Baha'i and Messengers

[TransmutingSoul]

In my relatively short time here, I have noticed a decided lack of motivation to discuss what a Bahai believes, beyond the claims themselves.
I take it, this is typical of Bahai strategy, in that disallowing debate, is a safe way to defend ones beliefs, in the absence of any, shall I say, more EMPIRICAL kind of "evidence"?

We are asked to offer the potential of the Message, the evidence that accompanied that Message and to answer questions raised.

Debate is fruitful while the validity of the Message is being discussed.

Argument after disagreement is pointless.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

So THAT begs the question of why would anyone actually BELIEVE any of this religious nonsense.....unless it really IS something emotional within the person that is what is the actual motivation and driving force TO believe?

Because there IS evidence, just not OBJECTIVE or EMPIRICAL evidence.
I have no emotional reasons to believe, no driving force. I believe because of the evidence.

 

[loverofhumanity]

It's not an assumption it is a question, you see the question mark at the end right? Your claim is not objectively different to my hypothetical example, don't fixate on Harry Potter, just ask yourself why you think your bare claim is a compelling argument for your beliefs?

Instead of making the bare assertion that you have studied the religions and find it compelling, offer what you think is the best objective evidence for why you believe that?

There’s an enormous difference between me telling you and you conducting your own independent investigation. Go to the source and you can decide for yourself. You shouldn’t rely on others to prove/disprove or convince you of the truth of any matter as you have your own eyes, ears and mind to do your own research.

 

[Trailblazer]

Man, THAT sure says a lot........"you don't CARE if there is no objective evidence"......you just believe.....just because that's what you WANT TO DO, or what?

No, I am rational enough to KNOW that there can never be any objective evidence for God or Messengers, and that is why I do not EXPECT to procure that kind of evidence.

No, I do not believe because I WANT TO believe, I believe because of the evidence.

 

[ACEofALLaces]

Yes that is why we must test the claimed prophets, as we are warned there are many false prophets.

The rest is the journey of faith. A journey to find one's own self.

Regards Tony

There it finally comes out.......Tony played the "FAITH" card, where in his apparent opinion, overrides and conquers all objections. It has ALWAYS been that way in my experience, that whenever a believer feels they are being backed into a corner, they WITHOUT FAIL, resort to playing the "FAITH" card.

 

[ACEofALLaces]

No, I am rational enough to KNOW that there can never be any objective evidence for God or Messengers, and that is why I do not EXPECT to procure that kind of evidence.

No, I do not believe because I WANT TO believe, I believe because of the evidence.

And yet you just GOT DONE, explaining to me that there really IS NO "evidence" which can stand up to any amount of rigorous OBJECTIVE scrutiny. In the absence of any GOOD reliable evidence, the way I see it, is that it IS nothing but your "free will CHOICE" to choose to believe, right? And your denial OF that, doesn't in any way change that.

 

[loverofhumanity]

It's not an assumption it is a question, you see the question mark at the end right? Your claim is not objectively different to my hypothetical example, don't fixate on Harry Potter, just ask yourself why you think your bare claim is a compelling argument for your beliefs?

Instead of making the bare assertion that you have studied the religions and find it compelling, offer what you think is the best objective evidence for why you believe that?

I truly admire your intellectual prowess. You are challenging but that is a good thing. I think we all have something of value to learn from each other so thank you. I can learn a lot from you because really none of us know everything so by communicating we can help each other. Of course I make mistakes often, but hopefully I learn from them.

 

[CG Didymus]

Yeah, you have a point about a cell being too complex to just come into being from a brew of organic molecules.

Sorry I misunderstood about the parallel evolution thing.

For people that need a God-less theory as to how life developed, I can see how the "primordial soup" thing is needed, but, for God-believers, why would a creator God make all the raw materials and then let life forms slowly develop and mutate? He knows he wants humans, so he can play his hide and seek game with them... Why not just create them? Why did man have to look like a fish? Then suddenly or gradually developed lungs and legs? What would be the point?

‘Abdu’l-Bahá noted that materialist philosophers “endeavor to prove by the human anatomy that man originated from the animal.” ‘Abdu’l-Bahá agreed that humans had undergone biological changes through time. “Let us suppose,” he said, “that the human anatomy was primordially different from its present form . . . that at one time it was similar to a fish, later an invertebrate and finally human.” Yet throughout this progression, he argued, “the development of man was always human in type, and biological in progression.
​

Now if people don't believe in a creator God, then a slow, mutation filled development is a fine theory.

 

[Sheldon]

What does objective evidence mean?

Obviously something beyond subjective opinion or faith based belief would be a start.

Objective evidence refers to information based on facts that can be proved by means of search like analysis, measurement, and observation. One can examine and evaluate objective evidence.
What does objective evidence mean?

I know what it mean thanks, that's why I asked for it.

There is no information based on facts that can be proved, so there is no objective evidence, but I do not care if there is no objective evidence. You care but I do not care.

