How can you be a True Christian™ if you don't take the Eden story literally?

[Subduction Zone]

Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.
Objective evidence definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

What is subjective and objective evidence?

Subjective evidence is evidence that we cannot evaluate. In fact, we have two choices; to accept what somebody says or reject it. ... Objective evidence is evidence that we can examine and evaluate for ourselves.
Objective evidence - definition and meaning - Market ...

We can examine and evaluate the evidence for Baha'u'llah for ourselves because there are actual facts surrounding the Person, the Life, and the Mission of Baha'u'llah, thus it is objective evidence.

No, you have that backwards. That is subjective evidence. If I honestly check his claims out, and I have checked some of them , and found most of them to be nonsense will you see the same thing? Probably not. When the interpretation of observations varies greatly that is subjective evidence.

If I have a digital thermometer and it says 90 F and you take a look at it, as long as the temperature does not change you will see 90 F too. That is objective evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Religions are faith based but there is evidence that supports the faith.
It would be great of atheists could understand the meaning of evidence. Evidence does not prove, it only indicates *to some people* that a belief is true.

Very weak subjective evidence. It does not convince a person that can reason rationally and logically.

 

[Trailblazer]

It would be great if you took it to a thread that is not about Christianity.

Why is that?

 

[Aupmanyav]

The reward is entering Paradise within the Ark of God. The reward comes after we die.
Baha'u'llah has guaranteed it and that is good enough for me.

Have you heard from anyone who has died?
A verbal guarantee from a 19th Century uneducated Iranian (Shia Muslim*), good enough for you but not good enough for most.
* He was one before he was visited by a heavenly maiden and took up the mantle of being a manifestation of Allah.

Religions are faith based ..

Not all. My view does not require any faith.

 

[Trailblazer]

No, you have that backwards. That is subjective evidence. If I honestly check his claims out, and I have checked some of them , and found most of them to be nonsense will you see the same thing? Probably not. When the interpretation of observations varies greatly that is subjective evidence.

No, the evidence is not subjective, your opinion of the evidence is subjective. You honestly checked the evidence for his claims out and found most of them to be nonsense. Your opinion that the claims are nonsense is a subjective opinion, just as my opinion that his claims are substantive is my subjective opinion.

If I have a digital thermometer and it says 90 F and you take a look at it, as long as the temperature does not change you will see 90 F too. That is objective evidence.

Yes, what you are describing is objective evidence. What I was referring to is evidence. It is only objective according to the one definition I cited but that is not the standard definition of objective evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

Have you heard from anyone who has died?

No, because I have not contacted any Baha'is who are in the spiritual world, but hang onto your hat, because I plan to contact my late husband.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, the evidence is not subjective, your opinion of the evidence is subjective. You honestly checked the evidence for his claims out and found most of them to be nonsense. Your opinion that the claims are nonsense is a subjective opinion, just as my opinion that his claims are substantive is my subjective opinion.

You are all over the place and totally wrong. You did not even understand the definition that you copied. I can provide you a more in depth article if you need it. Your evidence is just subjective evidence. Its interpretation depends upon the person looking at it. Subjective evidence leads to opinions.

Yes, what you are describing is objective evidence. What I was referring to is evidence. It is only objective according to the one definition I cited but that is not the standard definition of objective evidence.

Yes, what you were referring to was subjective evidence. It is not exactly reliable. The thermometer on the other hand is.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

The question: What's the point of having any belief in anything?

You mean 'religious belief' specifically I presume. My answer would be; To give an easy answer to the unanswerable, or possibly to give reason or meaning where it is hard to see it without blind faith.

There's more love, peace, joy - more if all the good stuff when beliefs do not hold any one group above another.

There are those like my stepfather, who believe that without rules and structure of law (particularly ones based in Christianity) most of mankind would devolve into frenzied savages.

I believe that positive energy begets more positive energy. Likewise, negative energy spawns more negative energy. Thus we should all do our best to love, and allow ourselves to be loved.

You actually imply that you have a weak faith when you try to find evidence that is not there.

I try to find evidence against my faith. I've chased it to Deism or Simulation to simplify. The clockwork god that does not interact with the universe, or we are in a running ancestor simulation. Neither can be determined through experimentation, neither can be changed if they are the case, neither changes reality in any way or how we have to navigate it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I try to find evidence against my faith. I've chased it to Deism or Simulation to simplify. The clockwork god that does not interact with the universe, or we are in a running ancestor simulation. Neither can be determined through experimentation, neither can be changed if they are the case, neither changes reality in any way or how we have to navigate it.

You might find evidence that way. One would have to see your hypothesis. It is a better approach than those that end up relying on confirmation bias.

 

[Aupmanyav]

No, because I have not contacted any Baha'is who are in the spiritual world, but hang onto your hat, because I plan to contact my late husband.

