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

[ratiocinator]

There are objective facts surrounding my religion that we'd expect to be true if the religion is true and not true if some alternative was true instead.

Such as?

Do you have any better ideas? How else could God convey messages to humans?

Oh, I dunno, it could appear in basically human form but be obviously not human (not flesh and blood), able to appear to and speak to everybody in the world at the same time. It could write its message in solid diamond letters across the surface of the moon. Make them just appear in glowing letters over the Earth "Read the Baha’i Scriptures" perhaps. I could go on. There are endless ways that couldn't possibly be mistaken for just another person who thinks they have a message from god.

Why would you expect a message from God to be absolutely, blindingly, obvious to everybody in the world? That is the hundred-dollar question. Why would God want it to be so if God existed?

As I keep on explaining, it's simply a matter of being fair to people. If there is a message that it's important for us to hear, then effectively hiding it, by making it look like just another religion, is fundamentally unfair.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

I can’t tell if you’re as genius, crazy, or a crazy genius. Let’s start with the wheel. How are the different categories assigned and how are the animals assigned within them? Is there something you have online that could give me a visual representation so I can understand better? Thanks in advance for your patience.

I'm sorry I dont have a visual representation online to show you. I havent drawn it.
Would need to start with a blank Zodiac Wheel with 12 positions in four directions. The angle of the wheel would need to be so there are 3 positions in each of the four directions 3 North, 3 West, 3 East, 3 South.


This is the North part of the wheel and the animals that are there:

And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. Isaiah 11:7

And the gates of the city shall be after the names of the tribes of Israel: three gates northward; one gate of Reuben, one gate of Judah, one gate of Levi. Ezekiel 48:31


North/Straw.
Three animals:

Lion - Judah
Cattle - Reuben
Levi - Bear

Now the children of Reuben and the children of Gad had a very great multitude of cattle: and when they saw the land of Jazer, and the land of Gilead, that, behold, the place was a place for cattle; Numbers 32:1

And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. Revelation 5:5

And after a time he returned to take her, and he turned aside to see the carcase of the lion: and behold, there was a swarm of bees and honey in the carcase of the lion. Judges 14:8

And the men of the city said unto him on the seventh day before the sun went down, What is sweeter than honey? And what is stronger than a lion? and he said unto them, If ye had not plowed with my heifer, ye had not found out my riddle. Judges 14:18



But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I am the LORD your God, which have seperated you from other people. Leviticus 20:24


Brass is the land of Milk and Honey.
Honey is from the lion. Milk is from the cow.

The lion and the Ox both have Straw (with the bear).

Does that make any sense to you?

 

[infrabenji]

I'm sorry I dont have a visual representation online to show you. I havent drawn it.
Would need to start with a blank Zodiac Wheel with 12 positions in four directions. The angle of the wheel would need to be so there are 3 positions in each of the four directions 3 North, 3 West, 3 East, 3 South.


This is the North part of the wheel and the animals that are there:

And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. Isaiah 11:7

And the gates of the city shall be after the names of the tribes of Israel: three gates northward; one gate of Reuben, one gate of Judah, one gate of Levi. Ezekiel 48:31


North/Straw.
Three animals:

Lion - Judah
Cattle - Reuben
Levi - Bear

Now the children of Reuben and the children of Gad had a very great multitude of cattle: and when they saw the land of Jazer, and the land of Gilead, that, behold, the place was a place for cattle; Numbers 32:1

And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. Revelation 5:5

And after a time he returned to take her, and he turned aside to see the carcase of the lion: and behold, there was a swarm of bees and honey in the carcase of the lion. Judges 14:8

And the men of the city said unto him on the seventh day before the sun went down, What is sweeter than honey? And what is stronger than a lion? and he said unto them, If ye had not plowed with my heifer, ye had not found out my riddle. Judges 14:18



But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I am the LORD your God, which have seperated you from other people. Leviticus 20:24


Brass is the land of Milk and Honey.
Honey is from the lion. Milk is from the cow.

