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

[Trailblazer]

I said there is no explanation for what "humanity was not ready for it" means. Just some vague mumbo jumbo about not being spiritual enough.

That is not vague mumbo jumbo, it is the crux of the issue as to what God reveals a new message.
God does not reveal a new message until humanity is ready to understand and utilize what is contained in that message.

People have convinced themselves of all sorts of utter nonsense. Being convinced of something doesn't mean it is true.

I never said that everything that people are convinced of is true. I only ever said we have to be convinced in order to believe something is true.

It means it is testable in an objective way, and it withstands that testing.

Sorry, religious beliefs cannot be 'tested' in an objective way.

I have said many times that your purpose (in this thread at least) is to justify your faith.

And you are wrong about that. The only reason I am here is to respond to posts that were posted to me. I have no other motives and I have no need to justify my faith to anyone.

You have repeatedly claimed my interpretations were wrong and you went out of your way to write long justifications of those claims.

I never said that I agree with everyone's interpretations of scripture, but when I do not agree I explain why i do not agree.

So you are telling me that religious people never have a bias towards wanting their faith to be true? If you really have an MA in psychology, then I'm sure you'd agree that people are going to be more willing to accept things that support their viewpoints that things that disagree with their viewpoints, yes? Do you believe that this can never happen subconsciously? Do you believe it could never happen to you without you knowing about it?

I did not say that religious people never have a bias towards wanting their faith to be true. I said. I said "you just 'project' what you think my motives are onto me and imagine I have motives I do not have."

Sure, people are more willing to accept things that support their viewpoints than things that disagree with their viewpoints, and this not ONLY applies to religion. Look at all the threads on the Covid vaccinations on this forum.

Sure, a lot of things go on subconsciously; in fact 95% of what goes on is in the unconscious mind.
Of course the same applies to you as to me, you are not consciously aware of most of what is going on in your mind.

Again, I said "you just 'project' what you think my motives are onto me and imagine I have motives I do not have."Why do you think you are better able to know my motives than I can know them? Do I tell you what your motives are? No, I ask you what they are.

And good on you for that. Have whatever belief you want. But for someone who has freely admitted that, you seem incredibly unwilling to accept the fact that your subconscious may be affecting your attitude towards those beliefs.

I never said that the subconscious has not effect on what I believe, but that same exact thing applies to what you disbelieve, since you also have a subconscious mind.

And so what is your point, that my beliefs might not be true because I am "fooling myself? That could apply to anyone, including you.

So that's a reason.

The reason we have computers is because when Mr B came it released the Holy Spirit and inspired everyone to be creative, and that lead to computers.

You say it's not the reason why it happened, but then say it's why it happened. Is English not your first language?

It is the indirect reason, not the direct reason. The direct reason we have computers is because humans invented computers. Yes, the Holy Spirit stimulated creativity and that led to lots of new inventions.

 

[Tiberius]

Look at the bulleted list again. Some but not all of these ideas are starting to be accepted in modern society.
Below are the ones that are starting to be accepted but that still leaves eight of them that are not yet accepted.

• Elimination of Prejudice of Every Kind
• Universal Compulsory Education
• Gender Equality
• The Abolition of the Extremes of Wealth and Poverty
• Human Rights for All

And which ones do you think are NOT being accepted?

Jesus accomplished everything He set out to do. Why do you think He didn't? Below are a few verses that demonstrate that:

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

The primary purpose for which Jesus came to earth was to bear witness to the truth about God, as he says in the verse below:

John 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

But sadly, Christians have totally missed that purpose because they believe that Jesus came to save them form an original sin that Jesus never ever spoke of, and they believe the bodily resurrection is part of this purpose. NONE of this came from Jesus.

You claimed that Jesus came to "focus attention primarily on the redemption of the individual and the molding of his conduct, and stressed, as its central theme, the necessity of inculcating a high standard of morality and discipline into man, as the fundamental unit in human society." Do you think he accomplished that goal? Do you think that people today have a high standard of morality and discipline?

And I also find it confusing why you would be so careful to say that Jesus accomplished his goals, yet you finish with what appears to be a justification of why he didn't.

The moral teachings have already been revealed by Baha'u'llah, so people can now apply those teachings to the proper way to use genetic modification.

And which of Mr B's teachings do you think should be applied to the ethics of genetic modification?

Nothing in particular. Religion addresses moral behavior so people can apply what religion teaches to the use of modern technologies.

