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

[Trailblazer]

For ignoring the bits of other religions that would indicate that your faith is wrong while embracing the bits of other religions that indicate that your faith is correct. Once again, it's just a way for you to pick and choose the bits you like and discard the rest.

Any bits and pieces that I ignore are the bits and pieces that man added or changed or misinterpreted such that the religions became corrupted. Until you understand that the older religions have been corrupted by man there is no point continuing this conversation.

“This is the Day when the loved ones of God should keep their eyes directed towards His Manifestation, and fasten them upon whatsoever that Manifestation may be pleased to reveal. 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. Thou dost witness how most of the commentaries and interpretations of the words of God, now current amongst men, are devoid of truth. Their falsity hath, in some cases, been exposed when 172 the intervening veils were rent asunder. They themselves have acknowledged their failure in apprehending the meaning of any of the words of God.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 171-172

If there is no way you can demonstrate it as fact, you should not present it as such.

I did not present it as a fact, it was an opinion. Is everything you present a fact? No, you present many opinions.

Oh look, you're doing it again.

Trailblazer: Jesus never said he was God.

Tiberius: Yes he did, here's the passage, and here's the context to show that it was interpreted as him claiming to be God.

Trailblazer: Oh, but that doesn't count. So Jesus never claimed to be God.

You're ignoring the bits you disagree with in order to claim the Bible says what you want it to say. That is the very definition of cherry picking.

No, that is not cherry-picking because I do not ignore that verse (see my interpretation of that verse below)

You are the cherry-picker because you only have ONE VERSE that "you believe" means Jesus is God.

Below is my interpretation of that verse.

Jesus was like a clear mirror, and God became visible in the mirror. This is why Jesus said, “The Father is in the Son” (John 14:11, John 17:21), meaning that God is visible and manifest in Jesus.

“I and my Father are one” (John 10:30) means that Jesus and God are one and the same, so whatever pertains to Jesus, all His acts and doings are identical with the Will of God Himself. Jesus and God also share the same Holy Spirit, so in that sense they are one and the same. Jesus also shares the Attributes of God so in that sense they are one and the same. The verse below says that God was manifest in the flesh; it does not say that God became flesh.

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

There are objective facts about all religions. So what? Doesn't mean the religion in question is true. There are objectively true statements made in Star Trek, but that doesn't mean Klingons are real.

I never said that the objective facts about religions means that the religions are true (in the sense that they came from God).

I said: "There are objective facts associated with my religion. However, the basis of my religion is that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God. Whether or not Baha'u'llah was a Messenger "of God" or not can never be proven as an objective fact, for obvious logical reasons."

I honestly don't see any reason to follow Christianity, or any other religion, and I don't know why you think I would say you should. My criticism of your position on Christianity is that you cherry pick it. You take what parts of Christianity that you can use to bolster your own faith, but ignore the rest. Your interpretation of Christianity is obviously self-serving.

Show me where I cherry-pick or take parts of Christianity to bolster my religion or stop accusing me of such.

I do not need Christianity to bolster my own faith, not anymore than a Jew or a Muslim need Christianity to bolster their faiths. We all have our own religions which are based upon what our Messengers revealed in scriptures.

My interpretation of Christianity is according to what Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha wrote about Christianity, it is not self-serving.

 

[Trailblazer]

That only Christ brings hope, peace, deliverance and salvation. Only Christ can make us right with God.

That's true. Only Christ brings hope, peace, deliverance and salvation, and that is why Baha'is are 'required' to believe in Christ.
Baha'u'llah never claimed to be a 'replacement' for Christ. Baha'u'llah came with an entirely new and different mission.

That is one of my favorite songs. Here is another one of my many favorites. I tear up every time I listen to it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why do I believe that Jesus is infallible? Because I believe that He is the Second Person of the Trinity.

Why do I believe that Jesus is infallible? Because I believe that He is a Manifestation of God.

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

 

[Trailblazer]

I honestly don't see any reason to follow Christianity, or any other religion, and I don't know why you think I would say you should. My criticism of your position on Christianity is that you cherry pick it. You take what parts of Christianity that you can use to bolster your own faith, but ignore the rest. Your interpretation of Christianity is obviously self-serving.

As I said in my previous post, I don't need Christianity to bolster my own religion since my religion has its own Messenger and as such it stands on its own merit. However, I think you should understand the Baha'i position on Christianity, so below is a quote from the Guardian of the Baha'i Faith whose writings we consider authoritative.

