Can we change our mind about what we believe?

[Trailblazer]

YES because YOU are begging the question that it's true that if someone makes this claim then it's true. It is not and it's begging the question.
Begging the question - Wikipedia

I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself.
I do not believe that it is true because Baha'u'llah made a claim.
I believe because of the evidence that supports His claims.

There is no evidence. You haven't shown any evidence.

I have posted the evidence myriad times.

AND you posted that itself as evidence by saying " first. he claimed to be......"

THAT WAS THE EVIDENCE, which is absurd and begs the question.

I said " first. he claimed to be......" I did not say that the claim was the evidence.
How many times do I have to repeat myself?
Either you have no ability to comprehend what I am saying or you cannot separate a claim from the evidence that supports the claim.

NOW you are using CIRCULAR LOGIC, it's true because he claims it's true. Or it's true because he CLAIMS to be a messenger. You cannot make a claim and say it's evidence. That is absurd.

Stop making a straw man.

I never said it's true because he claims it's true or it's true because he CLAIMS to be a messenger.

YOU JUST DID ABOVE????????
In listing your evidence you posted the following:

"First, he declared he was God’s messenger for the next one thousand years, having the same divine authority, the same Holy Spirit, the same divine power, as Moses, Christ, Muhammad, and the other founders of the major world religions:"

YOU JUST SAID IT RIGHT HERE? So it isn't any fat straw man. You just go in circles. This is absolutely ridiculous.

That was not listed a PART of the evidence. First the CLAIMS were listed. Then the EVIDENCE that supports the claims was listed.
Claims are not evidence. The claims are separate from the evidence.

Well, I guess I have to post what was on that thread here.

Baha’u’llah’s Two Bold Claims

All of which leads us back to Baha’u’llah, who made two very bold claims. First, he declared he was God’s messenger for the next one thousand years, having the same divine authority, the same Holy Spirit, the same divine power, as Moses, Christ, Muhammad, and the other founders of the major world religions:

In the East the light of [God’s] Revelation hath broken; in the West have appeared the signs of His dominion. Ponder this in your hearts, O people, and be not of those who have turned a deaf ear to the admonitions of Him Who is the Almighty, the All-Praised. Let the Breeze of God awaken you. Verily, it hath wafted over the world. Well is it with him that hath discovered the fragrance thereof and been accounted among the well-assured. – Baha’u’llah, Tablets of Baha’u’llah.

This station, by itself, makes the Baha’i Faith the youngest of the major world religions.

Baha’u’llah made a second and even more challenging claim. He declared he was the promised world messiah foretold in all the prophecies, in all the holy books, of all the religions of the world – the one promised to come on the Day of Judgment, the Day of God, the Time of the End, the End of the World, to establish the kingdom of God on Earth.

Baha’u’llah declared this period in history as the Day of God, the Time of the End. His mission is nothing less than the establishment of this glorious kingdom – the unification of the entire human race into an all-embracing, spiritually mature world civilization based upon divine principles of justice and love, and whose watchword will be unity in diversity.

With this second claim, Baha’is believe that all of the religions of the world have been consummated and fulfilled with the coming of Baha’u’llah.

https://bahaiteachings.org/what-did-bahaullah-teach?

Below is what Baha’u’llah wrote about evidence that establishes the truth of His claims.
More specifically, Baha’u’llah enjoined us to look at His own Self (His character), His Revelation (His works, which can be seen in Baha'i history), and His words (His Writings).

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106

His own Self is who He was, His character (His qualities). That can be determined by reading about Him on books such as the following: The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4

His Revelation is what He accomplished (His Mission on earth/ the history of His Cause)
That can be determined by reading about His mission on books such as the following:

God Passes By (1844-1944)
The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4, which cover the 40 years of His Mission, from 1853-1892.

The words He hath revealed is what He wrote an be found in books that are posted online: The Works of Bahá'u'lláh

The fact that Baha'u'llah fulfilled all the Bible prophecies is like icing on the cake. That proves to me He was the Messiah and the return of Christ. Those prophecies and how they were fulfilled are delineated in the following book: William Sears, Thief in the Night

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

* * * * * * * * * * *
I have no need to read any more of your rants. If people want to believe them that is their own business. I am not responsible for what other people believe.

