Can we change our mind about what we believe?

[muhammad_isa]

A mainstream scholar has a PhD in the particular field being discussed and then applies that degree to papers and books, research projects that take many years, which then has to pass peer-review.

If it's OT history then you need to have mastered Hebrew and understand Mesopotamian languages. NT requires Greek but most read several languages as well because many monographs are in other languages. Any other languages that were used in that time and area are also needed to some degree. English would be needed as well for reading modern translations for comparisons..

Right!
..so we have established that a person who does not study in English cannot be a "mainstream scholar"
..even though, the Abrahamic religions originate in the Middle East .. hmm!

The major flaw in your thinking, imo, is on the subject of "OT history".
One sets themselves up to show that the OT is flawed.

..and I agree, that is IS! i.e. it is inaccurate

..they talk about history..

Well, that's fine if they do..
..but you say that they talk about the likelihood of G-d being fictional.
That is NOT history!

OT historians can show that YAhweh
was not a new revolution in gods. Merely another of the many Near Eastern deities, who looked, spoke and acted very similar and was a subordinate of EL, the supreme at that time.

That is evidence that YAhweh is also another made up being. Doesn't speak about all gods, it just does it's job in this one aspect..

No .. that is where you go wrong.
It is NOT evidence that YHWH is a "made-up-being". That is a CONCLUSION that an author makes.
There is NO evidence that proves that.

I can make a conclusion that YHWH is not made-up, although it might appear so, as people were
ignorant in those times and were polytheists DESPITE being taught otherwise...

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

.in your opinion

You haven't made your case, just the claim (unsupported opinion), which can be dismissed without counterargument. If you think you're correct, make the case. If you think my reply is flawed and can demonstrate as much, then give your rebuttal. Otherwise, I have no reason to change my opinion.

you sound like a communist.

That was in response to, "Society doesn't break down because some families do. Just keep peace in the streets, maintain public safety, keep people housed and fed, and keep the supply chain working," which was in response to, "Another issue is adultery and fornication...also leading to increased enmity and destruction of the society through family breakdown" from you. Where do you get Communism from that?

These are the kinds of things that keep societies functional, not the divorce or single-parent children rates. Let them all fornicate and cheat on their spouses if they like, and let them divorce if they like. Those are individual family's problems, not those of society at large. Those people still go on working and raising children after the divorce if they were before it, although they may be less affluent, and have little or no effect their neighbors' wellbeing.

These are religious ideas you have that these things are important. Christianity, among other things, is all about generating babies and as many new adherents and tithers as possible. Humanists have different (opposite in this case) values and priorities for society and individuals.

And I really don't care who's diddling whom as long as both (or all) are consenting adults. Nor do I care if they can't stay married because of it. If such families need financial assistance, they have the churches, right? Just kidding. If they get help from anybody other than a child support paying father, it'll be from secular government.

It's much better than reading "toilet walls" !

And that was a response to, "I don't consider theology knowledge or an academic pursuit."

Not much of a rebuttal or defense of theology as an academic pursuit.

You remind me of those who answer criticisms of America by Americans to go live in Iran or North Korea. The argument is that if there is anything worse, that something is good enough for not being the worst itself. Yeah, theology might not be the least academic degree possible, and even if it is, it's still better than bathroom wall graffiti.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You haven't made your case, just the claim (unsupported opinion), which can be dismissed without counterargument. If you think you're correct, make the case. If you think my reply is flawed and can demonstrate as much, then give your rebuttal..

You said "The reason for income inequality is not banks making loans and collecting interest. Nor is it the cause of global warming..".

..but you never explained why .. just your opinion.
You probably don't want me to give you a detailed account of economic jargon, do you?
..and neither did you answer my question .. "where do banks get their money from"?

I'll give you a clue .. central banks control the markets, by manipulation of interest rates.
This is mainly how they control the supply of money.
As I say, money isn't real .. it is a product of equations and economic models based on usury.
How is my argument flawed??

Those are individual family's problems, not those of society at large..

Umm, but the "society at large" is comprised of families, one would hope.

These are religious ideas you have that these things are important..

Indeed, they are Conservative values, which are important in Abrahamic religion.

i.e. G-d created us in pairs .. male & female, and with a purpose .. to raise our children
in harmony, with both male & female having important but differing roles.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

but you never explained why .. just your opinion.

What more do you think is required in response to an unsupported opinion? If you tell me that you prefer chocolate, I'll tell you that I do as well, or maybe my opinion will be that I prefer vanilla. But if you make an argument for why chocolate is the better choice for health or environmental or financial reasons, I can agree with it or explain how and why I don't (rebut it).

the "society at large" is comprised of families

FYI, it's comprises, not is comprised of - common error. And those families are largely irrelevant except to themselves. We just had some things delivered by a young man about 30 years old. What matters to me is that he is part of the supply chain and does work that I'd rather pay him to do that do myself, and what matters to him is that he has a job because people like me will pay for that service. I don't care if he's married, single or divorced. His family, while relevant to him, is irrelevant to me as is mine to him (mine is just the wife and me and the dogs).

When the supply chain breaks down, that's when society suffers. Or the crime rate goes up. Or the weather becomes oppressive. Or the cost of gas or electricity climb - not who's fornicating with whom or who's getting a divorce.

How is my argument flawed??

It doesn't support your claim.

neither did you answer my question .. "where do banks get their money from"?

I assumed that that that was a rhetorical question. They accumulate money from depositors and earn interest loaning it out at a higher rate than they pay depositors as well as by collecting fees for various services.

But I'm not interested in this subject. Please make your point and support it. You seem to be saying that banks are causing global warming or something like that. How about a clear statement of your point and why you think it's valid? How about a statement of this form:

"My point is ..., I consider it relevant because ..., and I consider it correct because ..., and I asked you where banks get their money because ..." Without that, there's really nothing to respond to except opinion, which isn't interesting.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I'm not interested in this subject..

You've made that clear .. let's drop it, because we are not on the same wavelength.
I have explained, but it's fallen on deaf ears.

Please make your point and support it..

Already tried .. you ignore it. (central banks control the markets, by manipulation of interest rates)

You seem to be saying that banks are causing global warming or something like that. How about a clear statement of your point and why you think it's valid?

Climate change is mainly due to the imbalance that mankind is causing in the environment,
due to excessive use, and ever-increasing use of fossil fuels.

This happened due to the industrial revolution, and fueled mainly by the richer nations,
who keep their privileged status by the manipulation of money.
i.e. large scale industry fueled by usurious banking ----> increased wealth --> lend to poorer
nations --> increased wealth .. and so on

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Already tried .. you ignore it. (central banks control the markets, by manipulation of interest rates)

I still don't know what your purpose is in discussing banking, which you originally called usury and which now has morphed into central banking. You may recall that my answer addressed bank loans and their value to a young man after you injected "usury" into a discussion of the answers coming from religions.