And how is that meant to happen when such technologies are completely unlike any that have exiosted before? It wasn't that long ago that the idea of genetic modification couldn't even be conceived of because the idea was so far from what we understood.

What was a contradiction? Sometimes it only appears to be contradictory if you don't have all the information.

Why do you think someone in Age C would say that? I think that by the time we get to Age C, humanity will have progressed so they will understand what Baha'u'llah wrote about the different Ages. In fact, I think most people will be Baha'is by the time we get to Age C.

Why wouldn't they? It's all just people in one particular age saying it about a previous age.

The obvious reason we still had the crusades is because people were not following the teachings of Jesus. The teachings of Jesus were largely subordinated to the doctrines of Christianity early on. That was addressed in this thread I posted some time ago. I suggest you read the OP.

How Paul changed the course of Christianity

Sounds like Jesus didn't accomplish what he set out to do, despite your claims that he did.

You just raised a very important point. All the Messengers revealed the same spiritual teachings so naturally their stories are similar. I never meant that only Jesus revealed moral teachings, I was only using that as an example to contrast that with the primary purpose of Baha'u'llah's mission on earth, which was to reveal what will be necessary for humans to unite under one common religion and build a new world order.
In the following passage, the Law of God refers to the divinely revealed religion of God. The spiritual message (spiritual virtues and divine qualities) are the same in all the great world religions:

“the Law of God is divided into two parts. One is the fundamental basis which comprises all spiritual things—that is to say, it refers to the spiritual virtues and divine qualities; this does not change nor alter: it is the Holy of Holies, which is the essence of the Law of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Christ, Muhammad, the Báb, and Bahá’u’lláh, and which lasts and is established in all the prophetic cycles. It will never be abrogated, for it is spiritual and not material truth; it is faith, knowledge, certitude, justice, piety, righteousness, trustworthiness, love of God, benevolence, purity, detachment, humility, meekness, patience and constancy. It shows mercy to the poor, defends the oppressed, gives to the wretched and uplifts the fallen......

These divine qualities, these eternal commandments, will never be abolished; nay, they will last and remain established for ever and ever. These virtues of humanity will be renewed in each of the different cycles; for at the end of every cycle the spiritual Law of God—that is to say, the human virtues—disappears, and only the form subsists.....

These foundations of the Religion of God, which are spiritual and which are the virtues of humanity, cannot be abrogated; they are irremovable and eternal, and are renewed in the cycle of every Prophet.

The second part of the Religion of God, which refers to the material world, and which comprises fasting, prayer, forms of worship, marriage and divorce, the abolition of slavery, legal processes, transactions, indemnities for murder, violence, theft and injuries—this part of the Law of God, which refers to material things, is modified and altered in each prophetic cycle in accordance with the necessities of the times.”
Some Answered Questions, pp. 47-48

They all have similar messages? I thought you said that different messengers had different messages that were relevant to the people of the particular age. Now you are claiming that they all have similar messages? You are contradicting yourself.

In addition to these two parts of the Religion of God, we have the primary mission of each Messenger, which changes from age to age; and it is progressive, each mission building upon the previous one. Jesus focused on a high standard of morality and discipline into man, as the fundamental unit in human society. Muhammad focused on nation building, and Baha’u’llah focused on world unity and the oneness of mankind. Each one of these was a necessary building block that enabled the next one to take place. Mankind’s spiritual evolution develops gradually, proceeding step by step, and that is why God reveals religious Truth in various stages over time. That is called Progressive Revelation.

And now we are back to different messages from different messengers.

Any wonder I find your position inconsistent?

 

[Trailblazer]

My point is that it's circular logic. You shouldn't believe his claims until you believe he was a messenger from God. But that he is a messenger from God is a claim from a messenger of God.

No, it is not circular logic, it is logic.

The only way you can know if he is a Messenger is by looking at His life, His Mission, and His Writings.

You shouldn't believe his claims until you have determined that He is a Messenger of God by looking at all the evidence -- His life, His Mission, and His Writings.

You should not believe that He was a Messenger of God because He claimed to be a Messenger of God became that would be circular reasoning.

 

[night912]

Yes, the Hyksos were Semitic, same as Jews and Arabs,
interestingly we now know (as of this month) that Jews are
'Levantine' people and Arabs are 'African' people by origin.
So Jews, like Philistines, Turks etc have a strong European
element to their genes. And Arabs from the Arabian Penninsula
have a strong African genetic base.
That's interesting from the current Jew/\Palestinian troubles.

