Can we change our mind about what we believe?

[Trailblazer]

Why do you believe it? What benefit is it to you?

It is not a matter of benefit. It is a matter of what I believe is true.
It is beneficial for me to believe, but that is not why I believe.
I believe because of the evidence.

 

[joelr]

Nonsense!
G-d had warned Adam not to eat from that tree. We often have to learn the hard way..

First Adam didn't know sin, so how does he know it's wrong if someone tells him?

Second, God knows everything right? So he could have made an Adam with freewill who choose to not eat the fruit.

Next, the serpent should be the only thing punished.

Finally, Gods protecting sacred fruit is a myth that dates far back into Mesopotamia. These are fictional stories. First human pair, snake being mischevious, all older myths.

G-d had already instructed Adam about the law .. and there was only one!

He didn't know sin. But god already knew, if he is all powerful. So it's his fault for making that Adam.

 

[joelr]

I've heard some Christians say that Muhammad took things from apocryphal Christian works and used them. Like Mary giving birth to Jesus under a date palm, and Jesus making birds out of clay and made them come to life.

Since Baha'is take the Quran as being more authentic than the Bible or NT, I've asked them if the story about the birth of Christ in the NT was true or the version in the Quran. I don't think any of them have answered. But I don't suppose they would know and maybe not even care, because they are looking at the forest and don't care about the details. But with their claims and beliefs, they have opened a big can of worms.

They definitely don't care about details because there isn't evidence to back up the claims.

 

[joelr]

Who says that he is trying to prove anything?
Who says he is in a debate with you? He cannot lose a debate he is not in.

That is your point LOL? It's a debate forum. If you think he is or isn't, ask him instead of gaslighting me.

No supernatural anything has been demonstrated, but that does not mean that nothing supernatural exists.

It means there is no evidence. Which means I have more than personal opinion.

You have no historical facts that show the theology was borrowed and did not likely come from revelation.
You cannot prove that so give it up for lost. All you have is a dogmatic personal opinion.

First revelations are not even demonstrated to be a real thing.
Second the Quran borrows stories from the OT. Noah, Moses and many more are mentioned.
If you want to say the stories are from a god and not from reading the OT than demonstrate a god who gives revelation. Show sufficient evidence as good as the evidence we have that people copy from older books.
We know that is a thing.


We also have the

The Sanaa palimpsest which is evidence that the Quran was being worked on slowly over a century.

I have beliefs and I do not pretend that they are facts.

My point exactly, all you have are claims.

You have no evidence that supports your claims. All you have is a personal opinion about some historical facts and what they mean.
Since you cannot prove they mean what you believe they mean, they are not facts.

Again, nope, the opinions and conclusions on th ehistorical evidence are not my own but opinions and conclusions from the top scholars in the field. They are our best attempt at what is true.

You do not KNOW any actions of any God. If you believe the OT is God actions that is laughable. The OT is a book written by men who made up stories about what God did.

The Bahai scriptures are also written by a man who made up stories about having revelations. And the evidence is horrible and basically non-existent.

Now this is funny. A minute ago, right above you just said this - "I have beliefs and I do not pretend that they are facts."

Yet here you are stating knowledge about the OT god as if they are hard FACTS.
You do not say "if you believe that is the OT God that is your belief"

You DO say " If you believe the OT is God actions that is laughable."

Now, that, is laughable.
Could you possibly be more inconsistent? I tell you, every time it gets worse, you don't dissappoint.

The Bible is full of mythology but there are also many spiritual truths embedded in the Bible. The key is knowing which is which.

Is probably not at all what you mean. What you mean is what the Bahai book says is true you believe and what the Bahai books says is metaphor you think is metaphor.
Because you believe if the book says it it must be true.

God does not send anyone to eternal torture. That is part of the myth.
God did not create anyone to go to hell, and there is no such place anyway.
God created everyone to love Him as God loves everyone. That is heaven, a state of the soul who is near to God.

“We, verily, have come for your sakes, and have borne the misfortunes of the world for your salvation. Flee ye the One Who hath sacrificed His life that ye may be quickened.” Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 10​

​

“Though the purpose of Him Who is the Eternal Truth hath been to confer everlasting life upon all men, and ensure their security and peace, yet witness how they have arisen to shed the blood of His loved ones, and have pronounced on Him the sentence of death.”​

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 116​

​

“I confess that Thou hast no desire except the regeneration of the whole world, and the establishment of the unity of its peoples, and the salvation of all them that dwell therein.” Gleanings, p. 243​

And here we have exact confirmation of what I just said. You believe everything is either true or not true based on another book. Written by a man who makes a claim and cannot back it up. He does write nothing new, rehashed wisdom, incorrect prophecies.

It's true because the book says so. Great, so you don't care about what is true at all.




http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/GWB/gwb-115.html.utf8?query=salvation&action=highlight#gr7

Nobody can ever demonstrate that God exists. Only humans are subject to morality.

Nobody can demonstrate god right, except it's "laughable" if you buy into some OT stories. Because you can demonstrate that isn't god. Oh you actually cannot? But it's totally cool to buy into Bahai claims?
This is the most inconsistent logic that ever existed.

