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

[mikkel_the_dane]

Given that it is highly unlikely that people who lived 2000 years ago would know about or understand the orbits of planets, mass causing distortions in spacetime that create the force of gravity, that orbits are elliptical, Kepler's second law of planetary motion (which states that the radius vector from the Sun to a planet sweeps out equal areas in equal times) and nuclear reactions in the sun creating the energy that radiates from it, I think that such clear and unambiguous descriptions of these phenomena would certainly be enough to make people sit up and take notice.

Of course, I'm certainly open to alternative ways by which the people thousands of years ago could have known these things, if you have any suggestions.

Okay, there it is as an unknown. Are we inside an Alien computer simulation? I don't know, but that is another possibility than God.

 

[Trailblazer]

I think anyone with a reasonable mind has to ask such questions, but giving weight to religious beliefs doesn't and shouldn't come naturally despite the numbers who believe in whatever version they hold to be true.

For whatever reason, it came naturally to me when I stumbled upon the Baha'i Faith during my first year of college, but that's just me, and I understand religion does not come naturally to many people. Moreover, I don't think I would have ever believed in any other religion, as they all have too many problems and nothing I am really interested in. Moreover, had I thought of Baha'i as a religion I might never have joined. I thought of it as an idealistic cause, a movement, not a religion, and I thought very little about God back in those days.

 

[Trailblazer]

Are the evidence for the messengers of God in which convinced you to believe in the existence of God the same or are they different from the ones that someone present to you? To clarify what I'm getting at, are the religious scriptures of your religion that you've found, the same ones the ones that I can present to you? If they are not the same, then you have a different concept of what convincing evidence is.

They are the same, but I don't know what you are getting at.
I do not know what you mean by convincing evidence. Do you mean evidence that was convincing to you?

What would be the difference if someone presented that evidence to you or if you searched and found it by yourself?
Why would you look at evidence just because someone presented it to you?
Why wouldn't you go looking for convincing evidence if nobody presented it to you?

 

[Trailblazer]

From what you've said to me, it appears to me that it's more a case of you believing unsupportable claims because the supportable claims have been supported.

I have no idea what you mean.

 

[Mock Turtle]

For whatever reason, it came naturally to me when I stumbled upon the Baha'i Faith during my first year of college, but that's just me, and I understand religion does not come naturally to many people. Moreover, I don't think I would have ever believed in any other religion, as they all have too many problems and nothing I am really interested in. Moreover, had I thought of Baha'i as a religion I might never have joined. I thought of it as an idealistic cause, a movement, not a religion, and I thought very little about God back in those days.

Well, from what I remember, it did take some courage to even look at the major religions as being something other than as which they appeared - given the long timescales in which they have survived and prospered, the historic significance of them, and how they are viewed by most even today, besides the power they still have over many. But when one has accounted for all the other evidence one must deal with what remains - as Sherlock Holmes probably said. Hence where I stand - alone or not.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, from what I remember, it did take some courage to even look at the major religions as being something other than as which they appeared - given the long timescales in which they have survived and prospered, the historic significance of them, and how they are viewed by most even today, besides the power they still have over many. But when one has accounted for all the other evidence one must deal with what remains - as Sherlock Holmes probably said. Hence where I stand - alone or not.

Well, you have more courage than me because I didn't even look at any of those religions as I saw no reason to since I had found the religion I believed was true. It's like once I got married was I going to go looking for other men? I hope not.

People think I should look at all those other religions but why should I unless I am considering switching religions?
One religion is enough, actually too much. I don't even like religion. I am only a Baha'i since I believe it is the truth from God and I would be foolish to reject it, knowing that.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Well, you have more courage than me because I didn't even look at any of those religions as I saw no reason to since I had found the religion I believed was true. It's like once I got married was I going to go looking for other men? I hope not.

People think I should look at all those other religions but why should I unless I am considering switching religions?
One religion is enough, actually too much. I don't even like religion. I am only a Baha'i since I believe it is the truth from God and I would be foolish to reject it, knowing that.

Well I'm no convertor. I think it was more about the spectrum of beliefs that worried me - as being something that humans have a tendency to do - that is, explore and explain as they see fit, besides the origins of religions being locally based, and more like a power structure that benefited some over others even if they then spread more widely. I have no issues with religions other than any negative effects on others, but it seems they are not for me.

