Can we change our mind about what we believe?

[ppp]

Words matter.

I never said: "It's true because God sent him as a messenger."
I said: "It's true if God sent him as a messenger."

Any logical person would know that it has to be true if God sent him as a messenger.

If your god sent him as a messenger, every other statement could still be false.

 

[Whateverist]

Short answer: absolutely not. You made your head and now you have to sleep in it.

 

[Trailblazer]

If your god sent him as a messenger, every other statement could still be false.

I said: Any logical person would know that it has to be true if God sent him as a messenger.
What has to be true is that God sent him as a messenger.

 

[ppp]

I said: Any logical person would know that it has to be true if God sent him as a messenger.

And I said: If your god sent him as a messenger, every other statement could still be false.

It's so nice to have clarity on what everyone had said. Don't you think? It makes things so clearer, don't you think?

 

[Trailblazer]

And I said: If your god sent him as a messenger, every other statement could still be false.

Yes, I knew that is what you were getting at.
God could be a liar or the Messenger could communicate false information, there are many possibilities.

It's so nice to have clarity on what everyone had said. Don't you think? It makes things so clearer, don't you think?

Yes.

 

[ppp]

Yes, I knew that is what you were getting at.

Not only is that what I was getting at. That is what I said. In so many words. Specifically. It works so much better that way.

God could be a liar or the Messenger could communicate false information, there are many possibilities.

But it doesn't work perfectly, alas.
Apparently, you don't know what I was getting at. The only part I was getting at was the bolded part.
Though, for the sake of politeness, I will acknowledge your most inciteful point that God could indeed be [add western twang] a dirty-dealin' no-account liar. [pew-pew!!]

Yes.

I wish I believed your agreement. Alas.

 

[Trailblazer]

Not only is that what I was getting at. That is what I said. In so many words. Specifically. It works so much better that way.

I know that is what you said so that is what you were getting at.

But it doesn't work perfectly, alas.
Apparently, you don't know what I was getting at. The only part I was getting at was the bolded part.
Though, for the sake of politeness, I will acknowledge your most inciteful point that God could indeed be [add western twang] a dirty-dealin' no-account liar. [pew-pew!!]

You said: If your god sent him as a messenger, every other statement could still be false.
I knew that is what you were getting at.
That is why I said: Yes, I knew that is what you were getting at.

Then I said: God could be a liar or the Messenger could communicate false information, there are many possibilities.

I did not say that is what YOU were getting at. That is what I was thinking, so it is what I said.
It is as if I am not allowed to add my own thoughts to a post. What I said was not a reflection of what you said.

I wish I believed your agreement. Alas.

I am sorry you have trust issues. It must be difficult.

 

[ppp]

I know that is what you said so that is what you were getting at.

You said: If your god sent him as a messenger, every other statement could still be false.
I knew that is what you were getting at.
That is why I said: Yes, I knew that is what you were getting at.

Then I said: God could be a liar or the Messenger could communicate false information, there are many possibilities.

I did not say that is what YOU were getting at. That is what I was thinking, so it is what I said.
It is as if I am not allowed to add my own thoughts to a post. What I said was not a reflection of what you said.

I am sorry you have trust issues. It must be difficult.

Giant sloths and avocados. Fortunately, there were humans. Homo sapiens. Not the other ones.

 

[Trailblazer]

Giant sloths and avocados. Fortunately, there were humans. Homo sapiens. Not the other ones.

Am I supposed to know what you are talking about?

 

[CG Didymus]

So your saying it's evidence because he said so. Which means:



IT'S TRUE BECAUSE HE SAID SO.

So, if I read the claims made by this man that took the title "Glory of God", and then read what he says is the evidence that backs up his claims, and then come to believe those claims because of what he said is the evidence... how is that not "because he said so"? Who else is saying so? A Baha'i maybe? Who then tells you to read a book where the guy claiming to be sent from an invisible God said so?