“As to the position of Christianity, let it be stated without any hesitation or equivocation that its divine origin is unconditionally acknowledged, that the Sonship and Divinity of Jesus Christ are fearlessly asserted, that the divine inspiration of the Gospel is fully recognized, that the reality of the mystery of the Immaculacy of the Virgin Mary is confessed, and the primacy of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, is upheld and defended. The Founder of the Christian Faith is designated by Bahá’u’lláh as the “Spirit of God,” is proclaimed as the One Who “appeared out of the breath of the Holy Ghost,” and is even extolled as the “Essence of the Spirit.” His mother is described as “that veiled and immortal, that most beauteous, countenance,” and the station of her Son eulogized as a “station which hath been exalted above the imaginings of all that dwell on earth,” whilst Peter is recognized as one whom God has caused “the mysteries of wisdom and of utterance to flow out of his mouth.” “Know thou,” Bahá’u’lláh has moreover testified, “that when the Son of Man yielded up His breath to God, the whole creation wept with a great weeping. By sacrificing Himself, however, a fresh capacity was infused into all created things. Its evidences, as witnessed in all the peoples of the earth, are now manifest before thee. The deepest wisdom which the sages have uttered, the profoundest learning which any mind hath unfolded, the arts which the ablest hands have produced, the influence exerted by the most potent of rulers, are but manifestations of the quickening power released by His transcendent, His all-pervasive and resplendent Spirit. We testify that when He came into the world, He shed the splendor of His glory upon all created things. Through Him the leper recovered from the leprosy of perversity and ignorance. Through Him the unchaste and wayward were healed. Through His power, born of Almighty God, the eyes of the blind were opened and the soul of the sinner sanctified…. He it is Who purified the world. Blessed is the man who, with a face beaming with light, hath turned towards Him.”

Indeed, the essential prerequisites of admittance into the Bahá’í fold of Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, and the followers of other ancient faiths, as well as of agnostics and even atheists, is the wholehearted and unqualified acceptance by them all of the divine origin of both Islám and Christianity, of the Prophetic functions of both Muḥammad and Jesus Christ, of the legitimacy of the institution of the Imamate, and of the primacy of St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles. Such are the central, the solid, the incontrovertible principles that constitute the bedrock of Bahá’í belief, which the Faith of Bahá’u’lláh is proud to acknowledge, which its teachers proclaim, which its apologists defend, which its literature disseminates, which its summer schools expound, and which the rank and file of its followers attest by both word and deed.”

The Promised Day is Come, pp. 109-110

 

[Trailblazer]

Yeah. I think the message is hidden in the details of the bible and the Quran.
And there are other religions around the world with exactly the same message.

But I could not find the same message in the words of Baha'u'llah.

What message are you referring to?

 

[Tiberius]

#950 Trailblazer, Today at 1:56 PM

What you originally said was, "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.

However, I believe that everyone has been given what they need, which is the capacity to believe in God"

Now you are trying to change your tune once again and claim that when you were talking about what was required in order to be a believer, you really meant the "capacity to recognize the signs of God."

Two different things. Stop shifting the goalposts.

 

[Tiberius]

How do you think we can determine if they are true facts or false statements?

Let's say we could determine they are true facts. Those facts would not necessarily be evidence for the truth of the religion, not to everyone.

For example, it is a fact that Baha'u'llah lived from 1817 to 1892 and it is a fact that Baha'u'llah wrote His own scriptures in His own pen, but that does not mean that everyone is going to believe that He was a Messenger of God.

Exhibition of Baha’u’llah’s writings opens at British Museum

I'm not debating those facts, am I?

And when it comes to determining which are true facts or merely statements that are mistakenly believed to be facts (I shall refer to these as "mistaken facts" for ease of communication), the best tool we have is science. That is by far the best (and I would say the only) tool we have for finding out true facts about the world.

 

[Tiberius]

Any bits and pieces that I ignore are the bits and pieces that man added or changed or misinterpreted such that the religions became corrupted. Until you understand that the older religions have been corrupted by man there is no point continuing this conversation.

“This is the Day when the loved ones of God should keep their eyes directed towards His Manifestation, and fasten them upon whatsoever that Manifestation may be pleased to reveal. 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. Thou dost witness how most of the commentaries and interpretations of the words of God, now current amongst men, are devoid of truth. Their falsity hath, in some cases, been exposed when 172 the intervening veils were rent asunder. They themselves have acknowledged their failure in apprehending the meaning of any of the words of God.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 171-172

The trouble is you seem to be making this claim for whatever you want to discard.