"In my opinion" there is no such thing as the OT God. You have no proof that any such a God exists so it is only a matter of opinion.

yes because there is a lack of evidence

 

[joelr]

"In my opinion" there is enough evidence for the Baha'i Faith being true to sink a large ocean-liner.

a religion with even less evidence. All this time I have talked to you there has been ZERO evidence.


Then, sometimes you admit there is no evidence and say it's "opinion". I would go find a quote but I no longer care.


And now you circle back to "tons of evidence". Right. Which you cannot demonstrate. And sometimes admit it's just opinion.



You had your chance, you are just going around in weird circles now.

The fact that so few people believe it is true has nothing to do with whether it is true or not.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so." Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

The converse of this is that if many or most people do not believe it, it cannot be so, and that is fallacious.

It would be fallacious if I said any of that. But you just made up a strawman then actually went to google to copy/paste fallacies that fit to post. What a joke!



Here is what I actually said. "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?"

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.

Yes, only a few find it, the rest use confirmation bias to believe fake stuff.

This has nothing to do with any guy making a claim.
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, regardless of what Baha'u'llah wrote.

Yes we know hell is a myth, revelations are fake and supernatural claims should not be believed without sufficient evidence. Yet...........

Unlimited power does not mean God is responsible to USE that power....
God is in no way responsible to settle the issue for anyone. We have to settle the issue for ourselves.

Right so maybe he didn't use the power in any of these cases. Maybe Inanna was the last time. It's just up to us to figure that out.

Oh, you didn't mean Inanna? You mean the god version you already believe in and then use confirmation bias to say everything else we shouldn't believe. So you have it all figured out.

So God provides no evidence, how exactly do we settle it? Flip a coin? But into awful evidence? Well that includes all religions, so please tell me.

Imo, God has provided the best evidence ever, a Revelation from God written in the pen of the Messenger.

So you say. Luckily most have a bit higher standard of evidence. It has nothing to do with the "pen of the messenger". That is the claim.


The OT also makes that claim. You "laugh" at it.



Once again, you just demonstrated Mormonism is the word of god because Joseph Smith has the pen as well.


Jesus in AU has a ministry and has writings. Guess he has the "pen of the messenger".


This is so old. There is no evidence, it's opinion, then it's the best evidence ever, and it's a claim. Which every religion has.


Wow.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so." Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

The converse of this is that if many or most people do not believe it, it cannot be so, and that is fallacious.

God is in no way responsible to settle the issue for Muslims. They have to settle the issue for themselves.

Again, not the argument, but you went to google anyways. My argument was -


" there are still billions of Muslims who are not even close to considering Bahai real. This creates more separation, religious wars. Worst deity ever."

Not an argument about popularity. An argument about a deity helping to stop religious wars.


Oh, but it's up to us. It's up to us to see that THIS SAME OLD CLAIM, THE SAME CLAIM WITH NO EVIDENCE, is this time real?


Yeah, just because you employ massive confirmation bias, circular reasoning (see top of post) and believe a book cannot be false doesn't mean others should. Some people actually care about what is true, logical fallacies and evidence when it comes to belief.

Or so you believe.

the lack of evidence gives me reason to believe

I do not believe that all the other scriptures are wrong and I do not believe that all the other religions are wrong.

Like I just said, you believe any scripture if it matches your book. Also you just said an entire religion is wrong -






" If you believe the OT is God actions that is laughable. " The OT is Judaism, and they believe it.






You can't even keep one post consistent?

God allowed men to corrupt those religions. Why should God stop men from doing that?

What god? You still haven't demonstrated any god? You haven't given evidence any scripture was corrupted?

The Writings of Baha'u'llah cannot be altered because they are protected in a vault in Haifa, Israel.
The religion could get off track, but there will be another Messenger of God in the future to set things straight.

There are always people who claim to be getting revelations. Until one has actual evidence, they are probably not being truthful. Delusional, possibly. Revelations, no chance.

I have made my counter argument, over and over again.

Yes, seems to be, a man made a claim, provided no evidence, failed at prophecy but because he made the claim, it's great evidence.
I don't need to debunk the religion, you did it for me.

 

[muhammad_isa]

First Adam didn't know sin, so how does he know it's wrong if someone tells him?

That makes no sense..
Did Adam know that he was told not to? Yes.
He did NOT need to know why .. but "curiosity killed the cat", as they say.

..Second, God knows everything right? So he could have made an Adam with freewill who choose to not eat the fruit.

Not that nonsense again .. you describe a different reality .. let's stay focused, shall we?

Next, the serpent should be the only thing punished..

G-d forgave Adam .. but he still had to live with the consequences i.e. no longer innocent

These are fictional stories..

The more you repeat that, the more you believe it?

..So it's his fault for making that Adam..

Well, we still have to deal with life .. suicide will not solve anything.
It is only a belief that there is nothing after physical death.
Physical experiments CANNOT prove anything one way or the other.

