Can we change our mind about what we believe?

[muhammad_isa]

especially if a person does not wish to live forever.

..I know..

 

[CG Didymus]

So this is confirmation bias as well. None of these things happened. They go in order, at the same time.
Not centuries apart?

Since a Baha'i, Bill Sears, is the one who came up with this, I doubt it is an official Baha'i teaching. TB uses it constantly. To prove what? Nothing.

1755 Lisbon earthquake - Wikipedia

A big earthquake in Portugal? Almost ninety years before the Bab declared himself in 1844? Who but a Baha'i would connect that dot with the ones to come? And claim that it was a "fulfilled" sign from chapter six of Revelation? There's a lot of chapters following that. Of course, they don't fit into the Baha'i scheme of things. But they try and make them fit anyway.

New England's Dark Day - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A dark day in the United States and Canada, twenty-five years after the earthquake in Portugal?

http://www.patmospapers.com/ndex/stars.htm

A meteor shower in the United States more than seventy-five years after the earthquake? Please.

But TB claims that the things that happened after the earthquake, dark day, and the stars falling also happened? Okay, then let's go to the next chapter... We have the 144,000. Then in chapter 8, We have seven angels sound trumpets. A third of the earth is burned up with the blast of the first trumpet. With the second a third of the sea turns to blood. Then with the next trumpet a star falls and destroys a third of the rivers. Then the next trumpet sounds and a third of the Sun, Moon and stars are destroyed. When do the Baha'is say all this happened?

But now comes one of the favorite Baha'i verses... The "Three Woes". This takes us to chapter nine. All kinds of stuff goes on and Baha'is say this is all about the first "Woe" which they say is Muhammad, the second "Woe", the Bab, and, because the third "Woe" comes "quickly", they say this is Baha'u'llah.

Amazing stuff and amazing claims... But we still got twelve chapters to go! But that's just them trying to make Revelation fit. What are they going to do with the prophecies from the other religions? Same thing. There is always a way for Baha'is, Christians, or anybody to make prophecies fit anything.

My favorite is still the prophecy about Jesus being born of a virgin. Only one verse from Isaiah is used, Isaiah 7:14, and only used by Matthew. And the birth only mentioned by one other gospel writer, Luke. But of all things that Baha'is could have said are only symbolic, they say that "yes", Jesus was born of a virgin. And what still astounds me is that they then say the resurrection is symbolic and didn't literally happen.

I asked them about which birth narrative was correct, the one in Matthew or the one in Luke... Or the one in the Quran? That has no manger, no Bethlehem, but has Mary giving birth to Jesus under a date palm. Since they believe the Quran is more accurate than the Bible and NT, I would think they'd have to say the Quran version. Just like they say that the Bible story about Abraham taking Isaac to be sacrificed is wrong. It was really Ishmael.

Other than being all over the place with these things, it's a nice religion. It's trying to bring people of all races and nationalities together in peace and unity. But does being "nice" make it true? It'd be "nice" if they could support their claims with a little more solid evidence.

After all, it's the grandest claim of all... Not only Jesus has returned, but Buddha, Krishna and everybody else ever promised in any of the major religions. But, since there's still wars and rumors of wars, and no peace and unity in sight, I have my doubts that it's true.

Thanks Joeir for your incredible knowledge on religion. I've learned a lot from your posts.

 

[Trailblazer]

Other than being all over the place with these things

It is the Bible that is all over the place with these things.
As Baha'is we are in under no obligation to know all about the older religions, or to explain why there discrepancies in their scriptures, nor do we need to, because we have a new religion. We are only responsible to explain the discrepancies in the Baha'i Writings, if there are any.

 

[joelr]

There cannot be empirical evidence of anything that is non-physical,
so your statement says very little.
It is like saying "I have not died before, and until I do.."

Then you also have no reason to find it true?
However there is evidence that consciousness is dependent on the brain. This "non-physical" thing you speak of, if it has no evidence why do you even speak of it as if it's a possibility?

More money than sense?

Philosophers and scientists don't make that much money. Also you are gish-galloping. When a lot of people believe what you do you mention it but then when I show it's not true in educated circles you frame it as a negative and not having sense.
You are not allowing facts to present themselves without warping the meanings to always favor your position. Why?

There could be many reasons .. statistics need to be analysed with care.
Without a doubt, one cannot conclude much about a possible future "universe",
by empirical means.

See, you didn't say this when you were pointing out I was in a minority? Now, suddenly, that it isn't supporting your beliefs the stats need be "analyzed with care"?

And yes, we can make predictions about the future universe based on current conditions.

One cannot show that this observed universe is all that is.
..but you don't care about that .. you are happy to dismiss Bible/Quran as fiction,
and argue reality=universe

Strawman. Show me where I say this one universe is all reality. I'm not talking cosmology here because you don't seem to know anything about the subject.
Then you make a false statement about "dismissing" scripture as fiction. I'm presenting evidence of different types that supports the idea that scripture is made up by people.
I'm talking about it because it's the topic.