Some particular passage doesn't suit your agenda? Well, then, just declare that it's some part that was added or changed by man, and now you don't have to worry about it!

But this other passage that DOES fit your agenda, then that's a part we can take as it is, we don't need to say that it was added or altered!

I did not present it as a fact, it was an opinion. Is everything you present a fact? No, you present many opinions.

If you admit that your beliefs are based on your personal opinion, not fact, and if you also admit that facts are how you find out the truth about things (see your claim in post 877) Then aren't you admiting that you don't consider your faith to be factual?

No, that is not cherry-picking because I do not ignore that verse (see my interpretation of that verse below)

You are the cherry-picker because you only have ONE VERSE that "you believe" means Jesus is God.

Ah yes, of course, the fault is mine. Because any position that says your idea about it is mistaken, why, that simply CAN'T be right, can it?

Below is my interpretation of that verse.

Jesus was like a clear mirror, and God became visible in the mirror. This is why Jesus said, “The Father is in the Son” (John 14:11, John 17:21), meaning that God is visible and manifest in Jesus.

And that's why I believe that Patrick Stewart is literally INSIDE my TV when I watch Star Trek, because that's what it means when someone says, "X is in Y."

“I and my Father are one” (John 10:30) means that Jesus and God are one and the same, so whatever pertains to Jesus, all His acts and doings are identical with the Will of God Himself. Jesus and God also share the same Holy Spirit, so in that sense they are one and the same. Jesus also shares the Attributes of God so in that sense they are one and the same.

Do you realise how that sounds to other people? If I say, "I and the thief are one," I am literally admitting that I am the thief. No one's going to take it to mean that I feel just as guilty as the thief because I forgot to lock the door.

The verse below says that God was manifest in the flesh; it does not say that God became flesh.

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

The word "manifest" literally means "to appear in the form of."

I never said that the objective facts about religions means that the religions are true (in the sense that they came from God).

I said: "There are objective facts associated with my religion. However, the basis of my religion is that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God. Whether or not Baha'u'llah was a Messenger "of God" or not can never be proven as an objective fact, for obvious logical reasons."

Then why did you even bring it up in the first place?

Show me where I cherry-pick or take parts of Christianity to bolster my religion or stop accusing me of such.

Every single time you present a passage from the Bible and say the passage is correct because it bolsters your faith, but other passages which do not bolster your faith you dismiss as corrupted alterations made by man.

In short, you determine whether a passage is valid or not by whether it helps you out or not.

My interpretation of Christianity is according to what Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha wrote about Christianity, it is not self-serving.

You can't deny that it serves your particular faith though.

 

[Trailblazer]

But you said "You are correct in saying that most of them have not found the correct message and are not doing what God wants..." (#717) Hence the messenger system fails again.

No, the Messenger system did not fail, most people have thus far failed to get and believe in the new message from Baha'u'llah for various reasons:

Below are the seven logical reasons why more people have not recognized Baha’u’llah, yet.

1. Many people have never heard of the Baha’i Faith, so they do not know there is something to look for. It is the responsibility of the Baha’is to get the message out, so if that is not happening, the Baha’is are to blame. However, there are so few Baha’is and they are busy building the New World Order, and there is only so much time, so they can only do so much.

2. But even after people know about the Baha’i Faith, most people are not even willing to look the evidence in order to determine if it is true or not.

3. Even if they are willing to look at the evidence, there is a lot of prejudice before even getting out the door to look at the evidence.

4. 84% of people in the world already have a religion and they are happy with their religion so they have no interest in a “new religion.”

5. The rest of the world’s population is agnostics or atheists or believers who are prejudiced against all religion.

6. Agnostics or atheists and atheists and believers who have no religion either do not believe that God communicates via Messengers or they find fault with the Messenger, Baha’u’llah.

7. Baha’u’llah brought new teachings and laws that are very different from the older religions so many people are suspicious of those teachings and/or don’t like the laws because some laws require them to give things up that they like doing.

But they've got lots wrong, so the messenger system demonstrably isn't working. And even if everybody believed even vaguely similar things (I think you're also ignoring polytheists) this would still be an argumentum ad populum fallacy.

