God’s Method of delivering messages, is it flawed?

[Aupmanyav]

The end of age Prophecies all point to the Bab and Baha'u'llah.

No, they point to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was sent by Allah as the Mahdi, the returning Christ, the redeemer, the savior, the latest from Allah. Bahaollah corrupted the message of Allah, that is why Allah had to dispatch Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Read Haqeeqatul-Wahi:

"It was like a hidden fountain gushing forth and I did not know whether it was I who was speaking or an angel was speaking through my tongue. The sentences were just being uttered and every sentence was a sign of God for me." - Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.
The Revealed Sermon (Khutba Ilhamiyya) - Wikipedia

Introducing the Books of the Promised Messiah (as)

 

[TransmutingSoul]

No, they point to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was sent by Allah as the Mahdi, the returning Christ, the redeemer, the savior, the latest from Allah. Bahaollah is old story. Read Haqeeqatul-Wahi:

"It was like a hidden fountain gushing forth and I did not know whether it was I who was speaking or an angel was speaking through my tongue. The sentences were just being uttered and every sentence was a sign of God for me." - Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

You can offer that is the case until the cows come home, I do not mind, and I am not here to change your mind.

Regards Tony

 

[Jedster]

No, they point to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad being the Mahdi, the returning Christ, the redeemer, the savior. But then, Ahmadiyyas do not have the kind of money that the Bahais seem to have.

It's a pity that no Ahmadis are presently posting here on RF.
I have known many people of both communities and really like them.
A discussion/debate between the two could be very beneficial for those seekers on the Abrahamic line.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You can offer that is the case until the cows come home, I do not mind, and I am not here to change your mind.

I would not change my mind, I am already destined for eternal hell. Allah has hardened my heart and made me blind to his glory. I cannot do much about it, but you should change your mind. You should not refuse a mahdi sent by Allah. That is what Bahaollah said, "do not refuse messengers of Allah". By refusing Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, you are engaged in 'takdheeb' (denial), ta`n (accuse, defame), kufr ("unbelief"), fisq (depravity), isa'ah (insult), and ridda (apostasy). That is not what Bahaollah taught you. Fear Allah, he sees all, he knows all. Surely, you do not want to go to eternal hell along with me.

 

[Trailblazer]

If the Bible is not literally true, then it is fictional stories. If the Bible is made up of fictional stories, then is the main character in those stories, God, also fictional? If the Bible is literally true, we're all in trouble.

The stories may or may not be true, but I do not think it matters, because the spiritual teachings of Jesus are literally true and that is what is important in the NT. If the stories conveyed important spiritual truths I do not think it matters if they were literally true or not, and besides, how could that ever be verified now?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I would not change my mind, I am already destined for eternal hell. Allah has hardened my heart and made me blind to his glory. I cannot do much about it, but you should change your mind.

Whatever makes you happy Aupmanyav, I am happy in my path in life.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

I missed commenting on this earlier. I thought we couldn't prove anything with so called "prophecies" because they are so vague? So now you think that there are prophecies that "prove" the Baha'i Faith is right?

No, I do not think that the prophecies prove that the Baha'i Faith is right. I believe they are evidence that help to prove that.

evidence: anything that helps to prove that something is or is not true:
EVIDENCE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

So what are you trying to do? You start a thread, then when people respond, you tell them what you believe is the truth... which is the Baha'i Faith. Yeah, I guess I agree with you. You don't do it in a convincing way.

The thread header says what I posted this thread for, what I was trying to do. It was a continuation of a conversation I was having with QuestioningMind on another thread.

I said: This is the continuation is a discussion I was having with @ QuestioningMind on another thread.
We got off topic so I decided to start a new thread. Anyone is welcome to contribute their ideas if they are so inclined.

 

[Trailblazer]

Who made the flawed radios? Shouldn't we send the faulty radios back to the designer and have him fix the problem?

The problem is with those who do not know how to use the radios to receive the broadcast message, not in the manufacturer of the radios.

 

[Trailblazer]

And do we all get that same "certitude" from JW's, Mormons, Evangelicals and other "Bible-believing" Christians. But, one of you, or both of you, are wrong. Yet both, in your beliefs, are absolutely positive in the things you believe are true.

That's right, we cannot all be right and Baha'is cannot be right of Christians are right or vice versa.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I believe they are evidence that help to prove that.

Lame evidence which cannot even stand on its own legs, does not help. 'Bible said so or Kitáb-i-Íqán said so' are in themselves flawed evidences, because they are circular. Have you heard about Napkin-religion?