 

[joelr]

I said:
I see you caught up in a "morass of details". That is your choice just as it is my choice not to get bogged down into details.
In my opinion you can't see the forest for the trees.

How is that a criticism?

Forest for the trees does not apply. What you are calling "details" are commonly called "facts" and "evidence".
Your lack of understanding that they are crucial to understanding truth explains everything that needs to be said.

It has nothing to do with that.

I think it does. You try to take attention away from the facts that the evidence stinks. Than explain what it means.

Long, long ago, I linked to the book The Challenge of Baha'u'llah.

because you thought it was evidence, it was given when asked for evidence.

Baha'u'llah predicted many events that later came to pass. That proves to me that He could see into the future, so He had prophetic powers. Some of these predictions and how they came to pass are listed and delineated in this book: The Challenge of Baha'u'llah
#392

He was wrong on all science. All political events were also being predicted by the rest of the world. That looks like a fraud.



https://www.religiousforums.com/thr...wers-of-bahaullah.238253/page-20#post-6877342

That book is only one man's interpretation of the prophecies, just like your interpretation is only one man's interpretation.
Baha'u'llah NEVER offered any prophecies as proof of His claims, NEVER.

He was still incredibly wrong. I posted the science prophecies, anyone can see they are completely wrong.
YOU offered them as proof. The backpeddling here is amazing.

Nobody is saying that anything is your fault. You are the only one placing blame.
If you have psychological problems that is not my problem.

The link to book is something I posted many years ago. If you want to make a fuss over it go ahead.
I explained what happened above. That is not dishonest. It is honest.

Perfect. Gaslighting and other manipulative tactics.

You have been telling ME that it's ME who isn't seeing the truth because I'm not seeing the "forest for the trees". You are putting the blame for not seeing the "truth" on me. It's textbook manipulation.

THEN, when called out you further blame me, double down, gaslight me by saying I am "making a fuss", which is what gaslighters do, try and make it as if it's you who is going overboard when all you are doing is saying stop blaming me.
You walked right into that.

AND THEN even worse, you now gaslight MORE and tell me I have psychological problems! HA HA HA

And yup, it's dishonest. Your prophecies don't work out so you switch to making it about me, and I'm not seeing this and that.

I am not blaming you for anything, blame is your gig. Your psychological problems are not my problem.

You 100% are blaming me for "not seeing the forest for the trees". Now you even deny it. You didn't respond to my statement, you just went harder but literally now saying I have psychological problems-

"
Perfect, this could not be more clear. You link to a book of prophecies as evidence, I study them to actually see, which was your intent.
When it turns out they are all wrong or lame, suddenly you shift the blame on me as not seeing the forest. Wow. Gaslighting at it's finest."



textbook manipulation and further gaslighting.

FYI, I am not a dude, and you are the one who needs to give this up.

I am done? I pointed out all the fallacies, confirmation bias, lack of evidence and you have not given a reasonable response and cannot defend these beliefs. I have been finished. Every new angle (forest for the trees) is you. Fail, fail, fail.

That book is only one man's interpretation of the prophecies, just like your interpretation is only one man's interpretation.
Baha'u'llah NEVER offered any prophecies as proof of His claims, NEVER.

who is also an expert in the religion,
"
The Revelation which, from time immemorial, hath been acclaimed as the Purpose and Promise of all the Prophets of God, and the most cherished Desire of His Messengers, hath now... been revealed unto men, ' writes Baha'u'llah. "The advent of such a Revelation hath been heralded in all the sacred Scriptures. Behold how, notwithstanding such an announcement, mankind hath strayed from its path and shut out itself from its glory. '7

If this claim is true - and if we can confirm or substantiate it by objective investigation - then clearly it marks the most important turning point in human history. Baha'u'llah says the upheavals and convulsions of today are those foretold in the sacred books of all past religions, that they are preparing the world for the promised era of peace and justice, and that His revelation has set in motion the forces that will gradually bring it about. He has also given to the world approximately a hundred volumes of guidance on how individuals and institutions can best meet the challenges of this time, hastening the Golden Age that must follow.

In deciding whether Baha'u'llah's claim merits investigation, we must bear in mind two points. The first is that He does not ask anyone to accept a literal interpretation of ancient prophecy. According to...."

AND it's easy to sustantiate because he was WRONG

That is just one book and one man's opinion. Who cares?

Oh, you do because you put that book in links over and over.

I don't care because I look at the evidence that Baha'u'llah offered, not how one man came to believe in the Baha'i Faith.

Which was................his pen?........Uh, you haven't given evidence.
Several times your response to evidence was to post the book which you now say "who cares".

Even I am surprised by how many inconsistencies are popping up here. Wow, it's almost like the religion is fake?

If you continue to harp on one book then everyone will know that you have nothing else in your bag of tricks.

Because your links were:

Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 179-183. bahai scripture

Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 179-183

reference.bahai.org

Some Answered Questions | Bahá’í Reference Library

A collection of transcriptions of table talks given by ‘Abdu’l‑Bahá in ‘Akká between 1904 and 1906 in response to questions posed by Laura Dreyfus-Barney, an American Bahá’í resident in Paris, and first published in 1908. The new edition, extensively retranslated, was published in 2014.

www.bahai.org

Gary Matthews. The Challenge of Baha'u'llah

AND I DO CRITICIZE HIS SCRIPTURE.