The Hyksos infiltrated Egypt peacefully - just as the Hebrews
did. And the Jews emmigrated from Egypt at the time of the
Bronze Age Collapse - probably. Egypt was left severely and
permanently weakened by the mass migration of peoples at
this time, ca !200 BC.
As for the forty years in the wilderness. Careful reading of
Exodus suggests the Jews spent 38 years travelling to, from or
staying at a place called Kadesh (there were a number of
places called Kadesh, alas.)

I never said Semitic, I said Jews. Exodus refers specifically to the Hebrews. So like I said before, historical records didn't say that the Mongols invaded the Roman Empire. Both the Huns and Mongols were nomadic Steppe people but were distinctly different people, according to historical records. And it was Attila, not Genghis Kahn, who led the invasion against the Romans.

 

[Tiberius]

That is not vague mumbo jumbo, it is the crux of the issue as to what God reveals a new message.
God does not reveal a new message until humanity is ready to understand and utilize what is contained in that message.

My point was that claiming that people aren't spiritual enough is vague, and no explanation is given as to what it means.

I never said that everything that people are convinced of is true. I only ever said we have to be convinced in order to believe something is true.

My point was that being convinced of something does not mean that thing has been proved.

Sorry, religious beliefs cannot be 'tested' in an objective way.

And therein lies its weakness.

I never said that I agree with everyone's interpretations of scripture, but when I do not agree I explain why i do not agree.

But it comes across as "No, that's wrong, here's the correct interpretation, and that's that."

I did not say that religious people never have a bias towards wanting their faith to be true. I said. I said "you just 'project' what you think my motives are onto me and imagine I have motives I do not have."

Sure, people are more willing to accept things that support their viewpoints than things that disagree with their viewpoints, and this not ONLY applies to religion. Look at all the threads on the Covid vaccinations on this forum.

Sure, a lot of things go on subconsciously; in fact 95% of what goes on is in the unconscious mind.
Of course the same applies to you as to me, you are not consciously aware of most of what is going on in your mind.

Again, I said "you just 'project' what you think my motives are onto me and imagine I have motives I do not have."Why do you think you are better able to know my motives than I can know them? Do I tell you what your motives are? No, I ask you what they are.

Do you think that it's possible that your belief that Baha'i is true is biasing you in some way to make you more likely to accept evidence that it is true and more likely to reject evidence that it is not true?

I never said that the subconscious has not effect on what I believe, but that same exact thing applies to what you disbelieve, since you also have a subconscious mind.

This is true. And that is why I turn to science, since science has mechanisms built in to remove any individual's personal biases.

And so what is your point, that my beliefs might not be true because I am "fooling myself? That could apply to anyone, including you.

It is the indirect reason, not the direct reason. The direct reason we have computers is because humans invented computers. Yes, the Holy Spirit stimulated creativity and that led to lots of new inventions.

Still a whole sequence of events that needed to happen, and each event required the previous events. I think my point still stands.

 

[Tiberius]

No, it is not circular logic, it is logic.

The only way you can know if he is a Messenger is by looking at His life, His Mission, and His Writings.

You shouldn't believe his claims until you have determined that He is a Messenger of God by looking at all the evidence -- His life, His Mission, and His Writings.

You should not believe that He was a Messenger of God because He claimed to be a Messenger of God became that would be circular reasoning.

But his writings and all that, those ARE the claims!

 

[PruePhillip]

I never said Semitic, I said Jews. Exodus refers specifically to the Hebrews. So like I said before, historical records didn't say that the Mongols invaded the Roman Empire. Both the Huns and Mongols were nomadic Steppe people but were distinctly different people, according to historical records. And it was Attila, not Genghis Kahn, who led the invasion against the Romans.

I am losing track of this thread. Attila and Khan were nearly a thousand years apart,
and Khan and his hordes killed nearly 12% of all humanity.
But the Hebrews went into Egypt as part of a great Semitic migration, probably due
in some part to climate change - Arabia was once a lush land BTW.
Hyksos and Hebrews were semites.
And it's possible that Joseph came to prominence under Hyksos leadership. Many
if not most Hyksos were later booted out of Egypt. It's possible the Hebrews remained
under the heel of the Egyptians until the collapse occurred. At that time all of the Levant,
Babylon, Assyria etc were destroyed. Egypt's control over the Levant was reduced.

