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

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah, she pulls that back right away. But the prophecies all come from those Scriptures that are all full of errors, so how can any Baha'i really use them? And what is funny, is the Baha'is supported the Christians in using one out of context verse in Isaiah to show that Jesus was born from a virgin? Then they turn around and say how Christians have misinterpreted all sorts of things. It's hard to trust any of them. Yet, I'd almost like to believe in some spiritual reality, but they make it virtually impossible for me to believe in what they say.

When it comes to prophecy there is a very useful article that I like to use. It was originally written with Biblical prophecy in mind, but one can just as well apply it to any religion. Or for that matter any prophesy:

Biblical prophecies - RationalWiki

Criteria for a true prophecy[edit]
For a statement to be Biblical foreknowledge, it must fit all of the five following criteria:

1. It must be accurate. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not accurate, because knowledge (and thus foreknowledge) excludes inaccurate statements. TLDR: It's true.
2. It must be in the Bible. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not in the Bible, because Biblical by definition foreknowledge can only come from the Bible itself, rather than modern reinterpretations of the text. TLDR: It's in plain words in the Bible.
3. It must be precise and unambiguous. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if meaningless philosophical musings or multiple possible ideas could fulfill the foreknowledge, because ambiguity prevents one from knowing whether the foreknowledge was intentional rather than accidental. TLDR: Vague "predictions" don't count.
4. It must be improbable. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of a pure guess, because foreknowledge requires a person to actually know something true, while a correct guess doesn't mean that the guesser knows anything. This also excludes contemporary beliefs that happened be true but were believed to be true without solid evidence. TLDR: Lucky guesses don't count.
5. It must have been unknown. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of an educated guess based off contemporary knowledge, because foreknowledge requires a person to know a statement when it would have been impossible, outside of supernatural power, for that person to know it. TLDR: Ideas of the time don't count.

 

[CG Didymus]

Can you tell me why it matters if these individuals were Manifestations of God or not? How would that determine if Baha'u'llah was a Manifestation of God or not? How would any of the questions you asked above determine if Baha'u'llah was a Manifestation of God or not?

Because the Baha'i Faith says that they are. And I think they were, if they were even real, ordinary men.

You already know why Baha'is do not believe what Hindus believe and it make s perfect sense. (1) Hinduism has no original scriptures, only what mean said the teachings were many decades later and (2) what they did have has been misinterpreted by the Hindus and (3) given all the sects of Hinduism, how can anyone know what is the most accurate, closest to what was originally revealed?

So why call Hinduism a real, genuine revealed religion? And Krishna, again, someone who might not even be real, a manifestation?

I'm okay if some Hindus invented a story about there being a three part Godhead of Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu. And that Krishna was an incarnation of Vishnu... as was Rama and several others. It's their religious stories. But Baha'is have to go against all these beliefs and say that there is only one God, but that Krishna truly is a manifestation of the one God but not an incarnation. I agree with what you say a lot of the times about the Bible... that its just a bunch of stories. I think the same thing here. A very good chance these stories about Krishna and Rama are just a bunch of religious stories. But is that really what the Baha'i Faith teaches?

 

[CG Didymus]

When it comes to prophecy there is a very useful article that I like to use. It was originally written with Biblical prophecy in mind, but one can just as well apply it to any religion. Or for that matter any prophesy:

Biblical prophecies - RationalWiki

Criteria for a true prophecy[edit]
For a statement to be Biblical foreknowledge, it must fit all of the five following criteria:

1. It must be accurate. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not accurate, because knowledge (and thus foreknowledge) excludes inaccurate statements. TLDR: It's true.
2. It must be in the Bible. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not in the Bible, because Biblical by definition foreknowledge can only come from the Bible itself, rather than modern reinterpretations of the text. TLDR: It's in plain words in the Bible.
3. It must be precise and unambiguous. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if meaningless philosophical musings or multiple possible ideas could fulfill the foreknowledge, because ambiguity prevents one from knowing whether the foreknowledge was intentional rather than accidental. TLDR: Vague "predictions" don't count.
4. It must be improbable. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of a pure guess, because foreknowledge requires a person to actually know something true, while a correct guess doesn't mean that the guesser knows anything. This also excludes contemporary beliefs that happened be true but were believed to be true without solid evidence. TLDR: Lucky guesses don't count.
5. It must have been unknown. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of an educated guess based off contemporary knowledge, because foreknowledge requires a person to know a statement when it would have been impossible, outside of supernatural power, for that person to know it. TLDR: Ideas of the time don't count.

