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

[Trailblazer]

I find it hard to believe she is not trying to convince others that their religion is wrong and hers is right. When she says things like this...

I don't give a **** what people on this forum believe about the Baha'i Faith.
That is the truth so help me God, but you can believe whatever you have conjured up in your mind.

Apparently you are projecting your own thoughts regarding what you think I must be thinking according to what say, but what you think I think is so far off in left field it is not even in the ball park.

This forum is just entertainment to me for the time being, but it won't be forever. However, while I am here I am going to present accurate information about my Baha'i beliefs, as that is my duty to Baha'u'llah and God. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything because that is not part of my duty.

 

[Trailblazer]

So you think they are being reasonable when they expect objective facts and evidence that Baha'u'llah got messages from God?

Yes, that is what I said.

 

[Trailblazer]

Except God is still going to make things so bad for people that they have no choice but to turn to the Baha'is... or so I was told. Is that true? And if so, then God kind of does prove he is real by punishing all of us that refused to heed his call.

I was not the one who told you that. Nobody knows what God is going to do, only God knows.

 

[night912]

I think you all are being to harsh on @TB. She has said before she only has an MA in counseling psychology which is an 18 month arts degree. She does not claim to have an MA in science or an MA in medical degree in psychology.

So I take it that you are in agreement that she did in fact, committed a logical fallacy, Argument from Authority. No objections here.

She has also stated many times, she is here for entertainment purposes, not to convince any one else she has the truth about all things God or the proof that her religion is the "truth".

True. That's probably why those who are in opposition to her wasn't convinced. No objections here.

What is probably very interesting to her and most who observe the back and forth, circular and repeated, non changing arguments, is that people continue to engage in them. Thousands of posts of the same back and forth yet people continue to want to try to convince her she is wrong in her logic. No matter how many try, they always fail to escape the circular logic and the urge to expose the percieved double speak. It is like an irresistible challenge to be the one to finally prove her wrong.

So apparently, you're saying that you haven't observed any of those back and forth discussions.

Spoiler: ***SPOILER ALERT***

***Spoiler alert***

She was proven to be wrong on numerous occasions.

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.

Sorry, but you're a little too late. There was a lot of entertainment because of that happening.

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.

No duh. The easiest way in refuting her same arguments is to use the old arguments that refuted her arguments in the past. No need to reinvent the wheel when it's not necessary.

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

Perhaps one answer to that question is, shear entertainment. Another reason might be because some people might not like letting illogical arguments alone as if there's nothing wrong with it.

For me personally, I come in here for the entertainment, regardless of who I'm engaged in a discussion with.

Thanks for the entertainment. Hopefully you can provide more entertainment later on in the future.

 

[night912]

Yes, that is what I said.

Isn't that what the majority of the people, if not all of them, do?

 

[PruePhillip]

A true prophet would not preach environmentalism because that is not religion, that is science.
No, a true prophet would not cater to our fashions of thought, he would only reveal what God told him to reveal, which would be for the benefit of humanity.

So conquering territory, forced conversions, pedophilia and killing Jews -
was all this from God, or just Mohammed?

 

[samtonga43]

What you believe is just a "belief" meaning it's not based on anything factual. The Baha'i Faith, to her, is true and from God, so having a belief in what the Baha'i Faith teaches is true. But I might be wrong, since it is just my belief.

You got it!

 

[samtonga43]

A true prophet would not preach environmentalism because that is not religion, that is science.
No, a true prophet would not cater to our fashions of thought, he would only reveal what God told him to reveal, which would be for the benefit of humanity.

And looking after our planet would not be beneficial for humanity?

 

[samtonga43]

Yes, that is what I said.

Here I am, being reasonable.
So where are the objective facts and evidence that Baha'u'llah got messages from God?

 

[samtonga43]

As Daniel said, we will know more in the future, in 2300 years:

Where did Daniel say this?

I don't have to answer that and it is not my responsibility as a Baha'i.

You don’t HAVE to answer anything, Tb. But it says an awful lot when you can’t answer. It ought to make you think, but I doubt it will. Nobody is hounding you; you are being over-dramatic. If you cannot cope with disagreement and different points of view, and questions about your faith, maybe you’re in the wrong place.

Do you really think I care if anyone on this forum takes the Baha'i Faith seriously?

LOL! You do seem to care quite a lot.

I am not saying that Christians did not understand anything in the Bible, I am saying that they did not fully understand the Bible...

But you understand the Bible well enough to say that Christians do not fully understand the Bible? LOL! Somehow I think not.

