Evidence

[Subduction Zone]

I call on you to investigate whether the OP is true. As far as I can see that's what is be determined by their own investigation, not by what is present per se in this OP or thread. I know you will not do this, however. So why are you here? To knock down this OP or thread? Not exactly an independent and unbiased state of mind if true.

It is the OP's claim. It is up to him to support it. A man does not have time to fully investigate every religion that exists in the vain hope that at least one of them is right. A moral God would make himself clear when there are so many possible ways to go wrong.

 

[Alien826]

That is this OP. The only evidence given by God, of God is

The Messenger/s
The Revelation/s
The revealed Word.

This is the difficulty the Messengers face. They are born a Human like us, but are Annointed with the creative Spirit.

That is what Christ means "Annointed One".

Each Messenger tells us that beyond them, God is unknowlable, even to the Messengers.

Regards Tony

I'll continue with this as you seem to get the point. It seems to me that if a Messenger knows that nothing he can say about God can be accurate, the logical action on his part would be to say nothing. Now that suggests that the whole thing is a waste of time, so maybe the statement "God is unknowable" has to be nuanced somewhat?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The evidence given in the given Message, is what we are asked to pursue after they pass on. In that evidence, are reasons we can consider that may enable us to beleive what they offered, does needs to be heeded.

Regards Tony

And that is just dogma. You are claiming in essence that a person has to believe to believe. That is only circular reasoning and an indication of a lack of evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

..evidence of what?

You need to follow along in the discussion.

 

[CG Didymus]

Yes, theists have pretty much failed to present proper evidence for a God. That is not saying that one does not exist. It is merely a reasonable lack of belief.

I have felt God. His power. His majesty and all that awesome kind of stuff. Unfortunately, I was believing three different things, assumptions, about God each time. And each of my beliefs contradicted the other beliefs I had held. The only way I can explain it is that I expected a profound experience, and I got one. And each conformed to things I believed at the time.

So, was it God or just my imagination? Like as a nature loving hippie, I expected the trees the mountains, the rivers, the animals to speak to me... to teach me the things of the Great Spirit. And they did? Later, Christians told me all that was B.S. That I needed Jesus. To just knock and the door will be open, and he will speak to me too.

 

[muhammad_isa]

A moral God would make himself clear when there are so many possible ways to go wrong..

I totally agree.
Anybody who sincerely seeks truth will find it.
I see that you haven't found it, and am not at all surprised.

Almighty God does not guide the proud and haughty.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

"Manifestation's origins are in religion and spirituality because if something spiritual becomes real, it is said to be a manifestation."

The Essence of the Manifestations, the Holy Spirit, is created of God an emanates from God.

That Essence is pre-existing and becomes manifested in this world when it is ordained by God. That Essence creates what is real for us.

When it becomes real, is only when we are born again (into spiritual vision from the material constraints), otherwise it will never be seen as real.

Regards Tony

 

[muhammad_isa]

You need to follow along in the discussion.

..evidence of what .. according to you?

 

[Truthseeker]

They kick out and shun all dissenters. Most of the prophet's own family were booted out. After every major transition, there was a power struggle.

And I'd call the Baha'is masters at manipulation of the words in the Scriptures of the other religions. Jesus didn't resurrect. There is no Satan. Ishmael, not Isaac, was taken by Abraham to be sacrificed, Krishna is a manifestation, not an incarnation, and he didn't teach about reincarnation, Buddha taught about God, Baha'u'llah is the "spirit of truth" that will be sent by God to the disciples.

But who, other than the believers in those things, actually believes that they were true? So, all Baha'is are doing is putting a symbolic interpretation on these things to make them compatible with Baha'i beliefs.

You're a great help. We don't shun dissenters. But you are too confused to realize that. Pardon me for saying that, but you demonstrate that repeatedly as far as I'm concerned. The Prophet's family tried to seize control of the Baha'i Faith for themselves, as they were envious and ambitious. There was no power struggle, the Covenant easily won out. There were only a very few who split off. @John53, note what I'm saying here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have felt God. His power. His majesty and all that awesome kind of stuff. Unfortunately, I was believing three different things, assumptions, about God each time. And each of my beliefs contradicted the other beliefs I had held. The only way I can explain it is that I expected a profound experience, and I got one. And each conformed to things I believed at the time.

So, was it God or just my imagination? Like as a nature loving hippie, I expected the trees the mountains, the rivers, the animals to speak to me... to teach me the things of the Great Spirit. And they did? Later, Christians told me all that was B.S. That I needed Jesus. To just knock and the door will be open, and he will speak to me too.

I had a similar experience. Of course Christians will tell me that mine was not spiritual either. And they were probably right. It is a pity that they cannot think that through to its logical conclusion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

..evidence of what .. according to you?

Same response.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I have felt God. His power. His majesty and all that awesome kind of stuff. Unfortunately, I was believing three different things, assumptions, about God each time. And each of my beliefs contradicted the other beliefs I had held. The only way I can explain it is that I expected a profound experience, and I got one. And each conformed to things I believed at the time.