The lion and the Ox both have Straw (with the bear).

Does that make any sense to you?

I’m going to draw it and see. I’m definitely curious. Thanks for your patience with me.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

I’m going to draw it and see. I’m definitely curious. Thanks for your patience with me.

Here are some more animals and positions.

East Position / Stubble

3 Animals.
Joseph Sheep
Benjamin Wolf
Dan Horse

And on the east side four thousand and five hundred: and three gates; and one gate of Joseph, one gate of Benjamin, one gate of Dan. Ezekiel 48:32


The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpents meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD. Isaiah 65:25

Give ear, O Shepard of Israel, thou that leadest Joseph like a flock; thou that dwellest between the cherubims, shine forth. Psalm 80:1

Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf: in the morning he shall devour the prey, and at night he shall divide the spoil. Genesis 49:27

The snorting of his horses was heard from Dan: the whole land trembled at the sound of the neighing of his strong ones; for they are come, and have devoured the land, and all that is in it; the city, and those that dwell therein. Jeremiah 8:16





West position / Dust

Three animals.

Gad Leopard
Asher Goat
Naphtali Deer


And the west side four thousand and five hundred, with their three gates; one gate of Gad, one gate of Asher, one gate of Naphtali. Ezekiel 48:34

The Leopard is with the goat and the deer.

The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. Isaiah 11:6

Naphtali is a hind let loose: he giveth goodly words. Genesis 49:21

Putting Gad to Leopard and Asher to goat would require more explaining of other verses.


South Position:

And at the south side four thousand and five hundred measures: and three gates; one gate of Simeon, one gate of Issachar, one gate of Zebulun. Ezekiel 48:33

Issachar is a strong *** couching down between two burdens: Genesis 49:14

 

[shunyadragon]

I mean if it’s that unclear maybe I should change the title but we’re like 40 pages in so I’ll maybe leave it alone at this point? I’m not sure I definitely am not trying to invite personal attacks or have my intellect or achievements belittled. Who is arrogant enough to say they have all the answers? Just because I have a higher education doesn’t mean I do. It is kind of a challenge in a way because their are multiple competing doctrines on here who do not agree with each other’s ( Baha’i excluded ) prophets, messengers, or gods. And they are also the affirmative position, the ones making the claim, so yeah it is kind of a challenge but not in a “I’ve got all the answers make your case and fail before my mighty intellect” lol kind of way. More of a let’s test our mettle against each other and see if our ideas or the veracity of our claims are correct, need tweaking, or are wrong all together. And that includes me.

You missed the point. I was not attacking you personally nor your choice of belief. It was your approach in this thread.

As far as the question whether God exists or not ir is an unanswerable subjective question from the fallible human perspective. Show me yours, I will show you mine offers nothing just as the unrealistic 'Let's see if "I" can be convinced' challenge, because there is little no hope other than the 'Independent Search of Truth.'r
The only conclusion I have been able to reach concerning the existence of God is the many varied concepts of God or the 'Source' some call God(s) of that ancient religions such as Hinduism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Islam are ancient human views of God and the relationship with humanity and Creation does not exist. That does not translate into God does not exist, but if Theism is true the human view of God evolves with progressive Revelation as humans spiritually evolve toward the universal.

What we see through science as the nature, history of our universe and all possible universes can be described by the atheists/humanists as simply nature as it is with no God, and it can also be described as Creation reflecting the attributes of God.

 

[Trailblazer]

You seem to be arguing against a position I've never put forward. I know that if an omnipotent exists, it will be capable of doing anything but will only do what it chooses to do. My problem is with what you are telling me your god has chosen to do. It's its choices (along with the total lack of evidence) that are the basis of my objection.

You cannot dispute that God has not chosen to prove that He exists to everyone in the world because that choice is readily apparent, since everyone in the world does not believe in God.