You posted that book, you claimed he made prophecies, YOU DID. Now that we see they are crap it's a whole new story, the book has become a "bag of tricks", I couldn't debunk this any better, you are handing me material over and over?

You have NO PROOF that Baha'u'llah copied anything from the Bible or the Quran. That is laughable!
Were you there when Baha'u'llah wrote His Writings? Did you see Him carrying around a Bible or the Qur'an?

What we have NO PROOF of is god, revelations. Period. NONE.
Comnparisons between the Quran and Bahai show they are similar. But there is nothing really "new", so there is evidence that it's just a reinterpretation of the Quran by one who was known to be a big reader of religious material.

"The similarities of these two religions are uncanny. They are so closely related, and the differences seem so miniscule, at least to the eye of an outsider looking in. When it come to the prayer life of members of the two religions, they are almost identical. They both pray multiple times a day, prayer is obligatory for both, there are movements and gestures to go along with the prayers, the prayers are done facing a certain location, either Mecca or Qiblih, and they are both rooted from the same region in the world. In all reality the only major difference causing these two religions to tear each other apart, is what they believe about the manifestation of Allah. Other than that they are both monotheistic, follow teachings from the prophet Mohammad, and have a regulated form of prayer for members of the religion to follow. "

Your posts are getting funnier by the day, and more insulting.
The only reason I am answering parts of them is because I am stuck in the house since my car is covered with ice!

If logic and truth are funny to you then great, laugh away.

They may seem insulting because I'm not allowing personal attacks.

But I will give you a suggestion, something I was told many years ago when I used to post long posts on another forum.
People do not read posts that are really long and detailed, so if you want people to read your posts - me or anyone else - I suggest you cut out all the details.

No thank you. I have read nothing here that indicates I would want or need a suggestion from you.

 

[joelr]

No, it had not been debunked because you cannot debunk a personal opinion.
In my opinion you are lost in the forest so you cannot see the trees.

If it's just an opinion than it's debunked as a fact.
If you have facts that one is not seeing true evidence then present it. If not, then that line of argument has been debunked.

I made a post I over 3 years ago and you picked out one book I had linked to in that post.

I already admitted I do not consider that man's opinion to be evidence.

You have not explained what you mean by forest vs trees so it's fair to assume the prophecies are still in play. If they are not you now need to explain the fact there is a large amount of incorrect prophecies by someone who is supposedly speaking to a god.
You just said there is a massive amount of evidence, there is not actually any evidence,

Grow up and get over it.

I'm responding to a post, you didn't switch the prophecy evidence to "it's just one mans opinion" until recently.
But to ad-hom me immediately, implying I'm immature is just more of the same gaslighting. Telling me to "get over it" is an exaggeration implying I'm over emotional, which is another favorite gaslighting manipulation.

 

[joelr]

Biased sources BELIEVE it is all mythology but they do not KNOW that.

They have evidence. Now please explain why scholars are "biased" but someone who buys into a belief without evidence because they resonate with writings isn't the real bias person?

Why are historians biased? Why are archaeologists biased? What do they do, go to a temple dig and secretly write stuff on the walls when no one is looking? Please tell us how experts are biased, how you know and give some examples.

That is not evidence of any kind.

Ancient temples, comparative myths on older stone tablets, similar writings in older scripture, ancient historians talking about old religions, that isn't evidence?
Letters from Justin Martyr, Iraneous, and people who were around in the first centuries isn't evidence?

What are you talking about? YET, a guy with a pen and weird claims IS evidence??? Who are you?

Some of the Bible is probably mythology, I will give you that. I don't need any scholars to tell me that, only a rational mind!

Yes, the same rational mind that can tell us when a person claims to be speaking to GOD he is going to have some miraculous evidence in math, science, philosophy, cosmology, medicine and a God will leave no doubt.

Or, a person will be making it all up, and it will result in wars, separation, further fragmenting of religious beliefs.

I never said that biblical scholars don't know how to interpret evidence.

you said they were bias which means they interpret evidence with bias.

I never said that the Bible is mostly wrong and corrupted. Baha'u'llah wrote that the Bible has not been corrupted.

yes you did - post 1,037"If you believe the OT is God actions that is laughable. The OT is a book written by men who made up stories about what God did."