I'm well aware of the problems central banking can create and have been since seeing a documentary called The Money Lenders about twenty years ago, but religion can do nothing to mitigate that. That's what I mean when I say that Christianity, for example, offers no answers. It does nothing but perpetuate itself, and when it can, impose its superstitions and bigotries on society. The crumbs it throws to the needy are insignificant and appear to be for show in order to claim that the religion does more than it does for the tax breaks it gets.

Perhaps I'll conclude by returning to where I began and repeat that religions offer no answers, just unfalsifiable guesses about gods and angels, an afterlife, and the supernatural that are useful for nothing practical. Whatever you've been trying to tell me about charging interest and climate change is irrelevant to my claim that Christianity, for example, offers no answers including regarding banking and climate change where it has zero constructive impact and some destructive impact as the quotes from Christians on climate change that I provided demonstrate.

Even the "answers" from religions that apply to reality such as love one another are pointless by themselves as evidenced by the fact that the church itself does so little of that itself.

Perhaps you've seen the Baha'is "answer" for world peace - just get along. This is the fraud these religions perpetuate - that they are generous, useful, benevolent, and generate people of high character. They don't. They're just self-licking ice cream cones: "In political jargon, a self-licking ice cream cone is a self-perpetuating system that has no purpose other than to sustain itself." Such entities need to convince others that they are useful when they are not. This is how the church got tax breaks - by pretending to be a charity and convincing others that it was a net societal good when the opposite is true.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..Perhaps I'll conclude by returning to where I began and repeat that religions offer no answers, just unfalsifiable guesses about gods and angels, an afterlife, and the supernatural that are useful for nothing practical. Whatever you've been trying to tell me about charging interest and climate change is irrelevant to my claim that Christianity, for example, offers no answers including regarding banking and climate change..

You are merely repeating the same mistake, over and over.
You equate "Christianity" with the political stance of American Evangelicals.

Christianity in the middle ages forbade usury, as being morally wrong, as in the Bible.
We all know that many Christian sects/groups today no longer follow Orthodox teachings,
but that is not the point.
Many Muslims ignore the prohibition of usury too.

You cannot claim that "religion has no answers", because it does!
If the majority of people in the world took their religion seriously, the global financial system would
CHANGE .. but that is not going to happen until catastrophe strikes, unfortunately..

 

[Muffled]

Sure.

But I wanted to talk about how it is in principle good to challenge your own beliefs and assumptions. This was in response to your comment which said: "I believe once one has found solid truth there is no need to wander from it."

I agree with you, for the most part. But I also think it is good to "step back" and (for sake of intellectual growth) scrutinize your own convictions/deeply held beliefs. It's a good idea to do this for a multitude of reasons. It is an extremely honest and thorough way to form beliefs about the world and about religion.

Example:
What if someone belonged to a UFO cult? And the reason she joined was that the pitch that the cult leader gave her sounded very convincing. Life on the UFO commune was very pleasant. The cult leader wasn't some kind of sociopath. He bought into his own BS and treated his followers kindly.

But one day, she began to question whether all this UFO stuff wasn't just a bunch of nonsense. What should she do?

A) Tell herself: "I have found a solid truth. There is no need to wander from it."

-OR-

B) Do some serious questioning of her own beliefs, perhaps even consulting (and genuinely listening to) people who are skeptical of the UFO cult.

***

I am an atheist. But, precisely because I'm an atheist, I make it a point to listen to theists who make cogent argument for God's existence. I throw everything (including the kitchen sink) at my own atheism to see if it will still stand. And guess what? So far as I can tell, atheism survives the kitchen sink test. But I'm not done throwing kitchen sinks at it. I'm ALWAYS on the lookout for a new test... a new argument... that calls my own position into question, even though I'm perfectly happy being an atheist.

After all, if a few kitchen sinks send my worldview tumbling down... that means it was built on a foundation of sand to begin with (or somehow of faulty construction).

If I was afraid to have my own beliefs questioned, that might indicate that I am harboring inner doubts. And if that's the case, shouldn't I consult opposing viewpoints? Shouldn't I resolve these doubts if I have the means to do so?

It is an enigma. My wife was the same way until she contacted a demon using a Ouija board. I don't recommend contacting a demon and the Ouija board never worked for me because I didn't believe in it but there ae other ways to make spiritual contact that aren't as dangerous. A Pentacostal Church perhaps.

 

[joelr]

Right!
..so we have established that a person who does not study in English cannot be a "mainstream scholar"

No? Why would you get that from what I said? Seriously? It's like the information just bounces off if it isn't part of your false narrative apologetics you were told.
You can speak ANY LANGUAGE, like Klause, who is German, and speaks German, but if you are an OT scholar you have to read Hebrew and any other language related to the historicity. Then you can write books in your native language for people in your country. If they are good someone will translate them into english for Americans to read.

..even though, the Abrahamic religions originate in the Middle East .. hmm!

Even though you are completely wrong ONCE AGAIN. HMMMMM!

The major flaw in your thinking, imo, is on the subject of "OT history".
One sets themselves up to show that the OT is flawed.

No, one sets themself up to study the history of the OT?

It isn't the cholars fault the evidence shows it's a myth?

Is it the scholars fault that they study Greek myth and it turns out to look exactly like myth?
Is it the scholars fault who study the Roman story about Romulus looks to be a myth? Are they "setting themselves up to show that the Romulus story is flawed"?

Or is it just what the evidence shows? Why, YES, it's what the evidence shows.


Then there is archaeology, which shows the stories don't match the physical evidence. Temples do not show monotheism was practiced.
They did not come from Egypt.
Just read an interview with the leading Bible archaeologist

NOVA | The Bible's Buried Secrets | Archeology of the Hebrew Bible | PBS

In this article, archaeologist and biblical scholar William Dever discusses how archeology can offer vivid insights into the biblical world.

www.pbs.org

Is that Dever's fault that what he finds doesn't validate the stories? Every nation had a body of mythology to teach people law, wisdom and to give a national story. All of them. They were also all myth, the supernatural beings in the tales were not real. Often metaphors for something real.
Like being inside a whale, Jonah. Many many myths use this theme, it represents the descent into the dark/unconscious. Star wars used it in the dumpster scene.

24:30 -

..and I agree, that is IS! i.e. it is inaccurate

Your premise was wrong, the next piece was wrong, it's a bunch of apologetic nonsense. Which I'm quite sure if you actually try to explain in detail what you are saying it won't work.
It sounds like you are grasping at straws.

Well, that's fine if they do..
..but you say that they talk about the likelihood of G-d being fictional.

This god. Yahweh. He is no different than the Ugaric, Canaanite or any Mesopotamian deity. He's even in a pantheon under El the Supreme deity. Yahweh was given Israel as his inheritance in an early form of Deuteronomy that was found. Later scribes cleaned that up when Persian monotheism became popular.
You can see the point in the Bible where they ask why Yahweh didn't save them from these invasions. They say he was sleeping because his people were not focusing enough only on Yahweh.
Also the Persian who just took over had a single, uncreated, supreme God and a counterpart evil devil.

