• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Can we change our mind about what we believe?

Trailblazer

Veteran Member

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Explain how someone on this forum could come to the conclusion that you are not credible without access to your inner thoughts; despite your protestations to the contrary.
Here's a guy that did a thorough research about Jesus and Christianity...

Josh McDowell once thought God and Jesus were fake – and that Christianity was for ignorant people! So how did he end up becoming not just a Christian, but one of the world’s leading apologists? For 60+ years now, he’s been proving that it’s all true! Ironically, it was at college, when he was mocking a group of Christians and they challenged him to prove them wrong. “No problem!” he thought. “Piece of cake.” But months later, after he’d intensively researched a mountain of historical documents throughout Europe, he had to admit that the facts showed that Jesus really did live, die, and resurrect. And if that was true – God HAD to be real.​
He wrote a book about it, "Evidence that Demands a Verdict". Baha'is I'm sure have their people that have done the same. But same problem... They both can't be right. And when it comes to the Baha'is and Christians, I don't have to do a detailed study to find things that don't add up. Christians help me find the problems with the beliefs of the Baha'i Faith. And Baha'is help me find the flaws with what the Christians believe.

But does it matter to the believers in either one? Of course not, they each "know" what they believe is true. And that makes it hard for them to honestly look at views that challenge their beliefs. They already know the other view is wrong.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Explain how someone on this forum could come to the conclusion that you are not credible without access to your inner thoughts; despite your protestations to the contrary.
They could not come to that conclusion without access to my inner thoughts and I have no protestations to the contrary.
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
Here's a guy that did a thorough research about Jesus and Christianity...

Josh McDowell once thought God and Jesus were fake – and that Christianity was for ignorant people! So how did he end up becoming not just a Christian, but one of the world’s leading apologists? For 60+ years now, he’s been proving that it’s all true! Ironically, it was at college, when he was mocking a group of Christians and they challenged him to prove them wrong. “No problem!” he thought. “Piece of cake.” But months later, after he’d intensively researched a mountain of historical documents throughout Europe, he had to admit that the facts showed that Jesus really did live, die, and resurrect. And if that was true – God HAD to be real.​
He wrote a book about it, "Evidence that Demands a Verdict". Baha'is I'm sure have their people that have done the same. But same problem... They both can't be right. And when it comes to the Baha'is and Christians, I don't have to do a detailed study to find things that don't add up. Christians help me find the problems with the beliefs of the Baha'i Faith. And Baha'is help me find the flaws with what the Christians believe.

But does it matter to the believers in either one? Of course not, they each "know" what they believe is true. And that makes it hard for them to honestly look at views that challenge their beliefs. They already know the other view is wrong.
Ah, 1983. It was a late July day in Umstead State Park when I read that book. I was sitting at a table in the mess hall at band camp waiting for my turn to play bridge. I still remember wave after wave of exasperation at the trite head banging banality of that book. I had been trying to hold on to the dried husks of my Christianity - and that book had come with so many glowing recommendations. It wasn't the genesis of my atheism or the exodus, but it certainly set fire to any remaining obstacles to my path out.
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
They could not come to that conclusion without access to my inner thoughts and I have no protestations to the contrar
Oh? What would force them to stop from coming to the conclusion that you are not credible? Do little pixies keep those neurons from firing?
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Oh? What would force them to stop from coming to the conclusion that you are not credible? Do little pixies keep those neurons from firing?
They can come to any conclusions that they want to, just as I can come to any conclusions that I want to, but conclusions don't make anything so.
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
They can come to any conclusions that they want to, just as I can come to any conclusions that I want to, but conclusions don't make anything so.
Clearly you are having a hard time tracking. Please continue to prove your input for whatever.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
That's like comparing apples with oranges..
Most people were illiterate, back in the day..
What are you talking about? You said - "If there were no evidence at all, then why would anybody be a Christian or Muslim?"
I said for the same reason as any other religion like Inanna, Mithras, and so on.
Your answer about literacy makes no sense?