Precise and unambiguous takes a lot of them out. But, also so many are like one or two verses, so I've never seen one that ever fit the context.

 

[CG Didymus]

That is independent search CG, you do it as you see you need to. How you need to do it, was not the way I needed to.

I can not answer your questions in any other way than I have.

Regards Tony

Daniel 12:11 “From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days." So you searched? What did you find as to what this verse means? I doubt you did anything. How clear can it be? "From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up..." Yes, when was that time? When did this happen? Then, from that time, "there will be 1,290 days." William Miller ignores it. Abdul Baha' ignores it. And, now you ignore it. And I agree with you, that is how you need to see it.

 

[CG Didymus]

Baha'u'llah fulfilled them as delineated by Sears

It's one thing to believe everything that Baha'u'llah said, after all, you think he's God infallible messenger. But why would you believe everything Bill Sears said? I don't believe Baha'is do much personal investigation. Just enough to get them to believe and then it seems like it is just way too close to being blind faith. Like really? Bill Sears says an earthquake in Portugal in 1755 is a fulfillment of a prophecy about a guy in Persia in 1844? Yeah, no problem there. I can see why you believe. That is so obvious. Right.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Daniel 12:11 “From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days." So you searched? What did you find as to what this verse means? I doubt you did anything. How clear can it be? "From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up..." Yes, when was that time? When did this happen? Then, from that time, "there will be 1,290 days." William Miller ignores it. Abdul Baha' ignores it. And, now you ignore it. And I agree with you, that is how you need to see it.

No CG, Abdu'lbaha did not ignore it but gave a short precise answer.

The 1260 relates to the Bab, the 1290 relates to Baha'u'llah, as we have 2 dates that can be tied in to Prophecy. The Declaration of the Bab, or the Date of the Declaration of Baha'u'llah in 1863.

1863 also ties into the requests, the promises and the prophecies of the Bab for the year 19.

Here is a section of the talk by Abdu’l-Baha.

"........ As I have already explained the signification of one day, it is not necessary to explain it further; but we will say briefly that each day of the Father counts as a year, and in each year there are twelve months. Thus three years and a half make forty-two months, and forty-two months are twelve hundred and sixty days. The Báb, the precursor of Bahá’u’lláh, appeared in the year 1260 from the Hejira of Muḥammad, by the reckoning of Islám.

Afterward, in verse 11, it is said: “And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolation be set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.”
The beginning of this lunar reckoning is from the day of the proclamation of the prophethood of Muḥammad in the country of Ḥijáz; and that was three years after His mission, because in the beginning the prophethood of Muḥammad was kept secret, and no one knew it save Khadíjah and Ibn Nawfal
After three years it was announced. And Bahá’u’lláh, in the year 1290 from the proclamation of the mission of Muḥammad, caused His manifestation to be known.

(The year 1290 from the proclamation of the mission of Muḥammad was the year 1280 of the Hejira, or 1863–64 of our era. It was at this epoch (April 1863) that Bahá’u’lláh, on leaving Baghdád for Constantinople, declared to those who surrounded Him that He was the Manifestation announced by the Báb.)

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

Now who's judging?

Now who is judging? As someone once pointed out to me, telling another person they are judging is judging them...
I was not judging another person, just giving my opinion on the verse. Imo, not wanting to be judged in turn is a selfish reason not to judge others.

You misunderstand the meaning of 'context'. Verses 3, 4 and 5 serve as an extra illustration of the main point. They do not alter the main point in any way, so the main point is not out of context.

As I just told two different Christians on two different threads, Bible verses mean different things to different people. As such you have 'your opinion' regarding what is the main point of verses 1-5 and I have my opinion. I already presented my opinion so I do not want to argue about it.

Yes, it certainly is interesting, considering that Jesus spoke these words 2000 years earlier. Hmmm…………

And so...... I have always said the the spiritual teachings of Jesus and Baha'u'llah, and all the other Messengers of God, are essentially the same and they are eternal. But that does not mean that a new Messenger was not needed to bring a new message and new social teachings and laws. You are free to believe that no Messengers were ever needed after Jesus, just like all Christians believe, but I will never believe that so there is no point discussing it. You have your beliefs and I have mine and they cannot be reconciled.