Is Zeus fictional, yes, Inanna, yes, Yahweh, looks to be the same.


And when they did focus only on Yahweh what happened? Greeks invaded. Romans invaded.

That is NOT history!

They are not saying anything about other gods. They are saying Yahweh acts, talks, looks, tells stories, just exactly like the deities in this period. Nothing new whatsoever. It's one nations mythology. Yahweh is no more real than El.
And that is what history shows.

No .. that is where you go wrong.
It is NOT evidence that YHWH is a "made-up-being". That is a CONCLUSION that an author makes.
There is NO evidence that proves that.

And there is no evidence that proves Zeus isn't the one real God. Or Inanna or any other Mesopotamian deity.

So what? There is however MASSIVE evidence that every single thing written about Yahweh in the first 5 books is the same things written about all of the gods of that time period.

The stories all go back to Mesopotamia and older myths. They all fought a sea monster, trees of immortality, creation from cosmic waters, floods, snakes telling the first humans, made of clay, to eat forbidden fruit. All myth.

If you want to buy into this version and say "but this time it's real", I don't care. Not supported by evidence. If you really want to dig deep read God; An Anatomy by Fransesca S. Hebrew Bible professor. It's 600 pages of Yahweh being a typical Near Eastern deity. Clearly a made up story.

I can make a conclusion that YHWH is not made-up,

But you have no evidence and there are massive amounts of evidence that show he's a mythology. You have no evidence of any god.

You are determined to ignore historical evidence and I do not care. Fool yourself all you want. I am interested in what is true, regardless of how much it isn't as fun.
You are looking to make a religion true so you are coming at truth backwards. With a set belief, not looking to form your belief from available facts. Using confirmation bias and this is the worst way to find out what is true.
You don't care? Ok, great, believe in whatever folk tale you like.


Again, you would never tell a chemist they cannot make chemicals, correct a flight engineer and tell him the plane is built wrong and you will correct it, or tell a surgeon how to properly perform your heart surgery. Yet you think you can just hand wave away archaeology and historical data for these bizarre superficial reasons.
Even then, you won't tell a historian of China that Dragon Gods of the Four Seas wasn't made up? You haven't studied any OT history either, yet you want to just make a conclusion, based on what you want to be true. So actual truth doesn't matter to you.

although it might appear so, as people were
ignorant in those times and were polytheists DESPITE being taught otherwise...

They were not "taught otherwise". Historians are clear that that belief was written late and by elites who were not writing what was true but what they wanted Judaism to be. Based on Persian monotheism after 600 BC.
Every early temple shows everyone worshipped a goddess figurine, a consort of Yahweh. Thousands of them have been found at sites.

The early Yahweh was like all gods, in a pantheon, had a wife, appeared as a giant and as a person to people, the early variants found in the Dead Sea Scrolls also backs this up.


"
There is quite a bit going on in Deuteronomy 32, perhaps more than meets the eye when it is first read. First of all, it is worth noting that this text has a few variations and for good reason. Here are three versions of this text:

Dead Sea Scrolls: “When Elyon gave the nations as an inheritance, when he separated the sons of man, he set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God (bene elohim). For Yahweh’s portion was his people; Jacob was the lot of his inheritance”.

Mark Smith, in his book The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, works to illustrate that the Semitic peoples of the times that the Old Testament books were written believed in a pantheon of gods, a concept which is foreign to modern readers. In this pantheon, El and his consort Asherah occupied the first tier, commanding or governing a multitude of gods in a hierarchy of four tiers of divine beings. The second tier was inhabited by the children of El and his consort and were called the “sons of god.” A third tier comprising of craftsmen or artisan deities is found underneath and subservient to the sons of god (but poorly represented in Ugaritic texts and not well attested in the Hebrew Bible). Smith cites Kothar wa-Hasis as an example of a third level deity in the Ugaritic pantheon. Kothar is a maker of gadgets and weapons for Baal, kind of like the character Alfred as he relates to Batman. The fourth tier of divine beings act as messengers for God, servants to the gods who occupy the first three tiers. 1

Later redactors of Old Testament texts were uncomfortable with the polytheistic nature of earlier Hebrew texts. Deuteronomy 32:8-9 is a text which emphasizes the idea that a council of divine beings existed, with tiers or rankings of these divine beings. As Smith asserts:

The traditional Hebrew text (Masoretic Text, or MT) perhaps reflects a discomfort with this polytheistic theology of Israel, for it shows not “divine sons” (bene elohim), as in the Greek and the Dead Sea Scrolls, but “sons of Israel” (bene yisrael). Emanuel Tov labels the MT text here an “anti-polytheistic alteration.” 2 The texts of the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls show Israelite polytheism which focuses on the central importance of Yahweh for Israel within the larger scheme of the world; yet this larger scheme provides a place for the other gods of the other nations in the world.

 

[muhammad_isa]

This god. Yahweh. He is no different than the Ugaric, Canaanite or any Mesopotamian deity. He's even in a pantheon under El the Supreme deity..

That is just more nonsense.
How can you know who/what Yahweh is?

"Yahweh" is a word .. it could mean anything at all, particularly in the context of ancient history,
as words evolve to mean different things.

We know what it means NOW, in the 21st. century .. it refers to the G-d of the Bible.

Yahweh was given Israel as his inheritance in an early form of Deuteronomy that was found. Later scribes cleaned that up when Persian monotheism became popular..

People find what they want to find .. conclude what they want to conclude.
NO document can disprove the existence of G-d.

You can see the point in the Bible where they ask why Yahweh didn't save them from these invasions. They say he was sleeping because his people were not focusing enough only on Yahweh.
Also the Persian who just took over had a single, uncreated, supreme God and a counterpart evil devil.

Is Zeus fictional, yes, Inanna, yes, Yahweh, looks to be the same..

..to you yes .. to believers no.
No scholar can prove that Yahweh is not real.
No document can prove that .. you can only make assumptions.

Yahweh is no more real than El.
And that is what history shows..

Mere words .. "Yahweh" "El" .. you see them as gods that people worshipped.
You are right about that .. but people were ignorant back in those days .. they were illiterate.

G-d is a concept .. not one of many gods/idols.

And there is no evidence that proves Zeus isn't the one real God. Or Inanna or any other Mesopotamian deity..

You talk about scholars, but speak like an illiterate man of old.
..mere words .. gods are invented by men, whatever words or language you wish to use for them.
G-d is a concept .. G-d has no form .. G-d is not a person .. G-d is responsible for all we see.

G-d might have been called by any of these words (or names of gods).

But you have no evidence and there are massive amounts of evidence that show he's a mythology. You have no evidence of any god..

