CG Didymus
Veteran Member
Yes, all but the few Baha'is are in a wrong religion or, at best, an out-dated religion that also has some false beliefs in it. Good job God! You really know how to get your message out there.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheists: What would be evidence of God’s existence?
- Thread starter Trailblazer
- Start date
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
I really don't know if any other religion that even uses that term "manifestations." Judaism has two Abraham and Moses and maybe four if Adam and Noah get added in that Baha'is claim are manifestations. But Jews see them as ordinary men. Then the claim with Krishna is he is an incarnation of Vishnu. I don't even know what Baha'i do with Vishnu. So, all these "manifestations" are their evidence? As if all of them were even real, historical people.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
Exactly. Baha'is can make any religion fit in with their beliefs. Since they define what is true and what false in all the other religions.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
We cannot get all religions to agree with each other until they all unite under one common faith, which is what is going to happen in the future. God has ordained that so it will happen eventually.
“That which the Lord hath ordained as the sovereign remedy and mightiest instrument for the healing of all the world is the union of all its peoples in one universal Cause, one common Faith. This can in no wise be achieved except through the power of a skilled, an all-powerful and inspired Physician. This, verily, is the truth, and all else naught but error.”
The Summons of the Lord of Hosts, p. 91
The older religions are soooooooooooooo corrupted that they are beyond repair. That is one reason God sent a NEW Messenger, aside from the fact that God has a new message to impart.
That isn't argument from popularity because I am not saying that Messengers are from God is true just because many or most people believe in God because of the Messengers.
In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia
No, you cannot say that because you are not God so you are not omnipotent.
Logic 101.
Anyone you cannot figure out that an omnipotent God only does what He wants to do had better go back to college and take a course in logic. I did not need a religion to figure that out.
That's right, just like God knows everything that will ever happen to everyone since God is familiar with everyone's script!
I do not need to support that. That is not my job. It is a matter or (a) reading the scriptures of the older religions and (b) looking at what humanity needs in this age. Then you compare the two.
That is not my job, it is your job, if you want to know the truth about what I am saying.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
That's genius, that is.
Make all the religions agree, and you'll find that they all agree.
You apparently missed the fact that if people believe in God because of the messengers from God, then there actually needs to be MESSENGERS FROM GOD.
Your argument depends on "Messengers from God" being true. So don't tell me it doesn't depend on that.
Yes, I am omnipotent.
I dare you to prove otherwise.
And yet you can't figure that an omnipotent me only does what I want.
Then it seems we are in agreement.
My knowledge of the Jurassic Park script is NOT what causes the lawyer to run.
My knowledge of the Star Trek 2 script is NOT what causes Spock to die.
And in the same way, God's knowledge of the script of the universe is NOT what causes me to wear the shirt he knows I will wear.
Yes you do need to support it. If you come and state something as a fact, belief, whatever, then it is your job to support it.
I've already stated that I can turn into a fire breathing dragon, and I've provided evidence to support that claim, even though it is not my job to support it.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Nobody is going to MAKE anyone do anything.... In the future people will choose to unite under one religious banner because everyone has free will to choose.
It is a moot point whether Messengers are from God or not. Nobody can ever prove that.
I have no argument. My only POINT was that most people believe in God because of Messengers of God, holy men, or some intermediary between God and man.
I am not into your joking around about a serious topic. You can at least TRY to understand what I am saying.
The Omnipotent God does whatever He pleases and does nothing He does not choose to do. This is what atheists do not understand. Atheists think Omnipotent means that God can do anything, which really means God should be doing everything they expect Him to do. They do not understand what Omnipotence really means. It means that God can do anything but God only does what God chooses to do.
An omnipotent God has all power to do anything, but an omnipotent God only does what He chooses to do, not everything He can do. Who has the power to make an omnipotent God do what He does not choose to do? Nobody. That is why the omnipotent God can do whatever He pleases and does nothing else.
Below, Baha'u'llah explained what Omnipotence means in a nutshell.