 

[joelr]

It does not matter if there were bigger earthquakes AFTER the dark day and after the falling stars.
These have to happen in order, as it says in Revelation 6.

12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;
13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.

These events have to happen in order. Was there a dark day and falling stars AFTER those earthquakes?

And the answer is always YES because those events happen on a regular basis. So there are always going to be a way to just take 4 random events that fit the order. So it's meaningless.

Although Revelations is not a prophecy. You can buy Bart Ehrmans work or Elaine Pagels work, both on Revelation and it's origin and what it meant to the writers.
Or watch the lecture. It is not a future prophecy.

If it were it's a ridiculously vague prophecy. Smoke filled air from forest fires?

It also says a woman clothed with the sun and a 7-headed, 10-horned, baby-eating dragon will appear.
It also says Only 144,000 will be saved
It also says I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

Angels show up, horsemen, God battles Satan.

None of that happened.

Then you have the other problem, you claimed the Bible is corrupted. How do you demonstrate which is corrupted and which is not? Anything you quote may be corrupted. You haven't demonstrated anything was corrupted so there is that as well.

 

[Aupmanyav]

13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.

Stars are not medallions in the sky. They are much larger than Earth and it is ridiculous to say that they fell on Earth.

"While speaking at the American Astronomical Society's 222nd conference, Todd Henry - the Professor of Astronomy at Georgia State University - revealed that a star can be no smaller than 8.7 percent the diameter of our Sun to sustain nuclear fusion."

What's the Smallest Possible Size of a Star (and why isn't Jupiter one)?

Stars come in a diverse range of sizes and characteristics, but what is the smallest possible size for a star? For a long time, we didn't know, but in 2014, astronomers finally received an answer to the nagging question that asks, "where is the line that separates a full-blown, life-giving...

futurism.com

 

[joelr]

I do not claim their stories are wrong, I believe they are wrong.
A God who is supposedly infinite and creates universes and "talks" sounds ridiculous and made up.

Interesting, now it is YOU who is claiming what a God would or would not do. This entire time when I mention what a God would or should do you come back with "you cannot speak for a God", and now, here you are speaking for what a God should or would do>

Nobody can prove that the Holy Spirit is real.
Nobody can demonstrate that any God or spirit communicated to anyone.

exactly.

Messengers of God are the evidence for God.

And nobody can prove a person is a messenger of any God.

Nobody can demonstrate that His claims were true, except to themselves.

You cannot demonstrate his claims are true even to yourself. You can use confirmation bias on his words and find a way to thinnk you are seeing they are true.

Then don't believe them. You should not believe them with no reason.

I don't believe them, and there is no reason to believe them that I have seen.

I guess you don't know what progressive revelation means according to Baha'i beliefs.

Progressive revelation is a core teaching in the Bahá'í Faith that suggests that religious truth is revealed by God progressively and cyclically over time through a series of divine Messengers, and that the teachings are tailored to suit the needs of the time and place of their appearance.[1][2] Thus, the Bahá'í teachings recognize the divine origin of several world religions as different stages in the history of one religion, while believing that the revelation of Bahá'u'lláh is the most recent (though not the last—that there will never be a last), and therefore the most relevant to modern society.[1]

This teaching is an interaction of simpler teachings and their implications. The basic concept relates closely to Bahá'í views on God's essential unity, and the nature of prophets, termed Manifestations of God. It also ties into Bahá'í views of the purpose and nature of religion, laws, belief, culture and history. Hence revelation is seen as both progressive and continuous, and therefore never ceases.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_revelation_Baha'i

Exactly my point. His words are not progressive. He doesn't speak to the times. It was the industrial revolution. It was the scientific revolution right around the corner. He spoke to that ZERO. Philosophy has become big, he spoke to that ZERO.
HE spoke no science we were about to discover, or math, or medical knowledge.







https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_revelation_(Bahá'í)

That is only from your perspective, which not all people share. From my perspective your logic and reason are faulty and you are blind to seeing what is as big as the brad side of a barn.

And if I claiamed a perspective many people shared you would call it an "ad-populum" now wouldn't you?

But I do not care about other people (not many believe Bahai overall). I care about a logical and rational methosology to determine what is true.

You keep saying my logic and reason are faulty (funny, only when I say it to you first......weird......) but can never show why it is. It's just another claim.
What exactly am I blind to?
Incorrect science.
Run-on praise language?
No philosophy, science, knowledge at a time when the world was ready for it?
No history about the religions that was correct?
No actual answers to anything.
Vague prophecies or outright lies.

Ridiculous types of "proof" like "his life", his words".....(hint, everyone has a life and can write words, doesn't demonstrate revelations).
No cosmology. All religions messed up cosmology, now would be the perfect time for "progressive revelations" to help humanity understand the universe.
Nope. He says the ether was real. That's what scientists thought back then, they were wrong.