The "masses of evidence" that you speak about, shows that the men of old believed all sorts of things,
but that CANNOT show that G-d does not exist.

You are determined to ignore historical evidence..

No I'm not .. I just interpret it differently to you.
You just reply with a flood of copy & paste, which proves nothing.
To learn something, you need to discuss one thing at a time.

I am interested in what is true..

Well, you should listen to what I'm saying then .. one point at a time.
i.e. no floods of copy & paste

You are looking to make a religion true so you are coming at truth backwards. With a set belief..

Don't we all !
You have a set belief .. that G-d is made up by the men of old.

..you think you can just hand wave away archaeology and historical data for these bizarre superficial reasons..

On the contrary .. they are good reasons.
This data refers to the inaccuarcy of the OT.
I'm not disputing that it is inaccurate.

They were not "taught otherwise". Historians are clear that that belief was written late and by elites who were not writing what was true but what they wanted Judaism to be.

What belief?

Every early temple shows everyone worshipped a goddess figurine, a consort of Yahweh. Thousands of them have been found at sites..

That is what I would expect to find. They were ignorant.

The early Yahweh was like all gods, in a pantheon, had a wife, appeared as a giant and as a person to people, the early variants found in the Dead Sea Scrolls also backs this up.

The fact that people believed that, does NOT mean that they were right to believe that.

 

[joelr]

That is just more nonsense.
How can you know who/what Yahweh is?

These are the writings that are supposedly his words???? Same as all the gods from the period. Suddenly that we see it's just like all the other made-up gods you are all "how can we know Yahweh"??
Funny. Same way you know Allah, byy the words someone wrote who was "talking" to him.

"Yahweh" is a word .. it could mean anything at all, particularly in the context of ancient history,
as words evolve to mean different things.\

No, it means the Hebrew god, the god in the Bible. That is another hilarious desperation move. "well maybe it's not the same god....." HA!

We know what it means NOW, in the 21st. century .. it refers to the G-d of the Bible.

THe words in the Bible are what are being used to know this. The original Hebrew Bible, the first 5 books are exactly like all the Near Esatern deities. You don't know this because you don't study those and think Yahweh is saying, doing, acting and being original. It's all same old stuff that has been done with myths about gods for over 1000 years prior.

Again, read God: An Anatomy. for clear examples.


And yes, in the 21st century we have a whole bunch of NEW theology put onto YAhweh, theology that fits our modern ideas.
Aquinas was the first to modernize him and he used exclusively Greek ideas, mostly Plato.


You can get a basic idea in this lecture:

Plato and Christianity

36:46 Tertullian (who hated Plato) borrowed the idea of hypostases (used by Philo previously) to explain the relationship between the trinity. All are of the same substance.

38:30 Origen a Neo-Platonist uses Plato’s One. A perfect unity, indivisible, incorporeal, transcending all things material. The Logos (Christ) is the creative principle that permeates the created universe

41:10
Agustine 354-430 AD taught scripture should be interpreted symbolically instead of literally after Plotinus explained Christianity was just Platonic ideas.

Thought scripture was silly if taken literally.

45:55 the ability to read Greek/Platonic ideas was lost for most Western scholars during Middle Ages. Boethius was going to translate all of Plato and Aristotle into Latin which would have altered Western history.

Theologians all based on Plato - Jesus, Agustine, Boethius Anslem, Aquinas


59:30
In some sense Christianity is taking Greco-Roman moral philosophy and theology and delivering it to the masses, even though they are unaware

People find what they want to find .. conclude what they want to conclude.
NO document can disprove the existence of G-d.

And no document can disprove the existence of Zeus. So what? It doesn't mean he is real?


This version of Deuteronomy is evidence and helps show what the early thoughts on Yahweh was.

It doesn't match out modern ideas. Now, what an honest person, who cares about truth does, is look at evidence and evaluates it.
What one using confirmation bias does, is make excuses like you just did. You already have your conclusion, evidence will just be warped into fitting your beliefs.

In this case you go to denial. People can find anything, believe anything, god cannot be disproven.


Exactly ZERO of that has anything to do with anything. No, people cannot find what they want to find.
People don't "want" to find anything. See, you are right back at your false narrative that historians are evil atheists who want to disprove god.

Uh, no, they want to find out what history shows, no matter what it shows. The truth. Did Israel begin these ideas? That would be fine, no historian would have a problem with that. They would be thrilled. Yet in your imagination they are all trying to disprove god? Bizarre. Like you are paranoid?

But Israel did not, they clearly used the god-knowledge of that time. Yahweh was a lower god in a pantheon. He did the same as other gods.

Historians don't want that conclusion? They want the ACTUAL TRUTH OF WHAT WAS HAPPENING IN THAT PERIOD?


Your made up scenarios are weird, false, paranoid and reveal you are clearly bothered by what historical studies tells us.

..to you yes .. to believers no.
No scholar can prove that Yahweh is not real.

Why do you continue to answer with the oldest fallacy in rhetoric? Seriously, please learn the 'unfalsifiability' fallacy.


"This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy called 'unfalsifiability'. The unfalsifiability fallacy occurs when someone makes a claim that is impossible to prove false. Falsifiability – the ability to be falsified or proven wrong – is considered a key criterion for deeming a hypothesis scientific. Conspiracy theories often rely on unfalsifiable claims in which the theorist ardently defends a theory despite any facts that disprove it, suggesting only, “Well, it's a conspiracy. It's impossible to disprove”. Once the criterion of falsifiability has been established, it is important to examine a statement or theory more critically. The defense of horoscopes not only involves an unfalsifiable claim but can also involve anecdotes. As it turns out, when tested objectively, claims made by horoscopes tend to be false considerably more often than many people recognize."

Because you cannot "prove" something doesn't exist does not mean anything. I cannot prove Krishna is not real. I cannot prove Sant Clause is not real, so what? Please move past this.

Believers having a belief, means NOTHING. NO-THING. You need EVIDENCE to support your belief.

No document can prove that .. you can only make assumptions.

Yes, we can look at evidence and it gives up clues. We know Romulus was not real. The savior of Rome who died and ascended to heaven, is probably not real. We cannot prove it, but the evidence helps show he is a literary creation.

The evidence of early Yahweh does not appear to be an actual god, it appears to be a myth which follows standard ideas and concepts that people used in this region and time for making up stories about gods.

Later on, the same happens as it appears the Hebrew people were greatly impacted by Persian ideas. Later they were influenced by Greek ideas and after the Bible, Aquinas and other theologians added Graeco-Roman philosophy onto YAhweh or God.
So it's a character who was built from cultural ideas over millenia. Plato's the ONE wasn't about a living God, it was a different concept. But it was used for Yahweh/God.

It's very clear these people were taking already established concepts and acting as if Yahweh was telling them this and that was true or his characteristics. So Yahweh spoke to people and oly told them stuff atht older gods already had done, said and so on? Or, it's all made up by people.