Addressing the Muslims, Baha’u’llah wrote:

“We have also heard a number of the foolish of the earth assert that the genuine text of the heavenly Gospel doth not exist amongst the Christians, that it hath ascended unto heaven. How grievously they have erred! How oblivious of the fact that such a statement imputeth the gravest injustice and tyranny to a gracious and loving Providence! How could God, when once the Day-star of the beauty of Jesus had disappeared from the sight of His people, and ascended unto the fourth heaven, cause His holy Book, His most great testimony amongst His creatures, to disappear also?” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, p. 89

“Our purpose in relating these things is to warn you that were they to maintain that those verses wherein the signs referred to in the Gospel are mentioned have been perverted, were they to reject them, and cling instead to other verses and traditions, you should know that their words were utter falsehood and sheer calumny. Yea “corruption” of the text, in the sense We have referred to, hath been actually effected in particular instances.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, p. 88

“Our purpose in relating these things is to warn you that were they to maintain that those verses wherein the signs referred to in the Gospel are mentioned have been perverted, were they to reject them, and cling instead to other verses and traditions, you should know that their words were utter falsehood and sheer calumny. Yea “corruption” of the text, in the sense We have referred to, hath been actually effected in particular instances. A few of these We have mentioned, that it may become manifest to every discerning observer that unto a few untutored holy Men hath been given the mastery of human learning, so that the malevolent opposer may cease to contend that a certain verse doth indicate “corruption” of the text, and insinuate that We, through lack of knowledge, have made mention of such things. Moreover, most of the verses that indicate “corruption” of the text have been revealed with reference to the Jewish people, were ye to explore the isles of Qur’ánic Revelation.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, pp. 88-89

It is the religions of the past that have been corrupted.

Notice he has no specifics, about anything. Everything is vague. Like a scam artist does. He doesn't know about gnostic tradition, Greek influence, Mesopotamian influence, because that wasn't common knowledge yet.
He also fails to mention what is corrupt, which he could have because we now know much of that because it's obvious, but wasn't then.

Those scholars are clueless about God, unless they are Christian or Baha'i scholars. LOL.

Then why do you call the Christian scholars bias? You just said above - "

Biased sources BELIEVE it is all mythology but they do not KNOW that.

Yes, all historians of the NT and OT know it is mythology, based on evidence. So you say they are bias, don't know and then they do know? What?

Jesus Christ was not "a guy who said He talked to God." Nothing could be funnier.

Paul was the equivalant of Bahai and Muhammad, a revelation claim. All claims have no evidence as well.

Even if Baha'u'llah had never come, Jesus would be ample evidence that God exists.

Jesus is a fictional Hellenistic dying/rising savior demigod. Influenced by Hellenism and the gospels are completely mythical. At best Jesus was a Jewish human preacher.

Your so-called evidence cannot hit the broad side of a barn.

Just to demonstrate how much lack of knowledge you have about evidence on Jesus:

So What About Hannibal, Then? • Richard Carrier Blogs

This kind of argument has been tried again and again and again. I’ve discussed every one. (See Okay, So What about the Historicity of Spartacus?) It’s always of this form: P1. We should not doubt [x] existed. P2. The evidence for Jesus is better than for [x]. P3. The same standards of evidence...

www.richardcarrier.info

Dr Carrier-


All mainstream scholars agree Jesus as demigod is a mythical savior deity. They all agree the Gospels are myths about him. They simply conclude that those myths contain some kernels of fact, and that Jesus was originally not a flying, magic-wielding supergod. But they agree the super-Jesus, the only Jesus about whom we have any accounts at all, didn’t exist. They think some mundane Jesus did, who was dressed up with those legends and beliefs later. But that still admits he belongs to a reference class that the Hannibals of the world do not: that of mythically-attested savior gods who speak to their followers in dreams and visions. So we actually need more evidence for Jesus than we have for Hannibal, to be sure Jesus isn’t just like all other mythical savior gods, who also had amazing stories about them set on earth history, and who also appeared to people in dreams and visions—yet never plausibly existed.

"All mainstream scholars"












Francesca Stavrakopoulou PhD

The idea that the Israelite religion was extraordinary and different from religions of surrounding religions and cultures and this deity is somehow different and extraordinary and so this deity is wholly unlike all other deities in Southeast Asia. Historically this is not the case. Nothing unusual or extraordinary about Yahweh.



The Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth[a] of both Judaism and Christianity.[1]
It expounds themes parallel to those in Mesopotamian mythology, emphasizing the Israelite people's belief in one God.
Comparative mythology provides historical and cross-cultural perspectives for Jewish mythology. Both sources behind the Genesis creation narrative borrowed themes from Mesopotamian mythology,[18][19] but adapted them to their belief in one God,
Genesis 1–11 as a whole is imbued with Mesopotamian myths.[
Genesis 2 has close parallels with a second Mesopotamian myth, the Atra-Hasis epic – parallels that in fact extend throughout Genesis 2–11, from the Creation to the Flood and its aftermath.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The evidence is the character of the Messengers, what they did on their mission, and what they revealed to others or wrote in their own pen.

But you never say what aspects of the Messenger's character, mission, or words suggests that he was more than an ordinary man claiming to channel a god. What aspect of his character demonstrates that he wasn't an ordinary man? Many ordinary men are decent, honest, loyal, dependable, etc., and many of those have been religious. How did this Messenger surpass them to convince you that he was who he claimed to be? How was his mission different from any other religious reformer, such as my former pastor, who travels the world promoting his faith? Which of his words could not be spoken by you or me?

