Do you trust God?

[CG Didymus]

From my conversations with them here (not really had much dealing with Baha'i on debate forums before), it seems that the claim itself is the evidence for the claim.

If a person goes in assuming there is a God. And they don't like any of the old religions, but see themselves as being spiritual and religious, then the claims aren't that hard to accept. They say, "There is a God. He sends messengers down to help us and teach us new things to help us grow. Problem is... the leaders in the different religion have changed the original teachings of God's messengers. They have added things in and have misinterpreted things. But now... God has sent a new messenger. Now is the time for all people and all religions to join together and be one..." And on it goes.

The "proof" is verses from the Bible and Quran that show how Baha'u'llah was predicted. "When he the spirit of truth come... he will lead you into all truth." They say, "That's Baha'u'llah that Jesus was talking about. Or in Daniel... a Christian took prophesies in Daniel and came up with 1844 as the year he would return. They waited for Jesus, but he didn't come. Then Baha'i say, "Yes he did. But over here in Persia." Six times Baha'is take prophecies in Revelation that can be made into meaning 1260 years and say that the year 1260 in the Islamic calendar is the year 1844, so that "proves" it.

Without assuming anything, though, it would be very difficult to think that any of this is true and correct. I am not a Bible or religious scholar at all, unless you count "Religion 101, an Introduction" as enough to make me qualified, and I find flaws and problems with their interpretations.

But... the basic message of the Baha'i Faith is awesome. Peace, Love, unity and we are all One. After that, though, there is an awful lot of "fine" print that lays down a lot of laws and things that have to be obeyed and followed. Or, if like with other religions, only followed when you're with other believers, then when alone, do whatever you please.

 

[CG Didymus]

they do seem to be the most credulous of all religionists.

"Credulous" a perfect word to describe Baha'is.

That is pro-Baha'i propaganda written by a Baha'i apologist.
It is not "investigation", it is "confirmation bias".

The Baha'is says, "Others have "investigated" and found that Baha'u'llah is from God. I have "investigated" by reading what they said, and I believe them."

More confirmation bias...
"My religion tells me that it is the true religion".

Again, the Baha'is says, "I know my religion is true, because I investigated it. And what I found was that my religion says it is the truth. And I believe that."

You are heavily invested in a system that is inherently contradictory, so cognitive dissonance is required to reconcile the paradox,

The Baha'i, "My brain hurts. Let me take a deep breath. Okay. Baha'u'llah is God's messenger. I know this because in his writings it says that God chose him to be his messenger. There. Oh, my brain is starting to hurt again. Let me repeat it again. Baha'u'llah is God's messenger..."

Surely this is satire, yes?

All of these posts are classics. In their defense, don't most all religions do this? Not just the Baha'is?

 

[Trailblazer]

From my conversations with them here (not really had much dealing with Baha'i on debate forums before), it seems that the claim itself is the evidence for the claim.

No, that is not true. I have made it abundantly clear that the claim is not the evidence and I even posted the post wherein I demonstrated the difference between a claim and the evidence that supports the claim.

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

 

[Trailblazer]

That is pro-Baha'i propaganda written by a Baha'i apologist.
It is not "investigation", it is "confirmation bias".

That a Baha'i wrote it does not change the fact that we have to independently investigate the truth if we want to know the truth. There is no bias.

But I'll listen to your explanations...
1. What evidence do you have that any kind of god actually exists?
2. What evidence do you have that this god communicated with Baha’u’llah?
Your own words please, not links to partisan websites.

The evidence that God exists is the Messengers of God.
The evidence that supports the belief that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God is on the post I just linked to above.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

From my conversations with them here (not really had much dealing with Baha'i on debate forums before), it seems that the claim itself is the evidence for the claim.

That is partly correct, but it missing the most significant part, the Messenger, as God can not be known.

This is what is offered by Baha'u'llah.

"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."

So the only proof we have for God is the Messenger and the proof of the Messenger is their Person.

The Bab explains how that person is different from us.

The substance wherewith God hath created Me is not the clay out of which others have been formed. He hath conferred upon Me that which the worldly-wise can never comprehend, nor the faithful discover.
(Epistle to Muhammad Shah, Selections from the Writings of the Báb)

So first proof is the Person of the Messenger, if we fail to see God in them, then they give us their life, if we fail to see God in their person and life, then there is the God given Message.

There is also proofs and evidences that those 3 aspects can expand upon.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

More confirmation bias...
"My religion tells me that it is the true religion".
Come on, surely you have more than that?

