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

[Trailblazer]

You are back to quote mining. That is picking the hits and ignoring the misses. Please stop. That is not a valid way to use a book. And please note that since we are discussing your beliefs you are not limited to the Bible. But it does appear that you are misusing it. The verse that you use could be used for anyone that went from Assyria to Israel. It is far to vague to be of any use as a "prophecy" when you quote mine in this fashioin.

You asked for 'a prophecy' and that is what I gave you.

Bring up your prophesies one at a time and we will see if there is any substance to them after putting them through that filter.

I cannot post the entire chapter and explain what all of it means and it is unnecessary, because people can go and read the Bible for themselves if they want to understand how the prophecy fits in the context of the chapter.

I explained in my last post why the verse could not apply to 'anyone' who also claimed to be the Messiah. If you look only at that one verse Micah 7:12, out of the context of the whole chapter, "he" could apply to anyone who traveled that route, but that is irrelevant because "he" refers to the Messiah since that chapter is about the Messiah.

In Micah 7 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.

 

[Trailblazer]

Many people claim to be a Messenger of God, or even God Himself.
And many who make such claims are in special hospitals.

The existence of false messengers of God does not prove that there are no true Messengers of God.

Of course many people claim to be Messengers of God, or even God Himself, but that does not mean that a true Messenger of God would not also claim that. Of course He would claim that because He would want people to know who He was and what His message was.

It is the fallacy of hasty generalization to say that just because many people falsely claim to be Messengers of God, therefore there have never been any true Messengers of God. What indicates whether a man was a true Messenger a God is the evidence that backs up his claims.

Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence—essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables.

Hasty generalization usually shows this pattern

1. X is true for A.
2. X is true for B.
3. Therefore, X is true for C, D, etc.

Faulty generalization - Wikipedia

For example, if a person sees 10 people, all of them falsely claiming to be Messengers of God they may erroneously conclude that there are no true Messengers of God.

If there is even one true Messenger then it is possible there are other true Messengers of God, since an omnipotent God can send as many Messengers as He wants to, whenever He wants to.

Unless you can prove that Baha'u'llah was not a Messenger of God it is just your personal opinion that He was not a Messenger of God. You have a right to your personal opinion just as I have a right to have my belief.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You asked for 'a prophecy' and that is what I gave you.

I cannot post the entire chapter and explain what all of it means and it is unnecessary, because people can go and read the Bible for themselves if they want to understand how the prophecy fits in the context of the chapter.

I explained in my last post why the verse could not apply to 'anyone' who also claimed to be the Messiah. If you look only at that one verse Micah 7:12, out of the context of the whole chapter, "he" could apply to anyone who traveled that route, but that is irrelevant because "he" refers to the Messiah since that chapter is about the Messiah.

In Micah 7 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.

Not quite correct. There was a point to providing prophecy. It was to see if it qualified as evidence for your beliefs. Since you only gave failed prophecy the answer appears to be "No".

 

[Trailblazer]

So do you think all those other translations are wrong? And in the commentary, the Rabbi says that "he" is their enemy coming to destroy them. So is he wrong?

Yes, I believe that any translations that say "they" are wrong and I believe when the Rabbi says that "he" is their enemy coming to destroy them he is wrong. A Jewish person will never interpret any scriptures the same way a Baha'i will interpret them, for obvious reasons.

 

[Trailblazer]

Not quite correct. There was a point to providing prophecy. It was to see if it qualified as evidence for your beliefs. Since you only gave failed prophecy the answer appears to be "No".

Since Baha'u'lah did exactly what the prophecy says the Messiah will do, it did not fail.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since Baha'u'lah did exactly what the prophecy says the Messiah will do, it did not fail.

Yes it did. This has been explained to you.

 

[Trailblazer]

Would you say that Christianity only bore good fruit? Or, some bad ones too? Even some very rotten fruit? Particularly something like the Inquisition.

But then, again, do you really believe the gospel writers as having accurately reported the exact words of Jesus? 'Cause if those words are true, then which Christian church or sect doesn't have a lot of bad apples? So the best we can say is that some Christians bore good fruit and some bad.

