Baha'i and Messengers

[CG Didymus]

Upbringing was how I came to believe in God. too, but not the 'strongly' part. In 7th grade I had a friend who was very serious about it and her thoughtfulness over religious and philosophical subjects impressed me. It made me realize that I should have a better grasp on my beliefs. So I read the Bible, then Augustine, then Geisler and assorted other apologists. I became involved in youth groups, and had discussions.and debates. I had experiences in prayer and in singing that felt like what people described as being infused with the Holy Spirit. It was great. At that point, I believed strongly.

But I was always bothered by the fact that no one could make a rational connection from belief to God. I didn't have the language for it at the time, and just referred to it as The Gap. In my journal I drew it as dangling over a hook; just one link away from connecting. Several dozen times. I got good at drawing chains. :-D Eventually, I came to realize that no one to whom I had spoken or read had that last link. It was at that point that I started asking myself when evaluating a claim, Do I have any reason to believe that this persons knows, or has the capacity to know the thing they are saying.

The last nails in the coffin for Christianity (at least) were pounded home I read Mere Christianity, followed by Evidence that demands a Verdict. Ironically, both recommended by that same girl from 5 years before. Those were hideous, pandering books with no redeeming value.

IMHO

I learned about the Baha'i Faith first, then Christianity. I liked some things in both and didn't like some things in both. And they both negated the other. Even though Baha'is say they don't.

 

[F1fan]

I don’t think so. Because I’m saying that God is omnipotent based upon an infallible Source of knowledge.

But as a fallible mortal you could be mistaken, yes?

I also see in creation and the universe that God is all powerful. For me that is clear.

Would you "see" that if you haven't accepted dogma that says it?

 

[loverofhumanity]

How are you, a fallible human, saying God is omnipotent, yet infallible on saying that a person is an infallible source of knowledge? It seems to me that you, the fallible human, should refrain from accepting either claim as you have no reliable way of assessing either claim.

As I stated before.

Humans have been endowed with an innate capacity to recognise God and His Prophets. To recognise infallibility although we are fallible.

It’s like we can see the sun except These Manifestations are Suns of Truth. With our material eyes we see the sun radiant in the sky and do not dispute its power. So too with our spiritual eyesight(if we have developed it) we can see the Suns of Truth. Whatever They say is fact and truth because They speak on behalf of God.

Although God’s omnipotence is clear to me, we know it is truth and fact once the Manifestation of God confirms it.

 

[Truthseeker]

From here, any " spiritual quest" looks entirely
ego driven, self centered, self indulgent.

You are blind to what he just said. You are blind to what spiritual quest means, period. It means finding a source you can humble yourself to and finding a way to do that ultimately through that source. At least that's what @Seeker of White Light is doing. I know, he's friend of mine.

 

[rational experiences]

In the human past the wandering star Moses asteroid still wandered. Passing by earth releasing cold gases cooling earths gas atmosphere.

Was taught as scientific cosmic wisdom. Some of its body crashed to earth Mohammad teaching.

Known.

So as water pressure returned water oxygenation was to the ground especial to jeru Salem. Place of ground erupted attack. Where Moses tectonic dead sea area chemical burn nature garden lost occurred.

Known also. A volcano not a volcano gas heavens start point had ground erupted. From underground gas change.

Star seen in sky again approaching earth cooling gases released from past burning Moses activated fall.

Baby human DNA healed by water oxygenated healed. Pressure of gases returned water to ground.

Rome ignored the old advice. Reapplied science. Rich owners.

Rome burnt itself in Nero era as the star fell burning again. Came back burning 1000 years later also.
Science earth space irradiated activated.

Known effect. Wandering star saviour.

So as it moves swiftly burning the cooling gases leaves a Trail. Earth heavens depletes again. Flooding enacted is repeated.

Earths pressures heavens changed and it hasn't stopped flooding since.

Russia hit. Star still not cooled. The warning.

As various saviour themes were discussed about earth.

The star return burns more gas than what is released cold in disintegration.

Was the human science teaching.

 

[Truthseeker]

Am I wrong about Baha'i not having a way to test whether a Messenger is authentic? The three Baha'i that post here have not explained the objective process that can verify a Messenger is authentic. So perhaps you can prove me wrong by proving this list, and giving us a demonstration of how flawless it is.

It better be damned flawless, after all we are testing whether an ordinary, fallible mortal is actually a Messenger of God, and not just another religious crackpot making a bunch of unverifiable claims.

Show show us. Prove me wrong.