You can dispute my belief that God chose to send Messengers in an effort to communicate to humanity, but
nevertheless there is a boatload of evidence that shows that God chose to send Messengers.

Which again, misses the point. There is no reason, no prima facie case, that these documents are a new (-ish) message from the real god, so people still do stick with the religion they were born in, or scrabble around looking into all sorts of different religions, or simply see no reason to bother with any of them. And people do, as a result, get into sometimes deadly conflicts about it.

Why would it MATTER to you what religious believers choose to do? How does that prove that my religion is not true? There are reasons why people stay with the religion they were raised in rather than looking into a new religion. the main reason is because they believe their religion is true.

An omnipotent god could (if it chose so to do) easily prevent that by making the message not (apparently) just another set of scriptures from just another 'prophet', religious leader, or 'Messenger'. Just another religion telling everybody else that they've found the truth.

How do you think God could communicate that information to humans if not through a Messenger who reveals scriptures for us to read?

The mere existence of the Baha’i faith its online reference library isn't evidence that a god exists or that this is a new message from it. And if the god you describe does exist, and it has made the choice not to prevent all the confusion amongst even people who genuinely want to follow the true god or gods, let alone those of us who see no reason to think any exists at all, then I'd regard it as evil and not want to serve it anyway.

I never claimed that the existence of the Baha'i Faith is evidence. I believe that the Messengers of God are the evidence that God exists, and Baha'u'llah is the latest Messenger. God has made the choice to straighten out all the confusion by sending Baha'u'llah to straighten out all the confusion, but if people do not read what He wrote they will remain confused. It is that simple.

Do you understand now? From my point of view, either your god doesn't exist, or, if it does, and has made the choices that you said it has, then I want nothing to do with it anyway because I see a fundamental contradiction between the choices you claim it has made and it being a just and fair being.

Essentially what you are saying that is God does not do something differently from what I believe God has done, you consider that unjust and unfair. Yet you cannot come up with any other ways that God could accomplish what He accomplished via a Messenger.

Please do not say that God is omnipotent so God can do anything because that is a completely moot point. Humans are not omnipotent so God had to figure out a way to communicate to humans in such a way that humans could understand the communication and utilize it. God has chosen the only way that is feasible, which is the way God has always communicated to humans - through Messenger who have a twofold nature, both divine and human, that which enables them to understand God and relay what they hear from God back to humans and present it in a form that humans can comprehend, scriptures.

 

[Trailblazer]

Are we talking about self deception through faith? Because I am pretty sure faith cannot be used as a pathway to truth. Faith is totally unreliable as a methodology for assessing the truth value of claims that are made. If a persons believes by faith and is wrong how have they not deceived themselves? Faith is the personal and subjective vehicle for their belief.

No, I do not think that people should believe by faith alone! I think people should base their beliefs upon evidence.

If they believe in a Messenger of God as I do they have to look at the evidence that indicates the Messenger really got a message from God.
However, since there can never be any verifiable proof that God exists one has to have faith to believe God exists.

Also faith requires a person to abandon critical thinking and the laws of logic to reconcile their belief or beliefs and that creates an unhealthy cognitive dissonance. It’s literally replacing facts and knowledge with imagination and ignorance.

We cannot have facts and knowledge about an unreachable God except through the Messengers of God who reveal God. We do put our faith in the Messengers because there is no way we can prove tat they got a message form God. If we enough evidence that supports our belief that the Messenger is a true Messenger of God then that is the best we can do.

How can our model of reality align with actual reality when we willingly engage in the practice of using faith in place of knowing? Our most accurate model of reality is based on facts. Faith doesn’t even make it in the building let alone get a seat at the table. That’s why I believe faith is self deception. When one willfully employs it they replace I don’t know, an honest answer, with extraordinary certitude.

A believer has no choice but to practice faith in place of knowing because there is no other way to believe in God since God cannot be proven as a fact.