How many times are you going to repeat that straw man?
I NEVER said it is true because it says so. That is patently absurd

Every time you make a point that you read in Bahai scripture, and then post the scripture, you are claiming it's true because it says so.

All of the evidence you produced was "because he said so".

His life, his words = he said so
he had revelations, why, because......he said so

It is true because it is true.

HA HA HA, this is slightly worse but basically the same thing.
"it's true because it's true"

Yeah, that is just as bad. I find it hard to believe you don't know this.

If I said a man in my closet is a deity and told me secrets and I said I can prove it, and you said "how?" and I said:
"it's true because it's true"

you would laugh.

OR, if I said:

it's true because he wrote it down
it's true because of the life he lived
it's true because he got messages from Zeus, the messages prove it



you would laugh. That is not evidence.

No amount of evidence makes it true since evidence doesn't MAKE anything true. Evidence is just what people WANT in order to believe it is true. I have ample evidence and none of my evidence is "it says so."

Anything you learned from scripture including-
1) the Bible is corrupted by men
2) a man is getting messages from a God


Is using the "it says so" defense.


The other evidences are fake things like
"his life"
"his words" (that is back to the it says so really?)
he teaches about Jesus


You have presented NO evidence that is remotely sufficient to believe a God is real and is sending this person messages.

No, I don't want it to be true but I cannot deny the evidence.
The evidence is EXACTLY what one would expect to see if a man was a Messenger of God, and the evidence is excellent. You are just too biased and blind to see it.

The evidence you presented is about as strong as for Mormonism, JW, Scientology and various other cults.

I have discussed all of it.
Actually that "evidence" is not hard to deny because it doesn't even provide the smallest amount of actual evidence.

I never did it in ANY post.
I never said it is true "because he said so" so that is a big fat straw man.

The Bible is corrupt, is from Bahai scripture.


I am getting messages from God is from Bahai scripture.

You believe it because it says so.

How else could I know if not from a book, from a guy down at the corner store?

AaH, yet ANOTHER thing you read in a book and bought it. Yet again, the dispensation of Jesus is over BECAUSE THE BOOK SAYS SO!!!!!

How else could you know it? Jesus could come back, demonstrate with sufficient evidence he is a supernatural Jesus. Then this Jesus says his dispensation is over.
Otherwise YOU DO NOT KNOW. The Jesus story is a fictional tale, so you don't have many options here. What you don't do, is start assuming ancient fiction is real. If you care at all about what is actually true.

I don't use any method for proof since I have told you time and again there is no proof, only evidence.

That isn't evidence. The evidence needs be sufficient to warrant belief. Your evidence could be spoken by a delusional person and there is no way to tell the difference.

Obviously you don't listen to what I say. You either don't listen or you don't understand.
You just take what I say and run it through your own filter, twist it and make straw men.

Because at this point it doesn't matter, you don't have proof, you don't have reasonable evidence. I have not presented any strawmen because your evidence is also terrible and does not support any of your claims.

Posting to you is like posting to a brick wall.

Funny you left out all the dishonest posts you posted. But yes, it probably is like a brick wall to you. Because you have been fooled by sub-par evidence, barely evidence at all, really they are wild claims with no explanations as to why he knows nothing any man wouldn't know. And you bought it all. I however do not budge on a rational, empirical methodology to demonstrating claims are true. I don't care how many terrible lines of "evidence" you attempt to pass off as good evidence.
It isn;t, he has not proven his claim and should not be believed. Period.

He also does nothing as far as adding any knowledge about psychology, mental health, medical science, brain chemistry, nutrition, he says nothing except things we already knew. He is making claims that are not supported y evidence.

 

[joelr]

So my question to you is: what do you wish or desire from a religion? That is rhetorically speaking, but if you were to want a religion, which I see you don't but if you were.

If one claims to be speaking to a God, enough that they are writing long volumes, they would provide some insights to science, medical, cosmology, reality, philosophy, big bang, gravity, QM and so on as well as Gods thoughts on some areas of philosophy like materialism, idealism, and then theological discussions. As well as information about future science, how to unify gravity with QM, what is dark energy, dark matter, how to cure cancer, .......without some of this there is no reason to find a person actually spoke with a God.

The only thing I would want from a religion is a deity that confirms it's real so we know souls and afterlife is real. If the deity wants to speak on science, philosophy and such that would be great.

 

[joelr]

I did not say the Gospels were corrupted, I said that the religions of the past got corrupted.

Same difference.

“This is the Day when the loved ones of God should keep their eyes directed towards His Manifestation, and fasten them upon whatsoever that Manifestation may be pleased to reveal. Certain traditions of bygone ages rest on no foundations whatever, while the notions entertained by past generations, and which they have recorded in their books, have, for the most part, been influenced by the desires of a corrupt inclination. Thou dost witness how most of the commentaries and interpretations of the words of God, now current amongst men, are devoid of truth.” Gleanings, p. 171

Oh, so you think they were corrupted because the book says so. Another example of "it's true because the book says so".
http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/GWB/gwb-86.html#pg170

Baha'u'llah could and did do miracles. How many times do I have to repeat myself? Talking to you is like talking to a stone wall.

