Baha'i and Messengers

[Secret Chief]

Yes. But I see why Baha'is do it. They have to show a continuity between all the major religions and their founders. God has to be one. And truth has to be one. Even if they have to make up stuff about the other religions.

I see why it is done too. Still arrogant, patronising and disrespectful though.

I've often heard that there are "many" paths to God or to enlightenment to whatever? Isn't that a Buddhist belief? So, are different paths, okay? They don't all have to be the same? Yet, some religions do have to be the "only" way. The "true" way... as opposed to some false or wrong way. And, even though, Baha'is say Buddhism and the Buddha are true..."originally". They still make what Buddhists believe now false

Buddhism is of course not the "only way." But it has nowt to do with God.

So, was it wrong for Buddhism to change and evolve? To add in things that fit better with a different people and culture? Would Buddha have cared and said, "No, you're changing my religion into something different."

Buddhism has always evolved, quite considerably in some cases. Nothing wrong in that. Teaching based on the Seals IS Buddhism. Teaching that is not consistent with this (eg a creator deity) is NOT Buddhism. Simples.

 

[Sheldon]

I have been posting almost exclusively to atheists for about seven years on various forums so I know the drill.

I find it hard to believe, that after all that time you still don't recognise a begging the question fallacy:

No, what I have in evidence is a Messenger of God, who is more than just a human, but since nobody takes Him seriously..........

 

[Sheldon]

No, there is one true God and many misconceptions about that God that are false.

That one is called a circular reasoning fallacy. Seven years arguing exclusively with atheists you say?

 

[Sheldon]

loverofhumanity said: ↑
I am human so mortal, fallible and error prone.

But the Prophets of God are All Knowing and Infallible and They tell us God is omnipotent.

Isn't that just kicking the can down the road? You've gone from. I can't assert that there is a omnipotent god, but I can assert that there is an infallible human that the thing that I can't assert exists works through.

It seems like the same assertion to me. Doesn't

Of course it's the same assertion, and as well involving a begging the question fallacy, it also begs the question, why would an omnipotent deity need an evolved ape to carry its message?

 

[ppp]

If you bring beer and pizza that could bump up to a solid 2/3%.

I just bottled 20 bottles of Porter. We can order the pizza.

 

[ppp]

I understand why religions like Christianity and the Baha'i Faith have strict moral codes, and why the Baha'is forbid drugs and alcohol, but some, or most people, do live their lives taking in a few little pleasures along the way. And nothing quite like a tempestuous affair now and again.

And I think that many religious people do the same, but most can't admit it or let it be known.

Last month we went to a private park in Western NC to camp. They had a group of professional story tellers there. There was a stage, and 6' markers for people to claim. After half a day of hiking, we sat out there huddled up drinking beer, eating Scalzi Stew and listening to stories beneath the stars. It was lovely. I slept so well that night.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

God confirmed what Jesus said by raising Him from the dead.

Yet no flesh Jesus has been seen for 2000 years, nor will that flesh be ever seen again.

Science tells us the atoms that made up the body of jesus have now dispersed into other life forms.

Jesus said the flesh amounts to nothing, it I the Spirit (Christ aspect of Jesus) that is our life and what can light our soul.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Last month we went to a private park in Western NC to camp. They had a group of professional story tellers there. There was a stage, and 6' markers for people to claim. After half a day of hiking, we sat out there huddled up drinking beer, eating Scalzi Stew and listening to stories beneath the stars. It was lovely. I slept so well that night.

The more we feed our own desires, more are the veils that we placed between us and God.

Just as a guess, I'd imagine that a person meditating will come to realizations and deep spiritual understandings. But they could all be very well based on their beliefs. So, they could feel and believe they are becoming "enlightened". And, as far as I know, maybe they do become enlightened.

We all have been created in the image of God, that is the potential is within us. Yet it needs guidance, we need to be educated, as we are in a matrix, in a development stage.