 

[Trailblazer]

I think it was more about the spectrum of beliefs that worried me - as being something that humans have a tendency to do - that is, explore and explain as they see fit, besides the origins of religions being locally based, and more like a power structure that benefited some over others even if they then spread more widely. I have no issues with religions other than any negative effects on others, but it seems, they are not for me.

It would certainly appear that way if all you looked at were the older religions that are now in their winter season.
You came to a logical conclusion given what you were looking at. I came to another conclusion since I was looking at a religion that is in its spring season.

“All that lives, and this includes the religions, have springtime, a time of maturity, of harvest and wintertime. Then religion becomes barren, a lifeless adherence to the letter uninformed by the spirit, and man’s spiritual life declines. When we look at religious history, we see that God has spoken to men precisely at times when they have reached the nadir of their degradation and cultural decadence. Moses came to Israel when it was languishing under the Pharaoh’s yoke, Christ appeared at a time when the Jewish Faith had lost its power and culture of antiquity was in its death those. Muhammad came to a people who lived in barbaric ignorance at the lowest level of culture and into a world in which the former religions had strayed far away from their origins and nearly lost their identity. The Bab addressed Himself to a people who had irretrievably lost their former grandeur and who found themselves in a state of hopeless decadence. Baha’u’llah came to a humanity which was approaching the most critical phase of its history.

‘Abdu’l-Baha writes: ‘God leaves not His children comfortless, but, when the darkness of winter overshadows them, then again He sends His Messengers, the Prophets, with a renewal of the blessed spring. The Sun of Truth appears again on the horizon of the world shining into the eyes of those who sleep, awaking them to behold the glory of a new dawn. Then again will the tree of humanity blossom and bring forth the fruit of righteousness for the healing of the nations.’ Paris Talks, p. 32.’

Some conclusions can be drawn from this fundamental belief. First, all religions are divine in essence and consequently there are no religions which contradict or exclude each other, but only one indivisible divine religion which is renewed periodically and according to the requirements of the age, in cycles of about a thousand years: ‘Our command was but one word.’ Qur’an 54:51. It is therefore hardly surprising if many of Baha’u’llah’s teachings are to be found in former religions either expressly or in an embryonic form. As ‘Abdu’l-Baha says, the Baha’i Faith is ‘not a new path to immortality.’ quoted from: Principles of the Baha’i Faith. On account of this transcendent oneness of all religions, Baha’u’llah exhorted His people to associate with followers of all religions in a spirit of loving-kindness and to make of religion a cause of harmony and peace, not of discord and strife, of hate and division.

The second conclusion is that we cannot perceive what the essence of religion is and what it has the power to achieve if we examine the traditional great religions in their present form. They have achieved much but have reached the end of their road; they were the foundation of great cultures and for thousands of years they were the guiding-star of millions of people in their everyday life and activities. But during the course of history they have also accumulated large amounts of historical ballast. They have moved a long way from their origin and are burdened with their followers’ misdeeds and cravings for power. They are no pleasant sight today, least of all to young people, who no longer see in these religions the ‘salt of the earth’ as Jesus called his disciples, Matthew 5:13 but rather the ‘opium of the people’ (Karl Marx). And one is easily inclined to pass judgment on religion as a whole, and to see in it an anachronism of past times, long since overcome, like the belief in demons in former times. But a withered plant does not give us the faintest idea of its blossoming time. In reality, religions are the ‘light of the world’ and, according to Baha’u’llah’s teachings, the foundation of human culture. It is important to understand that they are as necessary for mankind as sunlight for the plant. Without divine revelation, there would be neither progress nor culture: ‘Were this revelation to be withdrawn, all would perish.’ Taken from (Baha’u’llah, Gleanings, XCIII).

(Udo Schaefer, The Light Shineth in Darkness, pp. 24-26)

 

[Trailblazer]

So all logical reasons why the messenger system doesn't work.

No, those are all the logical reasons why humans fail to get the message.
And you are so biased you cannot even see that it is the humans who are failing.

Of course an omnipotent and omniscience god could do a better job of communicating than the absurd idea of sending messengers that give rise to contradictory religions.

No, that is logically impossible because had there been a *better way* an all-knowing God would have known what it is and an all-powerful God would have been able to employ it.

Religions are not contradictory, they are different. They are different in every age because humanity needs different message in every age, simple dimple.

It is not the religions that contradict each other, it is the religious believers, since they have changed and corrupted their religions over the course of time.