Those verses are about how to distinguish a true prophet from a false prophet, they are not referring to Christians and what Christians have done.

No, I do not believe that the gospel writers accurately reported the exact words of Jesus as that would have been logically impossible since they never even knew Jesus.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes it did. This has been explained to you.

I am not going to argue with you. It failed to meet your standards but that does not mean it actually failed.

Do you understand that other people have different standards by which they measure things?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not going to argue with you. It failed to meet your standards but that does not mean it actually failed.

Do you understand that other people have different standards by which they measure things?

My standards were used since they are fair standards for determining if something can be used as evidence or not.

 

[Trailblazer]

Okay here is the verse plus the next one. So what was the order that Baha'u'llah went through to get to Akka? And how does the next verse fit the context?

he shall come up to you: those from Assyria and the fortified cities, and from the fortress up to the river and the sea from the west, and the dwellers of the mountain.

13And the land shall become desolate [together] with its inhabitants because of the fruit of their deeds.​

Oh, and I just noticed that even with the translation you used, after saying "he" it has "those" from Assyria and ends with the "dwellers" of the mountain? So could you explain that also.

I do not know what that is referring to. I'd have to know more of the history. Moreover, when a prophecy has so many different translations how can anyone possibly know which one is the correct one. Some translations are similar but some of them are very different.

 

[Trailblazer]

My standards were used since they are fair standards for determining if something can be used as evidence or not.

I believe that my standards for determining if a prophecy has been fulfilled are fair but I never claimed that prophecies are the best evidence for determining if someone was a Messenger of God/the Messiah/the return of Christ, because you can see the problems that arise as soon as we try to use them as evidence. People start arguing about what they mean and what and who they refer to.

Only if one already knows who they refer to can they be used as confirmatory evidence. There probably are Christians who became Baha'is becaue they believed what William Sears wrote in the book Thief in the Night regarding the return of Christ, but I have never met any of these Christians. Most Christians will find a way to deny that all those prophecies are about Baha'ullah because they don't want to believe in Baha'u'llah; they want to believe that the same man Jesus is going to return. That is the whole ball of wax. Evidence does not matter to people who already have their minds made up; the evidence for Baha'u'llah can only be recognized by a true seeker, someone who sincerely wants to know the truth.

People who believe that the election was stolen will continue to believe that it was stolen no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary. They believe that because they want to believe that, they don't want to know the truth, that Biden won legitimately. It is the same with religion, people believe what they want to believe and they will find all manner of reasons to cling to that belief.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe that my standards for determining if a prophecy has been fulfilled are fair but I never claimed that prophecies are the best evidence for determining if someone was a Messenger of God/the Messiah/the return of Christ, because you can see the problems that arise as soon as we try to use them as evidence. People start arguing about what they mean and what and who they refer to.

Only if one already knows who they refer to can they be used as confirmatory evidence. There probably are Christians who became Baha'is becaue they believed what William Sears wrote in the book Thief in the Night regarding the return of Christ, but I have never met any of these Christians. Most Christians will find a way to deny that all those prophecies are about Baha'ullah because they don't want to believe in Baha'u'llah; they want to believe that the same man Jesus is going to return. That is the whole ball of wax. Evidence does not matter to people who already have their minds made up; the evidence for Baha'u'llah can only be recognized by a true seeker, someone who sincerely wants to know the truth.

People who believe that the election was stolen will continue to believe that it was stolen no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary. They believe that because they want to believe that, they don't want to know the truth, that Biden won legitimately. It is the same with religion, people believe what they want to believe and they will find all manner of reasons to cling to that belief.

They are not. They only amount to bias confirmation. Here is an example why. It is likely that Elvis, and if not him, some other rock band also had a trip with those the two points in it with areas in between that match the very rough description given. That means that the prophecy could have been about Elvis. You have no reason to think that it was about your guy than I have to think that it was about Elvis. This is why unspecific prophecies are failed prophecies. There are too many people that it could apply to and the only reason you chose your guy is because you like him.

Sorry, but that is not reliable evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

This is why unspecific prophecies are failed prophecies. There are too many people that it could apply to and the only reason you chose your guy is because you like him.