“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, p. 209
“Say: He ordaineth as He pleaseth, by virtue of His sovereignty, and doeth whatsoever He willeth at His own behest. He shall not be asked of the things it pleaseth Him to ordain. He, in truth, is the Unrestrained, the All-Powerful, the All-Wise.” Gleanings, p, 284
“God witnesseth that there is no God but Him, the Gracious, the Best-Beloved. All grace and bounty are His. To whomsoever He will He giveth whatsoever is His wish. He, verily, is the All-Powerful, the Almighty, the Help in Peril, the Self-Subsisting.” Gleanings, p. 73
“No God is there but Him. All creation and its empire are His. He bestoweth His gifts on whom He will, and from whom He will He withholdeth them. He is the Great Giver, the Most Generous, the Benevolent.” Gleanings, p. 278
That's true, so what causes you to wear that shirt, the flying spaghetti monster?
I have already explained this myriad times but you either do not understand or you do not ACCEPT my explanation.
ppp
Well-Known Member
And if he doesn't choose to do things that align to his described characteristics, then either he doesn't exist, or the person describing those characteristics is wrong.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
Considering that people in the other religions don't believe in the Baha'is Faith, I wonder what's going to change? What new evidence and proof is going to be brought forward that will get people to change their minds and give into the Baha'i Faith?
Forcing people to convert has worked in the past. I wonder if that's part of his plan? Or maybe God has been reading some of the posts by Atheists in that other thread and will communicate directly with people? If not, why would people submit to a religion that is filled with rules? Nobody has ever been able to live by all of the rules in any religion. And who would want to? Only the true believers. Then what? They're going to impose God's laws on everyone and enforce them?
Mark Charles Compton
Pineal Peruser
If I've not been fed a line... from what I've heard;
When Kim Jong Un arrives in town, everyone appears to worship him as a god. Most do not actually believe their totalitarian dictator is a god, but they do believe that lying to live is better than dying to be honest.
Wish our species didn't do some of the things we do.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
*sigh* I wasn't telling you to make all people share the same faith...
You miss the point.
The claim, "Most people believe in God because of the messengers from God,", this requires that there actually be LEGITIMATE messengers from God, and the only way to get that is for there to actually be a God. You fail to consider that maybe the case is, "Most people have an incorrect belief in God because of people that have been said to be messengers from God, but actually weren't."
The fact you find it serious does not obligate me to find it equally serious. I am quite entitled to find it as ridiculous as I want.
I got no idea.
Your explanation is lousy, as I have already explained.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
In the past, the force that has brought people into a new religion has usually been violence. "Join our religion or we'll kill you."
I think having all those rules could be a way to provide a way to explain away inconsistencies.
"I prayed to be healed, but it didn't happen." "Oh, but you didn't follow the rules, that's why your prayer wasn't answered."
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I know you were not telling me that.
No, it does not require that the messengers be proven to be legitimate for people to believe in God. As you said, it is possible that most people have an incorrect belief in God because of people that have been said to be messengers from God, but actually weren't. I don't believe that but that does not mean it is impossible.
That is correct. You can find it ridiculous if you want to even though I consider it serious.
If there is a God it IS serious but since you don't believe in God I can see why you don't consider it serious.
I got an idea. It is your free will that causes you to choose.
Too bad then. I guess you will have to remain in the dark or you can ask me to explain it again.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
How do Baha'is define a "manifestation"? I found this...
The independent Prophets are each the Author of a divine religion and the Founder of a new Dispensation. At Their advent the world is clothed in a new attire, a new religion is established, and a new Book revealed.
And this...
Bahá’u’lláh referred to several historical figures as Manifestations. They include Adam, Noah, Zoroaster, Krishna, Abraham, Moses, Buddha, Jesus and Muhammad. The Báb, as well as Himself, were included in this definition. Thus religious history is interpreted as a series of dispensations, where each Manifestation brings a somewhat broader and more advanced revelation, suited for the time and place in which it was expressed.
And this...
If God were to be likened to the unapproachable sun, the source of all light and life in our own solar system, then the Manifestations of God might be compared to mirrors that perfectly reflect the sun’s light in a form that human beings are capable of comprehending. “These sanctified Mirrors…are one and all the Exponents on earth of Him Who is the central Orb of the universe, its Essence and ultimate Purpose. From Him proceed their knowledge and power; from Him is derived their sovereignty.”[3]
Since the purpose of all these divine “mirrors” is one and the same, no distinction should be made between Them. Bahá’u’lláh writes, “If thou wilt observe with discriminating eyes, thou wilt behold them all abiding in the same tabernacle, soaring in the same heaven, seated upon the same throne, uttering the same speech, and proclaiming the same Faith.”