First, Inanna has poems written about her by Edheduanna and Mithras was the deity of the Roman army, who had writing?

So they were literate. But the answer is the same, they were told a story and bought into it, emotionalized the belief and use confirmation bias to only accept information that confirms their belief. No difference.

No thanks .. it is enough to know, that history is subjective, and often depends on
who narrates it.
Ancient history is particularly problematic.
Again, not really, evidence is evidence and is generally agreed upon by experts.
So you cannot present a historian with a different view because you don't know of one. BUT, you are now saying since history is subjective that is enough for you. (there is the confirmation bias on that topic).
NO, it's not subjective, there are facts, historians from the time writing history, other nations writing, there is archaeological evidence. We can draw a picture of what happened. In some cases better than others.
Israelite history is mostly agreed upon by historians. We are sure Genesis is carrying on a tradition of myths that originated earlier in Mesopotamia.



Nor do I .. I'm more interested in finding the truth, as far as possible.
Conclusions about religion, based on examining historical accounts, are subject to error.
I prefer to make my own conclusions, whether about "scientific facts" or religion.
You are not being honest. You don't know this at all. You say you prefer to make you own conclusions OVER people who read all original documents, study archaeology of all the temple finds, read historians at the time, look at all the religious stories around that nation, and you are going to skip all that and "make your own conclusion".

Yeah, no, you do not care about what is actually true. I'm guessing you want to read the Quran, take whatever it says about OT times, and consider that facts. You truly don't care about what's actually true.








Are you multilingual? :)
Don't need to be multilingual, the best works have been translated into English.





Your 'divide & rule' tactics are wasted on me..
So that is how you employ confirmation bias to the fact that your evidence and weight of evidence is no different than Mormons or Scientology.
You pretend they are "divide and rule" tactics. When actually it's a fact, none of you have good evidence.
When you have a method it has to have a way of rising above other methods that are flawed. Your response is to ignore facts like that. Ok.




I do not think in binary terms. i.e. right/wrong
Right so Mormonism isn't right or wrong. The Quran isn't right or wrong.

Like I said, you don't care about what is actually true.




Deviation .. stick to the topic..
Comparing them to a 'Creator of the universe' is childish.
What's childish, is pretending like a book is the creator of the universe.

I am not comparing Big Foot and aliens to the creator of the universe. You haven't demonstrated any creators of any universe.
You demonstrated a belief in a creator, based on ancient folk tales. About the same as aliens or Big Foot.









Why? :)
Just because you say so?
No because it's basic logic and if you care about believing true things you don't believe something without sufficient evidence.

I see evidence of G-d, and you don't .. or you dismiss it as improbable.
You do not. You see the universe which you incorrectly label as a creation. You have no other universes to compare it to. The universe functions with natural forces just fine, which may be the case for all reality.

Then every group with a different God sees the universe as the creation of this God. Hmmm, serious flaw in that method it seems, you cannot even demonstrate a method that shows which God. YOu can't show God, you cannot show a God is needed for a universe, you cannot show your God is the creator.


It doesn't MAKE it true .. it is either true or false .. and we both believe differently.

Yes, I follow what the evidence shows and base beliefs on that. YOu seem to be starting with a story and trying to make it fit what you see.

Yes, it can .. but strangely enough, people who believe in the concept of G-d, do not just believe in "anything at all". :)
Because in every other area of their life they know faith is stupid and they need evidence.
Using faith to justify any belief is flawed because faith is not reliable. You find a belief you want to be true and say "just have faith it's true".
That isn't how reality works. Even if you are correct, there are 2/3 of all other religious believers in the wrong belief system using faith.

So it's a terrible system, even with God. But there is no evidence you are correct.


No, it isn't. Experience is part of the equation, too.
Yes and in religion Christians, Mormons and Hindu all claim personal experience as the method they use to verify that their God is real and they are the only correct group of all of them. God tells them through personal experience.

