Evidence

[YoursTrue]

I have read what followers of Baha'u'llah claim are his most compelling writings and have not found them to be any more convincing than any other claims made by other professed messengers from god. Was he a liar, crazy, or deluded? I don't know. He could have been all or none of the above. All I know for certain is that if such messengers are the best evidence this god being has for itself then it's a very ineffectual god being.

I keep in mind that much of what is written in the Holy Scriptures is pertaining to the nation of Israel. Yes, there is before and after, but much of it is in reference to concentrating on the history of the Jews (the covenanted).

 

[Trailblazer]

That's a bit of a stretch. Just about every theist I have read makes claims about God. I don't think a claim has to come out of the blue to be a claim. Does it?

I call it a belief, atheists call it a claim. It's only semantics.

Incidentally, are there any Messengers for non Abrahamic religions, like Hinduism?

I believe there were. For example, Krishna, Buddha, and Zorosater.

 

[Secret Chief]

I might need an Australian section or something that starts simpler. I don't even know how to pronounce Baha'i or Baha'u'llah. And I've stumbled on the first paragraph of the page as I've never searched the depths of the oceans....

Whoso hath searched the depths of the oceans that lie hid within these exalted words, and fathomed their import, can be said to have discovered a glimmer of the unspeakable glory with which this mighty, this sublime, and most holy Revelation hath been endowed.”

— Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh

It is simple. Here's a random (and typical) example appertaining to Buddhism:

"The founder of Buddhism was a precious Being Who established the oneness of God"

It is simply wrong. (My evidence is this quote )

- Search – Authoritative Writings and Guidance | Bahá’í Reference Library

 

[Subduction Zone]

If, for instance, one knows that hellfire is not something ascertained in the Bible as true, in other words, God does not have a raging fire ready to torture the "unsaved," but others believe hellfire actually exists -- ready, willing and able, so to speak, to torture the unsaved forever -- yet refuse to have a cogent discussion about this from the Bible, then what? Does that mean that belief is blind?

Belief is blind quite often. And what those with mere belief never seem to know it. There are probably areas where I am blind. I try to avoid it as much as possible. But I am sure that I have my weak areas too.

 

[John53]

It is simple. Here's a random (and typical) example appertaining to Buddhism:

"The founder of Buddhism was a precious Being Who established the oneness of God"

It is simply wrong. (My evidence is this quote )

Thanks, that's cleared it up but maybe that's because I know how to pronounce Buddhism and also because it's in my spell checker so I don't have to check google to make sure it's correct like I do everytime I type Baha'i. And no searching for the ' key.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I keep in mind that much of what is written in the Holy Scriptures is pertaining to the nation of Israel. Yes, there is before and after, but much of it is in reference to concentrating on the history of the Jews (the covenanted).

All I've ever heard are unverifiable claims that they are in fact Holy Scriptures.

 

[YoursTrue]

Belief is blind quite often. And what those with mere belief never seem to know it. There are probably areas where I am blind. I try to avoid it as much as possible. But I am sure that I have my weak areas too.

I've been reading also about scientists who do not or did not buy into the theory of evolution per Darwin. There just isn't any proof. There may be thoughts about it, and obviously some believe that gorillas and monkeys look like humans, but this is not proof that these things occurred by natural selection.

 

[Trailblazer]

I love the first claim and then the instant self-contradiction.

There is no contradiction.

Those who believe will get a reward and those who don't believe will forfeit the reward they could have had if they had believed.
There is no vindictive judging God. Those who don't believe will be punishing themselves, God won't punish them.

“He who shall accept and believe, shall receive his reward; and he who shall turn away, shall receive none other than his own punishment.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 339

 

[Trailblazer]

If you heard there is a guy named Jim Sanderson and people are saying that he speaks to God, would you be impressed?

No, not unless he had evidence to support his claim.

 

[Trailblazer]

What believers accept as evidence is selective bias. You don't accept Scientology, JW, Mormonism, Islam, the Uranantia Book, right? All these groups have believers that accepted their evidence too, but not you. You accepted Baha'i claims for some reason, and it isn't due to the evidence, it was something else. Why?

I don't accept Scientology, Mormonism, and Uranantia because they were not revealed by a Messenger of God.
JW is a Christian religion and I accept some of its teachings.
I accept Islam because I believe it was revealed by a Messenger of God, Muhammad.
I believe in the Baha'i Faith because of the evidence that indicates that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God.

 

[YoursTrue]

Belief is blind quite often. And what those with mere belief never seem to know it. There are probably areas where I am blind. I try to avoid it as much as possible. But I am sure that I have my weak areas too.

The idea of hellfire never entranced or scared me, even way before I was a believer in God and the Bible. In a way it was easy for me to reject the idea of a God in part because of the hellfire saved/unsaved doctrine.
So when I learned that not only was it a misnomer but actual twisting on what was written, I began to understand what the difference between life and death is. To keep it short, hell is similar to the grave. Not eternal torture for the so-called unsaved.

 

[YoursTrue]

All I've ever heard are unverifiable claims that they are in fact Holy Scriptures.

I call them Holy Scriptures, or the Bible.

 

[rational experiences]

If a human asks a human as we are human all a baby. Human species human. Multiple first same tribal origin species human DNA family.

You hence self reflect about your baby adult life by another baby adult human. Mutual.