I have lots of issues with their concept of "manifestations". They didn't "proclaim" the same faith. They didn't all establish a new religion and bring a book. Some of them were not "perfectly" polished mirrors reflecting God. And religions that most people accept as false or mythical also had "god/men" messengers. Plus, the Gods in those religions and even in the religions Baha'is accept as legitimate define God differently.Since the purpose of all these divine “mirrors” is one and the same, no distinction should be made between Them. Bahá’u’lláh writes, “If thou wilt observe with discriminating eyes, thou wilt behold them all abiding in the same tabernacle, soaring in the same heaven, seated upon the same throne, uttering the same speech, and proclaiming the same Faith.”
Baha'is ignore some religions. Like the one in ancient Egypt...
- The religion of Ancient Egypt lasted for more than 3,000 years, and was polytheistic, meaning there were a multitude of deities, who were believed to reside within and control the forces of nature.
- Formal religious practice centered on the pharaoh, or ruler, of Egypt, who was believed to be divine, and acted as intermediary between the people and the gods. His role was to sustain the gods so that they could maintain order in the universe.
- The Egyptian universe centered on Ma’at, which has several meanings in English, including truth, justice and order. It was fixed and eternal; without it the world would fall apart.
- The most important myth was of Osiris and Isis. The divine ruler Osiris was murdered by Set (god of chaos), then resurrected by his sister and wife Isis to conceive an heir, Horus. Osiris then became the ruler of the dead, while Horus eventually avenged his father and became king.
All these things Baha'is have try to explain away. And they do. "Things got added in." "Things were misinterpreted." "Things were taken literally but were meant to be symbolic." "In the original teachings, all the messengers had a similar message." I think a much easier explanation is still... People invented Gods and religion. I think using "manifestations"/"messengers" doesn't help them prove that God exists. And actually makes things worse.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
Well, is the Baha'i Faith free from corruption? I don't know why it would be. It's people running it. And I've read stories about internal problems.
We deeply regret the necessity of informing you that James F. Nelson has been guilty of gross negligence in the performance of his duties as a member of the National Spiritual Assembly and that, although he has expressed his profound regret for the related occurrences, and has effected full restitution of the damage done, he has felt impelled, by his awareness of the high responsibility of the post in which he has been serving, to tender his resignation from the membership of the National Spiritual Assembly, and the National Spiritual Assembly has accepted this resignation.
Jim Nelson was helping an elderly Baha'i in Pasadena with her finances. I believe he had some power to sign checks from her account for paying bills, etc. She told Jim that she wanted her payment to the huquq [the 19% tax on some income to be paid to the Universal House of Justice in Haifa, Israel according to Baha'i law] to be set up as an endowment rather than being a lump sum payment. On her death, Jim placed the huquq funds from her accounts into a new account under his name. This led to protests from the estate's executor and prompted the NSA to go on the war path with claims of wrongdoing. I do not know if the executor of the estate is a Baha'i or not.
Then there's this..Jim Nelson was helping an elderly Baha'i in Pasadena with her finances. I believe he had some power to sign checks from her account for paying bills, etc. She told Jim that she wanted her payment to the huquq [the 19% tax on some income to be paid to the Universal House of Justice in Haifa, Israel according to Baha'i law] to be set up as an endowment rather than being a lump sum payment. On her death, Jim placed the huquq funds from her accounts into a new account under his name. This led to protests from the estate's executor and prompted the NSA to go on the war path with claims of wrongdoing. I do not know if the executor of the estate is a Baha'i or not.
The dysfunction that I’ve witnessed in Baha’i institutions is both tragic and awe inspiring...
I often think about why things are as they are. Part of it is our propensity to not take cold hard looks at ourselves as a community to evaluate the results we are achieving. Part of it is the culture that prevents any and all feedback, especially if it is remotely negative. Such feedback is seen as criticism and an attack on the institutions – no matter that it be truthful and delivered with loving intentions.