 

[samtonga43]

Yet, I'd almost like to believe in some spiritual reality, but they make it virtually impossible for me to believe in what they say.

I'm interested in why you would "almost like to believe in some spiritual reality", CG
What would it add to your life?

 

[Trailblazer]

The other things you mentioned in the post were "his own self" (character and qualities) which also isn't objective evidence, "his revelation" which leads us right back to the text, which isn't objective evidence, and the words he revealed, ditto.

Why don't you consider his character and the history of the Baha'i Faith (his revelation) to be objective evidence?
There is information based upon facts that were known to people living in the days of Baha'u'llah and this information has been recorded so it can be examined and evaluated.

Objective evidence refers to information based on facts that can be proved by means of search like analysis, measurement, and observation. One can examine and evaluate objective evidence.

What does objective evidence mean?

The only thing that might be objective evidence is actual fulfilled prophecy, but I've looked at so many supposed instances of this claimed by many faiths to know that's highly unlikely to be convincing. They are always vague, written after the events, rather obvious, or have some other obvious problem. If there were any really precise and convincing examples, everybody would know about them and it would also totally undermine your previous claims that people have to do work to find god and its message (making god unjust and unfair).

There are very precise examples of fulfilled prophecies but everybody does not know about them and there is the logical reason they don't know. In order to KNOW if a prophecy has been fulfilled you need to look at (a) the prophecy and (b) the person who allegedly fulfilled that prophecy. It's easy to look back when you know what you're looking for to tell that it was fulfilled, but impossible to guess what that prophecy means beforehand.

Why do you think that people would know about how a Messenger of God fulfilled certain prophecies? If the never looked at how they were fulfilled, it would be impossible to know. Also, if I point out exactly how they were fulfilled Jews and Christians will say they weren't fulfilled because they don't want to believe they were fulfilled. Christians do not want to believe that Christ has returned since they believe it will be the same man Jesus who is going to return. Jews have the same problem; they are waiting for a messiah they have made in their own image according to what they understand their scriptures to mean. Both Jews and Christians believe that the messiah.return of Christ is coming to vindicate them and restore their religion to its former glory, but nowhere in ANY scriptures does it say any such thing.

Finally, atheists have their own set of problems when it comes to reading prophecies and seeing how they apply to the claimant. They will say the prophecy is too vague to mean anything for example. But even a seemingly vague prophecy could be proven to have been fulfilled by Baha'u'llah. If there was only one or a few vague prophecies that would not be very convincing but since there are so many, I consider it impossible to deny all of the prophecies that were fulfilled by the coming of Baha'u'llah unless one is set on denial for their own personal reasons. Psychology is my area or expertise and I have studied psychology a lot more than religion since that is the hat I wore for many years.

 

[Trailblazer]

But the prophecies all come from those Scriptures that are all full of errors, so how can any Baha'i really use them?

Who ever said that the scriptures are full of errors? I only ever said that nobody really knows who wrote them.
There are probably some errors but they are not 'full of errors.'

 

[samtonga43]

Why don't you consider his character and the history of the Baha'i Faith (his revelation) to be objective evidence?
There is information based upon facts that were known to people living in the days of Baha'u'llah and this information has been recorded so it can be examined and evaluated

.
There is recorded information which amount to FACTS? Where?

Also, if I point out exactly how they were fulfilled Jews and Christians will say they weren't fulfilled because they don't want to believe they were fulfilled.

.
Your brush is too broad. This is not the reason I and many others would say they were not fulfilled.

Christians do not want to believe that Christ has returned since they believe it will be the same man Jesus who is going to return

Wrong again. This is not why Christians do not believe that Christ has returned.

Both Jews and Christians believe that the messiah.return of Christ is coming to vindicate them and restore their religion to its former glory,

.
Don't know about Jews, but this is not true of Christians

Psychology is my area or expertise and I have studied psychology a lot more than religion since that is the hat I wore for many years.

What has your study of psychology to do with anything?

 

[Trailblazer]

We have been over how the prophesies of Baha'u'llah as the prophesies of all religions fail. And the scripture is the claim it is not the evidence unless you have quite a bit more solid than "it makes me feel good". The same rules that apply to Christian prophesies apply to any religion. Overly vague prophecies are failures as far as prophesy goes if you want to use it as "evidence" because there are often numerous ways that it could be "fulfilled".