That will be nice. Let us know what he tells you. Was he a Bahai? I am sure it will be interesting irrespective of that.
What way would you get in touch with him, some divine telephone?

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

What way would you get in touch with him, some divine telephone?

Whoopi Goldberg.

I heard she did wonders for Patrick Swayze and Demi Moore in this regard. Those shadow creatures/people were creepy.
"Unchained Melody - Righteous Brothers" begins playing...

 

[CG Didymus]

None of your evidence is objective evidence. You did not understand the definition that you used.

Plus, how do Baha'is answer and deal with the "evidence" against their beliefs being true? What is the usual answer? "Oh, that's just your opinion."

Like with me asking the Baha'is about the resurrection. I say it may not be factual, but it does clearly say that Jesus came back to life. Their answer? "The Bible isn't literally true." Or, "That's just their interpretation of what the Bible says. We believe the resurrection was symbolic." Or some reason to discredit it.

Yet what their stuff is good enough evidence for them to believe and say they "know" it is true? And what do they "know"? That it's not fact, and can't be proven.

 

[CG Didymus]

That will be nice. Let us know what he tells you. Was he a Bahai? I am sure it will be interesting irrespective of that.
What way would you get in touch with him, some divine telephone?

I know Baha'is who have had visions of Abdul Baha. But then there's been Catholics that have seen visions of Mary. Is it real? Or do people just see things they want to see or hope to see? Have any atheists had visions of Christopher Hitchens?

 

[Orbit]

I know Baha'is who have had visions of Abdul Baha. But then there's been Catholics that have seen visions of Mary. Is it real? Or do people just see things they want to see or hope to see? Have any atheists had visions of Christopher Hitchens?

LOL

 

[CG Didymus]

Very weak subjective evidence. It does not convince a person that can reason rationally and logically.

And she keeps saying "religions". Yet she does not believe what she sees, hears or reads about evangelical Christian beliefs. Or anything in Hindu Scriptures that says anything about reincarnation or multiple Gods. Why does she reject the Scriptures and beliefs of the other religions and accepts what her religion tells her? Those other religions have the same kind of evidence, the subjective kind, that her religion has.

 

[Trailblazer]

That will be nice. Let us know what he tells you. Was he a Bahai? I am sure it will be interesting irrespective of that.
What way would you get in touch with him, some divine telephone?

Yes, he was a Baha'i and had been one for about 60 years.
I will surely report back what he says to me. I will have to use a medium to facilitate the communication since there would be no other way for me to get through.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Yes, he was a Baha'i and had been one for about 60 years.
I will surely report back what he says to me. I will have to use a medium to facilitate the communication since there would be no other way for me to get through.

I'm looking forward to your update.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And she keeps saying "religions". Yet she does not believe what she sees, hears or reads about evangelical Christian beliefs. Or anything in Hindu Scriptures that says anything about reincarnation or multiple Gods. Why does she reject the Scriptures and beliefs of the other religions and accepts what her religion tells her? Those other religions have the same kind of evidence, the subjective kind, that her religion has.

Shifting the burden of proof is a problem with almost every religion. It varies depending upon how fundamentalistic the believers are. So one can see rational Christians ( or at least fairly rational) that realize that their faith is only based upon irrational untestable feelings. And I am fine with that. It is the ones that seem to have thee attitude of "I know that my faith is true" that simply do not understand the burden of proof.

 

[CG Didymus]

Shifting the burden of proof is a problem with almost every religion. It varies depending upon how fundamentalistic the believers are. So one can see rational Christians ( or at least fairly rational) that realize that their faith is only based upon irrational untestable feelings. And I am fine with that. It is the ones that seem to have thee attitude of "I know that my faith is true" that simply do not understand the burden of proof.

Yeah, it's one thing for someone to say that they think that all people are one. And we need to learn to work together to create a world where we can all live in peace and unity.

And it's another thing for someone to say that God told them to tell us that all people are one human family. And that God sent him to bring peace and unity to the world through the teachings he'd been given by God. And that he is essentially the return of Jesus.

So sure, it's a fact that he said those things. And it's a fact that he's a real person. But God told him, and God sent him? Those are just claims he made. How do we know they are true?

We have the example of the leader of the Ahmadiyya, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. He made similar claims, but the Baha'is reject his claims. Probably because of weak and subjective evidence. Yet, his religious movement has more followers than the Baha'is. Which shows that who needs proof and evidence? Who even needs to be telling the truth? Made up stories work just fine.

 

[Audie]

I know Baha'is who have had visions of Abdul Baha. But then there's been Catholics that have seen visions of Mary. Is it real? Or do people just see things they want to see or hope to see? Have any atheists had visions of Christopher Hitchens?

Bahais " who SAY theyve had visions."