Part of the problem is that the same people are elected to the same positions year after year. This causes a host of problems from feelings of entitlement, to rigid group think, to the creation of little fiefdoms. Part of the problem may be that we haven’t been able to counter a social framework that has a bias for incompetent but loud members
And this...I often think about why things are as they are. Part of it is our propensity to not take cold hard looks at ourselves as a community to evaluate the results we are achieving. Part of it is the culture that prevents any and all feedback, especially if it is remotely negative. Such feedback is seen as criticism and an attack on the institutions – no matter that it be truthful and delivered with loving intentions.
Part of the problem is that the same people are elected to the same positions year after year. This causes a host of problems from feelings of entitlement, to rigid group think, to the creation of little fiefdoms. Part of the problem may be that we haven’t been able to counter a social framework that has a bias for incompetent but loud members
Baha’i Administration consist of two arms the “Elected” and the “Appointed”. With the passage of time it became evident that some undesired candidates may find their way inside the administration. Hence it was necessary for the Baha’i administration to put a check on these undesired candidates and to have a mechanism of indirect nomination of “approved” candidates only.
So the need of the hour was programming the elected arm in such a way so as to control it by indirect nomination but in the name of election...
The perception was further strengthened by the nature of the Baha’i electoral process in which the incumbent members of the House of Justice were virtually guaranteed re-election, and could control future membership through nominating favored candidates to sit on the International Teaching Centre, signaling the House’s “approval” in the case of election for absent seats due to death or retirement...
True to prediction, in the most recent UHJ election held in 2003 and 2009, the two retiring members in were replaced by two men from the International Teaching Centre. It will remain to be seen whether this pattern of indirect nomination of “approved” candidates continues.
And one more...So the need of the hour was programming the elected arm in such a way so as to control it by indirect nomination but in the name of election...
The perception was further strengthened by the nature of the Baha’i electoral process in which the incumbent members of the House of Justice were virtually guaranteed re-election, and could control future membership through nominating favored candidates to sit on the International Teaching Centre, signaling the House’s “approval” in the case of election for absent seats due to death or retirement...
True to prediction, in the most recent UHJ election held in 2003 and 2009, the two retiring members in were replaced by two men from the International Teaching Centre. It will remain to be seen whether this pattern of indirect nomination of “approved” candidates continues.
Denis MacEoin did not withdraw from the faith, he was chased out by powerful Baha’i fundamentalists who were deeply threatened by the implications of his historical work...
Denis made the mistake of continuing to be an active Baha’i. Since the community is so heavily dominated by aggressive fundamentalist fanatics, if a genuine academic wants to be a Baha’i s/he has to keep a low profile. Denis did not...
Around 1980, fundamentalist UHJ members Ian Semple and David Hoffman called Denis to a meeting and told him he would have to fall silent (rather as the Vatican did to Leonardo Boff). Hoffman was especially harsh. Denis declined to fall silent, and ultimately withdrew from the Faith. He was pushed out by anti-intellectual bigots who had risen high in the Baha’i hierarchy and become Infallible.
I'm sure Baha'is will find a way to explain this away... Probably by saying all these things were written by enemies of the Faith. But, if true, these are problems of corruption within the Baha'i administrative order. Denis made the mistake of continuing to be an active Baha’i. Since the community is so heavily dominated by aggressive fundamentalist fanatics, if a genuine academic wants to be a Baha’i s/he has to keep a low profile. Denis did not...
Around 1980, fundamentalist UHJ members Ian Semple and David Hoffman called Denis to a meeting and told him he would have to fall silent (rather as the Vatican did to Leonardo Boff). Hoffman was especially harsh. Denis declined to fall silent, and ultimately withdrew from the Faith. He was pushed out by anti-intellectual bigots who had risen high in the Baha’i hierarchy and become Infallible.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
I know you were not telling me that.
So what were you doing when you said, "Nobody is going to MAKE anyone do anything.... In the future people will choose to unite under one religious banner because everyone has free will to choose."
Just wasting my time?
Right,. so then you must conclude that, logically speaking, the fact we have people that are considered by some to be messengers from God means nothing.
Then you understand that I don't give a rat's rear end if you are into me joking about what you consider a serious topic.
Okay, let's assume that it is.
But for me to have free will about something, there needs to be more than one option with a non-zero chance of being chosen, right, right? I mean, if there are ten options, but nine of them have a zero percent chance of happening, then those nine aren't really options, are they?