There is a logical explanation for everything that atheists dispute about the Messengers and the religions but atheists just don't accept the explanations because they cannot admit they are wrong. It is all about ego and "I want." "I want something better than the Messengers so God should deliver it" as if God was a short order cook serving humans. No, it is the other way around, humans serve God. Powerless humans don't get to tell an all-powerful God what to do, that's backasswards logic.

God is nothing but superstition, as far as I can see - and I'm speaking as someone who believed in my youth.

Obviously you are referring to the Christian version of God. Thank God I never believed in that one.

I see no reason to think a god (or gods) exists, and even less to think that, if it did, any of the world's religions know anything about it. The endless different religions are direct evidence of that, because a real god could get its message across if it wanted to.

The different religions are evidence of ONE thing only, and the Baha'i Faith is the ONLY religion that ever explained that. It is so simple. Different ages have different requirements. Do you really think humans and the world they live in are the SAME as they were 2000 years ago? Why then would God send a Messenger with the same message Jesus brought? The gospel message is old news and humanity does not need it anymore. It is humans that cling to these older religions, making it impossible for them to recognize the new religion that the new Messenger has revealed. Can't blame God for human error unless you are illogical and unjust.

“The Purpose of the one true God, exalted be His glory, in revealing Himself unto men is to lay bare those gems that lie hidden within the mine of their true and inmost selves. That the divers communions of the earth, and the manifold systems of religious belief, should never be allowed to foster the feelings of animosity among men, is, in this Day, of the essence of the Faith of God and His Religion. These principles and laws, these firmly-established and mighty systems, have proceeded from one Source, and are the rays of one Light. That they differ one from another is to be attributed to the varying requirements of the ages in which they were promulgated.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 287-288

When religion goes stale it needs to be renewed and that is another reason why God sends a new Messenger with a fresh new message that is suited to the TIMES in which that message was revealed.

“As the body of man needeth a garment to clothe it, so the body of mankind must needs be adorned with the mantle of justice and wisdom. Its robe is the Revelation vouchsafed unto it by God. Whenever this robe hath fulfilled its purpose, the Almighty will assuredly renew it. For every age requireth a fresh measure of the light of God. Every Divine Revelation hath been sent down in a manner that befitted the circumstances of the age in which it hath appeared.” Gleanings, p. 81

You just don't get it do you? It does not MATTER what God could do, it only matters what God CHOOSES to do, and God only does what He chooses to do, not what you want Him to do. It is because God is omnipotent that God does not do what you want Him to do but rather only what He wants to do.

“Say: O people! Let not this life and its deceits deceive you, for the world and all that is therein is held firmly in the grasp of His Will. He bestoweth His favor on whom He willeth, and from whom He willeth He taketh it away. He doth whatsoever He chooseth.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 209

 

[night912]

They are the same, but I don't know what you are getting at.
I do not know what you mean by convincing evidence. Do you mean evidence that was convincing to you?

The evidence that made one believe in something.

What would be the difference if someone presented that evidence to you or if you searched and found it by yourself?

There is no difference, that's why "want" is not necessary.

Why would you look at evidence just because someone presented it to you?

Because I honestly care about my beliefs being true, so I look at all available evidence.

Why wouldn't you go looking for convincing evidence if nobody presented it to you?

Because going out looking for convincing evidence is being bias. The evidence that convinces you will be the ones that makes you believe, regardless of whether you are actively searching for it or not.

 

[Trailblazer]

But you have no solid reason to believe those claims are correct.

I certainly do have a solid reason, more than one solid reason.

And I would say they are functionally the same thing.

And I would say they are not the same at all. God becoming Jesus would mean that God incarnated in the flesh so it would mean that God came to earth and waled around as Jesus, but God manifesting as Jesus means that God manifested His attributes in Jesus who walked the earth and God remained in heaven.

Jesus was like a mirror image of God because Jesus reflected the attributes of God, but God did not incarnate in the flesh.

And since I know that opinion by itself is not worth all that much, I make sure that my beliefs are based on what can be shown with science and verifiable evidence.

Good luck finding God with science and verifiable evidence.

Okay, let's go back to my wine analogy.

What you are saying seems to be no different to saying, "When the Vinegar formed from the wine, the wine became vinegar."

Yes, that is similar to what I said, except that God did not become Jesus. Rather, God was manifest in Jesus, and then Jesus became a Manifestation of God.

And if you read what I wrote, you'll see that I anticipated your response and addressed it pre-emptively.