These are all rhetorical questions. I expect no answers, nor need any. They are intended to point out that you refer to evidence by category, but don't produce any actual specific bits of evidence from any of those categories.

Agreed .. all written books need to be scrutinised, and evaluated as a whole.

Agreed? That's not what I said. You've ignored what I wrote, which was that books are just words, and that words alone are evidence of nothing more than that somebody thought them and wrote them down and somebody published them. And we need corroborating empirical evidence before believing anything written. Is that a difficult concept? You know absolutely nothing for a fact because you read or heard it. Isn't that obvious?

I mean that the words represent something .. concepts, meaning .. and reporting events.

But you said that books were more than words. Are you now saying that they are also the meanings of those words? If so, I disagree. It's still a book even if it's written in a language the reader doesn't know, and even if different readers take different meaning from those words. But even if I stipulate to your claim and limit the discussion to books that we can understand and whose words have meaning to us, a book is still nothing more than those words and what they mean to us. I can't emphasize enough that NOTHING ever written or spoken is true because it was written or spoken except perhaps something trivial like, "I'm awake."

 

[joelr]

That makes no sense..
Did Adam know that he was told not to? Yes.
He did NOT need to know why .. but "curiosity killed the cat", as they say.

No, Eve told him. The serpent told Eve. They don't know sin. Disobediance, they don't know. Like a child, you tell a child not to eat a fruit or it will make him have knowledge and another person says it's ok, they live in the moment and don't understand. They eat it.

Not that nonsense again .. you describe a different reality .. let's stay focused, shall we?

Wait, you want to talk about reality? And your talking about a talking deity, Eden, humans not evolving over millions of years slowly from Heidelburgensis but just being created, in one of the thousands of silly creation myths?

No. It makes sense as a mythic story. We are already talking about a fantasy reality. But, in that reality it does not track.
God makes sinless sub-humans and because they eat a fruit he casts them out of a fantasy realm, causes birth pain on all women, causes men and women to not get along.
I'm talking about it in reality reality.

G-d forgave Adam .. but he still had to live with the consequences i.e. no longer innocent

No he punished them, pain in childbirth, men and women have conflict, forever.

The more you repeat that, the more you believe it?

They are re-workings of older myths for one.

Humans evolved over 6 million years, we have fossils,

Humans are great apes morphologically, behaviorally and genetically we are great apes. \\

Yahweh is -
"The idea that the Israelite religion was extraordinary and different from religions of surrounding religions and cultures and this deity is somehow different and extraordinary and so this deity is wholly unlike all other deities in Southeast Asia. Historically this is not the case. Nothing unusual or extraordinary about Yahweh. "

Francesca Stavrakopoulou PhD





So no, I don't need to repeat it, I just need to look at reality.

Well, we still have to deal with life .. suicide will not solve anything.
It is only a belief that there is nothing after physical death.
Physical experiments CANNOT prove anything one way or the other.

I don't know what that has to do with Yahweh making that Adam when he could have made the Adam who didn't eat the fruit?


Physical experiments don't have to prove or disprove that when we die we turn into a honeybee. The idea is silly and until there is a reason to believe that it isn't on the table.

Greek myths about souls and heaven are also in that boat.
There is nothing about the brain that suggests surviving after life. We also see the mechanism where brains and consciousness slowly evolved from simple life with the most basic nervous system (maybe a area that detects water wave movement behind it on a multi-celled organism) up to complex brains, we see how it came about. We don't have Gods taking clay and breathing life into it. We do have a story about that.
But ancient stories are all wrong. Including Genesis. No cosmic ocean above heaven above the earth, no doors for water to pour out for the flood or any mention of cosmology, stellar formation, expanding spacetime, physics, planets, suns, just stuff the writers could see and imagine.
The imagine part is all wrong. The Quran is a little better because they used Greek science.

 

[Trailblazer]

But you never say what aspects of the Messenger's character, mission, or words suggests that he was more than an ordinary man claiming to channel a god. What aspect of his character demonstrates that he wasn't an ordinary man? Many ordinary men are decent, honest, loyal, dependable, etc., and many of those have been religious. How did this Messenger surpass them to convince you that he was who he claimed to be? How was his mission different from any other religious reformer, such as my former pastor, who travels the world promoting his faith? Which of his words could not be spoken by you or me?

These are all rhetorical questions. I expect no answers, nor need any. They are intended to point out that you refer to evidence by category, but don't produce any actual specific bits of evidence from any of those categories.

Why ask me questions if you have already decided that there are no answers?
There are answers to all these questions, but one needs to do the necessary research in order to find those answers.

How I came to believe the claims of Baha'u'llah, i.e. what was impressive to me, is not going to be the same as how others came to believe, because I am a separate person. I was mostly impressed by what He accomplished on His 40 year mission, which is delineated in Baha'i history, as well as what He wrote. Whether one is impressed by what He wrote and whether one believes it came from God is a subjective call. I already know what you think of His Writings, but I have a different opinion. For me, the Writings alone are incontrovertible evidence that He spoke for God.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Why ask me questions if you have already decided that there are no answers?