Why you are obsessed with the word proof I have no idea, but I never mentioned the word, as I think it is a misnomer here. Anything beyond faith based belief, subjective assumption, or hearsay. Some fact or information that can be objectively verified to support your conclusion, otherwise the claim for evidence is as I said, slightly misleading here.

Now that I straightened that out, there is evidence, but how that is interpreted is subjective.

So what facts or information can you demonstrate? Only last time we did this all I got was five subjective unevidenced claims.

The claims if Baha'u'llah are not subjective but my belief is subjective.

If there are objective facts in your religion, why are your beliefs about it subjective? Can you demonstrate an objective fact contained in your religion, and your subjective belief about what it means please?

 

[ACEofALLaces]

I have absolutely no motivation to say more than I have on this.

Regards Tony

There you go again......the discussion gets a little bit TOO heated for you, so you opt out by declaring a "lack of motivation" to continue on. I have come to see this as typical Bahai strategy.

 

[Sheldon]

There are no NDEs that give information that can only be explained from a person's conscious awareness being outside their physical body. So that is out.

If you mean dreams that have ominous predictions that might come true? Well that happens all the time. We humans can see indications of a phenomenon and put pieces together and have a "prediction". Like if you son keeps coming home drunk and you have a dream that he gets arrested and beaten up in jail, then three weeks later he gets arrested and beaten up in jail, well that is called coincidence.

We humans are pattern seeking animals and we often think coincidences are some special abilities we have when instead it is just our brains putting together many, many forgotten scenarios. the forgotten scenario only comes back into consciousness because events happen that are similar to what we imagined. We forget all the scenarios we imagine that don't happen, and we assume we have a special ability. Too bad this special ability doesn't work for lottery ticket, eh?

I might dream that I win the lottery, and it might come true almost immediately. I don't see what if anything this demonstrates objectively, beyond the fact I did the lottery, and wanted to win it.

 

[Sheldon]

We are asked to offer the potential of the Message, the evidence that accompanied that Message and to answer questions raised.

Debate is fruitful while the validity of the Message is being discussed.

Argument after disagreement is pointless.

Regards Tony

Debate necessarily involves argument, the word is in its definition, and people generally don't argue when they are in agreement?

 

[ACEofALLaces]

We are asked to offer the potential of the Message, the evidence that accompanied that Message and to answer questions raised.

Debate is fruitful while the validity of the Message is being discussed.

Argument after disagreement is pointless.

Regards Tony

Yes INDEED, argument solely for the sake of argument IS pointless. However when the topic of a discussion (argument) appears to becoming too challenging for the believer to defend, it seems in their mind, the ONLY recourse, OTHER than accepting defeat, is to simply withdraw and feign a "lack of interest" in continuing.
At least, that is what I am seeing........

 

[loverofhumanity]

For people that need a God-less theory as to how life developed, I can see how the "primordial soup" thing is needed, but, for God-believers, why would a creator God make all the raw materials and then let life forms slowly develop and mutate? He knows he wants humans, so he can play his hide and seek game with them... Why not just create them? Why did man have to look like a fish? Then suddenly or gradually developed lungs and legs? What would be the point?

‘Abdu’l-Bahá noted that materialist philosophers “endeavor to prove by the human anatomy that man originated from the animal.” ‘Abdu’l-Bahá agreed that humans had undergone biological changes through time. “Let us suppose,” he said, “that the human anatomy was primordially different from its present form . . . that at one time it was similar to a fish, later an invertebrate and finally human.” Yet throughout this progression, he argued, “the development of man was always human in type, and biological in progression.
​

Now if people don't believe in a creator God, then a slow, mutation filled development is a fine theory.

CG. I really love reading your posts. You ask really deep, sensible and meaningful questions which make us think. I learn a lot from you and I truly appreciate that your posts are so profound.

Often the answer to many of your questions is ‘I don’t know’ so I’m forced to think and research and that keeps me from being brain dead and just blindly believing. There are some things we will never know but the fun is almost dying trying to find out. And I find you very fair in a lot of your views.

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you ever question just as to WHY your "evidence" is not liked by so many others? I am also curious as to how you can consider your evidence as being "adequate" when in the same breath you claim to be an OBJECTIVE THINKER?......when what you believe, is for the most part, purely SUBjective?

I already explained that there can be no objective evidence for God or that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God, so I do not EXPECT to have that kind of evidence. However, that does not mean I am not an objective thinker...

You did not like my Bible verses, but since that is related to WHY not many like the evidence for Baha'u'llah, here they are again:

Matthew 7:13-14 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

As for why the "evidence" for Baha'u'llah is not liked by many others I think I already told you on the BUE forum that I have a LIST of reasons, and you did not want to see my list of reasons, as I recall.

 

[Trailblazer]

The point is that what you call evidence cannot be supported by any objective evidence, and as you admitted, is being subjectively interpreted to give the meaning you accept. So not objectively different to any other religion really.

But it is different from any other religion because the evidence (by way of the facts we have about Baha'u'llah) are verifiable.