However, my point stands. How many people "believe" something is true is no indication of whether it is true or not, whether many people or few people believe it is true.

And if people believing something has no bearing on whether it is true or not, why did you bother pointing out that not all Christians believe it?

Because you seem to think the bodily resurrection is true just because many/most Christians believe it is true.
I was just pointing out that the fact that many/most Christians believe it is true does not prove it is true.

Because it supports the Bahai claim that Mr B was the return of Christ/The Messiah (you were using this as an example of a fulfilled prophecy in our discussion over on the other thread).

How would Jesus being a Manifestation of God support the claim that Baha'u'llah was the return of Christ/The Messiah. I could guess what you are thinking but I would rather you tell me.

Okay, so there's a lot of different meanings there. Let's get rid of the ones that are obviously irrelevant to this conversation (since I doubt you think that we could be talking about "a list of the passengers and cargo on an airplane."

I was going to do that but I wanted you to see the whole list. Now I will post only the relevant ones.

Manifest meaning

To show or demonstrate plainly; reveal.

Clearly apparent to the sight or understanding; obvious.

Manifest is defined as to prove or make something clear.

Apparent to the senses, esp. that of sight, or to the mind; evident; obvious; clear; plain.

To make clear or evident; show plainly; reveal; evince.

To prove; be evidence of.

To appear to the senses; show itself.

Obvious to the understanding; apparent to the mind; easily apprehensible; plain; not obscure or hidden.

To show plainly; to make to appear distinctly, usually to the mind; to put beyond question or doubt; to display; to exhibit.

The definition of manifest is something that is clear to see or understand.

To become manifest; be revealed.

Manifest Meaning | Best 22 Definitions of Manifest

Would you care to substitute one of these definitions into the passage in question for me?

Below are two of the definitions inserted into the verse. They fit perfectly with what actually happened when God became manifest in Jesus.

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.

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was [shown or demonstrated plainly; revealed] in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was [made clear or evident; shown plainly; revealed; evinced] in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Because you claim that your interpretation is the correct one, whereas if you genuinely believed that your interpretation was as valid as mine, you would not hold the "But I know I'm right" point of view.

This is not about ME being right, it is about the Baha'i Faith being right. The Baha'i belief according to Baha'u'llah is that Jesus was a Manifestation of God, NOT an incarnation of God. That means that "I and my Father are one" means that Jesus and God were one in purpose and one in their attributes and one in spirit. It does not mean that God actually became Jesus.

Given the fact that there are plenty of videos out there where logic and scripture are used to prove that Jesus was definitely God, there must have been some cherrypicking going on.

I would like to see any video where logic and scripture were used to prove that Jesus was definitely God.
That can NEVER be accommodated by logic and can only be accommodated by twisting the meanings of scripture.
I don't know what you call cherrypicking but since you never watched the video you cannot say there was
cherrypicking going on.

I still highly suggest you watch that video, for your own edification about Jesus and God.

Oh! It was made by MUSLIMS! Oh, that makes it all different, because they certainly don't have a bias against Christianity, do they?

No, as a matter of fact they don't have a bias, but just like the Baha'i Faith the Muslim faith cleared up all the false beliefs about Jesus held by Christians. Muslims consider Jesus a Messenger of God and one of God's greatest Messengers, but they do not believe (as Baha'is do) that Jesus is a Manifestation of God because Muslims do not believe that any Messenger has both a human and divine nature; Muslims believe Messengers were no more than human. So in this way the Baha'i Faith is are closer to Christian beliefs about Jesus, since we believe He has a divine nature and a human nature.

You do realise that I'm an atheist, right? Of course I most definitely do NOT think Jesus was God. I do not believe that God even exists, and I am extremely doubtful that there was a figure named Jesus as depicted in the Bible.

Okay then, if you don't believe that Jesus is God are you doing this just to try to prove that my Baha'i beliefs about Jesus are wrong? What is your motive? Why not side with the Muslims against the Baha'is, they also disagree with us since they believe that Muhammad was the last and greatest Messenger of God and don't recognize Baha'u'llah as the return of Christ/Messiah.

 

[CG Didymus]

And I would say they are not the same at all. God becoming Jesus would mean that God incarnated in the flesh so it would mean that God came to earth and waled around as Jesus, but God manifesting as Jesus means that God manifested His attributes in Jesus who walked the earth and God remained in heaven.