I've asked you similar questions in the past and have never gotten a specific answer from you, just categories like words, mission, and character absent specific examples of any of these, so I'm not expecting one now or in the future. It's analogous to somebody saying that he's convinced that his fiancée will make a good wife and mother and when asked what his evidence is, his answers are in the form of "the things she says and the things she does."

There are answers to all these questions, but one needs to do the necessary research in order to find those answers.

And then when asked just what she has said and done that is the evidence to which he refers, he just repeats "My evidence is what she says and does, her character, her values, her agenda." When pressed to be more specific, he's told that "There are answers to all these questions, but one needs to do the necessary research in order to find them." Eventually, one realizes that he has no such evidence, just the hope that he has chosen wisely.

Whether one is impressed by what He wrote and whether one believes it came from God is a subjective call.

It's not a matter of being impressed by the Messenger's words and deeds. It's a matter of them appearing transhuman or not. Something that a man could have said or done is not evidence for a god.

I already know what you think of His Writings, but I have a different opinion. For me, the Writings alone are incontrovertible evidence that He spoke for God.

And there's one of your categories - the words. If only you could provide some text that suggests that he actually spoke for a god, but you can't, or at least haven't yet. Hopefully, you can understand why I don't believe that you have such evidence.

Remember when Rudy et al were claiming that they had evidence of election tampering but never produced it? Likewise with these Biden investigations into financial impropriety. We just hear about this evidence, but it's never produced. Aren't you doing the same here? You say that you have evidence, but when asked to produce it, you say to go do my own research. I view that similarly, the major difference being that I know the Republicans are lying and I know that they know that they're lying, but I don't see you in those terms. I believe that unlike them, you're sincere, but like them, you don't have the evidence you say you do and that what you call evidence doesn't support your conclusions about its significance.

 

[Trailblazer]

I've asked you similar questions in the past and have never gotten a specific answer from you, just categories like words, mission, and character absent specific examples of any of these, so I'm not expecting one now or in the future. It's analogous to somebody saying that he's convinced that his fiancée will make a good wife and mother and when asked what his evidence is, his answers are in the form of "the things she says and the things she does."

To be fair, you said:
These are all rhetorical questions. I expect no answers, nor need any. They are intended to point out that you refer to evidence by category, but don't produce any actual specific bits of evidence from any of those categories.

And then when asked just what she has said and done that is the evidence to which he refers, he just repeats "My evidence is what she says and does, her character, her values, her agenda." When pressed to be more specific, he's told that "There are answers to all these questions, but one needs to do the necessary research in order to find them." Eventually, one realizes that he has no such evidence, just the hope that he has chosen wisely.

Why is it my responsibility to do the research for you? That in no way means there is no evidence or nothing to find.

I can point you to the texts that contain all that, but if you really care to know the truth, it is your responsibility to do your own research.
In a classroom, the teacher assigns texts and homework to the students. The teacher dos not read the texts to the students or do their homework assignments.

It's not a matter of being impressed by the Messenger's words and deeds. It's a matter of them appearing transhuman or not. Something that a man could have said or done is not evidence for a god.

We have discussed this before. What appears trans-human to you is not going to be the same as what appears trans-human to me, since we are evaluation and responding to what we read with two different minds.

From my viewpoint, an ordinary man could not have written or done what Baha'ullah wrote and did. Others who knew Him in person said something similar.

And there's one of your categories - the words. If only you could provide some text that suggests that he actually spoke for a god, but you can't, or at least haven't yet. Hopefully, you can understand why I don't believe that you have such evidence.

More correctly stated, "If only you could provide some text that suggests to you that he actually spoke for a god, but you can't, or at least haven't yet."

The texts do not suggest that to you, but they suggest that to me.

Remember when Rudy et al were claiming that they had evidence of election tampering but never produced it? Likewise with these Biden investigations into financial impropriety. We just hear about this evidence, but it's never produced. Aren't you doing the same here? You say that you have evidence, but when asked to produce it, you say to go do my own research. I view that similarly, the major difference being that I know the Republicans are lying and I know that they know that they're lying, but I don't see you in those terms. I believe that unlike them, you're sincere, but like them, you don't have the evidence you say you do and that what you call evidence doesn't support your conclusions about its significance.

No, investigating a religion is not the same as politics where certain allegations can be proven true or false.
A religious claim cannot be proven true or false, it is a matter of opinion/belief.

The other difference is that it is not 'your job' to do those investigations and you have no access to the information that would prove those allegations true or false.

I could offer you some examples of evidence but you would simply say that what I call evidence doesn't support my conclusions about its significance.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Agreed? That's not what I said. You've ignored what I wrote..

No I didn't .. I read it .. perhaps I was answering in a more general way.
You are saying that "they are just words" .. literally speaking of course they are..
..but they have a meaning .. they need to be evaluated .. evaluated AGAINST our experience
and knowledge of ALL we have read.

You know absolutely nothing for a fact because you read or heard it. Isn't that obvious?