 

[CG Didymus]

Sorry, religious beliefs cannot be 'tested' in an objective way.

And that's a big problem with it. Even the "true" "revealed" religions even Baha'is say they have gotten things screwed up and let false doctrines and beliefs creep in. So what does that do? It causes what Baha'is say are superstitious beliefs. And what do Baha'is about those superstitious beliefs. Isn't it something about using science? You can quote me what it says if you want. But seems to me that is exactly what Atheists are trying to do. Getting rid of doctrines and beliefs that can be proven objectively true. Like even a religion we all say we believe is true, Judaism. They had animal sacrifices. Did a person's sins really get forgiven because they slaughtered an animal? And as if God really wanted that to be done? But that's what the Law says.

Then the thing we've talked about a few times. Does the NT say that Jesus was born of a virgin. Yes, that's what it says. Does it make scientific sense? I would doubt it, and it's true that a virgin giving birth to a male child is impossible, then what's that saying about the NT? That it's probably a bunch of superstitious religious stuff and not real. And Baha'is almost say the same thing... that it is not literal but allegorical.

Religions and religious leaders have a terrible track record, so why should anyone trust them? And, again, even Baha'is say not to trust them... that men have mangled the truths of their religions. So, unfortunately, The Baha'i Faith is a religion. And, its founder made claims of being sent by God. Why should anyone trust him? Because what he says sounds true? Because he suffered his whole life? Anyway, you given your "proofs" and your "evidence" before, whatever it was. But since it is not "objective" proof or evidence, what is it? And really, it's the same type of "proof" Christians have. The Bible is true. Jesus is true because he fulfilled the prophecies etc. But then the Baha'is say the Bible is probably not completely authentic. Well yeah, I can agree with that. That Jesus probably didn't really do all the things the gospels say he did. Well yeah, it don't make sense.

Lots of us agree with the Baha'is in their criticism of Christianity. But the things Baha'is believe in as true are similar. They are unprovable things. So why put your trust in them? And when people call the Baha'is out on those things, their answers are very similar to what Christians say to support their beliefs in the Bible and in Jesus. But you know this. Yet, you still talk to Atheists as if they are being unreasonable? Just because they questions your religion like you question Christians and theirs. God parted the seas. God is going to cast Satan into hell. God raised Jesus from the dead. Sure, probably not true. But now we are expected to believe God sent a new messenger? And some of us say... "Yeah, prove it." And you can't.

 

[CG Didymus]

But it comes across as "No, that's wrong, here's the correct interpretation, and that's that."

And that's exactly how it comes across.

 

[Trailblazer]

It is like an irresistible challenge to be the one to finally prove her wrong

As I always say, nobody can prove a religion is right or wrong, true or false, so it is an exercise in futility. Some of us believe our religion is true but that is a personal belief, not something that can be proven to other people, nor can it be disproven by other people. Since they cannot prove I am wrong, all they can do is call me illogical, irrational, and all the things they call me, but I have heard that so many times that it is like water off a duck's back.

The hundred-dollar question is why it seems to bother certain people that I believe my religion is true and I won't budge from my belief. Why would I? After all, I have had over 50 years to think about it and research it, so if I don't know it is true by now I would have to be a nit-wit. How many more years would I need to study it in order to know?

That will never happen but it provides entertainment. Like true crime shows, the psychology of it all is just plain addictive in trying to understand it and impossible to turn away from.

Interesting you say that because true crime shows are the only shows I ever watch on TV, Dateline, Investigation Discovery, and Forensic Files. I like any shows that have to do with crime and getting justice for the crime. It is Unbelievable the crimes some people commit for money and because they did not like the spouse anymore and found a new model.

There will always be new attempts at proving her wrong with the same exact arguments because there is an endless supply of curious people who believe they can achieve the impossible.

One would think it would grow old but it never seems to. Why that is, is the really interesting question.

It might not be growing old for them but it is growing old for me. Your recent excursions got me thinking about what I am doing with my life and what I am missing out on. I would not mind spending time posting to people if anything ever changed or if I knew it was benefiting anyone in any way, but otherwise I am just here for the entertainment, kind of like waiting for the next scene in a movie to unfold to see what is going to happen next. However, it is not very entertaining anymore, it is just tedious. Moreover, I decided I will no longer respond to posts from people who speak for me and tell me what I am thinking of why I believe what I believe or call me illogical. That is progress for me, and who knows what's next? Every day is a new day.