Clearly, the Messenger system has worked well because Messengers of God are the primary reason most people believe that God exists or know anything about God. The fact that believers in the older religions have some false beliefs does not say anything about the Messenger system. All it says is that those believers have 'failed' to get the update from God through Baha'u'llah for the seven reasons noted above.

Do you deny that a lot of suffering could have been avoided if everybody knew the truth, i.e. if this god of yours had come up with a better way to communicate with them?

There would have been no 'better way' for God to communicate to people.

Religious believers got the truth from God for the ages that they were living in when that truth was delivered to them, but more truth from God was delivered in subsequent ages. The suffering was the result of believers rejecting the Messengers who came after the Messenger they already believed in (e.g., Christians rejecting Muhammad). That is what caused all the fighting between Christians and Muslims. That is human-caused suffering, not related to the method of communication.

Nope - the simple message that Baha'i Library is the latest message from god would do perfectly well if it was made clear to everybody.

How do you think it would be 'possible' to get everyone to believe in the message of Baha'u'llah, given factors #1-7 that I listed above?

There will come a time when everyone will know about Baha’u’llah because God will have exalted His Cause and magnified His testimony in the eyes of all who are in the heavens and all who are on the earth. Exactly when and how that will happen is unknown.

“Warn and acquaint the people, O Servant, with the things We have sent down unto Thee, and let the fear of no one dismay Thee, and be Thou not of them that waver. The day is approaching when God will have exalted His Cause and magnified His testimony in the eyes of all who are in the heavens and all who are on the earth.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 248-249

We've done this before (almost word for word). It's obviously unfair because there is no reason to think there is a god at all, and even less that one (or more) of the religions is a true message. I'm not going to work to pass an exam or get a degree that I don't even think exists.

What you're 'arguing' here is entirely circular, you'll never have a proper reason to study the religion until you study the religion. It's not only unfair, it utterly absurd.

I never said that you'll never have a proper reason to study the religion until you study the religion. I only ever said that you cannot know anything about the religion or what it claims about God unless you study the religion.

If you never attended college you at least know that you will have work to do in order to pass an exam or get a degree.
If you are an atheist who knows nothing about God you should likewise know that you will have to do 'something' in order om acquire a belief in God.

Before you would be willing to do the research you would have to consider the 'possibility' that God exists. You do not have to 'believe' that God exists until you have a reason to believe that but you have to at least believe it is 'possible' that God exists. I think you need a logical reason to believe that God exists, a reason that makes sense to you. That is what I found in the Baha'i Faith. Before I became a Baha'i I had no 'reason' to believe that God existed since I was not raised in any religion. I accepted that God exists when I became a Baha'i but I had to know something about God and the reason why God exists and why humans need God before I was really a full-fledged believer.

What's the reason a rational person would look at any of the religions? The second part is begging the question because it only makes sense if you think there has been a series of messengers, rather than just one revelation, which is a part of your faith. You can't use the truth of your faith to argue that somebody should look specifically at your faith to find out if it's true.

No, religion would make sense as a way to know about God even if you did not know about the series of Messengers, but it makes more sense if you know that there have been a series of Messengers.

I am not using 'what I believe' to be the truth of my faith to argue that somebody should look specifically at my faith to find out if it's true. When I said that a rational person would look at the LATEST Messenger of God and His messages rather than a Bronze Age religion and those messages that is based upon logic and and reason. Nobody has the time to investigate all the older religions so it would make more sense to start with the newer religion since it has the latest message from God and also because it puts all the older religions into perspective.

Yet again: I didn't mean hidden in that sense (how many times do I need to repeat this?) It is hidden because there is no reason to think it is any more true than any other faith. To a sceptic, it looks exactly like just another human religion (or other superstition).

I never claimed that the Baha'i Faith is more true than any other faith. I only ever claimed that it is *newer* so it has the truth that humanity needs in this age.

The only way you will ever know that there is a reason to think it is true and different from another religion and not just superstition would be to look at its teachings. For example, what older religions teach that science is just as important for human progress as religion?