Of course it's obvious.
..but I don't agree with your dismissal of history books, as they are mainly devoid of "empirical evidence".
Books aren't just "believeable" because they include some scientific proofs and so on.

It is easy to dismiss what you like, with an excuse of "it's all just words"

a book is still nothing more than those words

Yeah .. you're merely repeating yourself .. what you are telling me is "just words" !!!

 

[muhammad_isa]

No he (God) punished them, pain in childbirth, men and women have conflict, forever.

You are merely repeating a literal reading of a translation of Genesis .. an ancient text.
You should really update your understanding with the Qur'an. Relatively recent.

 

[CG Didymus]

They definitely don't care about details because there isn't evidence to back up the claims.

How can Baha'is answer that? They've already committed themselves to believing Ishmael is the son taken to be sacrificed, along with denying Jesus came back to life. Now if they deny the gospel birth story in favor of the one in the Quran, it's only going to push them further from Christianity and more towards Islam.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Why is it my responsibility to do the research for you?

You have no responsibility to me regarding your religious beliefs, and I'm not interested in investigating religions to see if one strikes me as correct beyond what I do here on RF, and even that isn't for the purpose of learning about people's theologies. My interest is in how people think - how they arrive at conclusions and decide what's true about the world -which is why I was interested in what YOU were calling evidence of a god. You've presented none and that's research enough.

I could offer you some examples of evidence but you would simply say that what I call evidence doesn't support my conclusions about its significance.

Probably. Nothing presented from or about the Messenger thus far has seemed like more than what a human being could say or do unaided. You can see why I'm none too enthusiastic to go digging through untold thousands of words when you say that I won't find them convincing. And you're right about that unless there is something more there than what I've seen so far.

Since you have produced nothing upon request, and the bits you have reproduced for other purposes appear in my estimation to be nothing that ordinary people couldn't have done or said, wouldn't you agree that exploring further would be poor way for somebody like me to use my time? What would be my incentive?

Think of such samples as like a blurb on a book cover or a movie trailer intended to attract the reader or viewer of the sample to seek more. If the highlights others present aren't interesting, there is no reason to expect that book or movie will be any better.

what you are telling me is "just words"

Yes, and none of them are facts just because you or anybody else read and understood them. That's my point, and it applies to whatever it is that you are calling history books, scripture, or any other text. What's your greater point with history books here? You must be going somewhere that has something to do with believing history books. I suspect that it's related to biblical claims and believing them, since I don't think you care whether I believe that any given historical figure actually existed or said or did what is attributed to him except possibly things like whether Jesus lived and was resurrected as reported in the New Testament. But maybe you have some other purpose for all of these comments about evidence for historical claims.

 

[Trailblazer]

You have no responsibility to me regarding your religious beliefs, and I'm not interested in investigating religions to see if one strikes me as correct beyond what I do here on RF, and even that isn't for the purpose of learning about people's theologies. My interest is in how people think - how they arrive at conclusions and decide what's true about the world -which is why I was interested in what YOU were calling evidence of a god. You've presented none and that's research enough.

Thanks for explaining what you are interested in. That helps. Now I will explain what I am interested in. I am interested in some of the same things you are.
As a former student of psychology, I am interested in how people think and how they arrive at conclusions. I am also interested in sharing my knowledge, religious or other, with people who are interested in what I know.

Now I will tell you what I am not interested in. I am not very interested in religions other than my own, since religion has never been a big interest of mine. I am also not interested in advocating or promoting a belief or course of action, as I have been accused of doing on another thread.

Probably. Nothing presented from or about the Messenger thus far has seemed like more than what a human being could say or do unaided. You can see why I'm none too enthusiastic to go digging through untold thousands of words when you say that I won't find them convincing. And you're right about that unless there is something more there than what I've seen so far.

Since you have produced nothing upon request, and the bits you have reproduced for other purposes appear in my estimation to be nothing that ordinary people couldn't have done or said, wouldn't you agree that exploring further would be poor way for somebody like me to use my time? What would be my incentive?

Since what I have presented so far has seemed to you like something any human being could do unaided by God, nothing that an ordinary man couldn't have done or said, it would not be worth my time to present any more of the same.

I agree that exploring further would be a waste of your time. The only incentive I can think of is if you were searching for the truth about God, but if you are content as an atheist I see no reason for you to explore any further.

Please note that I am not advocating or promoting a belief or course of action. I firmly believe that everyone has to decide for themselves what to believe for the reason that Baha'u'llah gave:

“For the faith of no man can be conditioned by any one except himself.” Gleanings, p. 143

 

[muhammad_isa]

What's your greater point with history books here? You must be going somewhere that has something to do with believing history books..

I believe this all began with your saying "we shouldn't believe that which has not been empirically confirmed."

..but I don't think that most people think along the lines of "historical events cannot be proved,
so I won't believe in them" .. and erase all of history in their mind.

..But maybe you have some other purpose for all of these comments about evidence for historical claims.

I'm just trying to establish the fact that belief, or faith in something, is very common,
and does NOT just apply to religion(s).

This "black & white" thinking .. this 'critical thinking' business of yours, is not attainable in reality.