And that certitude has proven extremely harmful to individuals, humanity, and the earth. It may be just as much self harm as it is self deception since in every case it creates mental conflict. Again it doesn’t speak to whether something is true or not. It can’t. It has no explanatory power. It is merely the act of believing something without evidence.

AGAIN, I am not suggesting that anyone should believe in God without evidence, but evidence is not the same as proof.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

Nobody can ever establish "God exists" as fact, all we have is evidence that indicates that God exists. I do not think that there are very many believers who believe in God with no evidence. Most believers are religious and all religious believers have evidence via scriptures.

 

[infrabenji]

You missed the point. I was not attacking you personally nor your choice of belief. It was your approach in this thread.

As Far as whether God exists or not ir is an unanswerable subjective question from the fallible human perspective. Show me yours, I will show you mine offers nothing just as the unrealistic 'Let's see if "I" can be convinced' challenge, because there is little no hope other than the 'Independent Search of Truth.'r
The only conclusion I have been able to reach concerning the existence of God is the many varied concepts of God or the 'Source' some call God(s) of that ancient religions such as Hinduism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Islam are ancient human views of God and the relationship with humanity and Creation does not exist. That does not translate into God does not exist, but if Theism is true the human view of God evolves with progressive Revelation as humans spiritually evolve toward the universal.

What we see through science as the nature, history of our universe and all possible universes can be described by the atheists/humanists as simply nature as it is with no God, and it can also be described as Creation reflecting the attributes of God.

Thank you for letting me know I missed the point.

“As Far as whether God exists or not ir is an unanswerable subjective question from the fallible human perspective.”

I feel like if we’re going to be honest we should address each claim individually. If it is unanswerable how much value does it have? If it is subjective it is based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Has there ever been a person that wasn’t fallible? Is fallible subjective as well? Can and should the method of science as our best model for determining facts be compared to the assumption that there can even be a god and that god can be seen through a “reflection of creation”? A subjective proposition. I can objectively understand love, caring, protection, sexual desire, fecundity as the result of the chemicals oxytocin and vasopressin as peptides and their receptors. If we can't understand god is god as anything more than an imaginary friend? Do you believe on faith? Some of these can be yes or no questions. Question 2 Question 3 Question 6 are likely candidates. I'm curios to see how you can reconcile the cognitive dissonance that results from this dilemma of incompatibility between knowledge and thought.

 

[shunyadragon]

Thank you for letting me know I missed the point.

“As Far as whether God exists or not ir is an unanswerable subjective question from the fallible human perspective.”

I feel like if we’re going to be honest we should address each claim individually. If it is unanswerable how much value does it have? If it is subjective it is based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Has there ever been a person that wasn’t fallible? Is fallible subjective as well? Can and should the method of science as our best model for determining facts be compared to the assumption that there can even be a god and that god can be seen through a “reflection of creation”? A subjective proposition. I can objectively understand love, caring, protection, sexual desire, fecundity as the result of the chemicals oxytocin and vasopressin as peptides and their receptors. If we can't understand god is god as anything more than an imaginary friend? Do you believe on faith? Some of these can be yes or no questions. Question 2 Question 3 Question 6 are likely candidates. I'm curios to see how you can reconcile the cognitive dissonance that results from this dilemma of incompatibility between knowledge and thought.

This response still represents that standard taped response of the atheist like @Tiberius as highlighted further brings to the forefront your statement; "Let's see if "I" can be convinced"

It is your view the basis of your atheist belief that we can't understand God, because this is what you believe 'a priori.'

 

[infrabenji]

No, I do not think that people should believe by faith alone! I think people should base their beliefs upon evidence.

If they believe in a Messenger of God as I do they have to look at the evidence that indicates the Messenger really got a message from God.
However, since there can never be any verifiable proof that God exists one has to have faith to believe God exists.