 

[Trailblazer]

YOu said:
Baha'u'llah did provide such evidence.

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed

You entered this nonsense AS EVIDENCE.

No, Baha'u'llah said it was evidence. I just posted what He said.

If you have criteria that no non-messenger can meet than it would be universal and you would enter it as evidence.

My list of criteria that no non-messenger could meet is not evidence, and I never said it was evidence. I said it is my criteria.
In order to straighten this out I am going to list these criteria.

Please bear in mind that the following criteria are my criteria which is based upon who I believe were Messengers of God, who met all these criteria. My criteria narrow the playing field and it will eliminate most claimants, since they will fail to meet all the criteria.

The minimum criteria would be:

1. He had good character as exemplified by his qualities such as love, mercy, kindness, truth, justice, benevolence, gracious, merciful, righteous, forgiving, patient.

2. He believed he had been given a mission by God and did everything he could to see that it was carried out. He was completely successful before his death, and he accomplished everything that He set out to do.

3. He wrote much about God and God's purpose for humans both individually and collectively, or scriptures were written by others who spoke for him. He firmly believed that the work he was doing was for the Cause of God.

4. He had many followers while he was alive, and there are still millions who follow his teachings and gather in groups based on the religion he founded.

5. His followers have grown more numerous in recent times.

This is a starting point but there are other questions we would want to ask ourselves before we would be able to believe that a man was a true Messenger of God because that is a bold claim so there should be a lot of evidence to support such a claim.

Provide evidence or we are done and the religion cannot be justified by evidence.

I am not going to provide anything that I have not already provided.
You are not the one who determines if a religion is justified by evidence is, you just think you do.

You keep saying we are done but then you keep coming back and repeating yourself.
I have no need or desire to read or discuss the same things over and over.

 

[Trailblazer]

Rubbish!


Relatively speaking, it's 'scraps of evidence' .. or have you detailed accounts of everything that
actually happened .. of course you haven't !


You merely rely on ripping apart the accuracy of the OT.
..but I do not worship the accuracy of the OT .. it is as unreliable as your other
historical evidence.


It doesn't have to. It makes little difference to the court how 'a mind' works.
A mind/soul is either deemed responsible or not, depending on age and mental ability.
Whether mental incapacity is due to physical damage OR OTHERWISE is irrelevant.

Note: a person who makes bad decisions, does not necessarily have any PHYSICAL
disability.


..and you keep harping on about this, as if it is conclusive proof that the brain is all that is needed.
Computer hardware is useless without software, for example .. so why should the brain be any
different?


Can you demonstrate personality, for example, by giving me an image of the brain? No.
Personality can be described, but one does not have to be a brain surgeon.


Rubbish. There is a distinction between a psychiatrist and a psychologist
for very good reason.
One cannot describe all malfunction of life in terms of physiology.
The mind has an abstract concept, which is not solely dependent on brain tissue.
A sick mind cannot be healed purely by knowledge of physiology.


Not at all .. I look at "the whole", and do not make conclusions purely based on a narrow,
specialised field.
eg. ancient history, or speculation of what might have happened according to constantly shifting opinion


You will not accept anything, unless your 'unconscious mind' allows you to.


Myth can be true or false .. and historians have many different versions, for many different reasons.

It's all rubbish thus nothing to be concerned about.

 

[Trailblazer]

You have not presented good evidence at all yet.

Only in your opinion. We all have opinions.

Bahai has no proof as yet. Still waitiing. They have claims of miracles, God visits.

And you will be waiting till hell freezes over because beliefs cannot be proven, only evidenced.

So God told a messenger he was a messenger, then he said it in a book. You then read it and believed it.

Straw man. I believed that the Baha'i Faith was true long before I read anything that Baha'u'llah wrote.
I believed it based upon logic and common sense. Nobody could have invented a religion such as the Baha'i Faith nor would they have any reason to do so. It is so perfect and so logical. It could never be invented by a human, it had to be revealed by God.