Speaking of stone walls. Let's see which is more productive.

Ask Stone Wall - "Bahai made claims of miracles but is there evidence he really could? Good evidence?"

Ask Trailblazer - ""Bahai made claims of miracles but is there evidence he really could? Good evidence?"


answer, both fail to produce good evidence and ignore every previous conversation and think claims hold merit.

I never said that Baha'u'llah was the holy ghost. I said He brought the Holy Spirit, which is the Bounty of God.

Holy ghost, holy spirit, same difference, both made up fiction from the Bible. No evidence for any of it.

John 16:12-14 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

Here is some corrupted Gospel reading. Or is this reading not corrupted? You say some are, but STILL have not shown any methodology to determine which is corrupted.
Yawn. This thread has long expired.

You have no evidence, just contradictions.

The Spirit of truth is not the holy ghost. That is only a false Christian belief.

Oh, that is one of the corrupted ones, cool. Now please show me the methodology which allows you to determine which beliefs are false and which are not.

Baha'u'llah never claimed to be the holy ghost, NEVER. He claimed to be the Spirit of Truth and the return of the Spirit of God, who was Jesus.

Super, didn't we just do thjis one? It was pointless than and still is exactly as pointless, without evidence??

“O kings of Christendom! Heard ye not the saying of Jesus, the Spirit of God, “I go away, and come again unto you”? Wherefore, then, did ye fail, when He did come again unto you in the clouds of heaven, to draw nigh unto Him, that ye might behold His face, and be of them that attained His Presence? In another passage He saith: “When He, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 246

Oh good, another quote. I see "spirit of truth". Great!!!

So, this is yet another one that is true BECAUSE THE BOOK SAYS SO.


I sense a pattern.

Yawn.



http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/GWB/gwb-116.html.utf8?query=Spirit|Jesus&action=highlight#gr1

“We, in truth, have sent Him Whom We aided with the Holy Spirit (Jesus Christ) that He may announce unto you this Light that hath shone forth from the horizon of the will of your Lord, the Most Exalted, the All-Glorious, and Whose signs have been revealed in the West. Set your faces towards Him (Bahá’u’lláh) on this Day which God hath exalted above all other days, and whereon the All-Merciful hath shed the splendour of His effulgent glory upon all who are in heaven and all who are on earth.” Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 18

“The Word which the Son concealed is made manifest. It hath been sent down in the form of the human temple in this day. Blessed be the Lord Who is the Father! He, verily, is come unto the nations in His most great majesty.” Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 84-85

“This is, truly, that which the Spirit of God (Jesus Christ) hath announced, when He came with truth unto you, He with Whom the Jewish doctors disputed, till at last they perpetrated what hath made the Holy Spirit to lament, and the tears of them that have near access to God to flow….”
Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 19

“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? Fear God, O followers of the Spirit (Jesus), and walk not in the footsteps of every divine that hath gone far astray… Open the doors of your hearts. He Who is the Spirit (Jesus) verily, standeth before them.” Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p, 92

His own Self is not it says so. His Revelation is not it says so.

And more "it's true because the book says", sorry, not interested. Provide evidence the book is true first.

No, it is true because it is true.

Ah, even better. Who needs evidence, proof, logic, a rational epistemology? Not you.


We can just proclaim "IT'S TRUE BECAUSE IT's TRUE"



And guess what. So can every other religion and cult. And they do.

Sorry, you are not doing well here.

I did not say it MAKES them true. I said "I have plenty of other reasons to believe that the Baha'i Faith is true, but if all I had were the Writings of Baha'u'llah that would be enough," meaning it would be enough for me to believe in Baha'u'llah.

Personal beliefs, like Mormonism, are not true until evidence sufficiet to warrant belief is presented.
Writings are not evidence and you have presented NO other good lines of evidence.



FAIL.

One of the other reasons I believe has nothing to do with the evidence. Everything is not about evidence.

Pretty much, it is. Show me something true you believe without evidence (except these folk tales)

I never said it is true because my book says it is true.
I believe it is true because my book says it is true.

That is the same thing. This little semantics game will not help you in any way.

I believe it is true, but I am not claiming it is true because I cannot prove a belief is true.

Then you don't care about what is actually true.

I am not saying humans messed up the Bible because it says so in Gleanings.
I am saying I believe that "Certain traditions of bygone ages rest on no foundations whatever, while the notions entertained by past generations, and which they have recorded in their books, have, for the most part, been influenced by the desires of a corrupt inclination” because it says so in Gleanings.

(Continued on next post)

You said you don't believe the Bible is messed up because it says so in Gleanings, then go on to quote Gleanings.

Which is why you believe it.



"It's true because the book says it's true".


Not everyone has to care about what is really true.

 

[Trailblazer]

Stars are not medallions in the sky. They are much larger than Earth and it is ridiculous to say that they fell on Earth.