We cannot have facts and knowledge about an unreachable God except through the Messengers of God who reveal God. We do put our faith in the Messengers because there is no way we can prove tat they got a message form God. If we enough evidence that supports our belief that the Messenger is a true Messenger of God then that is the best we can do.

A believer has no choice but to practice faith in place of knowing because there is no other way to believe in God since God cannot be proven as a fact.

AGAIN, I am not suggesting that anyone should believe in God without evidence, but evidence is not the same as proof.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

Nobody can ever establish "God exists" as fact, all we have is evidence that indicates that God exists. I do not think that there are very many believers who believe in God with no evidence. Most believers are religious and all religious believers have evidence via scriptures.

Yeah it sounds like your stuck with faith and that definitely problematic. Also trust in humans as messengers from god? Has there ever been a human that was not fallible? I just asked this question to someone else for the very same reason. If we believe the messenger, who is a human and fallible, that god exists that is proof of god? Evidence and proof is form versus function. Evidence is the available body of facts. By your definition A noun: Evidence that establishes the fact or truth of a statement. An example "you will be asked to give proof of your identity". A believer does have a choice and, for all we can determine the answer is, "I don't know". Which proposition makes you feel the most deeply that there may be nothing or that there is something? Don't think about your personal views. Just feel the question and weigh it in your mind. Tell me what you feel?

 

[Trailblazer]

Such as?

For starters, we have facts surrounding the history of the Baha'i Faith that has been recorded by historians and was written in the newspapers of those times. We'd expect those facts to be true if the religion is true and not true if some alternative was true instead.

Because we have recorded history, we also so have facts surrounding the early life and the coming of Baha'u'llah as well as what He did on His mission that demonstrates that He fulfilled the Bible prophecies for the Messiah and the return of Christ. If that is not enough, everything that He predicted came to pass and is still coming to pass just as He predicted it would. No other religion has any such support for its claims.

Oh, I dunno, it could appear in basically human form but be obviously not human (not flesh and blood), able to appear to and speak to everybody in the world at the same time.

Why would everyone believe this human but obviously not human form was speaking for God?
The Messengers of God appeared in human form but they were more than human because they had a twofold nature.

“Unto this subtle, this mysterious and ethereal Being He hath assigned a twofold nature; the physical, pertaining to the world of matter, and the spiritual, which is born of the substance of God Himself. He hath, moreover, conferred upon Him a double station. The first station, which is related to His innermost reality, representeth Him as One Whose voice is the voice of God Himself. To this testifieth the tradition: “Manifold and mysterious is My relationship with God. I am He, Himself, and He is I, Myself, except that I am that I am, and He is that He is.” …. The second station is the human station, exemplified by the following verses: “I am but a man like you.” “Say, praise be to my Lord! Am I more than a man, an apostle?” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 66-67

How would that be logically possible for a being to appear to and speak to everybody in the world at the same time and why would that be necessary?

It could write its message in solid diamond letters across the surface of the moon. Make them just appear in glowing letters over the Earth "Read the Baha’i Scriptures" perhaps. I could go on. There are endless ways that couldn't possibly be mistaken for just another person who thinks they have a message from god.

Why do you think that everyone would believe what was written in solid diamond letters across the surface of the moon was from God? An alien could do the same thing in an attempt to deceive people.

By the way and related to this conversation I posted a thread a few months ago which began like this:

Most Christians are waiting for Jesus to return, although they do not all agree on when or how He will return, but if a man came claiming to be Jesus how would you know it was really Jesus? After all, there are no photos of what Jesus looked like when He walked the earth 2000 years ago.

Anyone can claim that he is the return of Jesus and that is no doubt why Jesus gave this warning to His disciples:

If Jesus returned to this world, how would you know it was Jesus?

Not one Christian could tell me how we would know if it was Jesus if a man came claiming to be Jesus.