I said: "I know what the true God is, according to my religion."
I did not say: "My religion tells me that it is the true religion".

Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias,[Note 1] is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses, while giving disproportionately less consideration to alternative possibilities.[1]
Confirmation bias - Wikipedia

I have no confirmation bias since I had nothing to confirm since I had no preexisting beliefs before I independently investigated the Baha'i Faith.

 

[Trailblazer]

You are contradicting yourself here.
If everything that happens is according to god's will, and humans cannot go against god's will, then nothing can happen that goes does not want to happen.

Humans can go against what God wants to happen because God allows that to happen, but ultimately everything that ends up happening is God's will.
Sorry if you cannot understand that.

 

[Trailblazer]

This is brilliant.
Your argument is essentially the same as my example. It's that good ol' cognitive dissonance again!

"Baha'u'llah is a true messenger of god because Baha'u'llah says so"
"Baha'u'llah is a true Messenger of God because God appointed Him to be a Messenger"
You only believe god appointed him because he says that god appointed him, therefore...
"Baha'u'llah is a true Messenger of God because Baha'u'llah says so"
See?

Please stop misrepresenting my argument and making a straw man.
My position is as follows:

"Baha'u'llah says that He is a true messenger of God"
"Baha'u'llah is a true Messenger of God because God appointed Him to be a Messenger"

I only believe God appointed him because I independently investigated the truth of His claims
therefore I believe that...
"Baha'u'llah is a true Messenger of God because God appointed Him to be a Messenger"

 

[Trailblazer]

So in other words...
"Baha'u'llah is a true messenger of god because Baha'u'llah says so."
A claim you just rejected as circular logic.

Please stop misrepresenting what I said. You either cannot read and comprehend what I am saying or you are deliberately misrepresenting me.

Context is everything.
EtuMalku said:
And who said that 'god' appointed him to be a messenger?

I said "Baha'u'llah said so.... How else would we know?"

I did not say "Baha'u'llah is a true messenger of god because Baha'u'llah says so."

 

[Sheldon]

"Credulous" a perfect word to describe Baha'is.

I think overly credulous, given the unevidenced claims I've seen touted as evidence here.

 

[Sheldon]

No, that is not true. I have made it abundantly clear that the claim is not the evidence and I even posted the post wherein I demonstrated the difference between a claim and the evidence that supports the claim.

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

Sorry, but it has been obvious from the start, that you have failed to differentiate between what constitutes a claim, and what constitutes evidence. I really don't mean to offend, but you clearly think that a belief expressed publicly, is not a claim. It's hard to take what you say seriously after that.

 

[Sheldon]

So the only proof we have for God is the Messenger and the proof of the Messenger is their Person.

Another irrational circular reasoning fallacy. You can ignore the significance of this of course, but I cannot.

 

[Sheldon]

I said: "I know what the true God is, according to my religion."
I did not say: "My religion tells me that it is the true religion".

Those statements are the same? "My religion tells me", and "according to my religion" mean the same thing? Would the "true religion have a false deity, or vice versa? So as KWED stated you're using a circular reasoning fallacy, again. Sorry to say it, but you seem to be trying to hide behind semantics again.

 

[Sheldon]

"Baha'u'llah says that He is a true messenger of God"
"Baha'u'llah is a true Messenger of God because God appointed Him to be a Messenger"

Which is as good an example of a circular reasoning fallacy as anyone could wish for, sorry if you don't understand that.

I only believe God appointed him because I independently investigated the truth of His claims therefore I believe that...

Yet you have failed, as have all other devotees of this religion, to offer anything beyond bare subjective claims from this "investigation", simply quoting texts making the same bare claims is meaningless.

"Baha'u'llah is a true Messenger of God because God appointed Him to be a Messenger"

Oh your god, another circular reasoning fallacy.

 

[CG Didymus]

That is partly correct, but it missing the most significant part, the Messenger, as God can not be known.

This is what is offered by Baha'u'llah.

"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."

So the only proof we have for God is the Messenger and the proof of the Messenger is their Person.

The Bab explains how that person is different from us.

The substance wherewith God hath created Me is not the clay out of which others have been formed. He hath conferred upon Me that which the worldly-wise can never comprehend, nor the faithful discover.
(Epistle to Muhammad Shah, Selections from the Writings of the Báb)

So first proof is the Person of the Messenger, if we fail to see God in them, then they give us their life, if we fail to see God in their person and life, then there is the God given Message.