So if we try to go it alone, we will only do more harm than good.

Regards Tony

 

[ppp]

The more we feed our own desires, more are the veils that we placed between us and God.

Non-sequitur - a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.
Red herring - something that misleads or distracts from a relevant topic.

 

[Trailblazer]

I find it hard to believe, that after all that time you still don't recognise a begging the question fallacy:

Begs the question is a term that comes from formal logic. It's a translation of the Latin phrase petitio principii, and it's used to mean that someone has made a conclusion based on a premise that lacks support. Begging the question - Wikipedia

I am not begging the question because I have not made a conclusion based on a premise that lacks support.
Better luck next time.

 

[Trailblazer]

That one is called a circular reasoning fallacy.

I said: "No, there is one true God and many misconceptions about that God that are false."

There is nothing circular about that.
Better luck next time.

Seven years arguing exclusively with atheists you say?

Yes, and that is where I learned all about logical fallacies, since atheists commit so many of them.

 

[Trailblazer]

But not you of course.

No, not me, because I listened to the latest Messenger of God on the topic of God.

 

[Trailblazer]

Ok. If the sun were to come down to meet us personally what would happen? It’s the same with God. We do not possess the capacity in our spirit or soul or mind to directly receive communication from God. We would be damaged. So God sends an Intermediary or Prophet in human form Who we can understand and relate to in our own language.

God is not a human being. He is a personal God though.

Yes, I agree with all of the above, but @Policy was saying that because God is omnipotent that means that we could withstand the sun descending to the earth, and that is what I did not understand.

loverofhumanity said: Can we withstand the sun descending to the earth?

Policy said: Your god is depicted as being omnipotent. So, yes.

 

[ppp]

Yes, I agree with all of the above, but @Policy was saying that because God is omnipotent that means that we could withstand the sun descending to the earth, and that is what I did not understand.

I don't think I said that. What post are you referring to?

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't think I said that. What post are you referring to?

Maybe I misunderstood what you meant, but here is the post:
#74 Policy, Yesterday at 7:11 AM

 

[Sheldon]

I just bottled 20 bottles of Porter. We can order the pizza.

Sounds outstanding. Just about to eat homemade chilli con carne, and an Australian shiraz to accompany... Though I do have some nice port...hmm

 

[ppp]

Maybe I misunderstood what you meant, but here is the post:
#74 Policy, Yesterday at 7:11 AM

Ah. No, you're right. I did say it. And I can see why it is confusing. I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that the 'Sun descending to the Earth' was a metaphor for God descending from the Heavens to chat with us. That was the context to which he was replying.

I will rephrase to say:
If the Sun were an omnipotent agent that wanted to descend to Earth without destroying the planet, then yes. Because that is what omnipotent means.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I will rephrase to say:
If the Sun were an omnipotent agent that wanted to descend to Earth without destroying the planet, then yes. Because that is what omnipotent means.

So according to good science, the sun cannot move any closer to earth, to do so would be the end of life as we know it, also to look directly at the sun we need a filter.

So when it is offered that spiritually, the same laws are applicable, why is this then poor logic?

God does not descend into creation, thus a Messenger is sent. The Messenger is clothed in a body that filters us from the rays that would render us blind.

Only those that look through that filter will see the rays of the sun.

That is sound and logical reasoning. John 1:18 shows this.

"No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him."

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Non-sequitur - a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.
Red herring - something that misleads or distracts from a relevant topic.

Yes they are types of veils we can use. I note these are a popular choice of veils for those that do not wish to explore the spirit behind humanity.

Regards Tony

 

[ppp]

Sounds outstanding. Just about to eat homemade chilli con carne, and an Australian shiraz to accompany... Though I do have some nice port...hmm

Aw Dude! Clearly this needs to be a banquet. Shiraz is great with chili. How about some baklava for desert? Lebanese, nice and nutty. Greek would be too sweet and compete with the port.