I suggest you read what I just said to @ratiocinator. In brief, some prophecies are vague but that does not mean they were not fulfilled. Other prophecies are more precise but if people are hell bent on denying that they were fulfilled by Baha'u'llah they will find a way to no nitpick and say they could mean something else. The problem they have is that there are so many prophecies that were fulfilled by the coming of Baha'u'llah and they could not have possibly been fulfilled by anyone else. I believe that was adequately proven in the book entitled Thief in the Night by William Sears.

Perhaps I am an exception but religion does not make me 'feel good.' In fact, I don't even like being a member of a religion and I avoided having much to do with the Baha'i Faith for the first 42 years after I joined. I still do not have any fellowship with other Baha'is because I am not a religious sort of person and my feelings towards God are less than optimum, although I am trying to change those feelings.

The ONLY reason I am a Baha'i is because of the evidence that proved to me that it is a true religion of God and the religion for this age. Thus my belief is intellectual, not emotional. The 'love of God' and all the things Christians are all excited about is foreign to me. I was not raised in any religion and I have never been "into religion." I'd much rather be sunning myself on a beach somewhere than posting on this forum. I do like people since my field was psychology, so I like talking to people on this forum as a matter interest and I also have a duty to do what I can so for the Cause of God even though I don't always like having it.

 

[Trailblazer]

There is recorded information which amount to FACTS? Where?

The Dawn-Breakers Nabíl’s Narrative of the Early Days of the Bahá’í Revelation
God Passes By (1844-1944)
The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4, which cover the 40 years of His Mission, from 1853-1892.

Your brush is too broad. This is not the reason I and many others would say they were not fulfilled.

Then tell me the reason.

Wrong again. This is not why Christians do not believe that Christ has returned.

Then tell me the reason. Do you know any Christians who believe that the return of Christ will be another man and not the same man Jesus?

Don't know about Jews, but this is not true of Christians

Maybe it is not true for all Christians but it is true for some Christians.

What has your study of psychology to do with anything?

It enables me to understand human psychology and why people behave as they do. Psychology explains why people deny that Baha'u'llah was who He claimed to be.

 

[samtonga43]

It enables me to understand human psychology and why people behave as they do. Psychology explains why people deny that Baha'u'llah was who He claimed to be.

It also explains why some people accept that the B.man was who he claimed to be.

 

[Trailblazer]

So no other religion has reliable Scriptures except the Baha'is,... Interesting.

That is not what I said. I said that the only scripture that is infallible and inerrant is the scripture written by a Manifestation of God. that does not mean we cannot rely upon other scriptures for anything.

So you say, "Yes, he fulfilled them." Okay, so a person may show you a prophecy and ask, "What about this one?" And you say, "That's not my job"?

That is not what I have done. I have explained how certain prophecies have been fulfilled if people ask.

I showed you just one or two sentences from the prophecies about Kalki. How do they fit? How were they fulfilled? You'd think, since you and other Baha'is say they have been fulfilled that you'd know how. But you don't. And you don't seem to want to know. You are satisfied staying in your ignorance. So again I ask, why keep saying that Baha'u'llah has fulfilled anything?

I explained why I would not bother to explain how that prophecy was fulfilled and instead of accepting what I said you continue to press the issue. I do not need to know how it was fulfilled if it was because I already know who Baha'u'llah was. Why should I interpret prophecies for other people, they can do that for themselves.

I do not care about so-called prophecies of Buddhism and Hinduism because I do not trust that those prophecies are accurate. I have told you that Sears explained how the Bible prophecies have been fulfilled so why would I re-explain them? I have nothing better to offer than what he wrote.

By saying he has fulfilled the prophecies of all the past religions, it is you that brings those past religions into the conversation. But you don't want to discuss them. You download some person's webpage that happens to have a bunch of prophecies from the other religions and call that good? Did you read any of them? Did you check to see if Baha'u'llah fulfilled them? It doesn't sound like it.

I do not to check to see if Baha'u'llah fulfilled some so-called prophecies of other religions because I already know who Baha'u'llah was. I do not have the time or the need to check them. If you have the time and the need you can check them yourself.

This thread should be called "Try and unconvince me of your religion" 'Cause some Baha'is do a much better job pushing people away then drawing them in.

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, that is not a job that Baha'u'llah gave me to do. If people are not convinced I know I am not responsible for that because I know that everyone is responsible for their own beliefs. Moreover since I have good boundaries between myself and other people I know what is my responsibility and what is not so no matter what you say it is going to be like water off a duck's back. You cannot make me feel responsible or guilty for anything I know I am not responsible for or guilty of.

