Can we change our mind about what we believe?

[CG Didymus]

Oh, I see .. so you are the type of person to "throw the baby away with the bathwater".

It's much like saying, because history books contain errors, then the whole of history is "wrong",
and so we have no history.

Forest through the trees, babies and bathwater? As we all know... some Jews and some Christians take their Scriptures as literal as possible. Some claim that their Scriptures are the infallible and inerrant Word of God. How serious do you take your Scriptures? Inerrant? Infallible? Or some of it is true and some of it is not?

Do you study the Book of Mormon? I'm sure there are some useful "truths" within its pages. Do you search through it to find those truths? Or... you don't bother, because you don't believe those writings are the truth from God but from man? Yet, some people treat them like they are the truth. I'm one of those that don't bother. I think it is a man-made fiction... written in a style to imitate the Bible.

Oh, and how about the Baha'i writings? I even find some truths in them. But there's some things I don't believe are true. So, why would I become a Baha'i? How about you? Why aren't you a Baha'i? There's a lot of good teachings in there. You wouldn't want to drain the bathtub on them. Or not see the forest through their trees. Or... you believe in your religion and your Scriptures, and you know that the other religions are lacking in some ways or are clearly false?

 

[CG Didymus]

As far as Hinduism is concerned, we are told that Krishna was a Manifestation of God and we read the Bhagavad Gita in all our services.

What does Krishna tell Arjuna to do about his dilemma?

 

[CG Didymus]

They do so here on RF, where we see a vast array of believers declaring that their gods are like this or that with insufficient scriptural support.

There's a couple of things going on here that make each side think they are right. There are those that don't believe in the various gods and prophets of the different religions. And those that are believers in one of many religions and their gods.

Of course, we're right and they're just too lost in their own beliefs that they are blind to the truth.

Actually, it's strange that both sides can use that argument. But some of us have given one or more religions a try. And for me, there came a point where I couldn't believe it anymore.

 

[loverofhumanity]

What does Krishna tell Arjuna to do about his dilemma?

Firstly, many have interpreted this battle as a battle within to control self and desire and as these books are concerning spiritual matters and spiritual development of the soul they can be understood to mean that the real battle is within ourselves.

In the Bhagavad Gita according to Ghandi we read

Now about the message of the Gita.

Even in 1888-89, when I first became acquainted with the Gita, I felt that it was not a historical work, but that, under the guise of physical warfare, it described the duel that perpetually went on in the hearts of mankind, and that physical warfare was brought in merely to make the description of the internal duel more alluring.

Firstly we know that Arjuna did not want to fight and preferred being killed than to kill

Gita chapter 1 text 45

Better for me if the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra, weapons in hand, were to kill me unarmed and unresisting on the battlefield.

Muslims did not want to fight too. The meaning of Jihad in the Quran is to fight against the ego or lower self.

Quran 2:216

Fighting has been made obligatory upon you ˹believers˺, though you dislike it. Perhaps you dislike something which is good for you and like something which is bad for you. Allah knows and you do not know.

If we read it symbolically like many have, then the war is about the battle within.

If we consider a real battle then we see that in both cases Arjuna and Krishna and Muhammad and Muslims, both are instructed to stand up against injustices even though both Arjuna and Muslims did not want to fight. In this case though, they both obeyed the Manifestation of God.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I don't know what "validity" has been proven. Did Jesus walk on water? Did he raise Lazarus from the dead? Did he conquer Satan and death? Did he himself get raised from the dead?

How do you answer those questions? I think a typical Baha'i would say... No, Jesus didn't walk on water. That was symbolic. No, Jesus didn't raise Lazarus from the dead. That was symbolic. Conquering Satan and death and being raised from the dead? Same thing... all symbolic.

Which makes the traditional Christian beliefs, that were based on the gospels and other Christian writings, all wrong. For 2000 years, the main sects of Christianity mistakenly took the Christian Scriptures too literal. According to Baha'i beliefs, they were wrong in doing so. They should have taken all those things symbolically.

And, what is totally weird, Baha'is believe the virgin birth was literally true. A story easily fabricated. It was only mentioned in two gospels. Which contradict each other. And both contradict what is said in the Quran, that Mary gave birth to Jesus under a date palm. And the whole story depends on taking one verse from Isaiah out of context.