The problem is with those who do not know how to use the radios to receive the broadcast message, not in the manufacturer of the radios.

We do not blindly believe in all what the radios, TVs and newspapers say. Do we?

 

[Trailblazer]

And for 2000 years Christians thought this was talking about the Holy Spirit.

They still do.

It's lucky God finally corrected that erroneous assumption of theirs.

It is lucky, but so far the correction has only been heard by who tuned their radios into the right channel and heard the broadcast.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well good for you. Where did you find that map? The maps I saw put the boundary short of that area. How about the other question about "He" or "They" will come to you from Assyria? I especially wonder why the NKJV changed it to "They" from the "He" of the KJV?

There are a lot of maps on the internet, so I looked and looked till I found one that had dates and good boundaries. Here is the link to the map with dates:

The Assyrian, Chaldean, and Persian Empires, 1100-500 BCE - Map Quiz

To figure out the He or the They, I think the whole chapter needs to be read in context perhaps in different translations.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

It's a pity that no Ahmadis are presently posting here on RF.
I have known many people of both communities and really like them.
A discussion/debate between the two could be very beneficial for those seekers on the Abrahamic line.

A discussion between all major faiths could indeed bring lots of beneficial results.

I personally do not see faiths labeled as specific faith lines, but as part of a bigger picture giving us our spiritual guidance. Much like the different flowers of one garden.

Regards Tony

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If that is your personal opinion, fine and dandy, but if you are asserting that as an actual FACT, then it is an argument from ignorance because there is NO WAY you could EVER know that, absolutely no way.

Off course it's an opinion. It's kind of hard to have facts about imaginary entities, or actual entities that are indistinguishable from imaginary ones.

But it's quite a reasonable opinion.
An all knowing entity would know better then to rely on human story telling to spread his message. WE HUMANS even know better then that. WE KNOW that such a method is GUARANTEED to warp the message with every single re-telling. We KNOW that copies of copies of translations of copies of translations will do the exact same to a message.

It's rather reasonable to assume that an all knowing entity would know that too. It's rather reasonable that an all knowing entity who knows this and who also wants his actual message to reach all humans, will NOT be relying on such flawed and error prone methods.

That's correct, what you suggested did not happen, because God is in the driver's seat and God chose the Method of communication, all the whole KNOWING what the end result would be.

Then this god is stupid as f***. OR he doesn't care one bit about us and deliberatly set it all up knowing how it would lead to major conflict and suffering.

That could be the case off course, but then you can't say that this god "loves us" and "wants the best for us" and "wants us to know him". A god with such attributes, wouldn't set us up for guaranteed failure. Such a god, would not choose such methods of communication.

The demographics of religion look exactly like it would look if different religions were revealed by God in every age. In the Baha'i Faith, that is called Progressive Revelation

You could make that argument of "progressive revelation" for the abrahamic faiths. Judaism => christianity => islam.

You could NOT make it when you include all others. There is nothing "progressive" there, nore chronological.

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

And that claim is clearly contradicted by the actual evidence of reality, if one includes ALL religions, as noted above.

Progressive revelation is not at all consistent with one religion being a "true" religion, it is consistent with all the religions that were revealed by God being true. This is consistent with a God that cares for humans and wants them to know about Him.

That can't be the case as the vast majority of religions are completely incompatible with one another.

You can make this argument for the 3 main abrahamic religions and make it sound somewhat sensible. But you can not make that argument if you also include all the religions from all corners of the world.

 

[night912]

There are many reasons why only a few people recognize the new Messenger when He appears on earth. The main reason is because most people are steeped in religious tradition or attached to what they already believe. Secondly, if they do not have a religion, most people are suspicious of the new religion and the new Messenger. Thirdly, if they are atheists they do not like the idea of Messengers of God or they think they are all phonies. You are a case in point.

I understand that that is one of your beliefs, but at the end of the day, it's neither based on evidence or logic. So it's nothing but a bald assertion.

But I'll tell you the true main reason, most people don't believe that a "new" messenger exist(ed).

Thirdly, if they are atheists they do not like the idea of Messengers of God or they think they are all phonies. You are a case in point.

False statement. In fact, I like the idea of messengers of god, and I'm an atheist.. I like it because the idea alone help is a helper. In some discussions, whenever a theist brings it up and tries to defend it, he/she is doing of the work of providing the fallacies. And as for the second part, it's illogical. If atheists don't think that all the messengers exist(ed), then logic dictates that it's impossible for atheists to think that they are phonies.