So, was it God or just my imagination? Like as a nature loving hippie, I expected the trees the mountains, the rivers, the animals to speak to me... to teach me the things of the Great Spirit. And they did? Later, Christians told me all that was B.S. That I needed Jesus. To just knock and the door will be open, and he will speak to me too.

You must see through your own eyes, it appears you allowed others to taint your experiences. I would offer most indigenous faiths know well of those experiences.

If you were on the weed, I withdraw my comments, as it would have been mostly BS as a drug induced mind is trapped in the material world.

Also

I had a similar experience. Of course Christians will tell me that mine was not spiritual either. And they were probably right. It is a pity that they cannot think that through to its logical conclusion.

Regards Tony

 

[Truthseeker]

It is the OP's claim. It is up to him to support it. A man does not have time to fully investigate every religion that exists in the vain hope that at least one of them is right. A moral God would make himself clear when there are so many possible ways to go wrong.

Just as I thought. You won't be investigating. We don't have time fully support our position in a thread like this. I know full well how it looks to other people, that we are just a minor religion that is not worth investigating because there are so many of them, as well as what are what are regarded major religions. I don't blame you for not investigating. That's just how it goes.

 

[John53]

You're a great help. We don't shun dissenters. But you are too confused to realize that. Pardon me for saying that, but you demonstrate that repeatedly as far as I'm concerned. The Prophet's family tried to seize control of the Baha'i Faith for themselves, as they were envious and ambitious. There was no power struggle, the Covenant easily won out. There were only a very few who split off. @John53, note what I'm saying here.

I googled and came across this... Now I just need to find out what a covenant breaker is.

The glorious Báb forbade association with Covenant-breakers. Bahá'u'lláh strictly forbade association with the Covenant-breakers, and even warned the friends against entering if possible a city where Covenant-breakers resided, as their poison polluted the entire area. 'Abdu'l-Bahá's teaching with regard to shunning and having no contact whatsoever with the Covenant-breakers is contained in hundreds of Tablets. The beloved Guardian forbade all association with Covenant-breakers and warned that their poison was so deadly, that it was not permissible to have even their literature in one's possession.

 

[Truthseeker]

And that is just dogma. You are claiming in essence that a person has to believe to believe. That is only circular reasoning and an indication of a lack of evidence.

He is not saying that, in my opinion. He is saying investigate. As I just said, it is understandable if you don't do that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just as I thought. You won't be investigating. We don't have time fully support our position in a thread like this. I know full well how it looks to other people, that we are just a minor religion that is not worth investigating because there are so many of them, as well as what are what are regarded major religions. I don't blame you for not investigating. That's just how it goes.

Of course not. Take this thread as an example. Claims were made of evidence. None was given. Instead it is becoming rather obvious that it is lacking. Would you investigate a religion that promised to have so much but failed in all of their claims?

 

[Subduction Zone]

He is not saying that, in my opinion. He is saying investigate. As I just said, it is understandable if you don't do that.

The problem is that evidence should exist independent of those source, or at the very least he should be willing to show how those sources are evidence. As he has made the claim he has shown only dogma.

Can he even define evidence?

 

[Truthseeker]

I googled and came across this... Now I just need to find out what a covenant breaker is.

The glorious Báb forbade association with Covenant-breakers. Bahá'u'lláh strictly forbade association with the Covenant-breakers, and even warned the friends against entering if possible a city where Covenant-breakers resided, as their poison polluted the entire area. 'Abdu'l-Bahá's teaching with regard to shunning and having no contact whatsoever with the Covenant-breakers is contained in hundreds of Tablets. The beloved Guardian forbade all association with Covenant-breakers and warned that their poison was so deadly, that it was not permissible to have even their literature in one's possession.

Yes, what you say is true. That doesn't contradict what I just said. The defintion of a Covenant-breaker is someone who tries to seize power from the person that is designated in writing to be the head of the Baha'i Faith.

 

[John53]

The Essence of the Manifestations, the Holy Spirit, is created of God an emanates from God.

That Essence is pre-existing and becomes manifested in this world when it is ordained by God. That Essence creates what is real for us.

When it becomes real, is only when we are born again (into spiritual vision from the material constraints), otherwise it will never be seen as real.

Regards Tony

It's like you're speaking another language.

 

[Alien826]

That is just avoiding the complexity of the reply given.

Simply put if Nature put together all the laws that govern creation, then nature is smarter than any human, as we are not able to create, only manipulate the natural laws already in place and evolving from the founding laws of nature.

This is a rational and logical proof of an intelligent behind creation.

Regards Tony

The two meanings that are being confused are:

1. Law (of the land): A statute, created and enforced by some authority.

2. Law (of nature): A description of a physical process.

#1 requires a "law giver". #2 does not.

The idea that God created the physical "laws" of nature does not follow from a comparison with a "law" such as speed limits.