A very long time ago I was discussing Jesus returning with an atheist I used to post to for 8 years on another forum.

He said:
One of those things Jesus allegedly foretold before he comes again is that the "stars shall fall from heaven." Since that's impossible, and shows only that whoever wrote that had no clue what stars actually are, it's all you need to understand Jesus isn't going to come back.

I said:
Jesus was referring to falling stars, also known as shooting stars. Even though scientists did not know what they were back in the Bible days, Jesus knew because He had the knowledge of God.

Those stars fell from the sky in 1833, and then the Spirit of Jesus returned to earth in the Person of Baha’u’llah, who was the Messiah of the last days.

“And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.” (Revelation 6:13.)

This was the third sign that was to appear. This was the final promise, and would be seen just before the coming of the Messiah in the last days.

THE STAR-FALL OF 1833

So exceptional was this event that Clarke in his History of Astronomy in the Nineteenth Century writes: “… a tempest of falling stars broke over the earth.”

According to the millennial scholars of the 1840s, the third sign in the sixth chapter of Revelation came to pass on 12 November 1833, the night of the unique star-fall.

Clarke wrote of that night, saying: “Once and for all, then, as the result of the star-fall of 1833, the study of luminous meteors became an integral part of astronomy.” He goes on to say: “North America bore the brunt of its pelting. From the Gulf of Mexico to Halifax, until daylight with some difficulties put an end to the display, the sky was scored in every direction with shining tracks and illuminated with majestic fireballs.”

Denison Olmsted, Professor of Mathematics at Yale University, wrote the following in the American Journal of Science: “The morning of 13 November 1833, was rendered memorable by an exhibition of the phenomenon called shooting stars, which was probably more extensive and magnificent than any similar one hitherto recorded … Probably no celestial phenomenon has ever occurred in this country, since its first settlement, which was received with so much admiration and delight by one class of spectators, or with so much astonishment and fear by another class. For some time after the occurrence, the ‘meteoric phenomenon’ was the principle topic of conversation.”

Simon Newcomb in Astronomy for Everybody called the display of falling stars “the most remarkable one ever observed”.

The French astronomer, Flammarion, in Popular Astronomy, wrote: “The Boston observer, Olmsted, compared them, at the moment of maximum, to half the number of flakes which are perceived in the air during an ordinary shower of snow.”

The New York Journal of Commerce wrote: “No philosopher or scholar has told or recorded an event like that of yesterday morning. A prophet eighteen hundred years ago foretold it exactly, if we will be at the trouble of understanding stars falling to mean falling stars.”(New York Journal of Commerce, 14 November 1833.)

Astronomers, after careful study, learned that this particular meteoric display occurs every thirty–three years. However, the display of 1833 was unique in its drama. The fall of 1866 did not rival it in any way, and that of 1899 was of even less interest.

“It was such a spectacular sight in 1833 that many people thought the world was coming to an end. The “night the stars fell” is mentioned in several stories about Ray County. The 1973 Ray County history book tells about Jabez and Elizabeth Shotwell and their seven children, who arrived in Lexington in 1833, the night of the falling stars.”

https://www.richmond-dailynews.com/2012/12/in-1833-the-sky-fell-but-life-went-on/

The Stars Fall from Heaven
"And the stars shall fall from heaven." Matthew 24:29.

The great star shower took place on the night of November 13, 1833. It was so bright that a newspaper could be read on the street. One writer says, "For nearly four hours the sky was literally ablaze."* Men thought the end of the world had come. Look into this. It is most fascinating, and a sign of Christ's coming.

*Peter A. Millman, "The Falling of the Stars," The Telescope, 7 (May-June, 1940) 57.

For further commentary on this event please continue reading:

http://www.finalevents.com/Event1/Sign06

(Excerpts from: http://bahai-library.com/pdf/s/sears_thief_night.pdf)

 

[joelr]

I just reply to what I see posted, as I understand it. I do not lie. You are now skating on thin ice calling me a liar. It doesn't matter to me though since I know I do not lie, and I don't care what people think of me. People who know me know I do not lie.

You added something to the conversation you did not actually say (so what), which changed the context. That would be a lie. I will gladly go through all the posts again and demonstrate what you did. It was dishonest.

You said: I told you, it gets worse the more you engage.
I said: It might get worse for you but it gets better for me.

You have NO IDEA what I meant by better or why I think it is getting better. I did not say that because I think I am winning an argument as I have no need to win any arguments. Only egomaniacs have to win arguments on forums.

Good because you have only shown you believe a religion with a complete lack of evidence.

I said: My beliefs prove themselves to anyone who is rational or logical.
I did not say: it's true because a book says so.

Yes, you have been implying that all along. Just the revelations you believe true because it says he had revelations.



There is not good evidence of any of it.

I believe it is true because Baha'u'llah said so but first I had to believe that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God.

It says he is. Without evidence, just long flowery writing, which isn't evidence.

That is only your personal opinion, we all have those.

