Baha'i and Messengers

[ppp]

Should Tony speak the truth He believe in? Just as you are brutaly honest toward others?

I a, sitting here trying to figure out what you are saying. Are you saying that I am trying to stop Tony from saying what he believes? Or something else entirely?

 

[Spirit of Light]

I a, sitting here trying to figure out what you are saying. Are you saying that I am trying to stop Tony from saying what he believes? Or something else entirely?

In a way yes you are.
By bashing others you are saying "your belief or religion is wrong"

It may be wrong to you, but fully right to Tony, or other people who have faith in a religious teaching.

 

[ppp]

Why are you laughing at me about that??? You are definitely offensive. However, I don't take offense. I've seen stuff like that here too long. I've gotten used to it.

Oh come on. You tell me I am wrong. I ask you how, and is your response an explanation? No. You just say that you are sure that I think I am right.

Do you think that is not offensive? I cannot imagine saying that to someone.

 

[ppp]

In a way yes you are.
By bashing others you are saying "your belief or religion is wrong"

For example?

Also, these are people who not only tell me. but others that they are wrong in their views. So, what is the problem?

 

[Secret Chief]

I know. And actually I have been avoiding them for the last few years because they are two ef-ing smart. I am not convinced that they have not crossed the boundary to sapience.

Indeed. There's a couple on RF. And an octopus.

 

[Spirit of Light]

For example?

Also, these are people who not only tell me. but others that they are wrong in their views. So, what is the problem?

It is not a problem to disagree with certain beliefs, it is the way it is framed that is the problem.

You can be a disbeliever, no problem but then one has to also say, ok i might not understand your belief. And I dont believe in a God. But acxept that others do.
Same as a believer should be open to hearing what non believers has to say.

By the way, it goes both ways.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Is the Baha'i god incapable of making everyone a messenger? Or simply unwilling?

I think he should have resident messengers / representatives among all people at all times. Any problem, ask the local messenger. Sending one after every thousand years is not effective (as has been proved). Allah has in his power to select any number of people as messengers. Then what is the problem? One of Allah's messengers talks in Hebrew, the other in Aramaic, the next in Arabic, the next in Iranian and the last that we know of, talked in Urdu. Why not more so that the message reaches all people, like the Bible in 704 languages. As you know, the translations are generally not true to the meaning of the original.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

You were not responding to my OP, but to a different topic where you were blaming me for not being convince by your bald, naked assertions.

Now you are trying a bait and switch, thinking that somehow I wont notice. Adorable.

I am not going to just take your word for stuff, Tony. No matter how hard you pin me to the chair with your sexy, masculine gaze.

My replies have been applicable to the OP, that you do not see it that way, no worries, I am not here to change your mind.

It appears your OP was not interested as to what Baha'is have to say on the topic.

Regards Tony

 

[Audie]

What do you know about it, rather than guessing?

Who is it about, if not yourself?

There's your guess that threre is a spirit,
that " humbling " yourSELF will have
some benefit to - yourself.

I am guessing you've never applied
any thought to such observations and your
" throw it back at me" response is a good sign
you are not about to consider any of it.

 

[Audie]

Why are you laughing at me about that??? You are definitely offensive. However, I don't take offense. I've seen stuff like that here too long. I've gotten used to it.

A person who keeps giving ridiculous responses can either get used to lol,
or, try to do better.

 

[F1fan]

Are you seeking to change people's personal belief, so it suit you self better?

I'm seeking the truth. This is a forum where theists have the opportunity to state their beliefs, make their claims, offer justifications and reasons for this belief. I see maky believers who think they are clear about their beliefs, but after sharing it is exposed that they take a lot for granted, and really haven't thought through their views very much. Critical thinkers offer a good sounding board for them. Will they adjust and learn? I don't know. They post here for a reason, maybe they want to change or know something isn't quite right about what they believe and can't do it independently.

Some of us are blunt and play hardball. We aren't going to walk on eggshells.

A believer will believe in the religious faith they have.

They have a choice, you know. They aren't obligated to the concepts they happened to judge true today. People learn, people evolve, and they can adjust. Some believers resist the change they seek.

Just because we believe differently does not mean we can tell the other "you are wrong"
Its ok to ask "why, how" but what is the goal of saying " you just twist your answers?"

Some believers show themselves to be wrong, and critical thinkers just point it out. I think some believers are crying for help, but that pride gets in the way. We humans have tools to discern true from false, and if some avoid these tools when adopting ideas from social experiences, then those are open for discussion.

I can give you that answer " a believer will try to find a way to get the person criticing them, to get a sense of why and how we believe"

Let's note that critics are seldom criticizing the person when they are challenging their beliefs and claims. It might feel like personal attacks to believers since they internalize their belief and base their identity on them. That is the peril of ego, and few religions warn or teach their followers to avoid this attachment. The believers get involved in a circular trap that they can't escape. And part of this trap is not recognizing the trap.

And that can sometimes look like a way of avoiding your question, it is not, it is to find the right way so you can understand why we believe what we do. Without use of judgment.

Critical thinkers can often ask questions the believer never asked themselves. These are questions that could expose the mental trap, but given the emotional attachments the believer is wary of answering or acknowledging the question.

 

[F1fan]

Should Tony speak the truth He believe in? Just as you are brutaly honest toward others?

There is a difference when a believer says "I believe X..." to a believer that says "The truth is X (and it applies to you too)...".