Jesus was like a mirror image of God because Jesus reflected the attributes of God, but God did not incarnate in the flesh.

That's fine with me, God created a perfect human body in which he could fill with all his attributes. Making that person virtually God. That works great for Jesus and someone like Krishna too. But really, Moses? Buddha? Abraham? Muhammad? When did any of them claim to be a perfectly polished mirror that is able to reflect the attributes of God? But then even Jesus and Krishna... Baha'is don't believe so much of the things claimed about them. So were they made into "Gods" by their followers? Like with Jesus... did he walk on water, heal the sick, raise the dead, etc... or did his followers make up those things? And if they made up those things, then what was true about Jesus?

 

[Tiberius]

Okay, there it is as an unknown. Are we inside an Alien computer simulation? I don't know, but that is another possibility than God.

Those are options. But I said it would be evidence for God, not proof.

 

[Tiberius]

I have no idea what you mean.

The Baha'i faith has made many claims.

Some of them are verified as true - there really was a Mr B, he really did do the things that are described, he did write particular texts. We'll call these the Category 1 claims.

There are also other claims that cannot be verified. He was a messenger from God. He was the return of the mesiah. We'll call these the category 2 claims.

You believe the category 2 claims because the category 1 claims have been supported. In essence, you are saying, "Well, they were right about the Cat 1 claims, so I'm going to assume they were right about the Cat 2 claims as well."

 

[Tiberius]

I certainly do have a solid reason, more than one solid reason.

No, you have an opinion.

And I would say they are not the same at all. God becoming Jesus would mean that God incarnated in the flesh so it would mean that God came to earth and waled around as Jesus, but God manifesting as Jesus means that God manifested His attributes in Jesus who walked the earth and God remained in heaven.

Jesus was like a mirror image of God because Jesus reflected the attributes of God, but God did not incarnate in the flesh.

Only if you ignore the passage where Jesus says that he and his father are one.

Good luck finding God with science and verifiable evidence.

Uh, hello? I'm an atheist. I'm not expecting to find God with science.

However, my point stands. How many people "believe" something is true is no indication of whether it is true or not, whether many people or few people believe it is true.

So then your belief that the resurrection story is false is no indication on whether it really is false then, is it?

Because you seem to think the bodily resurrection is true just because many/most Christians believe it is true.
I was just pointing out that the fact that many/most Christians believe it is true does not prove it is true.

And the fact that you believe it is false does not prove it is false.

How would Jesus being a Manifestation of God support the claim that Baha'u'llah was the return of Christ/The Messiah. I could guess what you are thinking but I would rather you tell me.

Because it lets you say, "God has done this before with Jesus, so he's done it again with Mr B.

I was going to do that but I wanted you to see the whole list.

You wanted me to see things that were utterly irrelevant? Why do you wish to waste my time?

Below are two of the definitions inserted into the verse. They fit perfectly with what actually happened when God became manifest in Jesus.

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.

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was [shown or demonstrated plainly; revealed] in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was [made clear or evident; shown plainly; revealed; evinced] in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

And they still contradict John 10:30.

Ah, but you claim that is false. And why do you claim that passage is false? Because that's the only way you can cling to the conclusion you've just laid out here.

This is not about ME being right, it is about the Baha'i Faith being right.

And as a member of the Baha'i faith, you have an interest in showing the Baha'i faith to be correct.

I would like to see any video where logic and scripture were used to prove that Jesus was definitely God.
That can NEVER be accommodated by logic and can only be accommodated by twisting the meanings of scripture.
I don't know what you call cherrypicking but since you never watched the video you cannot say there was
cherrypicking going on.

John 10:33 clearly states that Jesus's claim in John 10:30 was saying he WAS God.

Now, you'll claim that passage is false so you can ignore it in order to avoid having your beliefs called into doubt...

No, as a matter of fact they don't have a bias, but just like the Baha'i Faith the Muslim faith cleared up all the false beliefs about Jesus held by Christians.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Muslims don't have a bias against Christianity, that's hilarious.

Okay then, if you don't believe that Jesus is God are you doing this just to try to prove that my Baha'i beliefs about Jesus are wrong? What is your motive? Why not side with the Muslims against the Baha'is, they also disagree with us since they believe that Muhammad was the last and greatest Messenger of God and don't recognize Baha'u'llah as the return of Christ/Messiah.

I'm just showing how you are cherry picking Christianity to support your beliefs. I'm using Christianity because you were bring up how the Bible supports Baha'i faith so much. I'm just pointing out that you can only do this by ignoring a lot of what the Bible actually says - hence the cherry picking.