The process is partly objective and partly recognizing the Messenger of God through spiritual means within yourself. The objective part has been shown to you as much as we can through the very limited space we have in this forum to tell you that. I think you would have to investigate yourself and not rely on us. We can't prove anything to you. And that's not a weakness on our part, it just the reality of the situation.

 

[CG Didymus]

I cant speak for God. A lot of atheists think that if God exists, they can think for God. God would do that, if he doesnt he is powerless, or evil, or something like that.

Thats when people make themselves God.

I'm thinking more like we're in a dark room and stumbling around. God could turn the light up a bit and make things a little clearer. For those that believe, Baha'u'llah has turned up the light switch. They think they see clearly how all religions were part of God's plan and a progression. But I'm not seeing what they see. They seem to me to be another thing to stumble over.

 

[CG Didymus]

It's because their messengers are really demigods of a sort (hence why they constantly capitalize their pronouns, which is typically something religions reserve for God alone), and they believe God is distant and unknowable to us normal people.

That's right their God is unknowable to normal people. So, we have to trust their prophet is telling us the truth. But the Baha'i truth does contradict somethings that other religions believe. And that is easy to solve. Those other religions are wrong, because they have lost the original meanings and teachings of their religion. That leaves only one religion, in this day and age, that has the real truth, the Baha'i Faith. But, in their defense, isn't that what Christianity did also?

 

[firedragon]

I'm thinking more like we're in a dark room and stumbling around. God could turn the light up a bit and make things a little clearer. For those that believe, Baha'u'llah has turned up the light switch. They think they see clearly how all religions were part of God's plan and a progression. But I'm not seeing what they see. They seem to me to be another thing to stumble over.

I am not here to criticise the Bahai faith at the moment CG. I am only addressing the OP.

These so called "Could" could be could's and there could be a million of them. Recently a famous atheist evangelist online was making his case that God is good, he knows everything, he can do everything, so why cant he create a world where everyone is rich, everyone is happy, no diseases, etc etc etc. Like robots they will live for ever happy ultimately.

So his question is, why doesnt God do that? Why is he so cruel to create a world like this?

So God could have done this or the other can go forever. From our minds we are trying to question transcended being which is impossible. We can only question what is within our capacity, unless one thinks he is God himself.

Peace.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

That's right their God is unknowable to normal people. So, we have to trust their prophet is telling us the truth. But the Baha'i truth does contradict somethings that other religions believe. And that is easy to solve. Those other religions are wrong, because they have lost the original meanings and teachings of their religion. That leaves only one religion, in this day and age, that has the real truth, the Baha'i Faith. But, in their defense, isn't that what Christianity did also?

No, because Christianity says that all humans have the possibility of having their own personal relationships and experiences with God, and Christians are expected to. You're not just expected to believe what someone else told you. God is near and desires a relationship with us all. We can cry out to Him at any moment and He will listen and respond. This is a common theme throughout the Bible.

 

[CG Didymus]

The Messengers are all we can know of God. All else is but our vain imaginings.

How do Baha'is explain the way a person can follow the teachings of Buddha and become enlightened as he was?

 

[F1fan]

The process is partly objective and partly recognizing the Messenger of God through spiritual means within yourself.

Well, the objective part is the most crucial one, because without that, well, it's just another boring religious claim that has no basis in fact, and we get to reject it wholesale.

The objective part has been shown to you as much as we can through the very limited space we have in this forum to tell you that.

In other words you failed to explain any objective part. You blame the forum for your failure. Weak.

I'll say no one has been blown away by any Baha'i presenting an objective case as to why Messengers of God are authentic. It would be groundbreaking if it was true. So, are you just bluffing about this part?

I think you would have to investigate yourself and not rely on us. We can't prove anything to you. And that's not a weakness on our part, it just the reality of the situation.

Well you just claimed an objective part, and now you admit you can't prove it. So that means you are inconsistent and not being truthful, at least partially.

You are on a forum making truth claim and can't show us that the claims are true. So we throw them out. THAT IS THE weakness on your part. Evidence is THE crucial element to any truth claim. We skeptics have a long history of reading claims and thinking critically about them, more so than the believers do. We are genuine truth seekers.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

You are on a forum making truth claim and can't show us that the claims are true. So we throw them out. THAT IS THE weakness on your part.

That may be the weakness of the person who throws out legitimate evidence.

Evidence is THE crucial element to any truth claim. We skeptics have a long history of reading claims and thinking critically about them, more so than the believers do. We are genuine truth seekers.

Genuine truth seekers cannot be sceptics, they have to have an open unbiased mind with no preconceived ideas.

Regards Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

I am not here to criticise the Bahai faith at the moment CG. I am only addressing the OP.