Yes, it's probably all made up by people.

Mere words .. "Yahweh" "El" .. you see them as gods that people worshipped.

Uh, they were gods that people worshipped, El was the Canaanite supreme deity?

Yahweh was the god of the Israelites and Judahites.

You are right about that .. but people were ignorant back in those days .. they were illiterate.

Um, no.....they spoke Hebrew? The Semitic languages included Moabite, Phoenician, Punic, Mesopotamians spoke Akkadian, Amorite and then Aramaic. An early proto-Hebrew which evolved from the Canaanite language is found in early Temple sites.

G-d is a concept .. not one of many gods/idols.

Yes and the early concepts of god was no god was alone. They were in a pantheon.

Monotheism came about with several places, Egypt, Persia and Yahweh took after those.
It doesn't solve any issues or make the concept make more sense. There is no evidence for a single mind existing before anything else. It's just another huge assumption. Even if deism is real these Mesopotamian gods are not that and nor are any of the claims of revelations that just happen to re-use the same wisdom people already knew, the same science, not one single new information, (atoms, tiny creatures exist called germs that make you sick, the planet goes around the sun, there are millions of other suns in a galaxy and billions of those, light has a speed, nothing.). It's probably all made up. The common religions are not much different than the Greek and Roman religions and equally as real. They are all metaphors, not literal.
They would have evidence. Yet, they all have the same lack of evidence.

You talk about scholars, but speak like an illiterate man of old.

Good because you speak like a gullible child who buys into the first fantastic story someone tells you.

..mere words .. gods are invented by men, whatever words or language you wish to use for them.
G-d is a concept

A silly concept. There is no "mind" needed at the base of reality.
A concept with no evidence.

EVEN if it were true, these ridiculous claims of "revelations" where this being cares who you sleep with but can't provide any real new information and suspiciously sounds like the people of the time when it was written. Wow, what a coincidence! God shows up and has the exact morals of the people he shows up for. And reveals nothing they didn't know? Yeah, that's made up.


You have no evidence of this god concept. No evidence this concept has anything to do with religious claims. The God of reality shows up and can't stop saying "a horrible doom", like he's a evil character in a Tolkien book? No way.

 

[joelr]

\ G-d has no form .. G-d is not a person .. G-d is responsible for all we see.

That is funny because the origin of that god was with the Israelites. And he had form. He even appeared as a person. He lived in the temple when on earth. The entire Bible describes all his bodyparts, from feet, legs, genitals, torso, arms, face, nose.


They also claim to have the original revelations, which you now say are incorrect.




Let me guess, they got corrupted. Yet the Jewish people don't think so? Your book is corrupted they say. Hmmm, pretty likely no book is corrupted because no god has done any of this.





God is responsible for all we see?


Prove this god exists, show evidence, prove the universe is a creation and not from natural , unconscious forces.


God is also an idea. An idea doesn't mean it's real. "God" substitutes for what we don't know.
Just because we have a mind doesn't follow that the fundament of reality is a mind. I even asked Chat GPT4 about this.

G-d might have been called by any of these words (or names of gods).

Yes each nation had a god. Not the way you mean it. That happened after Aquinas took Platonic philosophy and blended it with the Christian God. It's an idea made by people over time. Doesn't mean it exists.

The "masses of evidence" that you speak about, shows that the men of old believed all sorts of things,
but that CANNOT show that G-d does not exist.

Now you are back to 'unfalsifiability'. This isn't a point at all.

No I'm not .. I just interpret it differently to you.

Yes, you interpret it wrong. You interpret it with confirmation bias and zero open mind. Zero knowledge of history and full confirmation bias. Everything has to somehow point to a real God or you make some excuse for it.

Also you can't interpret evidence you don't even study?


Even that is ricdiculous?

You just reply with a flood of copy & paste, which proves nothing.
To learn something, you need to discuss one thing at a time.

I pass along information. Information that contradicts what you want to be true so you gaslight the whole thing.


Super obvious.

Well, you should listen to what I'm saying then .. one point at a time.
i.e. no floods of copy & paste

Usually any copy/paste is backing up one point at a time. I listen to everything you say. You use confirmation bias, hand wave historians, make ridiculous excuses and are desperate to make a bunch of fiction real. You use fallacies, never show evidence or back up a point.



You don't really say anything.

Don't we all !
You have a set belief .. that G-d is made up by the men of old.

No. That is what ALL the evidence suggests. By al means, please present some evidence that justifies believing it isn't made up by people. Do that, for a change.

Also, men of old DID make up gods. You don't believe in Zeus and the other 10,0000 gods? We know they did this. So the remaining is just probably more of the same.






No one made up god as you know it. It was pieced together from different periods, piece by piece.

On the contrary .. they are good reasons.
This data refers to the inaccuarcy of the OT.
I'm not disputing that it is inaccurate.

What data? Please tell me the historical works that demonstrate the early first 5 books are inaccurate. Then describe what that even means, give evidence from the field.


The books were very accurate and transmitted orally. Those ideas in the Pentateuch are accurate as to what they believed in that time.


So you are now going to take an entire religion, Judaism, and suddenly tell me you are an expert on the Pentateuch, know it's inaccurate, while no other Orthadox Jewish Rabbi knows about this, OR the critical-historical field.............


this is a gigantic joke. You just make stuff up to save your beliefs, which needless to say is hilarious. You are so far beyond caring about truth.

What belief?

can make a conclusion that YHWH is not made-up, although it might appear so, as people were


ignorant in those times and were polytheists DESPITE being taught otherwise..."






They were not "taught otherwise". Polytheism was the norm until way later and the Bible was written by elites about how they wanted Judaism to be, not how it was. At all temples we find thousands of Ashera figurines. They were polytheists.

That is what I would expect to find. They were ignorant.

NO, they believed in polytheism. Then, after Persian invaded, monotheism became the "in" thing to do. It's not better or worse. One fictional god or a pantheon. Either are not real, have no evidence and are placeholders for things we don't yet understand. We are conscious so we wat to put that quality onto some being who was the beginning. It's a fictive concept. No evidence and it doesn't hold up. No argument makes it likely.

The fact that people believed that, does NOT mean that they were right to believe that.

They just did. Right/wrong beliefs? What? As if your revelations, angels, Jinn and whatever other magic is so much more real?
It doesn't mean you are right to believe one god. You are not right or wrong, it's just a belief.


Does it match reality, no, neither probably do. But the Jewish writings are preserved and have been. It was "right" to think Yahweh was under El until the religion changed the theology many centuries later because monotheism became popular.




BUT, you claim your God spoke to the Jewish people first. That isn't true, polytheism was the correct religion as the early Deuteronomy shows.


In the 6th century after Persian monotheism inspired Hebrew writers to consider that as the reason Yahweh wasn't helping them.



The real reason was because he isn't real. Early Bible scriptures shows El was supreme and Yahweh had a body, had earthly passions, lived as a human and was a typical Near Eastern warrior storm-deity.