Now that is even worse than faith.




Some things we can understand from reading a book, but context is also important,
as it contains a lot of history.
If we do not practice, we will also view many things in a different light.
Each human being is unique.
I don't know what that has to do with demonstrating something is true. I listen to many deconverted Muslims who speak the original language.

Well, if they did, what sense would it have made to anybody? :)
They knew math. They would understand a description of atoms, light speed, relativity, expanding universe, big bag, age of universe, and many other things. Uh....germs. Fruit cures scurvy. Wash surgical tools first.....?



What?
You say that the Qur'an is probably not the original .. but do not say what meanings have been changed..
..and then you say that the OT is accurate "according to scholars"??
..sounds like double-standards, to me.
Because you are not listening at all or having a conversation.
The Quran is not likely the original, a palimpsest has been found and shows there were likely earlier versions. It isn't about changed meanings, it shows it wasn't dictated from an angel but put together over time by humans.

The OT also was done this way but once they got a final copy they transmitted it orally and written consistently. But neither are dictations from a deity, they are created documents. The Dead Sea Scrolls show the OT is fairly accurate. Some parts are added centuries later and forgery. Both are made by men, give laws and wisdom that was available at the time.
Both were books written with many drafts.





Exactly .. the OT consists of rewritten scrolls of various age and source.
Well Genesis is reworked mythology yes. But there is no "actual story" to be told, they made it up based on older stories.




All very interesting .. yet conclusions cannot be made definitively, other than what I have already agreed to.
i.e. the OT is based on scrolls of various age and source
I don't care how ignorant of historical evidence you want to be? we know for a fact that Genesis is using older myths to create a myth for the Israelites when they were a fairly new people. Exodus (all 5 versions) are a foundation myth and not actually how they came to be, but it gave them an identity.
We know a lot from archaeology as well and we can see there was no actual battle with Canaan and the kingdom of Solomon was small scale. The stories enlarged them. Then in the 2nd Temple Period ideas about souls returning to Heaven was 100% taken from Greek Platonic myth.
This is also the consensus in history.

James Tabor does a lot of work on this:


Death & Afterlife: Do Christians Follow Plato rather than Jesus or Paul?


Dr James Tabor







5:40
1st Hebrew view of cosmology and afterlife. The dead are sleeping in Sheol, earth is above, the firmament is above that and divides the upper ocean from falling to earth,





7:50 A linear version emerged with time and an end times and final Judgment.


Genesis says you will return to dust.





9:00 Translation of Genesis 2:6 God breathes the breath of life into Adam (giving him a soul). The actual Hebrew translation is “living-breathing”, meaning all life is this.





10:40 Hellenistic period - the Hebrew religion adopts the Greek ideas.


Sources the Britannica article and explains it’s an excellent resource from an excellent scholar.





13:35 In the Hellenistic period the common perception is not the Hebrew view, it’s the idea that the soul belongs in Heaven.





14:15 The basic Hellenistic idea is taken into the Hebrew tradition. Salvation in the Hellenistic world is how do you save your soul and get to Heaven. How to transcend the physical body.





Greek tomb “I am a child of earth and starry heaven but heaven alone is my home”





15:46 Does this sound familiar, Christian hymns - “this world is not my home, I’m a pilgrim passing through, Jesus will come and take you home”.


Common theme that comes from the Hellenistic religions. Immortal souls trapped in a human body etc…





47:15 Hellenistic Greek view of cosmology


Material world/body is a prison of the soul


Humans are immortal souls, fallen into the darkness of the lower world


Death sets the soul free


No human history, just a cycle of birth, death, rebirth


Immortality is inherent for all humans


Salvation is escape to Heaven, the true home of the immortal soul


Humans are fallen and misplaced


Death is a stripping of the body so the soul can be free


Death is a liberating friend to be welcomed


Asceticism is the moral idea for the soul





49:35 Genesis view


Creation/body very good, procreation good


Humans are “living breathers”, akin to animals, mortal, dust of the earth


Death is dark silent “sleeping in the dust”


Human history moves toward a perfected new age/creation


Salvation is eternal life in the perfected world of the new creation


Humans belong on earth


Resurrection brings a new transformed glorious spiritual body


Death is an enemy


Physical life and sensory pleasures are good
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
I always have to wonder...Which God? The trinitarian Christian God? The many Gods of some religions? I'm sure the believers in any of those have their logic to why they believe those Gods are real.
I haven't heard much logic, just faith and personal experiences. Or major historical fallacies.