Of course what that means is that Baha'u'llah could have been the return of Christ as He claimed to be and only a few people would recognize Him for who He was, those people who determined who He was by looking at ALL the evidence.

So how could we know that any evidence that God allegedly presented was really from God? Think about it.

As I keep on explaining, it's simply a matter of being fair to people. If there is a message that it's important for us to hear, then effectively hiding it, by making it look like just another religion, is fundamentally unfair.

I do not care if you think it is unfair and neither does God. Religion is the only way that God ever communicates to humans because that is the only way that God can get a message out to humans, which is the purpose of the communication.

IF you looked at the Baha'i Faith you would realize it is not just another religion. It is a religion, but it is very different from the older religions even though it has some similarities to the older religions. You would realize that if you looked at it. Nothing is hidden because it is all available for people to look at on the internet.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yeah it sounds like your stuck with faith and that definitely problematic.

It is not problematic for us believers.

Also trust in humans as messengers from god? Has there ever been a human that was not fallible? I just asked this question to someone else for the very same reason. If we believe the messenger, who is a human and fallible, that god exists that is proof of god?

Baha'is do not believe that the Messengers are only humans and that is crucial to understanding our beliefs.
Why would we believe a fallible human?

I just explained to ratiocinator in the post above:#791 Trailblazer the Messengers of God appeared in human form but they were more than human because they had a twofold nature so they were both divine and human. To add to that we believe that as the Voice of God that are infallible.

 

[infrabenji]

This response still represents that standard taped response of the atheist like @Tiberius as highlighted further brings to the forefront your statement; "Let's see if "I" can be convinced"

It is your view the basis of your atheist belief that we can't understand God, because this is what you believe 'a priori.'

Your constant deflections at a title I already explained and have offered to change that only you out of everyone have decided to use to misrepresent my position is not an excuse to not answer honest questions. If I'm going to do my best to answer your questions honestly I'd appreciate if you'd show me the same courtesy and answer mine. We are only addressing one paragraph of your last post of which you made multiple as yet to be verified claims and you can't answer one single question of mine? My questions have nothing to do with the basis of my atheism and neither could have come to that conclusion without bias. I asked you honest questions so I could better understand your beliefs. If this is your idea of discourse my time is better spent elsewhere. I answered your questions. Can you honestly answer mine?

 

[infrabenji]

It is not problematic for us believers.

Baha'is do not believe that the Messengers are only humans and that is crucial to understanding our beliefs.
Why would we believe a fallible human?

I just explained to ratiocinator in the post above:#791 Trailblazer the Messengers of God appeared in human form but they were more than human because they had a twofold nature so they were both divine and human. To add to that we believe that as the Voice of God that are infallible.

There are definitely some points we disconnect on lol. Let me give some thought to your beliefs and run it through my brain box and get back to you with any questions. As always thanks for answering my questions. You're awesome. Talk soon.

 

[Trailblazer]

If I had what I needed to be a believer, then I would be a believer.

Yes, I agree, as I said in my post to you:
"Obviously you need something you do not have in order to become a believer, because you would be a believer if you had what you need."

And you also seem to be saying, "Just believe, and once you are a believer, the proof will come to you." No, that's not how it works. I've had countless believers of many different faiths use this reasoning with me, and every single time, it means, "Just believe, and once you believe you'll be more inclined to accept as true that which supports your beliefs simply because you will want to believe it, and thus you won't be as critical when you judge the validity of it."

"Just believe, and once you are a believer, the proof will come to you." That has to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
No, that is not what I am saying! That is backasswards logic.

 

[Trailblazer]

That was one of the five that you already provided, and we'd already agreed that this person fit those criteria.

Baha'u'llah met this criterion. What person are you referring to?

We've discussed many times how you pick and choose the Bible verses that you can use for your own ends, and you ignore all the rest. I'm not going over it again.

Is that because you do not have any Bible verses I cherry-picked for my own ends?
Pointing out that Baha'u'llah fulfilled certain prophecies is not cherry-picking.
What did I ignore?