I adopted a new cat a week ago today. He is the cat in my avatar and his name is Simon. He is a living doll and there has been no problem with him and my other seven cats. They all accepted that he is a new family member and he is so happy because I am always here with him and he knows that.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, you posted it for a reason. I assume that reason was because you think it was applicable to our current discussion. So copy and paste the parts that you think are relevant to our current discussion.

Okay, here is the part I consider most relevant:

Below is what Baha’u’llah wrote about the 'evidence' that establishes the truth of His claims. Baha’u’llah enjoined us to look at His own Self (His character), His Revelation (His mission and works, which can be seen in Baha'i history), and His words (His Writings).

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106

His own Self is who He was, His character (His qualities). That can be determined by reading about Him on books such as the following: The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4

His Revelation is what He accomplished (His Mission on earth/ the history of His Cause)
That can be determined by reading about His mission on books such as the following:

God Passes By (1844-1944)
The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4, which cover the 40 years of His Mission, from 1853-1892.

The words He hath revealed is what He wrote can be found in books that are posted online: The Works of Bahá'u'lláh

The fact that Baha'u'llah fulfilled all the Bible prophecies is like icing on the cake. That proves to me he was the Messiah and the return of Christ. Those prophecies and how they were fulfilled are delineated in the following book: William Sears, Thief in the Night

The fact that Baha'u'llah predicted many events that later came to pass is also icing on the cake. That proves to me that He could see into the future, so He had prophetic powers. Some of these predictions and how they came to pass are listed and delineated in this book: The Challenge of Baha'u'llah

So the writings of the messenger didn't come from the messenger?

They did come from the Messenger but so what? The words He hath revealed are part of the evidence, as noted above.

My point still stands: I did not get those from the Messenger, I got them from doing my own research on the Messenger. Part of doing the research involves reading what He wrote.

 

[Tiberius]

Okay, here is the part I consider most relevant:

Below is what Baha’u’llah wrote about the 'evidence' that establishes the truth of His claims. Baha’u’llah enjoined us to look at His own Self (His character), His Revelation (His mission and works, which can be seen in Baha'i history), and His words (His Writings).

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106

His own Self is who He was, His character (His qualities). That can be determined by reading about Him on books such as the following: The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4

His Revelation is what He accomplished (His Mission on earth/ the history of His Cause)
That can be determined by reading about His mission on books such as the following:

God Passes By (1844-1944)
The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4, which cover the 40 years of His Mission, from 1853-1892.

The words He hath revealed is what He wrote can be found in books that are posted online: The Works of Bahá'u'lláh

The fact that Baha'u'llah fulfilled all the Bible prophecies is like icing on the cake. That proves to me he was the Messiah and the return of Christ. Those prophecies and how they were fulfilled are delineated in the following book: William Sears, Thief in the Night

The fact that Baha'u'llah predicted many events that later came to pass is also icing on the cake. That proves to me that He could see into the future, so He had prophetic powers. Some of these predictions and how they came to pass are listed and delineated in this book: The Challenge of Baha'u'llah

They did come from the Messenger but so what? The words He hath revealed are part of the evidence, as noted above.

My point still stands: I did not get those from the Messenger, I got them from doing my own research on the Messenger. Part of doing the research involves reading what He wrote.

Irrelevant. They came from the messenger in the first place. Where did Mr B's writings come from if not from Mr B?

 

[Trailblazer]

And which ones do you think are NOT being accepted?

• Independent Investigation of Truth
• The Oneness of Humanity
• One Essential Foundation for All Religions
• Religion Should Cause Love, Affection, and Joy
• The Harmony of Science and Religion
• A Universal Auxiliary Language
• Establishing a World Parliament
• The Non-Involvement of Religion With Politics

What Is the Baha'i Faith?

You claimed that Jesus came to "focus attention primarily on the redemption of the individual and the molding of his conduct, and stressed, as its central theme, the necessity of inculcating a high standard of morality and discipline into man, as the fundamental unit in human society." Do you think he accomplished that goal? Do you think that people today have a high standard of morality and discipline?

And I also find it confusing why you would be so careful to say that Jesus accomplished his goals, yet you finish with what appears to be a justification of why he didn't.