It changed when Aquinas used Greek philosophy and when the Quran was written Islamic theologians used those ideas about one God.



It doesn't make it real or probable, they wanted the Quran to be true so they had to accept the Aquinas model.

It's clear that the early religion was not "corrupted", it was as it was supposed to be. Once agian, it matches the fact that no revelations ever happened. Religious scripture is just written by people and based on what is popular.
Back then polytheism was normal. Other passages in the Bible elude to El as well, and other gods. As people came up with different ideas the religion changed.

And we get apologists like you who try and claim that you are correct but those early Yahweh people were all wrong because it doesn't agree.

The temples show all of Jerusalem was polytheistic. Not from corruption, that was the religion.
There was also no Heaven for souls, EVER, until the NT. It isn't from god, it's made up by people.

 

[joelr]

It is an enigma. My wife was the same way until she contacted a demon using a Ouija board. I don't recommend contacting a demon and the Ouija board never worked for me because I didn't believe in it but there ae other ways to make spiritual contact that aren't as dangerous. A Pentacostal Church perhaps.

Can you contact a good spirit?

 

[muhammad_isa]

THe words in the Bible are what are being used to know this..

Yes .. AND the Qur'an.

This version of Deuteronomy is evidence and helps show what the early thoughts on Yahweh was..

It is PART of the evidence..

It doesn't match out modern ideas..

I'm not particularly interested in "modern ideas", unless it can be shown within reasonable doubt
they are correct.

Now, what an honest person, who cares about truth does, is look at evidence and evaluates it.

That's it.
..but that does NOT mean that we will all reach the same conclusion.

What one using confirmation bias does, is make excuses like you just did..

All this chatter is not helping us in our debate. Stick to the point.

..they want to find out what history shows, no matter what it shows. The truth..

History cannot show anything about whether G-d exists or not.
You can only make assumptions.
..and YOU make the assumption that G-d does not exist, because people of old
worshipped many gods.

Believers having a belief, means NOTHING. NO-THING. You need EVIDENCE to support your belief.

You are the one making the claim.
i.e. that Yahweh is just one of many idols/gods

You cannot prove that Yahweh does not exist, just because the people of old were ignorant,
and worshiped many gods.

The evidence of early Yahweh does not appear to be an actual god..

"does not appear" .. in other words, you make assumptions about historical events,
and deduce that Yahweh is one of many gods, and so is not real .. not good enough!

A silly concept.. (the concept of God)

Mmm .. you are far superior to the billions of believers, so don't fall for "silly things"

You have no evidence of this god concept. No evidence this concept has anything to do with religious claims. The God of reality shows up and can't stop saying "a horrible doom", like he's a evil character in a Tolkien book? No way.

You sound like a "spoilt child" ..
Did you ever listen to your parents, or did you think the same about what they told you?

"Hell" is of our own making .. the consequences of bad deeds.

 

[muhammad_isa]

They were not "taught otherwise". Polytheism was the norm until way later and the Bible was written by elites about how they wanted Judaism to be, not how it was.. At all temples we find thousands of Ashera figurines. They were polytheists..

..sweeping generalisation..
How can you know what they had been taught?
People were illiterate .. their underlying culture was polytheism, and they reverted
to it.

Then, after Persian invaded, monotheism became the "in" thing to do..

Who cares about the Persians or the Israelites, or "put your nation here" ???

Monotheism was taught by prophets since the beginning of mankind .. but .. but
they REVERTED to polytheism, as they were mainly illeterate.

It doesn't mean you are right to believe one god..

I don't believe in "one god" per se .. gods are idols.
I believe that there IS only that which is responsible for the existence of the universe.
It is not a person .. I call it G-d.

..But the Jewish writings are preserved and have been..

It's all relative .. for how long have they been preserved?
It is not possible to date when the scripts/scrolls were even written!

It was "right" to think Yahweh was under El until the religion changed the theology many centuries later because monotheism became popular..

No .. that is an assumption, by studying what the majority of illiterate people of old
believed.

BUT, you claim your God spoke to the Jewish people first..

Sorry, you've got the wrong person.
I believe that G-d sent 1000's of prophets to mankind from the start.

..they wanted the Quran to be true so they had to accept the Aquinas model.

..more assumptions based on scepticism..

..And we get apologists like you who try and claim that you are correct but those early Yahweh people were all wrong because it doesn't agree.

They were wrong, and that is why G-d sent John the Baptist, and Jesus.

 

[Trailblazer]

Your opinion isn't evidence. Your opinion about evidence doesn't make it valid.

It is only your opinion that there is no evidence. Your opinion about 'no evidence' doesn't make it valid.
Do you understand that what constitutes evidence for a God existing is not the SAME for everyone?

You already had chances to present evidence, you didn't.

You can still give evidence, this time, please provide sufficient evidence to warrant belief in the supernatural.

I have nothing new to offer 'that you would accept' as evidence for the supernatural.
Do you understand that what warrants a belief in the supernatural is not the SAME for everyone?

If it's something already claimed by Mormonism or Christians then it isn't sufficient because you would have converted to Mormonism or Christianity.

No, what Mormons and Christians have for evidence would not be sufficient for me.

They can suggest they were from a God. Evidence can be provided.

Evidence was provided. You just don't like the evidence.

Which I gave examples of. Did you already forget? DO I need to keep repeating myself?

You gave the examples and if there is no such evidence I cannot provide it.
No, you do not need to keep repeating yourself, but you do.

Why are you asking the same questions that got you nowhere?

Why are you asking the same questions that got you nowhere?
I do not ask the same questions over and over again, like you do.

"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."

I did not know that since I do not study the older religions.

Your claim is he is telling the truth. Evidence doesn't exist to support this and evidence does exist to suggest it's false.

As I said, I do not make any claims because I have nothing to claim. Baha'u'llah made claims and I believe His claims.
I 'believe' He is telling the truth. Evidence supports this and no evidence exist to suggest it's false.

A person who claims to have revelations is making an outrageous claim. A claim that requires excellent evidence equally as outrageous.

He has NO EVIDENCE to support his claim.

It is a bold claim and there is evidence that supports His claim.

The evidence is as follows:

1. His own Self, who He was, His character (His qualities)

2. His Revelation, what He accomplished (His Mission on earth/ the history of His Cause)

3. His Writings are additional evidence because they show who He was as a person, what He taught about God and other things, and what accomplished on His mission.

He attempted to make prophecies in science and FAILED MISERABLY.
He attempted to make historical predictions and just made predictions everyone at the time was making.

Baha'u'llah never attempted to make prophecies. What happened is that Gary Matthews took some things that he thought Baha'u'llah said and claimed they were Baha'u'llah's prophecies.

That is laughable. Baha'u'llah NEVER offered any prophecies as evidence for the truth of His claims, NEVER.