There is also proofs and evidences that those 3 aspects can expand upon.

Regards Tony

Then there is the proof Christians use... The empty tomb. God raised his Holy one back to life and didn't let his body see corruption. But what do Baha'is tell those Christians that believe that? "That is not proof. Jesus didn't come back to life. If the tomb was empty, it is because the disciples stole the body and hid it."

But Christians return the favor and say, "Baha'u'llah is not the return of Jesus. He has not and did not fulfill the prophecies. And Baha'u'llah is the Comforter. The Baha'i Faith is a false religion." So, each religion pretty much blows the "proof" and "evidence" for the other one.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I was definitely very gullible back then.
So, can the Baha'i Faith bring unity in diversity when it doesn't accept diversity?

Thanks for letting me know your journey. Not surprising, I too believed in Gods and Goddesses in my younger days. But time brings us realization.
Many members here who follow Abrahqmic religions act just as a bunch of proselytizsaers, quoting profusely from their scriptures wanting others to fall in their line (see Emperor's New Clothes). They are road blocks to unity and brotherhood of people.

 

[CG Didymus]

So the only proof we have for God is the Messenger and the proof of the Messenger is their Person.

A person can read what the claims are and check to see if he fulfilled them. Like what do you do to check to see if people claiming to be sent by God, or that they have gotten a message from God are telling the truth?

I think Baha'is believe the prophet of the Ahmadiyya's is a false prophet. How did they come to that conclusion? And why don't Baha'is say that Joseph Smith is a false prophet? Afterall, he claimed an angel spoke with him, or is that true? And what about Meher Baba and Maitreya? Are their claims true or false? And don't tell me "By their fruits". All those religious movements I'm sure have lots of good people in them... and maybe some bad apples too, but which religion doesn't? So, why discount their claims and only accept the claim of your prophet? Was he a better person? Had a better mission? Had better more profound writings? Fulfilled the prophecies more accurately? I get the feeling Baha'is would use that first one... and say that Baha'u'llah was the better person. He was beyond reproach. But those other guys? They were all liars and frauds. Or would Baha'is say such a thing?

 

[lukethethird]

A person can read what the claims are and check to see if he fulfilled them. Like what do you do to check to see if people claiming to be sent by God, or that they have gotten a message from God are telling the truth?

I think Baha'is believe the prophet of the Ahmadiyya's is a false prophet. How did they come to that conclusion? And why don't Baha'is say that Joseph Smith is a false prophet? Afterall, he claimed an angel spoke with him, or is that true? And what about Meher Baba and Maitreya? Are their claims true or false? And don't tell me "By their fruits". All those religious movements I'm sure have lots of good people in them... and maybe some bad apples too, but which religion doesn't? So, why discount their claims and only accept the claim of your prophet? Was he a better person? Had a better mission? Had better more profound writings? Fulfilled the prophecies more accurately? I get the feeling Baha'is would use that first one... and say that Baha'u'llah was the better person. He was beyond reproach. But those other guys? They were all liars and frauds. Or would Baha'is say such a thing?

Apparently he wouldn't say that. As the story goes those other prophets had their day, now and forever is Baha'u'llah's time. Apparently he was as homophobic as those that came before, there is that.

 

[Trailblazer]

Sorry, but it has been obvious from the start, that you have failed to differentiate between what constitutes a claim, and what constitutes evidence.

It is right in the post.

 

[Trailblazer]

LOL . . . so, you really don't understand circular logic! Ok . . .

No that is not circular logic, it is logic.

EtuMalku said: And who said that 'god' appointed him to be a messenger?

Trailblazer said: Baha'u'llah said so.... How else would we know?

Here let me help. If God spoke to Baha'u'llah and nobody else and God told Baha'u'llah that He appointed Him as a Messenger, how could we know that God spoke to Baha'u'llah unless Baha'ullah told us that God spoke to Him?

Harry spoke to Sally and told Sally that he was planning to murder his wife, and Harry only told Sally and nobody else. Only Sally knows that Harry is planning to murder his wife. The only way anyone else is going to know is if Harry or Sally tells someone else.

But God never speaks to anyone except His Messengers so the only way we can know if someone is a Messenger is if the Messenger tells us He is a Messenger.

There is nothing circular about that. It is just basic logical reasoning.

Please note that I am not saying that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger because He claimed to be a Messenger because that would be circular reasoning. He is a Messenger because God appointed Him to be a Messenger. That is the claim and there is evidence to back it up.