Science and Religion

Bahá’ís reject the notion that there is an inherent conflict between science and religion, a notion that became prevalent in intellectual discourse at a time when the very conception of each system of knowledge was far from adequate. The harmony of science and religion is one of the fundamental principles of the Bahá’í Faith, which teaches that religion, without science, soon degenerates into superstition and fanaticism, while science without religion becomes merely the instrument of crude materialism. “Religion,” according to the Bahá’í writings, “is the outer expression of the divine reality. Therefore, it must be living, vitalized, moving and progressive.”1 “Science is the first emanation from God toward man. All created things embody the potentiality of material perfection, but the power of intellectual investigation and scientific acquisition is a higher virtue specialized to man alone. Other beings and organisms are deprived of this potentiality and attainment.”2

So far as earthly existence is concerned, many of the greatest achievements of religion have been moral in character. Through its teachings and through the examples of human lives illumined by these teachings, masses of people in all ages and lands have developed the capacity to love, to give generously, to serve others, to forgive, to trust in God, and to sacrifice for the common good. Social structures and institutional systems have been devised that translate these moral advances into the norms of social life on a vast scale. In the final analysis, the spiritual impulses set in motion by the Founders of the world’s religions—the Manifestations of God—have been the chief influence in the civilizing of human character.

‘Abdu’l-Bahá has described science as the “most noble” of all human virtues and “the discoverer of all things”.3 Science has enabled society to separate fact from conjecture. Further, scientific capabilities—of observing, of measuring, of rigorously testing ideas—have allowed humanity to construct a coherent understanding of the laws and processes governing physical reality, as well as to gain insights into human conduct and the life of society.

Taken together, science and religion provide the fundamental organizing principles by which individuals, communities, and institutions function and evolve.

Science and Religion | What Bahá’ís Believe

 

[Trailblazer]

What you originally said was, "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.

However, I believe that everyone has been given what they need, which is the capacity to believe in God"

Now you are trying to change your tune once again and claim that when you were talking about what was required in order to be a believer, you really meant the "capacity to recognize the signs of God."

Two different things. Stop shifting the goalposts.

When I said "everyone has been given what they need, which is the capacity to believe in God" I meant that God has given everyone what they need, the capacity to believe in God. I later added that one has to be motivated to use that capacity and I later added that we all have different degrees of capacity.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm not debating those facts, am I?

Then what facts are you questioning?

And when it comes to determining which are true facts or merely statements that are mistakenly believed to be facts (I shall refer to these as "mistaken facts" for ease of communication), the best tool we have is science. That is by far the best (and I would say the only) tool we have for finding out true facts about the world.

Science is the best tool we have to uncover facts about the world but science is not going to uncover facts about religion since science does not deal with the supernatural, only the natural. It is history that history has the potential to uncover facts about a religion.

 

[Trailblazer]

The trouble is you seem to be making this claim for whatever you want to discard.

The trouble is that you are making 'assumptions' about my motives when you have no way to know my motives, so what you are doing is projecting what you think my motives are onto me. For example, you are 'assuming' that the reason I believe that older religions are corrupted is because I want to discard them when that is NOT the reason I believe that they are corrupted. I believe they are corrupted because I can SEE that they have been corrupted. Anyone could see that if they knew what those religions once were.

Some particular passage doesn't suit your agenda? Well, then, just declare that it's some part that was added or changed by man, and now you don't have to worry about it!

But this other passage that DOES fit your agenda, then that's a part we can take as it is, we don't need to say that it was added or altered!

I have no agenda, that is just one more assumption that you are making.
I am not worried at all, that is just another assumption you make.

Why do you make assumptions about my motives? Why can't you take me at my word? Do I tell you what your motives are? No, if I wanted to know what they are I would ask you and then take you at your word.

When I said the religions were 'changed and altered' I was not referring to the scriptures although those were also changed and altered when the Bible was being canonized. I was referring to what the religions now teach and thus what the believers believe, as compared to what they taught and believed when those religions were first revealed by the Messengers.

If you admit that your beliefs are based on your personal opinion, not fact, and if you also admit that facts are how you find out the truth about things (see your claim in post 877) Then aren't you admitting that you don't consider your faith to be factual?

I never said that my religious beliefs are based upon a personal opinion. If you click back to the post to which you are responding you will see what I said was my personal opinion:

"I do not care what you consider it. I cannot demonstrate that what I believe is true to anyone except myself and that is not my responsibility. I can tell you what convinced me and that is all I can do, but what convinced me will not convince you because you are a different person with different requirements.

If you knew anything about psychology you would know why people cannot convince other people that what they believe is true. However, that does not mean that what they believe is a false belief. It is either true or false.
If there is no way you can demonstrate it as fact, you should not present it as such."