You believe this because it says so in a book, your attempts to get around this don't work and are equally as ridiculous.

You are so rude, contradicting me constantly.
I am the ONLY PERSON who knows why I believe. You don't know why.

I do not believe it because it says so in a book, so I don't have to get around it.

This is getting so bad I'm wondering if I'm being trolled?

You are the only troll on this thread. Everyone can see that except you and your cronies.

I am done with this post, no ore need to read any more of your uncontrolled rants.

Carry on!

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: I have my own set of criteria that true Messengers of God have to meet. No non-God messengers could meet these criteria.

@joelr said: Nothing laid out here demonstrates anything beyond normal human behavior and abilities.

I never listed 'my own set of criteria' so he jumped to conclusions when he assumed I was referring to what I have thus far laid out.

That is a lie.

Your own words:

post #310

"The claims of Baha’u’llah and the evidence that supports the claims of Baha’u’llah are in this post:

Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah"

Trailblazer said: I have my own set of criteria that true Messengers of God have to meet. No non-God messengers could meet these criteria.

Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah -- That is not my own set of criteria. I never posted those criteria until tonight, in this post: #422

Do you want to apologize for calling me a liar or should I report your post - your choice.

Meanwhile, try to grow up a little and act like an adult. You are embarrassing yourself in your futile efforts to prove you are right.

 

[Trailblazer]

If the Baha'i Faith is right, then Christianity was never right.

It might have been right in the very beginning, but that was a long time ago. After that it was corrupted by man.

 

[Trailblazer]

You are literally saying that you had no point in writing the text, "Yes, it would be difficult to convince you that I have a rational methodology for evaluating reality, since you have already made up your mind that I don't."

I had a point. I am an eternal optimist.

 

[CG Didymus]

If the Baha'i Faith is right, then Christianity was never right.

No "maybe's"... When was it right? And what was right about it? Then... when and how did it get corrupted? Going by the gospels, and Paul's letters and the rest of the NT, and comparing that to what the Baha'i Faith teaches as true, then Christianity was never true. Hell, Satan, sin and death coming into the world because of Adam's disobedience and then the resurrection and ascension of Jesus.... all those things are in the NT and, according to Baha'i teachings are not correct.

So, the Christian Scriptures themselves are already wrong. But, of course, Baha'i teachings try to claim that those things were misinterpreted as being literal, when they were supposed to be taken symbolically. But I don't think so. The NT sure seems to be claiming those things as real. And why wouldn't people 2000 years ago believe that there was a Satan and a hell, and that God could raise people from the dead? The Baha'i Faith saying that all those things weren't literal is only an easy way to make those major beliefs of Christianity irrelevant.

Why not do what most of us non-believers do and say the NT is embellished, fictional, mythical stories. I know, I know... because Baha'is need Christianity to be true to make the Baha'i concept of "progressive" revelation true. Is it worth it? I think the Baha'i Faith would have been better without it.

But you know what, like I said, Baha'i teachings have made Christianity irrelevant. So, Baha'is can have it both ways. Christianity was true. But then got misinterpreted and corrupted by people, so now it's not true. Brilliant. Except still... when was it ever true? And what was true about it? Baha'is should be able to answer that. And if they can't... then what's so true about the Baha'i Faith too? Claims, claims, claims... Promises, promises, promises.

 

[ppp]

I had a point. I am an eternal optimist.

The trailblazer from earlier says you have no point.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

In most contexts, the distinction between physical and material is irrelevant.

You said: "If you experience something, it's physical, including your ideas."
What has an idea got to do with matter or mass? In what way is it physical
or material?

This would be one of those times when the distinction is relevant, and if you had understood that matter is not all of physical reality, then we wouldn't have had to take this detour. Mind is physical but not material like a flame. Brain is both, like a candle.

One cannot detect "an idea"

I can. I'm having one now.

Do you know anything about what the Baha'i Faith is doing in the real world.

Just what I read here.

present the real world evidence that supports your opinion that anything on this list is what the Baha'i Faith is doing.
Either that or I will consider your assertions to be bald assertions.