That was Jesus' general goal according to the Guardian of the Baha'i Faith, not what Jesus claimed as His goal. Jesus said that His goal was to bear witness unto the truth about God. However, the teachings is Jesus did serve to inculcating a high standard of morality and discipline into man, but since the moral teachings of Jesus play second fiddle to the doctrines of Christianity which state that being saved and forgiven is the goal, the moral teachings of Jesus are not paid much attention to.

Where did I say that Jesus did not accomplish His goals?

And which of Mr B's teachings do you think should be applied to the ethics of genetic modification?

I don't know much about genetic modification so you will have to explain what you mean by that.

And how is that meant to happen when such technologies are completely unlike any that have exiosted before? It wasn't that long ago that the idea of genetic modification couldn't even be conceived of because the idea was so far from what we understood.

That does not matter if they existed before. What is ethical and moral can still be applied.

Why wouldn't they? It's all just people in one particular age saying it about a previous age.

Because as I said, people will have evolved spiritually by the time we get to Age C so they won't be thinking the same way as they do in this age, Age B. Age B is just a stepping stone to Age C and further ages.

Sounds like Jesus didn't accomplish what he set out to do, despite your claims that he did.

Jesus did what God enjoined Him to do, He accomplished His mission on earth, but it wasn't Jesus' fault if people fell away from His teachings and followed Paul and the Church doctrines instead of His teachings.

They all have similar messages? I thought you said that different messengers had different messages that were relevant to the people of the particular age. Now you are claiming that they all have similar messages? You are contradicting yourself.

It is the spiritual teachings that are the same and do not change from age to age, as it says in the quote

"the spiritual virtues and divine qualities; this does not change nor alter: it is the Holy of Holies, which is the essence of the Law of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Christ, Muhammad, the Báb, and Bahá’u’lláh, and which lasts and is established in all the prophetic cycles. It will never be abrogated, for it is spiritual and not material truth; it is faith, knowledge, certitude, justice, piety, righteousness, trustworthiness, love of God, benevolence, purity, detachment, humility, meekness, patience and constancy. It shows mercy to the poor, defends the oppressed, gives to the wretched and uplifts the fallen...."

The mission of each Messenger is different in every age, and that mission is associated with the message the Messenger brings. The message of Jesus was that God loves us, we should love God and love our neighbor and Jesus conferred individual salvation by His sacrifice and His teachings; the message of Baha'u'llah was world unity and the oneness of mankind and the salvation of the whole world. Of course, There is more to each of their messages, that is just the most important stuff.

And now we are back to different messages from different messengers.

Any wonder I find your position inconsistent?

It has always been different messages from different Messengers as there would be no reason for God to send a new Messenger unless He has a new message.

 

[Trailblazer]

My point was that claiming that people aren't spiritual enough is vague, and no explanation is given as to what it means.

What spiritual means is a whole different subject and a big subject. In short, the attributes of man's spiritual nature are shown forth in love, mercy, kindness, truth and justice, one and all being expressions of his higher spiritual nature. Every good habit, every noble quality belongs to man’s spiritual nature.

My point was that being convinced of something does not mean that thing has been proved.

That's true.

And therein lies its weakness.

No, it is just reality. Religious beliefs cannot be tested like scientific theories but they can be put to our own tests.

But it comes across as "No, that's wrong, here's the correct interpretation, and that's that."

It comes across to you that way because that is what you perceive my attitude is, but there is more than one interpretation that can be correct. However, if people say it means Jesus is God I am going to disagree because I do not believe Jesus is God.

Do you think that it's possible that your belief that Baha'i is true is biasing you in some way to make you more likely to accept evidence that it is true and more likely to reject evidence that it is not true?

I don't know what evidence you are talking about. Evidence for what?

This is true. And that is why I turn to science, since science has mechanisms built in to remove any individual's personal biases.

Oh, what are those mechanisms and how do they remove personal biases when it comes to religious beliefs or anything else such as political stances people take?

Still a whole sequence of events that needed to happen, and each event required the previous events. I think my point still stands.

That's true, but I did not know that was your point.

 

[Trailblazer]

But his writings and all that, those ARE the claims!

Sure, there are claims in the Writings but that is not what most of the Writings are about!

Think about it. If there were no claims in His Writings how could we ever know what He claimed?