I don't understand why that's a problem for any Baha'i to admit. All they have to say is... "I read his claims... And I read what he says is the evidence for his claims... And I believe him. He sounds like a very nice, honest, and spiritual guy. So, I signed a declaration card confirming that I believe what he says is true."

After some years go by, a person asks them about something that the Baha'i teaches, and they answer... "I believe that is the truth, because that's what Baha'u'llah said is true in his writings." It all comes down to "Because he said so."

 

[Trailblazer]

It all comes down to "Because he said so."

It absolutely does not boil down to "Because he said so."
It boils does to who He was as a Person, what he did in His Life, and what He did on His 40-year Mission.
What He did on his mission includes what He wrote but the claims in the Writings are not the evidence, although the Writings themselves are part of the evidence.

Why are people here so dense that they cannot understand something that simple?

 

[CG Didymus]

So your saying it's evidence because he said so. Which means:



IT'S TRUE BECAUSE HE SAID SO.

I guess I'm too "dense". It's not because he said so. It's because TB said so. But really now... What would a Baha'i, a Christian or anybody else that believes the Scriptures of their religion are the word of God? They all say, "The Bible says this..." Or "In the Baha'i writings, Baha'u'llah says this..." I wonder who is the real dense one here. For any true believer, their Scriptures are the truth. If they say so, that is what is. And for the Baha'is, the most important Scriptures are the writings of Baha'u'llah. If he says so in his writings that is what's the truth.

But for those of us that question the validity of his claims, some of the things he says aren't true. And because for some of us, he says things that we don't believe are true, then that is evidence against his claim of being a prophet and spokesman for some invisible God for which there is no evidence of, except this prophet of theirs said so.

Sorry I'm bouncing this stuff off of your post, but I gave up on responding directly to TB months ago. I'd have to be dense to put myself through that torture.

 

[Trailblazer]

I guess I'm too "dense". It's not because he said so. It's because TB said so.

No, if Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God it is because God sent Him, not because anyone said so.

If God sent Baha'u'llah to bring a message to humanity, then Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God.
If God did not send Baha'u'llah to bring a message to humanity, then Baha'u'llah was not a Messenger of God.
You can reject Him and take your chances. It's your life.

But for those of us that question the validity of his claims, some of the things he says aren't true. And because for some of us, he says things that we don't believe are true, then that is evidence against his claim of being a prophet and spokesman for some invisible God for which there is no evidence of, except this prophet of theirs said so.

What people 'believe' he said that isn't true counts for nothing, not unless you can prove what he said is not true.
Good luck with that.

 

[Trailblazer]

For any true believer, their Scriptures are the truth. If they say so, that is what is.

The Scriptures are not the truth because believers believe they are the truth. That is drop dead illogical.
If I believe the world is flat does that mean that is the truth?

The Scriptures are only the truth if they were revealed by God through a Messenger of God.

 

[flowerpower]

Can we change our mind about what we believe?

@PureX said that one CAN change their mind, but they won't because they don't want to deny their current understanding of 'what is'. #523

I disagree. One CAN change their mind, and they sometimes do, if they get new information that causes them to change their mind. However, if they don't change their mind, it is because they truly believe that what they believe is true according to their current understanding. It is not that they won’t change their mind, as if they are stubbornly refusing to change their mind, it is that they have no reason to change their mind.

Why should anyone deny that what they believe is true?

Conversely, why should anyone accept any belief as true if they don’t believe it is true?

Why should atheists accept that God exists when they see no evidence for God’s existence?

I do not think that atheists are stubbornly refusing to believe in God. I take them at their word when they say that they see no evidence for God. It is not that they won’t believe in God, it is that they can’t believe in God because they see no evidence for God. The same holds true for me. It is not that I won’t disbelieve in God, it is that I can’t disbelieve in God because I see evidence for God.

I'm very fickle with my beliefs and how I see the world. I'm changing my mind almost non-stop.

Maybe its because of my current life circumstances, I don't know.

Of course people can change their mind.

I guess I might not fully understand the question.

 

[joelr]

Errr .. the underlying narration of Moses and Pharaoh, for example.