No it's a fact, you haven't demonstrated one rational or logical belief yet. You made the claim you have, because that seems all you can do is make claims.

I make no claims, I only hold beliefs. Baha'u'llah is the one who made the claims and I believe His claims.

There you go, word games which show I am correct. Obviously he is making the claims and you buy into them. His claims are written down.

Hence - "the book says it's true, so it's true" . There is no evidence. The writings show no evidence. Your beliefs are based on claims.

Everything I said was spot on.

Here you are just going around in circles, nothing is changing. You believe unevidenced claims.

You said: I'm just pointing out belief in supernatural claims without evidence isn't rational.
I said: I do not believe in supernatural claims without evidence.

Yes you do.
There is no sufficient evidence. You would not become a Muslim yet Muhammad also lived a life, did all those things about Allah, claimed revelations from Gabrielle, wrote massive amounts of text and laws.
Joseph Smith also did the same. Krishna even showed up to teach Prince Arjuna philosophy. You don't even read those. I don't think the Bahai "evidence" even compelled you one bit, you just read some of the text and wanted it to be real so you decided to frame it as real.

No problem. But there is no evidence to support his claims and plenty of lack of evidence to show he's just a man.

My response was an adult response.

No, adults who have points to make do not just reverse the words of an opponent without explanation of why it's actually them making the mistake. That is a childs tactic.

You just didn't like my response since you think you are right and I am wrong,

I don't think I am right, the evidence demonstrates I am correct. You do not care about what is actually true. You do not care about sufficient evidence to warrant a claim as possible. That is what this post has shown. If you cared about good evidence you would address the issue.
You wouldn't need to make fake dishonest posts by adding words.

so you are acting like a child.
Mommy, mommy, I wanted chocolate ice cream, not vanilla!

and you would not have to ad-hom me. ONCE AGIAN, you make a claim but you cannot show why it's true. Showing you are butthurt and just need to attack me.

I did not just flip your statements, I have been explaining why you follow unevidenced claims.

Lost what? I am not in a debate with you. I could not care less about winning.

Then why do you continue to respond, without evidence, making the same non-points over and over. Why do you need to create false posts that change the narrative of the conversation and claiming I made a fallacy when I did not? Your actions do not match your words.

I am just responding to posts and when I finally get bored or tired of the insults I won't respond anymore.

You mean when you get tired of insulting me. You have been doing the insulting.

The only bad behavior is your behavior. Calling me a liar and dishonest is clearly bad behavior. Everyone can see that but you.

I'm quite sure that if anyone is actually reading this boring post, they can see that you manipulated answers. I pointed out what you did already so I don't know why you are still on this?

 

[CG Didymus]

Although Revelations is not a prophecy. You can buy Bart Ehrmans work or Elaine Pagels work, both on Revelation and it's origin and what it meant to the writers.

Here's Abdul Baha interpreting chapter 11 in Revelation.

“And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and three-score days, clothed in sackcloth.”25 By these two witnesses are intended Muḥammad the Messenger of God and ‘Alí the son of Abú-Ṭálib.​

​

“The beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.”33 By this beast is meant the Umayyads, who assailed these witnesses from the pit of error.​

​

“And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell, and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand.”42 This earthquake occurred in Shíráz after the martyrdom of the Báb.​

​

“The second woe is past; and, behold, the third woe cometh quickly.”44 The first woe was the advent of the Apostle of God, Muḥammad the son of ‘Abdu’lláh, peace be upon Him. The second woe was that of the Báb, upon Him be glory and praise. The third woe is the great Day of the advent of the Lord of Hosts and the revelation of the promised Beauty.​

​

This third woe is the day of the manifestation of Bahá’u’lláh, the Day of God...​

​

All sorts of problems. The "Three Woes" are a couple of chapters back, and Abdul Baha' has the first "Woe", Muhammad come back and be one of the two witnesses. Then there is another earthquake. This one happens, supposedly, when the Bab was killed. But did it kill 7000 men? Apparently, not an important detail. So, one earthquake about 100 years before the Bab and another one the day he is executed. But the Bab is not the main prophet. That is Baha'u'llah. Are these prophecies about one of them or both of them? It's kind of interchangeable with Baha'is. The 1260 days gets us to 1844,,, The year the Bab declared. Which prophecies get us to 1862... the year that Baha'u'llah declared? I'm sure they have one or invent one. But they don't talk much about it. 1844 is the big year for them.

Oh, and I looked up when the Bab was killed... "On the morning of July 9, 1850 in Tabriz, a 30-year-old Persian merchant known as the Báb was charged with apostasy and shot by order of the Prime Minister of the Persian Empire." And when the earthquake happened... "The Fars region of Iran was struck by a major earthquake on either 22 April[1] or 5 May 1853.[2] The city of Shiraz and the surrounding area were severely affected, with almost all buildings destroyed. At least 9,000 people were killed, with some estimates reaching 13,000."