People are different, understand the world different and understand the need for spiritual teaching for some people are very important, and less important for others.

Understanding comes with facts and knowledge. Ideological beliefs are not any sort of understanding, typically. This is more code talk that believer use to imply their non-factual beliefs are more credible than can be defended rationally.

This is just the reality of these concepts and the relationship believers have to them. Non-believers are going to be able to assess the concepts more objectively and more truthfully than the committed believer.

 

[F1fan]

Your games have been duly noted. It is fun for a while but I have better things to do.
See ya around.

You set your own traps and then get upset that you get caught in them. This is a common dilemma for believers who have strong religious beliefs, but have not thought them through. Religious dogma is rampant with internal contradictions, and inconsistency with observed reality. Theists should adjust their beliefs, not keep trying to make their dogma fit with more irrational assertions.

 

[ppp]

It is not a problem to disagree with certain beliefs, it is the way it is framed that is the problem.

You can be a disbeliever, no problem but then one has to also say, ok i might not understand your belief. And I dont believe in a God. But acxept that others do.
Same as a believer should be open to hearing what non believers has to say.

By the way, it goes both ways.

I do accept that others believe in one (or more) gods. With a spectrum of definitions of "god". Are you under the impression that I do not?

I am suspecting (but am not insisting) .that is hearkens back to the fact that theists are not used to having their epistemological foundations not taken for granted; if not in specifics, then at the very least in category.

So here I am in a world of mostly religious people, where, from the time I am born, the vast majority of them have been constantly telling me that I only have value in reference to, and acceptance of, their theological cosmology. Some of these are soft sells through passive means. Some are passive aggressive - such as we see here. Some are hard sells - door to door, cold calling, chick tracts, stops me in the parking lot, in the grocery store, in waiting rooms, at the florist, billboards. watching Independence Day fireworks, waiting tables, and so many more.

So, I ask, Why do you believe what you do? How do you know what say that you know? Why should believe that you (or anyone) can know what you claim, or even have the ability to know such.

And BTW, those questions are not simply aimed at religious beliefs. I apply them to everything.


"I find that theists tend to have emotional reactions to being disagreed with, and see that disagreement as anger and militance, failing to recognize that it is merely dissent, just like the theist, who is as much in disagreement with the atheist as vice versa. But it is anger to the theist. You'll rarely see a secular humanist get angry at any theist for disagreeing with his worldview and values." -- @It Aint Necessarily So

 

[F1fan]

So here I am in a world of mostly religious people,

This is fortunate for all of society.

There being a lot of competing religions and sects helps dilute the power any of them can attain. Image if there was one major religion in the world the can use it's followers to mould most all societies to what their leadership decides. We can see minor influences like evangelicals in the USA and how they can dictate "moral" frameworks (really these are political mandates) over the GOP. Imagine is moderate and liberal Christian sects decided to combine forces with evangelicals. There would be much less freedom than what we are facing now, like fewer reproductive rights for women, and less voting access and representation for minorities.

So, I ask, Why do you believe what you do?

This is too open ended a question. Their answer will be "Because it's the truth".

How do you know what say that you know? Why should believe that you (or anyone) can know what you claim, or even have the ability to know such.

"Because I have special knowledge that deniers don't have, prove me wrong".

And BTW, those questions are not simply aimed at religious beliefs. I apply them to everything.

This is the role of debate, as a process of making claims and asking questions that can distill the truth. Of course this assumes all members are interested in truth. It is apparent some underestimate the level of challenges they will get and have negative emotional reactions. This extreme emotional response will tend to pressure the believer to retreat into their belief, and not examine that it is the belief that creates the circumstance of their fear response.

This is the trap I mentioned earlier.

 

[Trailblazer]

There's your guess that threre is a spirit,
that " humbling " yourSELF will have
some benefit to - yourself.

There's your guess that there is no spirit,
that " humbling " yourSELF will have
no benefit to - yourself.

 

[Trailblazer]

You set your own traps and then get upset that you get caught in them.

I set no traps because I do not play games.
I was not upset, just amused and then bored.

 

[Audie]

You set your own traps and then get upset that you get caught in them. This is a common dilemma for believers who have strong religious beliefs, but have not thought them through. Religious dogma is rampant with internal contradictions, and inconsistency with observed reality. Theists should adjust their beliefs, not keep trying to make their dogma fit with more irrational assertions.

Easier to drop a insult and run.

 

[Audie]

There's your guess that there is no spirit,
that " humbling " yourSELF will have
no benefit to - yourself.

Throwing it back at me again.
Feeble excuse for a piece of a response,
but it serves to demonstrate recognition that all this spiritual- spiritual is just what I said.
Self indulgence, all about self. Narcissism.

Plus total closed mind to my observations..

 

[TransmutingSoul]

A plain and logical proof of a Messenger from God, is the Message they give.

The Message has an obvious effect on the people who embrace it. It changes lives, it changes the direction of Nations and more importantly it stands the test of time.

All this will unfold even when the powers to be in that day try with all their might to extinguish that Message. They can put a Messenger of God to death, they can banish them to far away lands, but the Message will permeate the hearts of all that embrace the Spirit of the Message.

I will not argue the point, as that point is an obvious rational proof and some of the Names behind the proof are known to the vast majority of humanity. Some will embrace One, some will embrace a few, some will embrace them all and some will choose to ignore them all.

Regards Tony