I believe in my religion because of the facts surrounding it, as I said in this post to Adrian a few months ago:

#22 Trailblazer

Ah yes, of course, the fault is mine. Because any position that says your idea about it is mistaken, why, that simply CAN'T be right, can it?

That is not about who is at fault and it is not about me being right, it is about what I believe is true according to my religion.

And that's why I believe that Patrick Stewart is literally INSIDE my TV when I watch Star Trek, because that's what it means when someone says, "X is in Y."

If you have some disagreement with my interpretation of the verses or you have a better interpretation to present, please present it, rather than deflecting.

Do you realise how that sounds to other people? If I say, "I and the thief are one," I am literally admitting that I am the thief. No one's going to take it to mean that I feel just as guilty as the thief because I forgot to lock the door.

No, that is just your interpretation. There are still two individuals, you and the thief. You did not become the thief.

“I and my Father are one” (John 10:30)
The fact that Jesus says "I and my Father" means that there are two entities, Jesus and the Father. Jesus did not say “I and my Father became one."

If you look at what Jesus said before that you can see what Jesus meant in John 10:30:

27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
30 I and my Father are one.

The Father gave Jesus His sheep and the sheep heard His voice and followed Him. Jesus gave His sheep eternal life and nobody can pluck the sheep from the Father's hand because the Father is greater than all. Jesus concludes in verse 30 with" I and my Father are one" meaning that they are one in purpose, a team working together to give the sheep eternal life. It does not mean that God became Jesus or that Jesus IS God.

The word "manifest" literally means "to appear in the form of."

That is right, and that is exactly what happened, Jesus appeared in the form of God, as the Bible says.

Philippians 2:6-11

6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,b]">[b] 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant,c]">[c] being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Bible Gateway passage: Philippians 2 - English Standard Version

But Jesus did not become God because God forever remains in His own high place. The following excerpt from an article explains the difference between a Manifestation of God and an Incarnation of God:

“The Christian equivalent to the Bahá'í concept of Manifestation is the concept of incarnation. The word to incarnate means 'to embody in flesh or 'to assume, or exist in, a bodily (esp. a human) form (Oxford English Dictionary). From a Bahá'í point of view, the important question regarding the subject of incarnation is, what does Jesus incarnate? Bahá'ís can certainly say that Jesus incarnated Gods attributes, in the sense that in Jesus, Gods attributes were perfectly reflected and expressed.[4] The Bahá'í scriptures, however, reject the belief that the ineffable essence of the Divinity was ever perfectly and completely contained in a single human body, because the Bahá'í scriptures emphasize the omnipresence and transcendence of the essence of God…..

One can argue that Bahá'u'lláh is asserting that epistemologically the Manifestations are God, for they are the perfect embodiment of all we can know about God; but ontologically they are not God, for they are not identical with God's essence. Perhaps this is the meaning of the words attributed to Jesus in the gospel of John: 'If you had known me, you would have known my Father also' (John 14:7) and 'he who has seen me has seen the Father (John 14:9)…..

The New Testament, similarly, contains statements where Jesus describes Himself as God, and others where He makes a distinction between Himself and God. For example, 'I and the Father are One (John 10:30); and 'the Father is in me, and I am in the Father (John 1038); but on the other hand, 'the Father is greater than I (John 14:28); and 'Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone (Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19). These statements do not contradict, but are complementary if one assumes they assert an epistemological oneness with God, but an ontological separateness from the Unknowable Essence.”

Jesus Christ in the Bahá'í Writings

Then why did you even bring it up in the first place?

Bring what up?

Every single time you present a passage from the Bible and say the passage is correct because it bolsters your faith, but other passages which do not bolster your faith you dismiss as corrupted alterations made by man.

In short, you determine whether a passage is valid or not by whether it helps you out or not.

Show me any Bible verses that I dismissed as corrupted alterations made by man. I never said any Bible verses are corrupted alterations made by man.
Show me a Bible verse I said was invalid. I never said any Bible verses are invalid.

You can't deny that it serves your particular faith though.

Serves my faith? My faith needs no service. You are acting as if I have a need to bolster my faith but I have no need to do so.
The Baha'i Faith is what it is and it is not in competition with the Christian faith.

 

[Tiberius]

When I said "everyone has been given what they need, which is the capacity to believe in God" I meant that God has given everyone what they need, the capacity to believe in God. I later added that one has to be motivated to use that capacity and I later added that we all have different degrees of capacity.