 

[Trailblazer]

Because the Baha'i Faith says that they are. And I think they were, if they were even real, ordinary men.

Why do you think that? What is the basis for that belief? Is it the Bible? Because if it is the Bible I do not consider that an accurate source of information because it is not historically accurate as Bart Ehrman said and it is not up to date. These men were not called Manifestations of God in the Bible because that terminology was not used to describe Prophets back in those days. How do you know they were not perfect mirrors? You don't know, you just have a certain bias and it comes from the Bible. I have a certain bias and it comes from the Writings of Baha'u'llah.

So why call Hinduism a real, genuine revealed religion? And Krishna, again, someone who might not even be real, a manifestation?

I'm okay if some Hindus invented a story about there being a three part Godhead of Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu. And that Krishna was an incarnation of Vishnu... as was Rama and several others. It's their religious stories. But Baha'is have to go against all these beliefs and say that there is only one God, but that Krishna truly is a manifestation of the one God but not an incarnation. I agree with what you say a lot of the times about the Bible... that its just a bunch of stories. I think the same thing here. A very good chance these stories about Krishna and Rama are just a bunch of religious stories. But is that really what the Baha'i Faith teaches?

To be honest, I do not know where the belief that Krishna was a Manifestation of God originated. To me it does not really matter because what matters is that Hinduism was a legitimate religion of God. Sure, it is not in its original form, whatever that was, but to my way of thinking that does not really matter now, thousands of years later because of what Baha'u'llah wrote:

“Certain traditions of bygone ages rest on no foundations whatever, while the notions entertained by past generations, and which they have recorded in their books, have, for the most part, been influenced by the desires of a corrupt inclination……

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.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 172

 

[Trailblazer]

It's one thing to believe everything that Baha'u'llah said, after all, you think he's God infallible messenger. But why would you believe everything Bill Sears said? I don't believe Baha'is do much personal investigation. Just enough to get them to believe and then it seems like it is just way too close to being blind faith. Like really? Bill Sears says an earthquake in Portugal in 1755 is a fulfillment of a prophecy about a guy in Persia in 1844? Yeah, no problem there. I can see why you believe. That is so obvious. Right.

It would not matter to me if how the prophecies were fulfilled according to Sears was not perfectly accurate because I already know they have been fulfilled because I already know that Baha'u'llah was the return of Christ. I knew that long before I ever read Sears' book.

You do not know how Baha'is investigated the Baha'i Faith. all you are doing is projecting what you think Baha'is should do in order to know the Baha'i Faith is true onto the Baha'is, but Baha'is do not have to do what you think that should do in order to know that the Baha'i Faith is true. Your problem is the inability to see people are separate individuals with different thoughts and needs and thus different requirements to believe. What you need is not what other people need. All people are different.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

There is recorded information which amount to FACTS? Where?

There are records from people that met Baha'u'llah.

Browne, Edward Granville

The Western Scholar Meets the Eastern Prophet

Many others, and also there may be many records available in Iran, we will wait and see when the time comes they are safe to come out.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

Actually, since you clearly stated that God spoke to Mr B through the Holy Spirit, Mr B would be more accurately described as God's proxy's proxy.

That would only be true of the Holy Spirit was God's proxy, but that is not what I believe the Holy Spirit is. I believe that the holy Spirit is the Bounty of God that emanates from God.

That only works if we agree that each person's validated belief is a subjective opinion and does not serve to actually describe the real world.

That works for me as long as you will concede to the fact that their opinion could be true or false.

People of every faith have things that allow them to conclude that they are the only ones who have it right. Baha'i is nothing special in that regard.

That does not address what I said. "I believe that Baha’u’llah was the Representative of God among men and He appointed interpreters through His Covenant, so I understand the Bible according to what they wrote that the Bible means." Other religions have have things that allow them to conclude that they are the only ones who have it right but no other religion has what I noted above.

Then you'll understand when I find Baha'i's claim to be just as (un)convincing as all the others.

I do understand why. It is because you cannot separate one religion from another and you think that just because religions are similar in some ways religions are all the SAME.
That is the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization and the Fallacy of Jumping to conclusions.

 

[Trailblazer]

You seem to be having trouble with this simple hypothetical situation...

I do have a problem with it because nobody prays to a toaster and expects something to happen, and that is why you cannot compare praying to God to praying to a toaster.