1. They have an aggressive ethos of appropriation - other cultures as being mere shadows of their own
2. they place themselves as the essential saviors and ultimate rulers of all humanity; and as a group,
3. they do nothing of demonstrable value for real people (individuals or groups) all the while promoting themselves as the bastions of moral competency. At least the Jews, Christians and Muslims make the effort; and have even been known to make a difference.

This describes behavior I've observed here.

And you call yourself a critical thinker?

Yes.

Nobody is 'doing things' here.

Sure they are. They're reading, thinking, and writing.

Nobody except Baha'u'llah could have written those

Disagree. There is nothing distinct about those writings.

Go ahead, but if you do please present new content, content other than what Baha'u'llah presented, things about God that have not been presented before.

I've seen nothing original from Baha'u'llah. Be peaceful. Be loving. Be as one. And be pious. There's the message in a nutshell, and it's not original.

No, it only applies to what can be identified and studied and proven to be real.

Critical analysis is how we decide what can be called real.

You have no ability to think logically if you don't know why I cannot demonstrate its correctness to you

But I do know why you can't.

I said that my belief is is based upon logic and reason, I never said that it follows a prescribed form and it does not have to follow that form in order to be logical

Yes, it does. What makes it logical if it is unconstrained thought?

It us completely illogical that there could be passages written by Baha'u'llah that we would all agree that no man could have written alone.

Then what makes you think a deity was involved in their writing?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Mind is physical but not material like a flame..

What?
You can't "change your mind", as in swap it physically for another one.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You can't "change your mind", as in swap it physically for another one

OK.

Is that part of an argument that mind isn't physical? Much of the physical world fits that description. Try swapping out the earth's gravitational or magnetic field for another one. Like mind and brain, fields are immaterial (yet physical) epiphenomena of matter and can't simply be separated from their material sources and relocated.

No comment then about "One cannot detect an idea" and "I can. I'm having one now"?

 

[PureX]

The brain is physical. The mind is metaphysical.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why not do what most of us non-believers do and say the NT is embellished, fictional, mythical stories. I know, I know... because Baha'is need Christianity to be true to make the Baha'i concept of "progressive" revelation true. Is it worth it? I think the Baha'i Faith would have been better without it.

Baha'is don't need Christianity to be true to make the Baha'i concept of "progressive" revelation true. If Christianity was not true, that would mean it was not revealed by God and it would simply be among other religions that were not revealed by God.

Revelation from God to humanity is what it is, so we cannot throw Christianity out just because it has issues. Most Baha'is do believe that the NT is embellished, fictional, mythical stories, but that doesn't mean that Christianity is not a true religion. What makes it a true religion is that Jesus was a Messenger of God. Everything that was written in the NT does not have to be 'literally true' in order for that to be the case.

 

[ppp]

The brain is physical. The mind is metaphysical.

The mind is to the brain as running is to the legs.
Therefore, running is metaphysical.

Sneezing is to to the nasal complex as the mind if to the brain.
Therefore, sneezing is metaphysical.

 

[Trailblazer]

Just what I read here.

But that is not representative of what the Baha'is are doing in the real world. It is only a discussion forum.

This describes behavior I've observed here.

Fair enough, but what you observe in the Baha'is here is not representative of all the Baha'is.
It is only a handful of Baha'is and some of them have a certain agenda. Some of them might also be biased by rather extreme views.

Yes.

Fair enough.

Sure they are. They're reading, thinking, and writing.

I meant that they are not doing 'activities' that Baha'is do in the real world. in the real world Baha'is actually do things other than reading and writing.

Disagree. There is nothing distinct about those writings.

Disagree. I view those Writings as distinct.

I've seen nothing original from Baha'u'llah. Be peaceful. Be loving. Be as one. And be pious. There's the message in a nutshell, and it's not original.

There is certainly a lot more to what He wrote than those things. His message cannot be put in a nutshell. He wrote 20,000 separate works.