And I addressed this in post 890:

By that logic, I can say, "I've given you what you need to build a house," and what I've given you is a single brick.

 

[Tiberius]

Then what facts are you questioning?

I am questioning your claim that Mr B is a messenger from God, and I am also questioning the consistency of your position.

Science is the best tool we have to uncover facts about the world but science is not going to uncover facts about religion since science does not deal with the supernatural, only the natural. It is history that history has the potential to uncover facts about a religion.

You have yet to demonstrate that any facts of a purely religious nature are facts at all.

 

[Trailblazer]

And I addressed this in post 890:

By that logic, I can say, "I've given you what you need to build a house," and what I've given you is a single brick.

And I told you that God gave you the capacity but God is not responsible to give you the motivation.
The motivation has to come from YOU.

 

[Truthseeker]

What I said later, several times, is that in order to utilize our capacity we also need the motivation to search for God.

Yes, those were you exact words. I had forgotten.

 

[Tiberius]

The trouble is that you are making 'assumptions' about my motives when you have no way to know my motives, so what you are doing is projecting what you think my motives are onto me. For example, you are 'assuming' that the reason I believe that older religions are corrupted is because I want to discard them when that is NOT the reason I believe that they are corrupted. I believe they are corrupted because I can SEE that they have been corrupted. Anyone could see that if they knew what those religions once were.

In other words:

"If you had the same views about those religions that I do, you'd reach the same conclusion as me and decide that they are flawed."

I have no agenda, that is just one more assumption that you are making.

Your agenda is to maintain your belief in your religious faith.

I am not worried at all, that is just another assumption you make.

Of course you aren't worried. Anything that could give you cause to worry, you just dismiss.

Why do you make assumptions about my motives? Why can't you take me at my word? Do I tell you what your motives are? No, if I wanted to know what they are I would ask you and then take you at your word.

I don't take you at your word because your word is inconsistent.

When I said the religions were 'changed and altered' I was not referring to the scriptures although those were also changed and altered when the Bible was being canonized. I was referring to what the religions now teach and thus what the believers believe, as compared to what they taught and believed when those religions were first revealed by the Messengers.

So you weren't saying that you think the texts are inaccurate, although you just said then that you think the texts are inaccurate...

I never said that my religious beliefs are based upon a personal opinion. If you click back to the post to which you are responding you will see what I said was my personal opinion:

"I do not care what you consider it. I cannot demonstrate that what I believe is true to anyone except myself and that is not my responsibility. I can tell you what convinced me and that is all I can do, but what convinced me will not convince you because you are a different person with different requirements.

If you knew anything about psychology you would know why people cannot convince other people that what they believe is true. However, that does not mean that what they believe is a false belief. It is either true or false.
If there is no way you can demonstrate it as fact, you should not present it as such."

I believe in my religion because of the facts surrounding it, as I said in this post to Adrian a few months ago:

#22 Trailblazer

So you admit you have no facts to show things like Mr B was really a messenger of God, so all you have is an opinion that since these other things are true (that such a person actually existed, etc), Mr B's claims must also be true.

But this opinion isn't an opinion.

That is not about who is at fault and it is not about me being right, it is about what I believe is true according to my religion.

And you can believe whatever you want. I'm just pointing out where I see inconsistencies in what your claim.

If you have some disagreement with my interpretation of the verses or you have a better interpretation to present, please present it, rather than deflecting.

I have already provided my interpretation. Which you just dismissed out of hand by making a stretch of logic that seems to me to be motivated by a desire to find an interpretation that allows it to be consistent with your faith.

No, that is just your interpretation. There are still two individuals, you and the thief. You did not become the thief.

yes, I'm sure that a jury would conclude I couldn't possibly be admitting to the crime...

“I and my Father are one” (John 10:30)
The fact that Jesus says "I and my Father" means that there are two entities, Jesus and the Father. Jesus did not say “I and my Father became one."

If I said, "The Lockheed C130 and the Hercules transport aircraft are one," would you conclude I could not possibly be talking about one aircraft?

If you look at what Jesus said before that you can see what Jesus meant in John 10:30:

27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
30 I and my Father are one.

The Father gave Jesus His sheep and the sheep heard His voice and followed Him. Jesus gave His sheep eternal life and nobody can pluck the sheep from the Father's hand because the Father is greater than all. Jesus concludes in verse 30 with" I and my Father are one" meaning that they are one in purpose, a team working together to give the sheep eternal life. It does not mean that God became Jesus or that Jesus IS God.