But does any of that matter? No, people that find a religion they can believe in will accept most any "reasonable" explanation. And, in a way, making the stories in the Bible and NT fictional is kind of reasonable... that is compared to believing them to be literally true. But, for me, even more reasonable would be just to say they were fiction... that people made up some religious beliefs and made up some laws and told people that those laws came from an invisible God to get them to follow those laws.

How farfetched would that be? Since several ancient cultures had religions with laws and gods that most of us consider nothing more than myth. And Baha'is do make those stories essentially "myth"... by saying they are symbolic, which means they didn't literally happen. They are fictional stories. Yet, the God, the laws, and some of the people are considered real?

Baha'is make Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus all real... and make them "manifestations" of God, but make most of the stories about their lives fictional, symbolic myth? So, what is this "validity" that you speak of?

One important difference between Christians and Baha’is is that Christians interpret whereas Baha’is do not interpret authoritatively. We get all our interpretations from the Bab, Baha’u’llah, Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi. So we are not just making it up. What we quote is as revealed to us from a Divine or infallible source which is very different from Christian interpretation which is done ad hoc and which is no more than personal opinion. So it can be wrong but we claim that the Manifestation of God is All Knowing so His explanations are infallible. Christianity and Christians have no such infallible interpreters.

So the validity comes from the Manifestation of God for example in the Book of Certitude these terms are fully explained authoritatively from God’s Manifestation not fallible, error prone human guess work. This below by Baha’u’llah is a very valid example of how passages in the Bible can be understood without resorting to superstitious interpretations.

We testify that when He came into the world, He shed the splendor of His glory upon all created things. Through Him the leper recovered from the leprosy of perversity and ignorance. Through Him, the unchaste and wayward were healed. Through His power, born of Almighty God, the eyes of the blind were opened, and the soul of the sinner sanctified.

Leprosy may be interpreted as any veil that interveneth between man and the recognition of the Lord, his God. Whoso alloweth himself to be shut out from Him is indeed a leper, who shall not be remembered in the Kingdom of God, the Mighty, the All-Praised. We bear witness that through the power of the Word of God every leper was cleansed, every sickness was healed, every human infirmity was banished. He it is Who purified the world. Blessed is the man who, with a face beaming with light, hath turned towards Him.

— Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, XXXVI

 

[blü 2]

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.

There are two levels to that.

First, I can change my mind in the face of reasoned argument.

Second, I don't readily foresee me changing my mind about reasoned argument as a principle for deciding.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Can someone change their mind about what they believe? Sure, anyone can but it is much more difficult for those who have been indoctrinated into believing that all other religions/beliefs are false except their own and only they are the true and chosen ones while all others are sinners or infidels.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

My question regarding the Bible was: Why would multiple authors write fiction about a fictional God, over the course of 4000 years?

My answer is because that was human nature then, and there is evidence right here on RF that it remains human nature to spin tales that evolve over time. I think it was on this thread that somebody asked if it is assumed that there has been a conspiracy to deceive perpetrated by multiple deceivers over time, but that's not necessary for this process to play out.

Of course, we're right and they're just too lost in their own beliefs that they are blind to the truth. Actually, it's strange that both sides can use that argument.

As you know, the agnostic atheist's position is not that he has the truth. Only the theist and the gnostic (strong) atheist make claims of fact. The agnostic atheist rejects both of those claims, that is, rather than asserting any truth, he rejecting the claims others call truth.

some of us have given one or more religions a try. And for me, there came a point where I couldn't believe it anymore.

I'm an alumnus of a decade of Christianity (my twenties more or less), which was time well spent and from which I learned a lot, including that its promises for this life were false and that the euphoric feeling that I had had in my first congregation was not the Holy Spirit, since it didn't follow me to any other congregation I visited after I moved across country and left that first pastor and church.

But I'm an atheist for other reason. I might have found another religion, but I didn't because I wasn't interested. I had also learned the folly of belief by faith, and recommitted to critical thinking and to what eventually evolved into atheistic humanism. Presently, god beliefs are untenable to me, and neither they nor religions would serve any purpose in my life or meet any need not already met without it.

 

[muhammad_isa]

How serious do you take your Scriptures? Inerrant? Infallible? Or some of it is true and some of it is not?

I do not "sit on the fence" .. I believe that the OT, NT and Qur'an contain truth about
the One G-d of Abraham.
The fact that people have different creeds, does not change that.