If we have a situation like this:
Option 1: 100%
Option 2: 0%
Option 3: 0%
Option 4: 0%
Option 5: 0%
Option 6: 0%
Option 7: 0%
Option 8: 0%
Option 9: 0%
Option 10: 0%
That's not really ten choices, is it?
Repeating a lousy explanation won't make it any better.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
No, that does not logically follow. It might mean something or not, depending upon if they really are messengers from God.
Then you understand that I don't give a rat's rear end if you give a rat's rear end or not.
That is not how it works. There is not only one option with 100% chance.
Any one of those options had an EQUAL CHANCE of being chosen.
Good, that will save me the trouble.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
It does logically follow, since we can not get any useful meaning from the fact that a person is viewed by others as a messenger from God. The knowledge that they are viewed as a messenger from God does not tell us if they are actually a messenger from God, if they are deluded, if they are lying, or anything else. Since we can get no meaning from the statement, "This person is viewed by some as a messenger from God," the statement is by definition meaningless.
I am sorry you can not understand this.
Of course I don't care. Your opinion of me is not something I care about. And if you don't want to joke about it, then you don't have to. But if you say to me, "I don't think you should joke about it because I think it's serious," then I'm just going to laugh because your viewpoint doesn't affect me one bit.
If God knows with 100% certainty which one I will choose, then you are wrong.
At least you can admit that it's a lousy explanation.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I do understand that the knowledge that they are viewed as a messenger from God does not tell us if they are actually a messenger from God, but we are now far off the original topic, which was why most people believe in God. Most people believe in God because of a Messenger or holy man, even if that person can never be proven to have had communication from God.
Your opinion of me is not something I care about. I only care what God thinks of me.
I'm just going to laugh because your viewpoint doesn't affect me one bit.
That is not how it works. There is not only one option with 100% chance.
Any one of those options had an EQUAL CHANCE of being chosen until it was chosen..
I am sorry you cannot understand this.
I did not admit that.
Mark Charles Compton
Pineal Peruser
FREE WILL?
Through recent neuroscience studies, we have revealed some interesting traits of 'free will'.
The 'instinctual' or involuntary and unconscious response of the neurological system precedes the 'intentional' or voluntary and conscious decisions of the test subjects' responses to the stimuli presented in the studies.(Example: The teacher places a test on your desk. Your arm is told by the autonomous system to begin reaching towards the desk for the pencil before you consciously think of the pencil.)
Some of the evaluators of the results would claim the evidence points towards free will not existing. That your actions and reactions supersede any decision you make towards those actions or reactions.Others (whom I agree with) believe that the results do not eradicate the idea of free will. They would suggest that the results merely point out that free will is not a factor within the moment to moment of daily decisions, rather they exist in the long term. You can plan with a determined effort to alter the current path you are on.(Example: I smoke cigarettes, I don't have to pick up a cigarette every time I feel the 'itch' for nicotine. I could choose to ween myself off or plan to quit cold turkey, but if I do not put forth effort towards a determined plan, I am disregarding my ability of free will.
Then there's the idea that the past has already occurred and is no longer necessarily the reality. As well as the idea that the undetermined future can be altered to a nigh infinite degree and thus not yet reality. To us mortal carbon-based creatures, only the moment of 'now' is the true reality of our existence.So... does free will actually exist? I would argue 'yes' but, I'm the first to admit how wrong I've been in the past and how there's
% probability I will be wrong again on various topics.The following is a decent (opinion) documentary on YouTube regarding the subject:
Closer To Truth - Big Questions in Free Will
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
Your own arguments would suggest that no one at all could be proven to have had communication from God, even if they really were a messenger from God.
That puts them all into the same category, doesn't it? Specifically, the "This person claims they are a messenger from God but can't prove it" category.
If it didn't affect you, you wouldn't have said, "I am not into your joking around about a serious topic. You can at least TRY to understand what I am saying" in post 5966.
If that's the case, then God could not have known UNTIL IT WAS CHOSEN either.
Yes you did. You said, "Good, that will save me the trouble." It carries with it the very strong implication that the full sentence would have been, "Good, that will save me the trouble of repeating my lousy explanation."