Bahá'ú'lláh's writings, also referred to as Tablets, were written over a forty-year period beginning before he declared his mission in 1863, of which almost 20,000 separate works with a total of around seven million words are currently catalogued at the Baháʼí World Centre in Haifa, Israel, a majority of which are ...

Writings of Bahá'ú'lláh - Wikipedia​

Critical analysis is how we decide what can be called real.

I also did a critical analysis in order to determine what is real, but I came to a different conclusion.

What is the meaning of critical analysis?

Critical analysis essentially involves reading and thinking widely about an issue in order to develop a deep understanding and a point of view in relation to the issue.

Critical analysis | Glasgow Caledonian University | Scotland, UK​

But I do know why you can't.

No, you do not know why I can't since you cannot think logically. It would be obvious to any logical person why I can't.

Yes, it does. What makes it logical if it is unconstrained thought?

Why would it be logical if it was constrained thought?

Then what makes you think a deity was involved in their writing?

That is how I view the Writings, but obviously not everyone is going to view them the same way since everyone thinks with a different mind.
Why do you think that there could be passages written by Baha'u'llah that we would all agree that no man could have written alone?

 

[muhammad_isa]

The mind is to the brain as running is to the legs.
Therefore, running is metaphysical.

Sneezing is to to the nasal complex as the mind if to the brain.
Therefore, sneezing is metaphysical.

'mind' is a noun(object), and not a verb(method).

..you might notice my computer programming background .. but the point still stands.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Critical analysis essentially involves reading and thinking widely about an issue in order to develop a deep understanding and a point of view in relation to the issue.

Yes, but it's more than that.

Why would it be logical if it was constrained thought?

You don't seem to be aware that logic is constrained by rules of inference if you could ask that question. Arithmetic is pure reason (mathematical logic). You are welcome to bring your own rules to the process, but don't expect to generate correct sums if you do. Premise one: Bob has 3 apples. Premise 2: Bob acquires 2 more apples. Conclusion: Bob now has 5 apples. That's constrained thought based in 2+3=5. You can use other rules, such as 2+3=6, but your conclusions will be incorrect.

Why do you think that there could be passages written by Baha'u'llah that we would all agree that no man could have written alone?

OK, if you don't like the use of the word all, most educated people would agree.

From R. G. Ingersoll on the subject of what a book of divine origin would be like in order for us to begin to think that it might be that. This not to say that the book a deity wrote couldn't be less, but the deity shouldn't expect educated people to accept that it wasn't written only by men if it isn't more than what men could write:

It should be a book that no man -- no number of men -- could produce.

It should contain the perfection of philosophy.

It should perfectly accord with every fact in nature.

There should be no mistakes in astronomy, geology, or as to any subject or science.

Its morality should be the highest, the purest.

Its laws and regulations for the control of conduct should be just, wise, perfect, and perfectly

adapted to the accomplishment of the ends desired.

It should contain nothing calculated to make man cruel, revengeful, vindictive or infamous.

It should be filled with intelligence, justice, purity, honesty, mercy and the spirit of liberty.

It should be opposed to strife and war, to slavery and lust, to ignorance, credulity and superstition.

It should develop the brain and civilize the heart.

It should satisfy the heart and brain of the best and wisest.​

 

[ppp]

'mind' is a noun(object), and not a verb(method).

..you might notice my computer programming background .. but the point still stands.

Methods are the set of instructions that are executed. They are a description of the process. Not the execution of those instructions. When you debug, you are looking at the states of that method and of the portions of the instantiated class with which it interacts. Similarly, when you watch someone run, you are looking at the sequence of states of the legs and the body with which it interacts.

Also, running is a gerund. A verb representing a process that is treated as a noun for linguistic convenience. My position is that a mind is also a process that is treated as a noun. The only difference is that we are enamored with having a more substantiative sense of self than can be reasonably supported by the evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

OK, if you don't like the use of the word all, most educated people would agree.

I adamantly disagree that there could be passages written by Baha'u'llah that most educated people would agree no man could have written alone. Whether or not a passage sounds like no man could have written it alone is a matter of personal opinion. Most educated people are going to have different opinions. It has nothing to do with education.