What about you? Do YOU believe that the G-d of Abraham exists?
..or are the Bible & Qur'an just one big conspiracy, in your opinion?

 

[blü 2]

Do YOU believe that the G-d of Abraham exists?

Only as a notion, concept, thing imagined in individual brains. Do you say God can be found in nature, reality, the world external to the self? If so, a photo would be interesting.

..or are the Bible & Qur'an just one big conspiracy, in your opinion?

No, I wouldn't use the word 'conspiracy', though there are elements of that when for example X loses his or her religious belief but wants to keep his or her job with a religious organization.

We find supernatural beliefs in all recorded societies, so they appear to be something humans instinctively do. They appear to center on explaining things for which no satisfactory explanation is otherwise available ─ natural phenomena like the sun moon stars meteors and so on, or thunder and lightning, floods, drought, plague, famine, or good and bad luck in love, hunting, war, &c.

They also form part of tribal identity, next to language, customs, territory and particularly tales of heroes, folk-history,just-so stories &c.

What all gods tend to have in common is never appearing, never saying and never doing in person, only via their purported human agents. Acculturated humans are taught to have internal dialogs with them, but these are actually monologs ─ God never dictates the solution to Riemann's hypothesis or how to get the Russians out of Ukraine &c &c &c.

 

[CG Didymus]

I do not "sit on the fence" .. I believe that the OT, NT and Qur'an contain truth about
the One G-d of Abraham.
The fact that people have different creeds, does not change that.

What about you? Do YOU believe that the G-d of Abraham exists?
..or are the Bible & Qur'an just one big conspiracy, in your opinion?

But you are sitting on a couple of fences. You don't believe like the born-again Christians that Jesus is the only way to be forgiven of your sins and gain salvation. And you don't believe like the Baha'is that Christ has returned as Baha'u'llah.

For me, I have my doubts about the beliefs of all these religions.

 

[CG Didymus]

Firstly, many have interpreted this battle as a battle within to control self and desire and as these books are concerning spiritual matters and spiritual development of the soul they can be understood to mean that the real battle is within ourselves.

In the Bhagavad Gita according to Ghandi we read

Now about the message of the Gita.

Even in 1888-89, when I first became acquainted with the Gita, I felt that it was not a historical work, but that, under the guise of physical warfare, it described the duel that perpetually went on in the hearts of mankind, and that physical warfare was brought in merely to make the description of the internal duel more alluring.

Yes, that's a nice way to interpret it. But are the "many" of which Gandhi was one, any of the official authoritative interpreters? If not then by your own words, it is just personal opinion. Yet, when it suits your beliefs, you use it?

One important difference between Christians and Baha’is is that Christians interpret whereas Baha’is do not interpret authoritatively. We get all our interpretations from the Bab, Baha’u’llah, Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi. So we are not just making it up. What we quote is as revealed to us from a Divine or infallible source which is very different from Christian interpretation which is done ad hoc and which is no more than personal opinion. So it can be wrong but we claim that the Manifestation of God is All Knowing so His explanations are infallible. Christianity and Christians have no such infallible interpreters.

So, let's get some "authoritative" interpretation. What did the Bab, Baha'u'llah, Abdul Baha and Shoghi Effendi say about the Bhagava'd Gita?

You say in your Baha'i community you read from the Gita all the time. What do you do with passages that support reincarnation or the ones that say that Krishna is an incarnation of the God Vishnu? And, when you read from the Gita, do Baha'is interpret on their own or rely on official Baha'i interpretations of it? Of which, I didn't know they existed.

And if they don't... don't worry about it. I'm okay with all of us trying to find our meanings and interpretations. Even when Christians do it. But, of course, it's just their opinion.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Yes, that's a nice way to interpret it. But are the "many" of which Gandhi was one, any of the official authoritative interpreters? If not then by your own words, it is just personal opinion. Yet, when it suits your beliefs, you use it?

So, let's get some "authoritative" interpretation. What did the Bab, Baha'u'llah, Abdul Baha and Shoghi Effendi say about the Bhagava'd Gita?

You say in your Baha'i community you read from the Gita all the time. What do you do with passages that support reincarnation or the ones that say that Krishna is an incarnation of the God Vishnu? And, when you read from the Gita, do Baha'is interpret on their own or rely on official Baha'i interpretations of it? Of which, I didn't know they existed.