What? She must have learned something about the Baha'i Faith to come to believe it was true? I've heard Baha'is say, "His writings ring true." Which fits one of the things claimed to be "evidence"... Baha'u'llah's writings.
I think they just liked his writings and then bought the apologetic that his "life", his "works" and "revelations" is actually evidence. Obviously it isn't and the terrible prophecies don't seem to matter. Once you have a belief unless you are ready to assess your beliefs and see if they are justified you will just ignore things that suggest it isn't true. Even facts won't help.




In the New Testament the English word faith is used to translate the Greek word pistis. The New Strong’s Expanded Dictionary of Bible Words says, “Pistis is used of belief with the predominate idea of trust (or confidence) whether in God or in Christ, springing from faith in the same.​
Using "trust" is a lot different than a person that uses the word "faith". Especially the way some Baha'is use it. It's seems to be used as a way not to have to support their beliefs. Because they are unprovable and must be taken on "faith". What do you think?
Some people read those books like Theif in the Night or other propaganda and just accept that his prophecies came true, they don't really dig and find out what the original prophecy was and why he made it happen (or did he?).
I don't really know? People join Scientology and come to believe the alien stories and everyone gets a planet and obviously the Heavens GAte people fell for a scam that ended their lives so their souls could enter a ufo. Unproveable beliefs and bad evidence isn't stopping a lot of people.
Trust, faith, it probably doesn't matter. You have to be willing to face facts or you will believe whatever looks fun to believe it seems.

A lot of people think the Conversations with God book guy is actually having a conversation with God.
 

muhammad_isa

Veteran Member
..the answer is the same, they were told a story and bought into it..
Don't be absurd..
It makes a huge difference to what we believe, if we can read and write.
Take you, for example.. :)

..evidence is evidence and is generally agreed upon by experts..
which you are one, of course.. :rolleyes:

We are sure Genesis is carrying on a tradition of myths that originated earlier in Mesopotamia.
I've already agreed with that..

I'm guessing you want to read the Quran, take whatever it says about OT times, and consider that facts. You truly don't care about what's actually true..
I haven't found a reason to doubt that it is true..

Don't need to be multilingual, the best works have been translated into English.
By other 'experts', I assume..

You do not. You see the universe which you incorrectly label as a creation. You have no other universes to compare it to. The universe functions with natural forces just fine, which may be the case for all reality.
The word 'natural' in this context assumes no origin..
It simply 'is', for no reason.

Then every group with a different God sees the universe as the creation of this God. Hmmm, serious flaw..
There are no 'different gods'.. there is only One Creator, but people believe different things.
Why is that so hard to understand?

Because in every other area of their life they know faith is stupid and they need evidence.
That's not the reason .. you imply that people are stupid to have faith in G-d.
That is because you prefer a materialist ideology.

The Quran is not likely the original, a palimpsest has been found and shows there were likely earlier versions. It isn't about changed meanings, it shows it wasn't dictated from an angel but put together over time by humans..
No .. that is what you prefer to believe.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
I'm going to say that when a religious idea or tenet is presented to a person, the heart may make a decision. What do you think ?
Yes, lots of us have made a decision to join a religious group by what we feel in our heart. But... after learning the beliefs and claims of that religious group, some of us leave that group. There are so many variations of the Christian message out there. Post, pre and a millennial, tongues or no tongues, Catholic, Orthodox, or some version of Protestant. JW, Mormon, Calvinist or whatever.