They are failed only the sense that they do not convince you or most people.

Since no other Messiah claimants traveled that route, there is nobody except Baha'u'llah that prophecy could apply to unless one misinterprets the rest of the chapter and does not realize it is about the Messiah.

No, prophecies are not useful as evidence because nobody knows what or who they are referring to unless they already know who the Messiah was, and if they already know then they do not need the prophecies as evidence.

Sorry, but that is not reliable evidence.

I never said that it was. It was not me who brought up the prophecies, it was another atheist who said "The only thing that might be objective evidence is actual fulfilled prophecy."

#2932 ratiocinator, Yesterday at 1:24 AM

 

[Subduction Zone]

They are failed only the sense that they do not convince you or most people.

Since no other Messiah claimants traveled that route, there is nobody except Baha'u'llah that prophecy could apply to unless one misinterprets the rest of the chapter and does not realize it is about the Messiah.

No, prophecies are not useful as evidence because nobody knows what or who they are referring to unless they already know who the Messiah was, and if they already know then they do not need the prophecies as evidence.

I never said that it was. It was not me who brought up the prophecies, it was another atheist who said "The only thing that might be objective evidence is actual fulfilled prophecy."

#2932 ratiocinator, Yesterday at 1:24 AM

No, they are failed as evidence since evidence needs to be without bias. I could just as easily claim that they were evidence for Elvis. This is why excessively vague prophecies are failed prophecies. You do not in reality know who it was about .

I also asked you how you would test your beliefs. You said that you do not know how. That means that you cannot have proper knowledge, all you can have are beliefs.

 

[Trailblazer]

I also asked you how you would test your beliefs. You said that you do not know how. That means that you cannot have proper knowledge, all you can have are beliefs.

That is what I said yesterday but today is another day. Today I explained how my beliefs can be tested in the following post.

#3009 Trailblazer, Today at 2:25 PM

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is what I said yesterday but today is another day. Today I explained how my beliefs can be tested in the following post.

#3009 Trailblazer, Today at 2:25 PM

Then find a specific prophecy of his and we will see if it meets the standards of being testable.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then find a specific prophecy of his and we will see if it meets the standards of being testable.

Do you mean a prophecy that Baha'u'llah made, a prediction He made that came to pass?

 

[Tiberius]

How do you know that I misunderstood what @Tiberius was getting at? I did not misunderstand as I knew exactly what he was getting at, but I was making a different point.

Sure seems to me that you misunderstood.

Indeed it would be and that is why I said what I said. Nobody can know if the results of praying to a toaster would be any different from the results of praying to God unless an experiment was conducted wherein one group prayed to a toaster and another group prayed to God. Ever heard of a control group?

Yes, a control group is the thing that you think is required when it comes confirming science but not when it comes to religion.

My point was that the results of praying to God are no different to what we'd expect from random chance, such as if we prayed to a toaster - the hypothetical group who prayed to the toaster being the control group. You know what a control group is, right? It's the group that is the same as the test group, except the thing being tested for has been altered. In the hypothetical toaster prayer experiment, the toaster control group is doing everything the "pray to God" group is doing, the only change is that what they are praying to is different. It should be clear to anyone with a basic understanding of the scientific method that if the "God" group had the same results as the "toaster" group, then either the toaster answers prayers, or God does not answer prayers.

Several studies have been done on whether prayer has any benefits, and they generally conclude that no, prayer has zero actual benefits and it is no difference to random chance.

1: The Prayer Experiment

CiteSeerX — Are there demonstrable effects of distant intercessory prayer? A metaanalytic review

 

[Tiberius]

Many people could have traveled to those places in that order but that would not make them a Messenger of God.
Unless a person "claimed" to BE a Messenger of God why would we believe a person was a Messenger of God?

I do not know of anyone besides Baha'u'llah who traveled to those places in that order and ALSO claimed to be a Messenger of God.

So it seems that travelling to those places is largely irrelevant, since the subgroup it creates still contains many people.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you mean a prophecy that Baha'u'llah made, a prediction He made that came to pass?

I don't know. You should pick your best prophecy. Not your worst.