..but not the details ..
I don't say that details of places or times in the OT are correct.

There may have been a leader named Moses. The myth is deities and magic. Also the story has been enlarged and changed to fit a narrative.

 

[joelr]

No, It does not mean that.
Baha'u'llah is a Messenger of God is not true because He said so. That is utterly ridiculous and illogical.
That would mean that every man who said he was a Messenger of God is a Messenger of God, and obviously that is not the case.

Baha'u'llah never said that he was a Messenger of God because He said so.
I never said that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God because He said so

Baha'u'llah is a Messenger of God is true only if God sent Him as His Messenger.

Sure, Baha'u'llah made the claim to be a Messenger of God, how else could we know who He was?
However, the claim IS NOT evidence of any kind. The evidence is what supports the claim.

I said: No, Baha'u'llah said it was evidence. I just posted what He said.
Below is what He said about evidence.

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106

- The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self.
- Next to this testimony is His Revelation.
- For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed.

That isn't evidence whatsoever.

If someone claims to be a messenger and you believe them, it can be said "you believe it because they say it's true"

If someone claims to be a messenger AND they say it's been proven because of my life, work, revelations, and the words say what his say....

It is no different than saying "you believe it because they say it's true".


There is nothing in his life, work, revelations, self, that isn't something a human can do or say. NOTHING.

A whole lot of nothing still equals nothing.


These are nothing more than word games, if they managed to convince you, I don't know how. But it is not evidence,.


Joseph Smith also can say his life, his work, his revelations, his self.....,he spoke to an angel, got golden plates, magically translated them, with magic, wrote a Bible, has witnesses..........YET, you don't blink twice at that evidence. You sound just as absurd with these claims. Weirder is that you enter them as if they are at all convincing? It's bizarre?

Yet, we have been over this? Am I supposed to suddenly go under a spell where I think this is evidence?


The answer is, there isn't evidence, he made a claim and we use faith.


Also, his words are not great, I don't think he's a great writer at all.

 

[joelr]

Look at the pot calling the kettle black.

View attachment 84653

Yes you posted a nice picture. Except do you wonder why we are repeating things?

Did you happen to notice, the LAST POST I JUST RESPONDED TO was the same claim, same evidence, same everything, that I have established is not evidence, in no way is evidence. If another religious figure tried to say their life, work, revelations, self, was evidence you would laugh them out of the state.
Why you are stuck in a loop, who knows? But you are. What's weirder is you don't seem to realize it's you posting the same circle of claims?
You started this round with the EXACT SAME CLAIMS.

And then when I continue to tell you it isn't evidence, I get accused to being repetitive. The problem isn't me.

 

[joelr]

That cannot be proven as a fact, not anymore than I can prove God was speaking to Him as a fact.
All you have is a personal opinion.
Better luck next time.

Yes it can. You listed his self, life, words, revelation (same as words).

All things done by people.

So please demonstrate which spect of any one of those things provides good empirical evidence for someone speaking to a God.

Which thing?
Don't say "all of them" because a bunch of normal human activities don't add up in some magical way to mean a God must be involved. Logic doesn't work that way.

Which thing is something no other religious figure could do, that he does, and can only be explained by a God?

If there is no thing you can point to and say only this can be done by a God, than nothing there is evidence for a God. That isn't just my opinion.

In the NT once can say Jesus rose from the dead and his spirit body appeared to people. It may not be true but there is something you can point to as evidence.
In the OT same thing, Yahweh flew over the desert in a chariot on a pillar of smoke, or fire. Things like that. He also fought a sea monster.

So first, we need the evidence, then we can work on trying to confirm if it's true.

 

[joelr]

Words matter.

I never said: "It's true because God sent him as a messenger."
I said: "It's true if God sent him as a messenger."

Any logical person would know that it has to be true if God sent him as a messenger.

What would be the point of a "what if" statement though? That also assumes that God is real and he sends messengers, both have to be demonstrated.

That is logically the same as saying "it's true if it is true".