure that the claims are unfalsifiable.

Maybe God did that, but that is not my fault.

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?

I wouldn't be surprised. God only answers prayers at His own behest.

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

It was not me who had a question.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

Everyone has personal biases and we can only eliminate so many.
How do you expect to find truth if you don't eliminate biases?

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

I have verified it for myself but it is not my responsibility to verify it for other people. That is their job.

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

The claim is supported by the evidence. It can never be proven but it can be supported.

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

So you believe that Baha'u'llah is deliberately misrepresenting the evidence? Why would he do that? Do you have any proof to back up that assertion?

 

[Trailblazer]

So then we are agreed. Claiming to "know" a fact carries with it the implication that the fact is true.

Yes, if we say we know it as a fact.

Not so good. This method is very unreliable. Anyone can write something that makes a claim, and it is very easy to provide people with reasons to believe that something is true even if it actually isn't.

That's right, but that does not mean it isn't true. It could be true or false and that is for you to determine, based upon the best evidence that is available. Remember what I said some time ago. Baha'u'llah wrote that all men have the capacity to recognize God because otherwise God could not hold them accountable for doing so.

“I have perfected in every one of you My creation, so that the excellence of My handiwork may be fully revealed unto men. It follows, therefore, that every man hath been, and will continue to be, able of himself to appreciate the Beauty of God, the Glorified. Had he not been endowed with such a capacity, how could he be called to account for his failure?”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 143

I believe that not only because Baha'u'llah wrote it but because it makes sense. Why would God hold people accountable for something which they have no control over?

So, believing something is true because you have a source that tells you and then believing you can feel that the source is correct can lead you to accept things that are still wrong.

That's true, and that is why you have to thoroughly research something before you believe it by looking at all the....... evidence.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, I don't think it would have any effect if people were not stuck with their minds in the past. It only has an effect on people's thinking today because people are thinking about it and it only has an effect on people's lives today because people live by it and allow it to affect their lives.

From my perspective time has marched on yet most religious people are living in the past, following a set of scriptures that were written for the past. The problem with that is that as long as people are stuck in the past they cannot move on to the present time and see what is really going on in the world and what the new Messenger of God has revealed as a remedy for the problems humanity faces in the present.

I believe that what the Bible says is 'going to happen' has already happened, is continuing to happen, and will continue to happen into the future. The Bible is useful for people to look at the prophecies and figure out how they have been fulfilled and are continuing to be fulfilled, but I do not believe it is needed as a guide to living in this new age because it was written for a previous age, an age we no longer live in.

That said I believe that spiritual truth is eternal, it never changes, so the Bible can be used as a guide for living a spiritual life, to live our lives properly in God's eyes as you said. The Bible is a source of divine guidance for the individual in order to have a right relationship to God, but the Bible does not have the solutions to the real life problems that humanity as a whole faces in this age, the social and economic and political problems.

In the following passage, God is the All-Knowing Physician who sends His Messengers with the remedy humanity needs in every age.

“The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and center your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 213

OK, to understand the Bible does not mean living in the past. It relates definitely to living in the present. And looking forward to the future.

 

[Trailblazer]

OK, to understand the Bible does not mean living in the past. It relates definitely to living in the present. And looking forward to the future.

So that is your perspective. What are you looking forward to? If you are looking forward to something that is not going to take place is that useful?

What drew you from being a nonbeliever to the Bible? Why not another religion?
I was not raised as a Christian so I completely bypassed the Bible and became a Baha'i as an adult. Only nine years ago did I read the Bible and only because I was conversing with Christian on forums.

Forgive me for not understanding what it is about the Bible and Christianity that people are drawn to. Is it because it tells you that you can have a personal relationship with God? I don't want a personal relationship with God and I don't believe one can be had except through the Manifestations of God such as Jesus or Baha'u'llah.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

But you still agree that the real elephant actually exists outside of the people who are perceiving it, yes?

If I could tell you that, I do not think I would be offering that truth is relative, but hey I am not the sharpest tool on the bench by a infinite degree.

I can say the elephant exists in my current reality, in shape and form which I can see, touch, smell, hear and taste, but as to what it is and what form it may take and how we are connected in the Spiritual worlds, that's a big?

Regards Tony

 

[Tiberius]

I am not going to say what I believe about the Bible or Christianity unless it is related to a discussion I am having or a thread that someone posted.

Given that we are discussing the Baha'i faith and the Bible comes into that, I still don't see how you figured you were "backed into a corner."

I already explained that so In am not going around that block again.

If you don't want people to say you are using argument from popularity or claiming there is a correlation between says and how true something is, maybe you shouldn't say things like "The Jewish interpretation is ... ludicrous and why only there are only 14.7 million Jews in the world and 2.5 billion Christians." Because you are directly drawing a connection to the size of the religion and how believable it is. What other conclusion could a person get from reading that?

They can SAY that if they want to but Jesus did not explain what those passages mean and God does not talk to anyone except His Messengers.

Lots of Christians have claimed that God told them what certain passages mean. Who are you to claim they are wrong? They have verified their faith in the same way you have verified yours.