And if they don't... don't worry about it. I'm okay with all of us trying to find our meanings and interpretations. Even when Christians do it. But, of course, it's just their opinion.

In the Book of Certitude, Baha’u’llah unseals the meanings of things like rebirth and return which are mentioned in the Holy Books and Abdul-Baha explains that it refers to the return of the qualities not the actual person. So Baha’is refer to the authoritative interpretations on this topic. The Bhagavad-Gita is such a wonderful Book with so many beautiful truths therein. Exploring it makes me feel so blessed to have accepted Lord Krishna in my heart as a Manifestation of God and I pray that He accepts me as His humble servant.

 

[CG Didymus]

One important difference between Christians and Baha’is is that Christians interpret whereas Baha’is do not interpret authoritatively. We get all our interpretations from the Bab, Baha’u’llah, Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi.

I now one Baha'i says that Shoghi Effendi is not "infallible". So, why trust his opinion on how he interprets things?

Next issue... Who wrote the Bhagavad Gita? If not the "manifestation" Krishna, then how can we trust what it says?

About the war, Krishna gives Arjuna lots of reasons why he should go ahead and fight. What were those reasons? Then... can you make those reasons make sense in how you interpret that scene... that it's about controlling "self" and "desire"?

Then about reincarnation.... Are there verses that support the Baha'is belief that "rebirth" is just the return of "qualities" and the not the person? But I don't think it is the "person", it is the spirit or soul, which ever it is, that gets born into different bodies.

 

[CG Didymus]

I'm an alumnus of a decade of Christianity (my twenties more or less), which was time well spent and from which I learned a lot, including that its promises for this life were false and that the euphoric feeling that I had had in my first congregation was not the Holy Spirit, since it didn't follow me to any other congregation I visited after I moved across country and left that first pastor and church.

When I gullibly believed, it all made sense, and I felt the power of God within. When I got to the point of questioning some of the crazy things that I was expected to believe, I lost that feeling.

And I've mentioned it a few times, that I do believe that all these "true" believers in any of the religions here, feel it, know it, and live their lives as if what they believe is the absolute truth. But they all believe something different.

Christians deal with that by saying that all the other religions are false, and those that believe in them are being fooled.

Baha'is deal with it by saying that religious truth has been "progressive", and that the one true God has always sent his messengers/manifestation to kind people. But then I ask, why all the differences? Their answer is that over time the "original" teachings of the manifestation got corrupted. So, to me, that's almost the same thing that Christians say... For Christians, those other religions, except for Judaism, were always false. For Baha'is, those old religions were at one time true, but not anymore. Now they are false, and the only "real" truth is with God's new messenger. Which for our time is their prophet Baha'u'llah. His teachings alone can heal the ills of the world. No other religion can do that.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I now one Baha'i says that Shoghi Effendi is not "infallible". So, why trust his opinion on how he interprets things?

Next issue... Who wrote the Bhagavad Gita? If not the "manifestation" Krishna, then how can we trust what it says?

About the war, Krishna gives Arjuna lots of reasons why he should go ahead and fight. What were those reasons? Then... can you make those reasons make sense in how you interpret that scene... that it's about controlling "self" and "desire"?

Then about reincarnation.... Are there verses that support the Baha'is belief that "rebirth" is just the return of "qualities" and the not the person? But I don't think it is the "person", it is the spirit or soul, which ever it is, that gets born into different bodies.

This is from the Will and Testament of Abdul-Baha Who was ordained as Successor and Interpreter by Baha’u’llah in the Most Holy Book.

The sacred and youthful branch, the Guardian of the Cause of God, as well as the Universal House of Justice, to be universally elected and established, are both under the care and protection of the Abhá Beauty, under the shelter and unerring guidance of the Exalted One (may my life be offered up for them both). Whatsoever they decide is of God. Whoso obeyeth him not, neither obeyeth them, hath not obeyed God; whoso rebelleth against him and against them hath rebelled against God; whoso opposeth him hath opposed God; whoso contendeth with them hath contended with God; whoso disputeth with him hath disputed with God; whoso denieth him hath denied God; whoso disbelieveth in him hath disbelieved in God; whoso deviateth, separateth himself and turneth aside from him hath in truth deviated, separated himself and turned aside from God.