 

[PAUL MARKHAM]

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything I believe. All I do is present what "I believe" is true. People can do whatever they want with it because we all have free will to choose.

That is an oversimplification. Have you never heard of degrees of truth? Nothing is so black and white that a religion is either true or false. Most religions have some truth and some religions have more truth than others. The primary reason we see contradictions between religions is because men have misinterpreted, changed and corrupted the religions over time.

You are welcome to your personal opinion as I am to mine. I believe we have religion because God revealed religion via Messengers, and I believe that has been the case throughout human history.

Unless you can prove that chiefs, kings etc invented gods and religions to maintain power that is a bald assertion and an argument from ignorance. I learned all these logical fallacies from my atheist friends over the years.

If your god exists why did he wait 500,000 years to reveal himself?

If men can "misinterpreted, changed and corrupted the religions over time" they can most certainly invent religions. To make contradictory statements in one post is a sign of ignorance. To deny men have the capability to invent religions is stupidity on top of ignorance.

If god keeps sending messengers who arent getting their message across, the method of delivery is false. Or there is no message sender other than men.

I can give you facts on why we exist, facts that prove the bible lies, facts that for every good thing supposedly from a god there is a bad thing. Early Man put a lot of nature down to god.

Give me your facts.

 

[PAUL MARKHAM]

If that is your personal opinion, fine and dandy, but if you are asserting that as an actual FACT, then it is an argument from ignorance because there is NO WAY you could EVER know that, absolutely no way.

Here are my facts, proven beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Man is just one of the millions of species that have lived and died in the lifetime of the Earth. Timeline of evolution

We are not even unique Hominids, Evolution: Humans: Origins of Humankind

We shared the planet with other Hominid species. Just How Many Extinct Types of Human Did Our Ancestors Meet?

These are facts, not opinions, theories, invented stories, etc. Give me your facts that god exist.

And do so without resorting to insulting my intelligence.

 

[PAUL MARKHAM]

No, someone does not have to be lying, but some one has to be mistaken. There is a BIG difference between lying which is deliberately telling an untruth, and simply not knowing the truth so being mistaken.

God can never be demonstrated in the material world is just the simple truth. God is Spirit as the Bible says, so God can never be seen and demonstrated. That is why Jesus said:

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

1 John 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.

There have been many so-called false messengers who have lied, but logically speaking, a true Messenger of God would have no reason to lie and would not lie because holy men do not lie.

The bottom line is whether there have ever been any true Messengers of God. If there have been any then certain conclusions can be drawn, but if there haven't been any, other conclusions will be drawn.

The original storytellers lied and invented to make their stories more dramatic. They did so out of ignorance because they had no real science that we have today.

So what did they invent stories about? Creation, Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, Joshua and Walls of Jericho, Egyptian plagues, etc. These are facts we now know as facts.

Without reverting to a book that's based on lies.

 

[PAUL MARKHAM]

That is your personal opinion to which you are entitled but I see it differently. I think the logical explanation is that all the great religions were right for the times and to the places and peoples where they were revealed, but over time people and the world change so a new religion is needed. That is why God sends a new Messenger in every age to renew religion.

I said religions and didn't pick and choose great ones to suit an opinion which is what you do.

So what about the not so great religions are some of them made up?

You tie yourself in knots without even knowing, think a bit harder before you post.

 

[PAUL MARKHAM]

You know there is no God? I am sorry, but that is the biggest argument from ignorance that I have ever seen.

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

When atheists stop making assertions they cannot prove, that is when I will stop pointing out that they are committing that fallacy.

I have no arrogance towards nonbelievers and in fact my best friends are nonbelievers I have met in forums. I only have one close friend who is a Baha'i. Moreover, I understand the atheist position, because there is really no proof that God exists.

Given the empirical evidence, I have always held the position that there are three mutually exclusive logical possibilities:

1. God exists and communicates via Messengers, or
2. God exists and does not communicate, or
3. God does not exist

There is no way to prove that any one of those are true, thus I do not assert that any one of them is true.
However I believe that #1 is true.

I know there is no such thing as a god because all the evidence points to that.

The existence of the Earth as just 1 planet in a solar system of 500,000,000 different planets.
Evolution is a very long process of species having to adapt to a changing world.
Homo Sapiens are just 1 branch of species, we are not even unique.

These are evidence not beliefs. Your beliefs are based on a book that tells untruths as facts. The book is a human compilation made by leaders to keep the people in line. These leaders are in the bible. Moses, most certainly the leaders of the Jews in exile in Babylon, Constantine, etc.