What does this mean? Your investigations methods might be sloppy and biased. You might have been hungry for some dogma to fill you with meaning. That is fine that you found his Words meaningful, but that doesn't extrapolate to objective truth that applies to everyone, everywhere.
If your investigation was objective, factual, had rigid methodology that others can replicate, then you should present your findings. If you discovered that God exists outside of human imagination you will make millions. Show us.
Why should i assume things he said are of substance? I've read many quotes and I haven't been terribly impressed. It's pretty much lofty philosophy with religious content. None of it strikes me as anything an ordinary mortal could invent.
If he said something you think is important and substantive you are free to post it and we can discuss it.
What gets me is why don't you guys talk about the Urantia book. That is a huge book with a lot of info that is from the 20th century. That is the newest revelation and you don't seem to be aware of it.
You are correct, and i know vey little about that. What I do know is about writing, thinking, psychology of belief, religious debate and claims, etc. So I am well qualified to debate religion.
If we were going to debate about the writing style of Tolkien and how he develops his characters as metaphors of classes of people in the world, and you had extensive study in that, you would have a huge advantage. But if you argued that Hobbits and elves and wizards really exist, well I don't need special knowledge of the creation of those literary characters to know how to demand you present facts and create a coherent argument. I'd have the advantage.
Good for you. Maybe you needed to be changed. Feel free to explain what deficiency you had that needed to be changed, and then how Baha'i fixed it. We can examine whether it was you that fixed yourself, but wanted some framework as a guide, or something else.