“The Jews await the Messiah, the Christians the return of Christ, the Moslem the Mahdi, the Buddhists the fifth Buddha, the Zoroastrians Shah Bahran, the Hindoos the reincarnation of Krishna, and the Atheists—a better social organization! Baha'o'llah represents all these, and thus destroys the rivalries and the enmities of the different religions; reconciles them in their primitive purity, and frees them from the corruption of dogmas and rites”

Tablets of ‘Abdu’l-Baha
‘Abdu’l-Bahá

In God Passes by Shoghi Effendi confirms the return of Krishna mentioned by Abdul-Baha is promised in the Bhagavad-Gita.

Bhagavad-Gita 4:8

To deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to reestablish the principles of religion, I Myself appear, millennium after millennium.


About the war whether its internal or external is about justice and overcoming evil within or without which is also jihad in the Quran.

In the Bible John the Baptist was asked if he was Elijah.

What then? Are you Elijah?” “I am not” (John 1:21). This would seem to settle the matter and put an end to any controversy.

Later, however, Jesus said of John the Baptist: “He is Elijah who is to come” (Matt 11:14).

John the Baptist here showed that by return does not mean the same personality or soul into another body but the ‘qualities’. So John denied being the reincarnation of the soul and personality of Elijah as he was a separate personality.

What Christ was clearly referring to when He said Elijah had returned in John the Baptists is that the same qualities that existed in Elijah exist in John the Baptist.

 

[loverofhumanity]

When I gullibly believed, it all made sense, and I felt the power of God within. When I got to the point of questioning some of the crazy things that I was expected to believe, I lost that feeling.

And I've mentioned it a few times, that I do believe that all these "true" believers in any of the religions here, feel it, know it, and live their lives as if what they believe is the absolute truth. But they all believe something different.

Christians deal with that by saying that all the other religions are false, and those that believe in them are being fooled.

Baha'is deal with it by saying that religious truth has been "progressive", and that the one true God has always sent his messengers/manifestation to kind people. But then I ask, why all the differences? Their answer is that over time the "original" teachings of the manifestation got corrupted. So, to me, that's almost the same thing that Christians say... For Christians, those other religions, except for Judaism, were always false. For Baha'is, those old religions were at one time true, but not anymore. Now they are false, and the only "real" truth is with God's new messenger. Which for our time is their prophet Baha'u'llah. His teachings alone can heal the ills of the world. No other religion can do that.

I think here we need to be honest. We live in a world where everything dies. Nothing is permanent. Not life. Not nature and definitely not religion. Religion meets the needs of each age if you look at it with an open mind. Why didn’t Christ or Buddha or Muhammad teach world unity or bring in a Universal House of Justice to be elected by all the nations of the world? Why?

Without many countries having even been discovered how could nations be united without first nationhood being established? And then how could world unity come about without any form of world communications? Ask yourself. Did these conditions exist in the time of Buddha, Christ or Muhammad? As humankind evolved certain teachings were given us.

Would there be any point in a Prophet appearing teaching interplanetary unity when we cannot reach the stars yet? So each Messenger elaborates and expands on the message before. For example Muhammad taught nationhood, Baha’u’llah teaches world unity. All the religions are true, but stepping stones to the next stage of our progress.

What is said about corruption is that if it weren’t for the clergy humanity would only ever have had one ever evolving religion. So Hindus would all have accepted Buddha and become Buddhists, Buddhists would all have accepted Christ and become Christians and Christians all would have accepted Muhammad and so one. There would only have ever existed one religion in the world. But the clergy if you consult history destroyed that chance by starting wars between themselves and other religions.

Now has come the time for us all to grow up and accept our oneness and stop our bickering and unite. All religions are true but had a specific mission. The clergy bear a very, very heavy responsibility for turning humanity against itself as we witness even today.

“This is the changeless Faith of God, eternal in the past, eternal in the future. (Baha’u’llah)

John 16:12-14 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.

How could Christ have taught them about world unity? They could never have understood. That is why it was left to the coming of Baha’u’llah Who claimed to be the Spirit of Truth spoken of by Jesus to speak of these things when humanity was ready.

 

[vijeno]

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

It's a mixed bag.

On the one hand, once an argument really convinces you, you cannot help changing your mind. Once the coin has dropped, the fight is over. The old idea might still fight a losing battle, but it's done.