Baha’u’llah’s Two Bold Claims

All of which leads us back to Baha’u’llah, who made two very bold claims. First, he declared he was God’s messenger for the next one thousand years, having the same divine authority, the same Holy Spirit, the same divine power, as Moses, Christ, Muhammad, and the other founders of the major world religions:

In the East the light of [God’s] Revelation hath broken; in the West have appeared the signs of His dominion. Ponder this in your hearts, O people, and be not of those who have turned a deaf ear to the admonitions of Him Who is the Almighty, the All-Praised. Let the Breeze of God awaken you. Verily, it hath wafted over the world. Well is it with him that hath discovered the fragrance thereof and been accounted among the well-assured. – Baha’u’llah, Tablets of Baha’u’llah.

This station, by itself, makes the Baha’i Faith the youngest of the major world religions.

Baha’u’llah made a second and even more challenging claim. He declared he was the promised world messiah foretold in all the prophecies, in all the holy books, of all the religions of the world – the one promised to come on the Day of Judgment, the Day of God, the Time of the End, the End of the World, to establish the kingdom of God on Earth.

Baha’u’llah declared this period in history as the Day of God, the Time of the End. His mission is nothing less than the establishment of this glorious kingdom – the unification of the entire human race into an all-embracing, spiritually mature world civilization based upon divine principles of justice and love, and whose watchword will be unity in diversity.

With this second claim, Baha’is believe that all of the religions of the world have been consummated and fulfilled with the coming of Baha’u’llah.

https://bahaiteachings.org/what-did-bahaullah-teach?

 

[Trailblazer]

Irrelevant. They came from the messenger in the first place. Where did Mr B's writings come from if not from Mr B?

What's your point?

 

[joelr]

'standard scholarship.'
There's lots of problems with 'standard scholarship', particularly what's taught in universties.
And what is not taught.

Have no idea what you are talking about. When something passes peer review then it becomes standard information. There are crank teams of independent scholars who have proven Mormons, Krishna, Atlantis and whatever else is true. You want all this taught or just the crank that supports your personal beliefs?

'

You are never going to get an Egyptian archaelogist find evidence of Hebew occupation in
Egypt. And no 'scholar' is going to believe that God spoke to David.

Egyptain archeologist? There is information that is standard and peer-reviewed. Then there is crank. All mainstream biblical archeologists believe this is the first mention of Israelites:
Tell us more about the Merneptah inscription. Why is it so famous?
It's the earliest reference we have to the Israelites. The victory stele of Pharaoh Merneptah, the son of Ramesses II, mentions a list of peoples and city-states in Canaan, and among them are the Israelites. And it's interesting that the other entities, the other ethnic groups, are described as nascent states, but the Israelites are described as "a people." They have not yet reached a level of state organization.

So the Egyptians, a little before 1200 B.C.E., know of a group of people somewhere in the central highlands—a loosely affiliated tribal confederation, if you will—called "Israelites." These are our Israelites. So this is a priceless inscription.

if some crank team had something else let them write a paper and get it peer reviewed.

God didn't speak to David, they are ancient myths. Sure, you never know. Maybe Zeus also spoke to Hercules? Not likely for any of these stories.

'

But true science isn't about believing this or that, but in .'what the data says.' And if some
scientist says, 'There's no evidence for Abraham' then it's important that the AUDIENCE to
this statement UNDERSTANDS the scientist isn't saying 'There was no Abraham' but that
there is no evidence, yet, for Abraham.

The Jews were in captivity in Egypt. No big deal - Jews are Hykos people and so many of
them migrated to Egypt they took over the nation for a while. Indeed, the Pharoah of Joseph
was likely a Hyksos himself. And the Hebrews migrated back to 'Palestine' about the the time
of the Bronze Age Collapse - only Egypt barely survived this period when the great empires
were overthrown by immigrants. Probably the Phillistines and Hebrews arrived same time.

There is no evidence for Abraham. The current consensus on Moses is he is a mythical character. Thomas Thompson's work on Moses was the main reason for this. But religious stories are myths written to inspire the people. Genesis was not written as history but was using common folklore to create a history for a new people.

 

[Trailblazer]

Lots of us agree with the Baha'is in their criticism of Christianity. But the things Baha'is believe in as true are similar. They are unprovable things. So why put your trust in them? And when people call the Baha'is out on those things, their answers are very similar to what Christians say to support their beliefs in the Bible and in Jesus. But you know this. Yet, you still talk to Atheists as if they are being unreasonable? Just because they questions your religion like you question Christians and theirs. God parted the seas. God is going to cast Satan into hell. God raised Jesus from the dead. Sure, probably not true. But now we are expected to believe God sent a new messenger? And some of us say... "Yeah, prove it." And you can't.