You should be in fact by natural history human twins. So every human should be one only human. To look at.

We know we're not. So we say I'm sacrificed but saved survived. You're sacrificed saved survived.

You cry mourn our baby life health lost not with us now.

No other type of identity is involved.

Then thinking storytelling Theism you try to inform your self and my self what you believe what changed earths mass....first God in science mass....what changed heavens mass. In humans origin past.

Choice theism stories human science conditions now. Human taught.

So in our conscious realisation we don't want to Inherit anymore pain or suffering. So we plead our evidence.

Now present in life a human an adult human you all are created from your owned baby self creator...so you make all claims.

So if a book is a recording or human drawings wasn't human practiced you'd own no other inferred information. Pretty basic stop false representing thoughts. Consciousness.

Think just as one self now as a new human.

You'd have to rely upon yourself right now.

So I say...brother science man. Did you not investigate as a man by mens choice a science statement caused and had conjured phenomena. And life's witnessed the change attacked sacrifice was by phenomenas?

Yes.

Did you state hence its not science as my science by practice is design calculus building controlling by human want motivation? From mass by my forced change.

Yes.

So you already know why phenomena was discussed as a caused human science practice that caused it. And the nature of new human chosen energetic mass reactions provided evidence of imaged manifestations?

Yes.

In human witness?

Yes

So it's like a legal process then?

Yes.

Was science legal first?

No. It was men group agreed then chosen and the major population owned no say.

Known human behaviour.

My human father's memory proves my brother now also a father self idolated.

He also proved he wasn't the first man human theist as the scientist. Baby man was.

Self idolisation is self evident.

If a human says no man is God. Legally as a human it said no human is the mass of any type of body. Its just human theism awareness about types of mass.

You didn't use words unjustly said legal it owned a holy human purpose...life's continuance on earth.

So if witnessed phenomena said science changed the mass and it proved image manifested ...then the answer is image only.

Providing humans evidence mass had come from a previous place of a higher spirit type. As unlocked in the coldness by a human chosen heated reaction was a spirit image. New.

Why the human self said I owned proven evidence created creation had come from a pre place of spirit and it was burnt changed. It came from another body of mass.

Knowing we cannot be the burning spirit history.

It's why they said no man is God.

The eternal spirit is still existing in its type.

It's not creation type that was removed bodily from it.

And it was never burnt. What isn't God.

Reasoned. We live in oxygenated water not a burnt state. Whose mass conditions were pre fixed as mass...which no living body is. It's free willed freely moving.

No man is God meaning you also cannot be created from God.

So you argue what is G O D and hence not named?

GOD is its owned word.

So then a human must use O held mass terms to depict science by a human. Cold held or cooling gas spirits from mass burning status.

O G spiral into O O splits by core heat middle I into DD back to G O D OO.

GOD is only GOOD a humans explanation.

Also expressing why no man is God. As we are a human.

As humans use words how do you explain a human meaning better than words GOD without using words?

You say unexplainable. Unknown. Higher greater than anything we know.

Pretty basic explanations.

The reasons why we explain as just a human first. No machines in the story. No reactions in the story.

As reactions are now.

The term past is cold or cooled.

G O D men said is exactly the past only.

 

[Trailblazer]

How would you justify that?

I do not have to justify it because it is just my opinion, just as it is your opinion that the sense of guilt is undeserved.

 

[Trailblazer]

So you are for a high divorce rate?

Go ahead and try to prove that the high divorce rate is because couples did not have sex before marriage.
That makes no sense since almost all couples have sex before marriage, yet the divorce rate remains high..

And why have a sexual relationship outside of a marriage? Because sex is enjoyable. Because there is no good reason not to if reasonable precautions are taken.

Why wouldn't one do so?

There is no good reason unless one belongs to a religion that prohibits sex out of wedlock.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've been reading also about scientists who do not or did not buy into the theory of evolution per Darwin. There just isn't any proof. There may be thoughts about it, and obviously some believe that gorillas and monkeys look like humans, but this is not proof that these things occurred by natural selection.

Your blindness does not negate facts.

 

[Trailblazer]

No, and that is a huge problem. Believers only tend to believe. They avoid actual knowledge. If one knows something one can demonstrate it.

Nobody can EVER demonstrate God since God is not available for a demonstration.
God sends Messengers since they are both divine and human so they can demonstrate God to humans.
Knowledge of God comes to humans through the Messengers since it cannot come to us any other way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Go ahead and try to prove that the high divorce rate is because couples did not have sex before marriage.
That makes no sense since almost all couples have sex before marriage, yet the divorce rate remains high..

There is no good reason unless one belongs to a religion that prohibits sex out of wedlock.

How high do you think that it is? What are the odds of a firs time marriage ending in divorcer?

And as I said, there is no good reason not to have sex before marriage.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Your blindness does not negate facts.

I was hoping you'd sport a black cape when you said that, and change the line to:

"Your arrogance blinds you."

Sorry, was thinking about Revenge of the Sith today, the line delivered by Sidious.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nobody can EVER demonstrate God since God is not available for a demonstration.
God sends Messengers since they are both divine and human so they can demonstrate God to humans.
Knowledge of God comes to humans through the Messengers since it cannot come to us any other way.

You do not seem to realize that you contradicted yourself again. But at any rate those messengers all look to be terribly flawed. Why can't God do any better?