On the other hand, we have a great capacity to ignore new information, argue against it in our own minds, distract ourselves, just look at what we want to see. And to make matters worse, a good deal of that works on an unconscious level, so it seems like we're convinced of something even when we're already on the way out. We might even argue more fervently if we're kind of on the fence.

 

[joelr]

They do ..

Where? It definitely says in the Gospels that the only unforgivable sin in denial of the Holy Spirit which is basically disbelief. The Quran also says over and over disbelievers will have a horrible doom.
So, what are you talking about?

but you only want to read/quote the bits that you dislike.

Of course there is some good wisdom? There is really good wisdom in Hindu scripture, doesn't make the deities real. All myths have some good lessons, they are set in a framework of fictive deities and magical events. That is the way to make people believe in those days. Now we know it's just fiction and don't need the supernatural stuff.

 

[joelr]

@muhammad_isa can call it whatever he wants to. He does not have to demonstrate anything to you or to anyone else.

First, it's a debate forum.
Second, he doesn't have to demonstrate it's true, he can leave it at the most likely status of claims made up by people.
If he claims it's true and cannot demonstrate it then he has failed to provide supporting evidence and hasn't met the burden of proof. Debate lost.

There is also no evidence that YOU can know their religion is wrong.
All you have is a personal opinion.

I have much more than personal opinion.
I have the facts that no supernatural anything has been demonstrated. I have the historical facts that show the theology was borrowed and did not likely come from revelation. The information isn't at all new. There is no historical verification, and on and on.

FAR from personal opinion. All you seem to have is the same attempt, over and over to poison the well with this "personal opinion" yet all I do is demonstrate evidence to support my claim.
You can try these dishonest tactics all you like, it just shows you have literally nothing else.

God is only a moral monster in your personal opinion.
God is not subject to morality at all. Only humans are subject to morality.

Except that god is a moral monster in his actions.
Sets up religions that look like full mythology then sends people to eternal torture. Also if he knows the future always than he created these people to go to hell because he could have created them differently.
That god is a monster.

Before you decide if any god is subject to morality maybe you could demonstrate it's real first?

Morality is the belief that some behaviour is right and acceptable and that other behaviour is wrong. ... A morality is a system of principles and values concerning people's behaviour, which is generally accepted by a society or by a particular group of people.
Morality definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

In my opinion (belief) God is all-good, so God cannot be bad or evil.

"In my opinion" HA HA HA HA HA, you have been just coming at me with one criticism, it's all "my opinion". Then you do the same. Implying it's fine for you but now me. You cannot even put forth a consistent argument. Terrible.

The OT god is evil. Many times over.
A god who would create Bahai but not offer enough proof (not just for me but billions of Muslims are not convinced), is a monster. Crteating conflict, wars, separation. Either he's a total monster or it's all made up by people.
Hmmm, wonder which one it is?

There is no reason to believe that anyone is going to an eternal fire. that is only a 2nd century understanding of the Bible. We know better now.

Because a guy made a claim with zero evidence. You mean "you" know better because I don't buy into obvious hoaxes.

But this god still is a monster because he didn't settle the issue, he has unlimited power yet chooses to provide the worst evidence ever. Not just by my standards, there are still billions of Muslims who are not even close to considering Bahai real. This creates more separation, religious wars. Worst deity ever.

Luckily, this is all just the work of men and making claims and fiction.

God allows people to war because God allows free will but that doesn't mean that God enjoys humans at war.
Nobody can ever know what God enjoys unless it is written in scriptures.

No true, if it's in scriptures then you will come along with zero evidence except a claim and say the scriptures are all wrong unless they match the hoax your guy is running.

You have no evidence to support your religion, no evidence the other religions are wrong.
Also by saying that all hose scriptures are corrupt when they don't fit your theology you say scriptures are not reliable.
Now, you have to say "oh, not my scriptures, those are perfect, all the others:"..........

Even though those also came from real messengers, somehow god allowed them to go corrupt. So now, your scriptures from the 1870s are far too old and could easily be corrupt.
You will use special pleading and deny that but you can't have it all. Your argument is so full of holes, it's a disaster.

Only in your personal opinion.

Yes in my opinion, as well as his actions. Notice, you cannot make a counter argument. All you can do is say this one thing over and over.