Yes, Abdul Baha was right... It happened after the Bab was killed... almost 3 years after he was killed. I guess that's close enough by Baha'i standards. But in Revelation it says 1/10 of the city was destroyed. But the earthquake in Shiraz destroyed almost all the buildings? Again, close enough for Baha'is.

But anyway, check out what Abdul Baha' says in "Some Answered Questions" about Revelation 11 and 12 if you have time and want to and haven't already.

 

[joelr]

Here's Abdul Baha interpreting chapter 11 in Revelation.

“And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and three-score days, clothed in sackcloth.”25 By these two witnesses are intended Muḥammad the Messenger of God and ‘Alí the son of Abú-Ṭálib.​

​

“The beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.”33 By this beast is meant the Umayyads, who assailed these witnesses from the pit of error.​

​

“And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell, and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand.”42 This earthquake occurred in Shíráz after the martyrdom of the Báb.​

​

“The second woe is past; and, behold, the third woe cometh quickly.”44 The first woe was the advent of the Apostle of God, Muḥammad the son of ‘Abdu’lláh, peace be upon Him. The second woe was that of the Báb, upon Him be glory and praise. The third woe is the great Day of the advent of the Lord of Hosts and the revelation of the promised Beauty.​

​

This third woe is the day of the manifestation of Bahá’u’lláh, the Day of God...​

​

All sorts of problems. The "Three Woes" are a couple of chapters back, and Abdul Baha' has the first "Woe", Muhammad come back and be one of the two witnesses. Then there is another earthquake. This one happens, supposedly, when the Bab was killed. But did it kill 7000 men? Apparently, not an important detail. So, one earthquake about 100 years before the Bab and another one the day he is executed. But the Bab is not the main prophet. That is Baha'u'llah. Are these prophecies about one of them or both of them? It's kind of interchangeable with Baha'is. The 1260 days gets us to 1844,,, The year the Bab declared. Which prophecies get us to 1862... the year that Baha'u'llah declared? I'm sure they have one or invent one. But they don't talk much about it. 1844 is the big year for them.

Oh, and I looked up when the Bab was killed... "On the morning of July 9, 1850 in Tabriz, a 30-year-old Persian merchant known as the Báb was charged with apostasy and shot by order of the Prime Minister of the Persian Empire." And when the earthquake happened... "The Fars region of Iran was struck by a major earthquake on either 22 April[1] or 5 May 1853.[2] The city of Shiraz and the surrounding area were severely affected, with almost all buildings destroyed. At least 9,000 people were killed, with some estimates reaching 13,000."

Yes, Abdul Baha was right... It happened after the Bab was killed... almost 3 years after he was killed. I guess that's close enough by Baha'i standards. But in Revelation it says 1/10 of the city was destroyed. But the earthquake in Shiraz destroyed almost all the buildings? Again, close enough for Baha'is.

But anyway, check out what Abdul Baha' says in "Some Answered Questions" about Revelation 11 and 12 if you have time and want to and haven't already.

Go to 1:03:00

This is the general consensus, reading Revelation as future history is incorrect, the events were taking place in the authors time.

I have read Bab stuff on it and their prophecies. There was a thread a years or so ago and it was about this, it linked to several sources, Theid in the Night and another book. I checked them out at the time and discussed it all.

 

[muhammad_isa]

This "non-physical" thing you speak of, if it has no evidence why do you even speak of it..?

..because not every concept is a physical one .. we all know what is meant by the "mind"..
You insisting that you know everything about it, and that it is merely a product of the physical,
is irrelevant.

..yes, we can make predictions about the future universe based on current conditions.

"the" future universe? Do you refer to this present one?
..that's not what I refer to.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Jesus was referring to falling stars, also known as shooting stars.

Ah! Jesus did not know the difference between a star and a meteorite. Not surprising for a carpenter in Nazareth at the beginning of 1st Century.
Even Bahaollah in 19th Century did not know that since he was uneducated.

 

[YoursTrue]

If one claims to be speaking to a God, enough that they are writing long volumes, they would provide some insights to science, medical, cosmology, reality, philosophy, big bang, gravity, QM and so on as well as Gods thoughts on some areas of philosophy like materialism, idealism, and then theological discussions. As well as information about future science, how to unify gravity with QM, what is dark energy, dark matter, how to cure cancer, .......without some of this there is no reason to find a person actually spoke with a God.

The only thing I would want from a religion is a deity that confirms it's real so we know souls and afterlife is real. If the deity wants to speak on science, philosophy and such that would be great.

The Bible was originally written on papyrus and parchment, not books as we know it. Also, those writing were not recording or investigating scientific endeavors, but rather their experiences with their God and people.

 

[CG Didymus]

I have read Bab stuff on it and their prophecies. There was a thread a years or so ago and it was about this, it linked to several sources, Theid in the Night and another book. I checked them out at the time and discussed it all.

For any "true believer" in any religion, that "sunk" a lot of time and effort into a religion makes it difficult for the believer to have an open mind and consider that maybe their beliefs are wrong. This is true of Baha'is too. They see "evidence" for believing, but they don't seem to consider the evidence against their beliefs... at least outwardly.