These so called "Could" could be could's and there could be a million of them. Recently a famous atheist evangelist online was making his case that God is good, he knows everything, he can do everything, so why cant he create a world where everyone is rich, everyone is happy, no diseases, etc etc etc. Like robots they will live for ever happy ultimately.

So his question is, why doesnt God do that? Why is he so cruel to create a world like this?

So God could have done this or the other can go forever. From our minds we are trying to question transcended being which is impossible. We can only question what is within our capacity, unless one thinks he is God himself.

Peace.

Supposedly... God did turn the light up a little with Baha'u'llah. And in that room lighted up by Baha'u'llah's message, all religions are one. All people are one. And we should all unite together and follow his teachings and bring peace and unity to the world. I've been in that room and walked back out. There's something I don't trust.

One of the things is what Baha'is say the messengers. Did they all come from the one true God? Did they all teach about the one true God? Did they all bring special laws from the one true God that were needed at that time and place and then changed by the next messenger? So, have I gone from a dark room to a lighted room? Or am I still in the dark room and someone is blinding me with some shiny object?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

How do Baha'is explain the way a person can follow the teachings of Buddha and become enlightened as he was?

Firstly I see that no human can have the Buddha experience, that was given of God.

Then we would have to determine what are the original teachings of Buddha?

Regards Tony

 

[Truthseeker]

But I was always bothered by the fact that no one could make a rational connection from belief to God. I didn't have the language for it at the time, and just referred to it as The Gap. In my journal I drew it as dangling over a hook; just one link away from connecting. Several dozen times. I got good at drawing chains. :-D Eventually, I came to realize that no one to whom I had spoken or read had that last link. It was at that point that I started asking myself when evaluating a claim, Do I have any reason to believe that this persons knows, or has the capacity to know the thing they are saying.

The last nails in the coffin for Christianity (at least) were pounded home I read Mere Christianity, followed by Evidence that demands a Verdict. Ironically, both recommended by that same girl from 5 years before. Those were hideous, pandering books with no redeeming value.

That is what I call depending on others for the rational connection. Your inner connection was real, but you did not search within yourself for the rational part. The way you arrived at your original condition was also dependent on what others told you. Go to the source and look within yourself. Don't ask us for answers or anyone else. We can learn from each other, but we shouldn't be dependent on mere mortals.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, the objective part is the most crucial one, because without that, well, it's just another boring religious claim that has no basis in fact, and we get to reject it wholesale.
...

So since you are good at critical thinking, here is a standard method for text analysis.
Look at the parts of sentence and analyze how they interact between fact and normative rules.
Now since you know critical thinking, you can do that on this sentence above.
Which parts are facts and which parts are normative?

I will be honest. I am doing the same thing on you, that you do on religious people. You take their claims and then you check whether they are doing facts and/or normative claims. But that is not limited to religious people and that is the difference between you and I. You do it on religious people. I do it on all people and on a good day, where I am not stressed, I can even do it on myself.

So how come I do it on all people? Well, it is a really sad story. It is like some atheists, who were mistreated because they are different. The difference is that I wasn't mistreated because I am an atheist, since that is irrelevant as I live in secular country.
So I learned not just to look at religion as religion and just use critical thinking on it. And the same with "woo-woo" and pseudo-science.
I learned to be critical of my culture, though it is not religious.

As a joke, I was trained too well by your tribe, because I realized, that your method also applies to your tribe and not just everybody else.
And yes, it also works on me. I know that.

So here it is. For the standard of even high school analysis using critical thinking you would for some of your posts fail, because you are only partly objective. You are also subjectively biased and you haven't noted that you are.
You can get away with being subjective in critical thinking, if you state, that you are. How you do it. What you take for granted. And what is the purpose.

So F1fan, learn to use your own standard on yourself, if you want to "win a debate."

Not with regards, because you don't live up to your own standard.
Mikkel

 

[Truthseeker]

Nah. In all the different religions, gods have radically different natures.hell, even within religions assorted sects attribute different natures to him, her, or them.

We listen to the actual Messengers, not to the followers that come after them.

 

[Trailblazer]

You said other religions are falsely representing God's nature., so in that case there are believers taken in by a false representation of God's nature, so in those cases that amounts to a false God. Of course you know the true nature of God, I mean, you wouldn't believe otherwise, would you.

Yes, I guess you could say that in those cases that amounts to a false God.
It is all a matter of semantics.

 

[Trailblazer]

Your point being?

I do not really have a point, except that I do not expect anyone to believe what I believe unless they had a reason to believe it.