 

[Trailblazer]

And yet you just GOT DONE, explaining to me that there really IS NO "evidence" which can stand up to any amount of rigorous OBJECTIVE scrutiny. In the absence of any GOOD reliable evidence, the way I see it, is that it IS nothing but your "free will CHOICE" to choose to believe, right? And your denial OF that, doesn't in any way change that.

I did not say that there really IS NO "evidence" which can stand up to any amount of rigorous OBJECTIVE scrutiny, I said there was no objective evidence.

There IS reliable evidence for Baha'u'llah, the evidence I posted on the BUE forum.
It IS my free will choice to believe, based upon THAT evidence.

 

[CG Didymus]

Bahá’ís do not claim that our conception(s) of God is the truth of the matter. Connected to this, we neither claim to possess the only valid conception compared to other religions. Every religion (indeed, every individual person) has their own understanding of the Divine, yet the case is that none of them fully reflect the truth.

With some of the things said by some Baha'is, it doesn't come across like this. It sound more like "We know the truth, because our prophet got the truth from God and wrote it down, so there can be no mistakes. The other religions, except maybe Islam, who knows what the original teachings were? All we have is what people wrote about the prophet and his teachings. Therefore, if it contradicts what Baha'u'llah has said, it is Baha'u'llah that has it right, and those other religion have it wrong.

As for my own investigation into different religions, there are lots of things I still don’t know about plenty of them, and about which I do my best to keep an open mind on and try to adjust my understandings accordingly.

And some Baha'is sound as if nothing could ever change their minds. They did their investigation and have come to believe the Baha'i Faith is the truth.

So, learning some new things about Baha'i beliefs that might turn up later from some yet to be translated book would affect their belief? Or, learning something new about another religion that didn't fit in with what the Baha'i Faith said about that other religion... that wouldn't get them to reconsider their belief in the truth of the Baha'i Faith?

I think this kind of thing does happen to some people. They weren't "deepened" in the Faith, then learned something that they can't accept. Like maybe Baha'i teachings about no alcohol, no premarital, or extramarital, or homosexual sex. Or they get "witnessed" to by a Christians that convinces them that what the Baha'i Faith said about Christianity isn't true. Like that Jesus didn't rise physically from the dead, or that Jesus is the only way to be saved.

So, when has anyone done enough investigating of the truth to know anything for sure? But that is what most religions expect people to do... to accept fully and completely and never to question or doubt again. That's how lots of Christians come across, but so do Baha'is. It's a done deal. Whatever Baha'u'llah has said, and whatever the Baha'i Faith teaches, that is the truth. If they say God is real and Baha'u'llah was sent by God, then, no matter what anyone says or thinks, is wrong. And they, somehow and someway, are mistaken. And they must be shown what is the truth.

And that's what Baha'is sound like. As sure and absolutely positive as a JW or any Fundamental Christian. And coming from that position is not coming with love and humiliating... or coming as a friend who cares about you and respects your beliefs. It feels as though the Baha'i' is coming to convince and convert. And it doesn't help to know that the Baha'i Faith expects their people to go out and "teach" the word. So, most of us are already suspicious if a Baha'i comes on too friendly and is too interested in us. Because we know what's coming. "Oh, by the way, have you ever heard of Baha'u'llah?" "Why no, who was he"? "So glad you asked. Let me tell you all about him."

 

[ACEofALLaces]

I did not say that there really IS NO "evidence" which can stand up to any amount of rigorous OBJECTIVE scrutiny, I said there was no objective evidence..

Honestly, what good is ANY evidence if it is not OBjective evidence which can withstand serious scrutiny?

There IS reliable evidence for Baha'u'llah, the evidence I posted on the BUE forum.

Don't care.....I gave up on those guys....WAAAYYYY too much "moderation" for my taste. Freedom of speech is definitely disallowed there.

It IS my free will choice to believe, based upon THAT evidence.

Ahhh yes, so we're back to the idea that it was you exercising you FREE WILL, as being your CHOICE to believe.....empirical evidence be damned, right?

 

[CG Didymus]

Do you ever question just as to WHY your "evidence" is not liked by so many others? I am also curious as to how you can consider your evidence as being "adequate" when in the same breath you claim to be an OBJECTIVE THINKER?......when what you believe, is for the most part, purely SUBjective?

Yep. How many times have we heard the same story. "Hi, my religion is the best. It's not like all the others. Ours has a wonderful, kinder, more gentler God. Our prophet was so wise and great. He spoke directly to God and wrote all these wonderful things." We can have several different versions of that same story and sometimes they are all from some type of Christianity, and they all disagree with each other. Knock knock. "Hi, I'm a JW." Knock, knock, "Hi, I'm with the Mormon Church." Or out on the street. "Hi, did you know Jesus loves you? I'm with Calvary Chapel." Or some other "evangelizing" Christian Church.

What makes any of them true? The things that it says in the Bible. And now add to that the Baha'i Faith. "How do you know it's true?" "Because of this, this and this." "None of that is objective evidence." "To me it is. Sorry you can't see the truth." Which is what it comes down to... All people need to "see" the truth the way they see it... from their perspective. Which seems kind of subjective.