So, Christians, Baha'is and some people in some of the other religions do get to be like "brick walls". They have invested too much into believing that they can't or don't want to take a serious look at the evidence against believing in the religion and prophet. And, naturally, they accuse others of being like a brick wall and blind to the truth.

I'd imagine that everybody that looks into a new religion like the Baha'i Faith has some degree of skepticism. And maybe some that have so little that almost immediately they fall in love with the teachings and the religion.

Things like love for all people... And a plan from God that will unite and bring peace to the world... sure sounds good. Maybe so good that the new believer ignores all the contradictory things in the details. Details like the very real differences held by the different religions.

But the simplistic explanation that is given in the Baha'i Faith is enough to get the new believer to move on and not worry about those differences. They are told that some things were symbolic and not literal... like hell, Satan, the resurrection in Christianity and reincarnation and incarnations of God of Hinduism.

Then the other thing new Baha'is are told is that the followers also added things into the religion based on misconceptions and misinterpretation... Like making Jesus God and part of a trinity.

I just remembered another problem I have with the Baha'i "progressive revelation" thing... Each manifestation supposedly brought a new set of social laws with them. I've asked what were the new laws that Jesus brought? Again, to me, it's just a simplistic way of getting rid of the teachings of the older religions and saying that their new religion has come to update and replace the old laws given in the religions of the past.

For me, it seems much more likely that each culture made laws that fit their society. That it wasn't their God giving the laws. It was just their religious leaders. Or, if Baha'is want to believe that God wanted people that did any type of work on the Sabbath should be stoned, then fine. But did that law really replace the laws of the other religions in the world? I doubt it. Each religion had its own dumb and horrible laws that they claim came from their God.... Like sacrificing people to their God. But, of course, Baha'is don't talk about those religions much, unless they had a prophecy they can use.

 

[Trailblazer]

Ah! Jesus did not know the difference between a star and a meteorite. Not surprising for a carpenter in Nazareth at the beginning of 1st Century.
Even Bahaollah in 19th Century did not know that since he was uneducated.

Jesus did know and Baha'u'llah also knew.
When Jesus said that the stars will fall from heaven, Jesus was referring to falling stars, also known as shooting stars or meteorites.
Even though scientists did not know what they were back in the Bible days, Jesus knew because He had the knowledge of God.

Revelation 6:13 And the stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree sheds its winter fruit when shaken by a gale.

Mark 13:25 And the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.

Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.

 

[CG Didymus]

Ah! Jesus did not know the difference between a star and a meteorite.

Amazing, Baha'is can take something in the Bible literally... like if Jesus said his work on Earth is finished, then that definitely means he is not coming back, ever. They can take it symbolically... like with the resurrection. It means his spirit rose, not that his physical body came back to life. That would be stupid. Or... a mix of the two. Literally, something was going to fall from the sky. But it couldn't literally be stars, so therefore, Jesus must have meant meteors. Or... did Baha'u'llah have a different interpretation? I think so.

Baha’u’llah draws an analogy between physical stars and the physical sun to the leaders of religion, at the time a new Messenger of God appears on the historical horizon.​

​

This is the purpose underlying the symbolic words of the Manifestations of God. . . . Hence, it is clear and manifest that by the words “the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven” is intended the waywardness of the divines, and the annulment of laws firmly established by divine Revelation, all of which, in symbolic language, have been foreshadowed by the Manifestation of God. – Baha’u’llah, The Book of Certitude, p. 41.​

​

This is way more consistent with other Baha'i interpretations. The sun, the moon and the stars falling are symbolic of religious leaders... Like making "Woes" Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah. Doing these completely symbolic type of interpretations gives them way more freedom to make any Bible prophecy into anything they need to. It's good enough for Baha'is, but for others... it's just making stuff up.

Here's a classic example of Abdul Baha' doing that... He makes a reed that is to be used to measure the temple into a flute which is really a perfect man?

IN REVELATION 11:1–2 it is said: “And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.”​

​

By this reed is meant the Perfect Man, and the reason for His being likened to a reed is that when the latter is entirely freed and emptied of its pith, it becomes capable of producing wondrous melodies. Moreover, these songs and airs proceed not from the reed itself but from the player who blows into it. In the same way, the sanctified heart of that blessed Being is free and empty of all save God, is averse to and exempt from attachment to every selfish inclination, and is intimately acquainted with the breath of the Divine Spirit. That which He utters proceeds not from Himself but from the ideal Player and from divine revelation. Hence He is likened to a reed, and that reed is like a rod; that is, it is the succour of the weak and is a support to the body of the world. It is the rod of the True Shepherd by which He guards His flock and leads it about in the pastures of the Kingdom.​

 

[Aupmanyav]

Jesus did know and Baha'u'llah also knew.

They mixed up names. In Sanskrit, they did not call them 'stars'. They were called 'Ulka' (mateorite), not 'Tara'.