 

[night912]

You don’t HAVE to answer anything, Tb. But it says an awful lot when you can’t answer. It ought to make you think, but I doubt it will. Nobody is hounding you; you are being over-dramatic. If you cannot cope with disagreement and different points of view, and questions about your faith, maybe you’re in the wrong place.

Or wrong religion?

 

[CG Didymus]

I don't give a **** what people on this forum believe about the Baha'i Faith.
That is the truth so help me God, but you can believe whatever you have conjured up in your mind.

Apparently you are projecting your own thoughts regarding what you think I must be thinking according to what say, but what you think I think is so far off in left field it is not even in the ball park.

This forum is just entertainment to me for the time being, but it won't be forever. However, while I am here I am going to present accurate information about my Baha'i beliefs, as that is my duty to Baha'u'llah and God. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything because that is not part of my duty.

You're on a thread that asks... "Let's see if I can be convinced." And some of what you say is "accurate" information is your opinion. You think the Baha'i Faith is the truth and people question whether or not it is.

 

[Trailblazer]

So conquering territory, forced conversions, pedophilia and killing Jews -
was all this from God, or just Mohammed?

I am not a Muslim so I don't know that much about the mission of Muhammad.
But I do know that Muhammad was not a pedophile.

 

[Trailblazer]

You're on a thread that asks... "Let's see if I can be convinced."

The subject of this thread is no longer "Let's see if I can be convinced." because infrabenji, the one who started the thread, is long gone. But if you look at my first posts to him, you will see that I told him I was not going to try to convince him because I have no interest in convincing anyone that my religion is true. Baha'u'llah wrote that the faith of no man can be conditioned by anyone except himself. I think he said that because in order for a belief to be OUR belief we all have to do our own homework and make our own choice as to what to believe.

And some of what you say is "accurate" information is your opinion.

Whatever I say is "accurate" information is according to my beliefs. It is not my personal opinion.

You think the Baha'i Faith is the truth and people question whether or not it is.

So what? They can question it till the day they die. How is that my problem?

 

[Trailblazer]

And looking after our planet would not be beneficial for humanity?

It is in the Baha'i Writings that we should look after our planet but I do not know if Baha'u'llah specifically wrote about that.

 

[Trailblazer]

Here I am, being reasonable.
So where are the objective facts and evidence that Baha'u'llah got messages from God?

There are no objective facts that prove that, there is only evidence and objective facts that indicate that He did.

 

[Trailblazer]

Where did Daniel say this?

Daniel 12
King James Version

4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

8 And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things?

9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.

11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.

You don’t HAVE to answer anything, Tb. But it says an awful lot when you can’t answer. It ought to make you think, but I doubt it will. Nobody is hounding you; you are being over-dramatic. If you cannot cope with disagreement and different points of view, and questions about your faith, maybe you’re in the wrong place.

When I cannot answer something that just means I don't know everything because I am not all-knowing.
I can cope with disagreement and different points of view, and questions about my faith, but I won't tolerate being hounded, because I consider that rude. CG has been hounding me about Daniel 12:11 for years. I told him "I don't know" and that should be enough.

LOL! You do seem to care quite a lot.

Seem to care? How would you know if I care? Do you think I care just because I respond to posts? Can you imagine that there might be 'another reason' why I might respond to posts?

I do not give a rip if anyone takes the Baha'i Faith seriously because the ONLY JOB that Baha'u'llah gave me to do is to deliver the message. What people DO with that message is not my concern or my responsibility.

But you understand the Bible well enough to say that Christians do not fully understand the Bible? LOL! Somehow I think not.

You can THINK whatever you want to think even though it contradicts what the Bible says. Free will is a charm.

4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

If knowledge will be increased when the book is unsealed that means we would KNOW more at the time of the end.

12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.

The time of the end came in 2300 years, which was in 1844 when the Bab appeared. The book (Bible) was unsealed and now we are able to know more about what it means if we read the Baha'i Writings.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

Yes, many of these have started, but they are not widely accepted yet.

Establishing a World Parliament does not mean a single government running the entire world. From that link:

The progressive teachings of the Baha’i Faith focus around this central idea of oneness, world unity and global governance. In a speech he gave in Cincinnati, Ohio a hundred years ago, Abdu’l-Baha summarized Baha’u’llah’s call to every nation:

In His Epistles He asked the parliaments of the world to send their wisest and best men to an international world conference which should decide all questions between the peoples and establish universal peace. This would be the highest court of appeal, and the parliament of man so long dreamed of by poets and idealists would be realized. …when we have the interparliamentary body composed of delegates from all the nations of the world and devoted to the maintenance of agreement and goodwill, the utopian dream of sages and poets, the parliament of man, will be realized. – The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 388.