Yes you consider it absurd, meaning it's a hard fact that the OT isn't true.

Just because I consider the OT absurd that does not mean it is a hard fact that it isn't true.
I only have a personal opinion.

Yes, based on the evidence they present. Comparative religions, literary, Temple finds, Dead Sea Scrolls, historians and writers from the time, evidence

I do not care about the history of ages past, whether the Bible is true or not. Nothing could be more boring than studying older religions.
In my opinion it is irrelevant whether or not these religions were true, since they are not the religions for this new age.

Exactly, you don't care at all about what is actually true. You only care about the one version where your religion is exactly true.

You are correct, I don't care about whether ancient religions are true since those religions have NO BEARING on the present age we live in.

All evidence to the contrary is ignored. And there is massive evidence. So you do not care about what is true. Or you would have to answer to all these issues.
Your answer is to ignore it.

You have no evidence, let alone massive evidence, that shows that the Baha'i Faith is not true, so there is nothing to answer.
All evidence to the contrary is ignored. And there is massive evidence. So you do not care about what is true.

How many times do I have to repeat myself? Those prophecies you cited from the Matthews book were never offered by Baha'u'llah as evidence.
You are trying to use those to support your claims but it won't work since Baha'u'llah never claimed those things He said were evidence.

All you have is evidence about older religions being false, but who care? Certainly not me, since I know what is true.

The OT at least is written by men who understood mythology, stories, metaphor, the heroes journey.

Who cares? Certainly not me. I am not interested in mythology and stories, I only care about the truth from God.

The OT is actual literature. No comparison.

The OT is a joke, riddled with lies about God. It is not literature in any sense of the word.

There is no evidence any god exists. Especially the Bahai version. At least the Quran made up some miracles.

The evidence that God exists is as clear as the noonday sun in Arizona, especially the Baha'i version, but the Qur'an is also evidence.

Miracles are not the evidence that God exists, they are just WHAT YOU WANT in order to believe that God exists.

"Bahá’u’lláh forbade His followers to attribute miracles to Him because this would have amounted to the degradation of His exalted station. Nevertheless, there are many accounts left to posterity by His disciples, describing the circumstances in which He either healed incurables or raised the dead.

None of these supernatural acts were considered by His followers to be a proof of the truth of His Cause, since they are only convincing to a limited number of people and they are not decisive proofs even for those who see them.

With this caveat in mind, it’s fun to look back on our history, and see how the Central Figures handled miracles."

From: Famous Miracles in the Baha’i Faith

 

[Trailblazer]

Oh really? Let's see:

"O ye peoples of the world! Know assuredly that My commandments are the lamps of My loving providence among My servants, and the keys of My mercy for My creatures. Thus hath it been sent down from the heaven of the Will of your Lord, the Lord of Revelation. Were any man to taste the sweetness of the words which the lips of the All-Merciful have willed to utter, he would, though the treasures of the earth be in his possession, renounce them one and all, that he might vindicate the truth of even one of His commandments, shining above the Dayspring of His bountiful care and loving-kindness."

1 paragraph to say, "these are my revelations, God is good."
lets do another:

"Say: From My laws the sweet-smelling savor of My garment can be smelled, and by their aid the standards of Victory will be planted upon the highest peaks. The Tongue of My power hath, from the heaven of My omnipotent glory, addressed to My creation these words: “Observe My commandments, for the love of My beauty.” Happy is the lover that hath inhaled the divine fragrance of his Best-Beloved from these words, laden with the perfume of a grace which no tongue can describe. By My life! He who hath drunk the choice wine of fairness from the hands of My bountiful favor will circle around My commandments that shine above the Dayspring of My creation."

"follow my commandments"

ridiculous. It goes on like this. Forever. The Gospel authors were good writers. This is terrible. Not even a story.

Let's see what?

I said:
Less evidence than WHAT, Christianity?
The Bible is not evidence for anything, except that some men can write stories.

I am not claiming that what you cited above from the Baha'i Writings is evidence.

What is ridiculous are the NT fictitious stories pretending to be true stories, such as the bodily resurrection of Jesus. At best these were fabricated, at worst they were outright lies intended to deceive millions of people.

Yes and zero evidence. Where is it?

"His pen" ??? LOLLOLLOL

No, His Life and His Revelation in its entirety.

Bahá'u'lláh -- Glory of God

But this God would know his followers were hugely divided already by Islam and now , because he sees the future, would see more pain, torture and separation. When all he had to do was give a messenger the same superpowers he gave others according to the stories?
To convince people?

God has no interest in convincing anyone that the Baha'i Faith is true. That is not God's job, it is a job that God has entrusted to humans, so if they fail it is their own failure.

Baha'u'llah had the same supernatural powers that all the Messengers of God had, and He used them to perform miracles, but He also said that He did not want to be believed based upon these miracles.

The people already in Christianity and Islam would need massive proof. This is not that, it's a fail and this man is making it up.

Massive proof does them no good since they are completely attached to their own beliefs.

Of course he is. You don't buy into cults without evidence?

God is in no way responsible for whether people believe a religion is true or not. The evidence has been provided and the ball is now win the human court.

By your false (you don't believe it) logic it could just as easily be Jesus ministry in AU. But you know it isn't. Why? Because he's not creating a stir with healings, mircles, and other amazing powers that would at least get your attention to take a look.

Baha'u'llah performed healings and miracles but He did not want to "create a stir" by doing so since He did not want people to believe who He was based on those.

You see, what God wants, through Baha'u'llah, is not what you want, and that is why you do not believe in God.

IF Bahai was real and a god let it look like a man making stuff up, it's gods fault.

It does not look like that to me or the other Bahais, so it is not God's fault.

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.

There are reasons why few people find it.
Few people find the narrow gate and even fewer people enter through it because it is narrow, so it is difficult to get through...

It is difficult to get through because one has to be willing to give up all their preconceived ideas, have an open mind, and think for themselves. Most people do not embark upon such a journey. They go through the wide gate, the easy one to get through – their own religious tradition or their own preconceived ideas about God or no god. They follow that broad road that is easiest for them to travel.... and that is why the NEW religion is always rejected by most people for a very long time after it has been revealed.

The narrow gate is from older mythology. It's more man-made myth.

It is not a myth. It is the actual truth.

A man claiming he talks to god is also ludicrous and laughable.

Baha'u'llah did not claim to talk to God, He claimed that He received a Revelation from God., the same as Jesus claimed.

Claiming you can put restrictions on an infinite deity is ludicrous and laughable.

I put no restrictions on God, God simply does what He chooses.
What is ludicrous and laughable is you thinking you can tell God what He 'should do.'

You continue to make the same nonsense claims. So you have a limited deity who cannot appear as a man if he choose.

Is that made up in your head or written in Bahai scripture?

God manifested Himself as a man. Baha'is refer to that man as a Manifestation of God.
Yes, that is in the Baha'i scriptures.