Lol, you try telling the Christians they are wrong about their own beliefs, see how well that goes for you.

I do it all the time. I don't care if it goes well for me because someone has to stand up to them.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

I’m going to draw it and see. I’m definitely curious. Thanks for your patience with me.

I can show some more detail:

Sheep are on the Eastern side and the goats are on the Western side of the wheel. Sheep on the right, Goats on the left.


As it says:

And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Matthew 25:33

And as I was considering, behold, an he goat came from the west on the face of the whole earth, and touched not the ground: and the goat had a notable horn between his eyes. Daniel 8:5

Three levels: Cattle - Goat - Sheep.

And as for you, O my flock, thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I judge between cattle and cattle, between the rams and the he goats. Ezekiel 34:17



Notice this verse I showed before has Gad with Reuben in the place of cattle:

Now the children of Reuben and the children of Gad had a very great multitude of cattle: and when they saw the land of Jazer, and the land of Gilead, that, behold, the place was a place for cattle; Numbers 32:1


Gad is higher than cattle.


There is talk about it:

Why abodest thou among the sheepfolds, to hear the bleatings of the flocks? For the divisions of Reuben were great searchings of heart. Judges 5:16

And of Gad he said, Blessed be he that enlargeth Gad: he dwelleth as a lion, and teareth the arm with the crown of the head. Deuteronomy 33:20

The Ethiopians:
Are ye not as children of the Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel? saith the Lord. Have not I brought up Israel out of the land of Egypt? and the Philistines from Caphtor, and the Syrians from Kir? Amos 9:7

Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? Then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil. Jeremiah 13:23




There is no violence in the bible:

To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings. proverbs 1:6



Please listen carefully:

Ethiopia, and Libya, and Lydia, and all the mingled people, and Chub, and the men of the land that is in league, shall fall with them by the sword.

Ye Ethiopians also, ye shall be slain by my sword. Zephinaiah 2:12


The Leopard (Ethiopian) is sword.

That's part of the reasoning of why have I put Gad and the Leopard together on the wheel.


I think it is talking about separating cattle.
Like Moses separating the Sea.
And Muhammed separating the Moon.


Just like Jesus picking the corn:

And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. Mark 2:23

For it is written in the law of Moses, thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? 1 Corinthians 9:9



Cattle - Goats - Sheep
Sea - River - Stream
Moon - Star - Sun
Corn - Oil - Wine

Same thing.

 

[Tiberius]

Yes, I agree, as I said in my post to you:
"Obviously you need something you do not have in order to become a believer, because you would be a believer if you had what you need."

The you are saying that your God is incompetent? You're definitely wrong about something, since you've also said, "I believe that everyone has been given what they need, which is the capacity to believe in God."

So you are at once saying that everyone (including me) has been given what they need, while simultaneously saying that I do not have a thing that I need.

"Just believe, and once you are a believer, the proof will come to you." That has to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
No, that is not what I am saying! That is backasswards logic.

You clearly said that the only thing people need is the capacity to be a believer in God, but not everyone uses this. Sure sounds like that's what you're saying.

 

[Tiberius]

Baha'u'llah met this criterion. What person are you referring to?

I'd hate for you to be influenced by your biases.

Now, you said that after these five criteria there were other criteria that needed to be met, so how about you tell us what THEY are so we can see if this person is truly a messenger of God.

Is that because you do not have any Bible verses I cherry-picked for my own ends?
Pointing out that Baha'u'llah fulfilled certain prophecies is not cherry-picking.
What did I ignore?

You pick and choose Bible verses every single time you choose to use the verses that support your faith but ignore the ones that do not support your faith.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. Isaiah 2:4

Beat your plowshares into swords and your pruninghooks into spears: let the weak say, I am strong. Joel 3:10

These two verses do not contradict each other.
That is just how it is.