This primary Baha’i principle:

…declares that there must needs be established the parliament of man or court of last appeals for international questions. The members of this arbitral court of justice will be representatives of all the nations. In each nation the members must be ratified by the government and the king or ruler, and this international parliament will be under the protection of the world of humanity. In it all international difficulties will be settled. – Baha’i Scriptures, p. 278.

The Parliament of Man

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

NO, I am not saying that. The Guardian of the Baha'i Faith was just speaking in general about what Jesus accomplished, putting it in a historical context. Jesus said that His goal was to bear witness unto the truth about God (John 18:37). Never did Jesus say that He came to die on the cross and save humanity from an original sin committed by Adam and Eve. That is a Christian doctrine. Baha'u'llah wrote that Jesus chose to sacrifice Himself for the 'sins and inequities' of mankind, but that is not the same as saving us from an original sin that came about from two people eating an apple off a tree.

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

Why would the coming of another Messenger mean that Jesus did not accomplish His goal?
Shortly before He died, Jesus clearly said that His work was finished here:

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.

But that does not mean that there would never be any more work that another Messenger would do in the future.

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 sounds like a good thing to me, it sounds like progress. That is congruent with the goals of the Baha'i Faith, that nobody should live in poverty, without the basics like food.

How Baha’is Would Eliminate the Extremes of Wealth and Poverty

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?

I would say that neither one of those are congruent with the moral teachings of the Baha'i Faith.

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

That's true, because every age is a stepping stone to the next age.

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.

The reliability of the Bible is a BIG subject, not one I want to get into now.
I was not saying the Bible is unreliable. The actions of men I was referring to was how Christians created false doctrines using the Bible, and that happened partly because they misinterpreted the Bible.

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

That is because both are true. There are some similarities between their messages but there are also differences.

 

[Trailblazer]

Which gives it plenty of scope to be interpreted in many different ways, of course. I see that as a problem.

Sure, anything can be interpreted in more than one way, but from my perspective spiritual need to be understood in the context of what the Baha'i Faith has revealed, and there is plenty to refer to.

And since they can't be verified at all, we can never justify claiming that we KNOW them to be true, can we?

We should not CLAIM that we know they are true but we can SAY that we know if we have verified what we know.

That Baha'i is true. I was very clear about it.

Okay, I have told you what evidence I looked at. I was very clear about it.

Peer review. I get other people to test the same thing as me. Let's say I am trying to find out what the speed of light is. I do an experiment and I get a result. I write up how I did the experiment and what my result was, and other people read it. They look at it, and they can point out if they think I made a mistake. And they can repeat my experiment and see if they get the same result. And they can also come up with a different experiment and see if they still get the same result as me.

So any personal biases are eliminated, because I get other people to do the experiment, and they will not have the same personal biases as me. And any mistakes in my method have a good chance of being spotted, so they can be eliminated. And with the same thing being tested in different ways, any flaws inherent with the method I used can be eliminated.

Peer review does not work for religion as it does for science. That is the absolute worst thing you could ever do because you NEVER want to believe something just because other people believe it. You want to believe it ONLY because you did your OWN independent research and determined that it is true. The goal is not to remove personal biases, there will always be personal biases. The goal is to determine what the truth is.

Baha'u'llah told us in no uncertain terms how we discover the truth about the Messenger in The Kitab-i-Iqan, which is the second most holy book of the Baha'i Faith.

What Baha’u’llah wrote in The Kitáb-i-Íqán (The Book of Certitude) on the very first pages is vitally important. The following is part of the last sentence of a longer paragraph, the part I want to point out and explain.

“…… inasmuch as man can never hope to attain unto the knowledge of the All-Glorious, can never quaff from the stream of divine knowledge and wisdom, can never enter the abode of immortality, nor partake of the cup of divine nearness and favour, unless and until he ceases to regard the words and deeds of mortal men as a standard for the true understanding and recognition of God and His Prophets.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, pp. 3-4

What it essentially says is that we will never discover the truth for ourselves if we use the words and deeds of other people as a standard by which to understand God and His Prophets. In other words, we cannot determine whether Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God according to what other people say or do.

What then do we do? We investigate the truth for ourselves.

How to Independently Investigate the Truth

 

[Trailblazer]

You miss my point.

THE WRITINGS CAME FROM MR B.

If I have no reason to accept what he says until I am presented with sufficient evidence, then what he says can not be included in that evidence, since I have not yet been convinced of it's sufficiency.

You miss my point. We need to what He claimed in order to know who He is claimed to be.

AFTER we know who He claimed to be we look at all the evidence that supports His claims.