With this thread, started by a Baha'i, we add their interpretation of Christianity... That Jesus was just one of many manifestations of God and that Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah are also manifestations of God and equal to Jesus. And that their guy, Baha'u'llah, is the promised "end-time" return of the Christ.

Meet the right person at the right time, that presents the message in a convincing way, and a person might feel it in their heart. Whenever I've been with a new religious group, I'm amazed how much attention I'm given. It's like I'm the most important person in the room. And I felt the love, and I wanted to come back and be around them and learn more about what they believe. But when the honeymoon is over, things change.

It's sad, but it seems that is what happens with any religious group that seeks converts.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
I haven't heard much logic, just faith and personal experiences. Or major historical fallacies.
I listened and trusted personal experiences way too much. Lots of people had those life changing moments where God revealed himself to them.

One person said they had climbed up a large rock and got stuck there. They couldn't see the foothold. But, lucky for him, he felt the hand of God pushing on his back and keeping him from falling. He let go with his hands and, Hallelujah, his foot went to the right spot.

Another guy went forward during a faith-healing service. The preacher laid hands on him, and the guy said that it felt like warm honey was being poured over him.

But we expect those kinds of stories from Christians... here's some from Baha'is.

This lady was speaking at a Baha'i gathering about what they call "travel-teaching". This lady told her story about going to, I think it was the Navajo Reservation, to "teach" the people about the Baha'i Faith. Some guy was driving her. It was just a dirt road out in the high desert of Arizona, and they came to a place where the road was washed out. Of course, for such a good cause, God was going to help her, so she told the driver to back up and floor it. Amazingly, they made the jump.

The other, very common Baha'i story is that people claimed to have had visions of Adul Baha or to have him come to them in dreams. Who wouldn't want to believe? And maybe have those things happen to them too.
I think they just liked his writings and then bought the apologetic that his "life", his "works" and "revelations" is actually evidence. Obviously it isn't and the terrible prophecies don't seem to matter. Once you have a belief unless you are ready to assess your beliefs and see if they are justified you will just ignore things that suggest it isn't true. Even facts won't help.
The writings... lots of Baha'is are so impressed with the poetic language and the volume of writings. How could a normal, ordinary man have written so much and have so much wisdom? Except, for some of us, we find things that don't sound very true about what he says. But that doesn't matter to the believer. There's always a reasonable explanation. Like when Baha'u'llah says that Noah preached for 950 years. The explanation? "The age of those ancient prophets as recorded in the Old Testament is symbolic."
Some people read those books like Theif in the Night or other propaganda and just accept that his prophecies came true, they don't really dig and find out what the original prophecy was and why he made it happen (or did he?).
I don't really know? People join Scientology and come to believe the alien stories and everyone gets a planet and obviously the Heavens GAte people fell for a scam that ended their lives so their souls could enter a ufo. Unproveable beliefs and bad evidence isn't stopping a lot of people.
Trust, faith, it probably doesn't matter. You have to be willing to face facts or you will believe whatever looks fun to believe it seems.
Yes, people join and accept the basic beliefs, then learn more and more about the more subtle beliefs.

With prophecies it becomes such a joke. But it's not only Baha'is. I think Christians have one of the worst cases of taking a verse out of context and making it a prophecy. And that is Isaiah 7:14. The young maiden or the virgin will give birth to a son? Yeah, then what does that son do? Nothing in Isaiah has the son doing anything that identifies that kid as the coming Messiah.

But again, does it matter to believers? No. But why do Baha'is accept it? They reject the literal interpretation of the resurrection. Why don't they reject the virgin birth story? Or at least do as they do with so many Bible stories, and say it was "symbolic" not "literal"?

For a person that has given themselves over to believing the Baha'i Faith, there's just too many things to like about it for them to reject it. So, they accept it all. And then they are stuck trying to explain away those troubling and problematic beliefs and claims.
 
Top