When did I ever tell atheists they are unreasonable? I hate labeling people. If in the past I said they are illogical that is in the past. I don't even think that way anymore.

I have changed a lot since I came to this forum. I don't like arguing and the disharmony it causes. I believe what I believe but I don't expect other people to believe it.

No, I never expected anyone to believe that God sent a new Messenger just because I believe that.
Of course I cannot prove that and I have explained why I can't prove it.

 

[night912]

The dog one was weird - never had that experience before or since. The dream
doesn't have to be identical.

Yes they do, since you are suggesting that it's a temporal quantum entanglement.

A guy was telling us he was dying of cancer. But he saw a mental picture of himself
in the future, playing with his kids. And in this mental picture he 'saw' a strange box
style device on the floor. No idea what it was. He survived and years later when
playing with his kids he looked at the little fan heater on the floor - a heater that had
recently come onto the market.

Please go into more details regarding what happened before further explanation can be formulated.

 

[Tiberius]

• Independent Investigation of Truth
• The Oneness of Humanity
• One Essential Foundation for All Religions
• Religion Should Cause Love, Affection, and Joy
• The Harmony of Science and Religion
• A Universal Auxiliary Language
• Establishing a World Parliament
• The Non-Involvement of Religion With Politics

What Is the Baha'i Faith?

Science has been investigating the truth of reality for many decades now, and a lot of it is done with little regard to borders. The internet has brought humans together. I don't think a single world government is a good idea though, as different areas of the world have unique cultures and unique requirements that I think could be left behind if there's a single government running the entire world. But I think that many of these have started, even if they are not complete. But then, I could say that for many of the other ones too.

That was Jesus' general goal according to the Guardian of the Baha'i Faith, not what Jesus claimed as His goal. Jesus said that His goal was to bear witness unto the truth about God. However, the teachings is Jesus did serve to inculcating a high standard of morality and discipline into man, but since the moral teachings of Jesus play second fiddle to the doctrines of Christianity which state that being saved and forgiven is the goal, the moral teachings of Jesus are not paid much attention to.

So wait, you are now saying that Baha'is are better qualified to say what Jesus came here for than Jesus himself?

Where did I say that Jesus did not accomplish His goals?

It's implied by the arrival of the next messenger.

I don't know much about genetic modification so you will have to explain what you mean by that.

Changing the genes of crop plants so they are more resistant to pests, or changing them so they have more nutrients (such as Golden Rice).

That does not matter if they existed before. What is ethical and moral can still be applied.

But the existence of these new technologies has opened up new uses. For example, is it ethical for me to use the deepfake software to create pornographic images of a celebrity? Many people would say no, but what would those same people say about someone drawing a pornographic image of the same celebrity?

Because as I said, people will have evolved spiritually by the time we get to Age C so they won't be thinking the same way as they do in this age, Age B. Age B is just a stepping stone to Age C and further ages.

You don't get it. The same argument can be made about any age.

Jesus did what God enjoined Him to do, He accomplished His mission on earth, but it wasn't Jesus' fault if people fell away from His teachings and followed Paul and the Church doctrines instead of His teachings.

It is the spiritual teachings that are the same and do not change from age to age, as it says in the quote

"the spiritual virtues and divine qualities; this does not change nor alter: it is the Holy of Holies, which is the essence of the Law of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Christ, Muhammad, the Báb, and Bahá’u’lláh, and which lasts and is established in all the prophetic cycles. It will never be abrogated, for it is spiritual and not material truth; it is faith, knowledge, certitude, justice, piety, righteousness, trustworthiness, love of God, benevolence, purity, detachment, humility, meekness, patience and constancy. It shows mercy to the poor, defends the oppressed, gives to the wretched and uplifts the fallen...."

The mission of each Messenger is different in every age, and that mission is associated with the message the Messenger brings. The message of Jesus was that God loves us, we should love God and love our neighbor and Jesus conferred individual salvation by His sacrifice and His teachings; the message of Baha'u'llah was world unity and the oneness of mankind and the salvation of the whole world. Of course, There is more to each of their messages, that is just the most important stuff.

Given how you've said that the Bible is unreliable because of the actions of man, I don't see how we can be sure of anything that is within it, including the teachings of Jesus.

It has always been different messages from different Messengers as there would be no reason for God to send a new Messenger unless He has a new message.

You seem to be flip-flopping between two positions. Their messages are similar, and their messages are different. You've made both claims.