If you want to use the Koran to support your beliefs, I'd be happy to switch over.

 

[Trailblazer]

The evidence that made one believe in something.

Okay.

There is no difference, that's why "want" is not necessary.

Okay.

Because I honestly care about my beliefs being true, so I look at all available evidence.

Okay, that's good. So does that mean you look at all the evidence that is presented to you?

Because going out looking for convincing evidence is being bias. The evidence that convinces you will be the ones that makes you believe, regardless of whether you are actively searching for it or not.

That's true, going out looking for convincing evidence is being bias.

What I meant was "if nobody presented it to you, why wouldn't you go looking for evidence that would be convincing to you ?"
I really should have said: If nobody presented it to you, why wouldn't you go looking for evidence on your own?

That's true, the evidence that convinces you will be the evidence that makes you believe, regardless of whether you are actively searching for it or not. I was not searching for any religion or any evidence of God when I stumbled upon the Baha'i Faith, but the evidence I found is what made me believe in Baha'u'llah and God.

 

[Trailblazer]

The Baha'i faith has made many claims.

Some of them are verified as true - there really was a Mr B, he really did do the things that are described, he did write particular texts. We'll call these the Category 1 claims.

There are also other claims that cannot be verified. He was a messenger from God. He was the return of the messiah. We'll call these the category 2 claims.

You believe the category 2 claims because the category 1 claims have been supported. In essence, you are saying, "Well, they were right about the Cat 1 claims, so I'm going to assume they were right about the Cat 2 claims as well."

No, that is not how it all went down. The verifiable facts about the Baha'u'llah and Baha'i Faith are important evidence but that is not the only reason I believe that Baha'u'llah is a Messenger of God, the return of Christ and the messiah.

Some of why I believe is because The Baha'i Faith makes sense to me and I consider the Baha'i Faith the logical choice, and some of why I believe is subjective, related to how I am affected by the Writings of Baha'u'llah, but a big part of why I believe is the spiritual and social teachings that Baha'u'llah set forth as well as the primary message He brought -- the oneness of God, the oneness of religion, the oneness of mankind, world unity and world peace.

And I never assumed anything. I looked at all the evidence and made a choice. I am constantly looking at the evidence and the more evidence I see the more I am certain that Baha'u'llah is a Messenger/Manifestation of God.

 

[Tiberius]

No, that is not how it all went down. The verifiable facts about the Baha'u'llah and Baha'i Faith are important evidence but that is not the only reason I believe that Baha'u'llah is a Messenger of God, the return of Christ and the messiah.

Some of why I believe is because The Baha'i Faith makes sense to me and I consider the Baha'i Faith the logical choice, and some of why I believe is subjective, related to how I am affected by the Writings of Baha'u'llah, but a big part of why I believe is the spiritual and social teachings that Baha'u'llah set forth as well as the primary message He brought -- the oneness of God, the oneness of religion, the oneness of mankind, world unity and world peace.

And I never assumed anything. I looked at all the evidence and made a choice. I am constantly looking at the evidence and the more evidence I see the more I am certain that Baha'u'llah is a Messenger/Manifestation of God.

You say it is subjective, but haven't you claimed to KNOW?

 

[Trailblazer]

You say it is subjective, but haven't you claimed to KNOW?

How I know is not all subjective, some of it is objective.

 

[Trailblazer]

So were they made into "Gods" by their followers? Like with Jesus... did he walk on water, heal the sick, raise the dead, etc... or did his followers make up those things? And if they made up those things, then what was true about Jesus?

What was true about Jesus? Baha'u'llah explained what really matters about Jesus in the passage below.

“Know thou 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.

Leprosy may be interpreted as any veil that interveneth between man and the recognition of the Lord, his God. Whoso alloweth himself to be shut out from Him is indeed a leper, who shall not be remembered in the Kingdom of God, the Mighty, the All-Praised. We bear witness that through the power of the Word of God every leper was cleansed, every sickness was healed, every human infirmity was banished. He it is Who purified the world. Blessed is the man who, with a face beaming with light, hath turned towards Him.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 85-86

Why do we need to know more about Jesus? The Dispensation of Jesus is over. We are living in the Dispensation of Baha'u'llah so that is who you should be asking about, yet you rarely do. It is always about the older Messengers of God. Why is the past so important to you?