“Know thou of a certainty that the Unseen can in no wise incarnate His Essence and reveal it unto men. He is, and hath ever been, immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived. From His retreat of glory His voice is ever proclaiming: “Verily, I am God; there is none other God besides Me, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise. I have manifested Myself unto men, and have sent down Him Who is the Day Spring of the signs of My Revelation. Through Him I have caused all creation to testify that there is none other God except Him, the Incomparable, the All-Informed, the All-Wise.” He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men can never be known except through His Manifestation, and His Manifestation can adduce no greater proof of the truth of His Mission than the proof of His own Person.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 49

 

[Trailblazer]

The details have led me to se what the most probable truth is. It's fake, made up by a prolific writer who doesn't understand mythology at all and thinks he should just praise the sweet glory of his godlyness over and over. Some people bought his story. Good for him.

So the religion would not be fake if Baha'u'llah understood mythology? You are so ensconced in the mythology of the older religions that you have convinced yourself that it is real. You have that backwards. The mythology is what would make it fake, if it was fake. Praising God over and over and over again is what makes it real.

I believe in logic and evidence and believe beliefs should be based on a rational, empirical methodology.

You are barking up the wrong tree. Good luck with that. God is not subject to human logic since God is above and beyond anything that can ever be understood or perceived.

No religion is based upon empirical methodology since God can never be observed, except in His Messengers.

If you read his scripture and got a fuzzy feeling and decided to buy it then go for it. All of your attempts are not going to change reality and make this into something that is probably true.

That is not how I came to be a Baha'i, by reading scripture. I came to be a Baha'i because it was the only religion that ever made any sense and the only religion that has the teachings and laws that humanity needs in this age.

All of your attempts are not going to change reality and make this into something that is not true.

Yet, you can't demonstrate any truth, you cannot show how I misinterpret anything. You say a lot but can show nothing.

Yet, you can't demonstrate any truth, you cannot show how I misinterpret anything. You say a lot but can show nothing.

Just cross out Bahai and replace it with Mormonism and you will see how ridiculous this is.

Just compare the Baha'i Faith with Mormonism and you will see how ridiculous this is.
The Mormon religion has its basis in Christianity, so whatever it has comes from Jesus.
Mormonism is merely another sect of Christianity with Joseph Smith as its leader.

Great example of confirmation bias.

A big piece of evidence debunked. What do you do? Reassess? Nope, nothing of the sort, just say "well it's still exactly as true...."

The prophecies listed in the book entitled The Challenge of Baha'u'llah are not a big piece of evidence because they are not evidence at all.
The book is simply about how 'one man' came to believe in the Baha'i Faith.
How many times do I have to repeat myself, 100, 1000?

So this means it was not evidence that led you to the belief. It was a feeling you got while reading his words.

The book entitled The Challenge of Baha'u'llah is simply about how 'one man' came to believe in the Baha'i Faith.
It is not evidence that led me to my belief since I never even read it for decades after I became a Baha'i.

You attributed it to something it is not. Convinced yourself it must be divine.

It actually doesn;t have to be divine, no matter how it makes you feel.

I never attributed that book to something it is not, or convinced myself it must be divine, since it was just a book written by a man.

I did not have to convince myself that the Writings of Baha'u'llah are divine because I knew they were.
Based solely upon logic and reason, no man would glorify God that way if he was seeking to glorify Himself.
Based solely upon logic and reason, no man would know what Baha'u'llah knew about God unless He got a revelation from God.

 

[Trailblazer]

Because they are literally wrong. He got every single prediction wrong. This is evidence he is a normal man, writing from his mind, no god involved.

That was one man's opinion of what he thought Baha'ullah predicted. It is not the Writings of Baha'u'llah.

I already told you that I do not consider that man's opinion to be evidence, so why are you still talking about those prophecies?
Maybe that is because that is all you have, but it is a false representation of evidence for Baha'u'llah, so if you keep offering it as evidence I will keep saying it is not evidence, nor did Baha'u'llah ever claim it was was evidence in support of His claims.

Yes this amounts to "it's true because the book says so".

Which you kicked and screamed wasn;t true and now here we are with you saying the same thing once again.

It is not because any book says so, it is because what is written in the book is true. That is what makes it true.

1) His own Self. - Is Joseph Smith evidence of Mormonism? No. Is Jesus in AU evidence that he is Jesus? No. Yet you continue to think this is valid evidence. ABSURD.

Apparently, you do not understand what "His own self" means.
His own self is His character as evidenced by how he led His life. That is part of the evidence that supports His claim to be a Messenger of God.
The character of Baha'u'llah and the character of Jesus, as evidenced by their lives, are part of the evidence that support their claims.

2) His Revelation. - it's true because the book says so. His writings are not special. Not predictive of the future, not containing special knowledge any human didn't have. He simply said the word "revelations". The fact that I have to explain that by itself that isn't evidence is ridiculous.
Guess who else got revelations? Joseph Smith. Are you Mormon? NO? Wow, your evidence sucks than.

Apparently, you do not understand what "His Revelation" means.
His Revelation means the history of the religion, what Baha'u'llah did during His 40 year mission.

3) the words He hath revealed - like the incorrect science? Like the lack of good literature? Like how he just praises the most high god over and over? Yeah, no. That isn't evidence. The Mormon Bible is actually pretty good as far as Bibles go. Does that make it real? Why, NO.

The words He hath revealed are His writings. There is nothing incorrect about science. Scriptures are not intended to be literature.
Whether or not you or I think the words are from God is only a subjective personal opinion.

Here is the rub.
The only reason these people had to stoop to such a ridiculous low for evidence (these are the worst lines of evidence ever, imagine if this is what Christainity was based on), is because that is all there is, not because it's actually evidence.

Here is the rub. This is what Christianity was based on
Christianity is based upon the same evidence for Jesus as the Baha'i Faith has for Baha'u'llah:
-- His own self (what we can know about Jesus' character from the NT).
-- His Revelation (the history of Jesus' earthly mission, what we can know of Jesus' mission from the NT).
-- His words (what men wrote that Jesus allegedly said in the NT, which are not the actual words of Jesus).

Ain't got nothing else. The 100 dollar difference is that NOTHING about Jesus is verifiable whereas EVERYTHING about Baha'u'llah is verifiable, since it is well-documented contemporary history.

 

[Trailblazer]

And Bahai fits into this group as well.
Except it's not mythology, there is a standard to meet to be myth.

No, the Baha'i Faith is not mythology, it is all true stories, what actually happened.

I already know about Paul, the entire religion, from the OT is made up. There is no god there to even start a new thing with Islam and Bahai. Yahweh is no different than Zeus or El. So everything is made up by people.

Unless you can prove that it is only a personal opinion that God is made up by people.
Have fun with that belief but it will never get you anywhere.

Do you think all your book learning is going to get you somewhere? It is not going to get you anything except thinking you are smart.