If God was telling Christians what the verses mean why is it that Christians do not all agree on what the verses mean? The All-Knowing God would know what they mean and He would not give Christians different interpretations.

Very true. Let's agree that if someone claims that God has told them the truth, then that is a meaningless claim and should not be considered in how valid someone's claims are, shall we?

Just because there are countless ways for people of any faith to claim that they know what passages ACTUALLY mean that does not mean that there is not one faith that knows what they actually mean. Baha'u'llah unsealed the book as it says in Daniel 12 and that is why the Baha'is are better able to know what it means. It always helps to have a logical explanation.

Oh, here we go. No surprises here, the other religions have it wrong, but you Baha'i folks got the secret decoder ring to figure out the TRUTH®™.

 

[Tiberius]

But the religious people who make the claims did not write those texts so they did not make them unfalsifiable.

Irrelevant. The texts are still unfalsifiable and the claims made by the people living today are unfalsifiable as well.

Maybe God did that, but that is not my fault.

But whenever claim could be interpreted in a way that makes it falsifiable, you say that interpretation is wrong and that the correct interpretation is an unfalsifiable one.

I wouldn't be surprised. God only answers prayers at His own behest.

Well, that's just not true. Even if God answers prayers only sometimes, we should see a difference between prayers to God and prayers to the toaster.

Prayers to the toaster, after all, are ALWAYS going to be the same as random chance. Buy God is not random chance. God does answer at least some prayers, you say. That means that prayers to God will be some amount BETTER than random chance. So we should see SOME kind of difference.

The only possible explanation for prayers to God and prayers to the toaster being the same is if they are both as effective as each other. Thus, prayers to God are no better than random chance (unless you want to admit that toasters answer prayers).

It was not me who had a question.

You forget the conversation very quickly. Let me refresh you of the conversation that led here.

The scientific method has measures in place to reduce or even eliminate any individuals fallibility by having other people check it (so any biases from one person can be detected and removed) and most importantly, put to the test.

When it comes to religious beliefs, you have freely admitted that these can't be done.

That's right, so what can be done about that?

Nothing. That's why religions are worthless as a way of finding out the truth.

If that is what you have concluded why bother talking about religion?

(This one was the question I was referring to.)

If you have concluded that Baha'i is true, why do you bother talking about it in here?

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.

(And this answer from you is the answer to the question you asked me.)

 

[Tiberius]

Everyone has personal biases and we can only eliminate so many.
How do you expect to find truth if you don't eliminate biases?

I do eliminate as many biases as I can. I use a wonderful little technique called SCIENCE.

I have verified it for myself but it is not my responsibility to verify it for other people. That is their job.

But your verification is unfalsifiable, isn't it?

The claim is supported by the evidence. It can never be proven but it can be supported.

There is no evidence that can only be explained by the existence of a God.

So you believe that Baha'u'llah is deliberately misrepresenting the evidence? Why would he do that? Do you have any proof to back up that assertion?

I'm saying that if he had an agenda, then he would only have provided the evidence that supported that agenda.

 

[Tiberius]

Yes, if we say we know it as a fact.

I would say that claiming to know something and claiming to know it as a fact carry pretty much the same meaning, since they both indicate that the speaker is completely convinced of what they are saying.

That's right, but that does not mean it isn't true. It could be true or false and that is for you to determine, based upon the best evidence that is available.

True. But if all we have are writings that make certain unfalsifiable claims and our own gut feelings, we don't actually have any proper evidence, do we?

Remember what I said some time ago. Baha'u'llah wrote that all men have the capacity to recognize God because otherwise God could not hold them accountable for doing so.

“I have perfected in every one of you My creation, so that the excellence of My handiwork may be fully revealed unto men. It follows, therefore, that every man hath been, and will continue to be, able of himself to appreciate the Beauty of God, the Glorified. Had he not been endowed with such a capacity, how could he be called to account for his failure?”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 143

I believe that not only because Baha'u'llah wrote it but because it makes sense. Why would God hold people accountable for something which they have no control over?

This starts with the assumption that there is a God.

That's true, and that is why you have to thoroughly research something before you believe it by looking at all the....... evidence.

Since you agree that one needs more than just "feeling" that a source is correct, can you please tell me what evidence you have to support the claim that Mr B was a messenger from God that comes from a source supported by more than just you "feeling" it to be true?

 

[Tiberius]

If I could tell you that, I do not think I would be offering that truth is relative, but hey I am not the sharpest tool on the bench by a infinite degree.

I can say the elephant exists in my current reality, in shape and form which I can see, touch, smell, hear and taste, but as to what it is and what form it may take and how we are connected in the Spiritual worlds, that's a big?

Regards Tony

What in the world are you going on about?

The elephant that the blind people are touching and perceiving. It exists as something separate to the blind guys, right? It's a simple yes or no question.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

What in the world are you going on about?

The elephant that the blind people are touching and perceiving. It exists as something separate to the blind guys, right? It's a simple yes or no question.

I see nothing is a simple yes or no.

Regards Tony