No, that is just your interpretation.

That is right, and that is exactly what happened, Jesus appeared in the form of God, as the Bible says.

Philippians 2:6-11

6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,b]">[b] 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant,c]">[c] being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Bible Gateway passage: Philippians 2 - English Standard Version

No, you are twisting things around.

We were talking about God manifesting in the flesh. Now you are talking about Jesus appearing in the form of God.

There's a big difference between A appearing as B and B appearing as A.

But Jesus did not become God because God forever remains in His own high place. The following excerpt from an article explains the difference between a Manifestation of God and an Incarnation of God:

“The Christian equivalent to the Bahá'í concept of Manifestation is the concept of incarnation. The word to incarnate means 'to embody in flesh or 'to assume, or exist in, a bodily (esp. a human) form (Oxford English Dictionary). From a Bahá'í point of view, the important question regarding the subject of incarnation is, what does Jesus incarnate? Bahá'ís can certainly say that Jesus incarnated Gods attributes, in the sense that in Jesus, Gods attributes were perfectly reflected and expressed.[4] The Bahá'í scriptures, however, reject the belief that the ineffable essence of the Divinity was ever perfectly and completely contained in a single human body, because the Bahá'í scriptures emphasize the omnipresence and transcendence of the essence of God…..

One can argue that Bahá'u'lláh is asserting that epistemologically the Manifestations are God, for they are the perfect embodiment of all we can know about God; but ontologically they are not God, for they are not identical with God's essence. Perhaps this is the meaning of the words attributed to Jesus in the gospel of John: 'If you had known me, you would have known my Father also' (John 14:7) and 'he who has seen me has seen the Father (John 14:9)…..

The New Testament, similarly, contains statements where Jesus describes Himself as God, and others where He makes a distinction between Himself and God. For example, 'I and the Father are One (John 10:30); and 'the Father is in me, and I am in the Father (John 1038); but on the other hand, 'the Father is greater than I (John 14:28); and 'Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone (Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19). These statements do not contradict, but are complementary if one assumes they assert an epistemological oneness with God, but an ontological separateness from the Unknowable Essence.”

Jesus Christ in the Bahá'í Writings

So once again, Bahai writings reject ideas simply because they don't agree with Bahai religion. I've said it before and it appears I need to say it again: Rejecting something simply because you disagree with what it says is a terrible way to get the truth.

Bring what up?

Do you have memory problems? Are you incapable of clicking on the little arrow to go to the actual post being quoted? If you'd done that you would have found the answer to your question.

Show me any Bible verses that I dismissed as corrupted alterations made by man. I never said any Bible verses are corrupted alterations made by man.
Show me a Bible verse I said was invalid. I never said any Bible verses are invalid.

What about the passages that say Jesus resurrected from the dead? Haven't you claimed those passages are invalid? You claimed they were false doctrines in post 823.

Serves my faith? My faith needs no service. You are acting as if I have a need to bolster my faith but I have no need to do so.
The Baha'i Faith is what it is and it is not in competition with the Christian faith.

You miss my point.

I was saying that you use passages from the Bible to support the claims made by your religion.

 

[Tiberius]

And I told you that God gave you the capacity but God is not responsible to give you the motivation.
The motivation has to come from YOU.

You claimed that we have been given what we need, and that was the capacity to believe.

If motivation was part of it and we were given that, then you would have said, "We have been given some of what we need to believe, namely the capacity to believe, but we may not have been given the motivation to believe."

So it seems to me that your original claim was wrong since it was incomplete, yet you have refused to agree that it was wrong.

You can't have it both ways.

 

[Trailblazer]

I am questioning your claim that Mr B is a messenger from God, and I am also questioning the consistency of your position.

I asked: Then what facts are you questioning?
I never claimed that "Baha'u'llah is a Messenger of God" is a fact.

What is inconsistent about my position?

You have yet to demonstrate that any facts of a purely religious nature are facts at all.

I never said that religion deals with facts, I only ever said that there are 'facts about religion' and history deals with the facts about religion. Science does not intersect with religion, science falls under a different purview.

 

[Truthseeker]

I never said that the capacity is enough, or that is all people need.

You mean like the bit where she claimed to have never said that, like in post 912?

She orginally said we all have the capacity, but never said the capacity is enough. Where's your logic?