How important are facts within your religious beliefs?

[CG Didymus]

Did it not matter to Jesus and his apostles? Why did it matter to them? Why should it not matter to us?
It mattered to them because it was part of the history of God's dealings with his people. It was history. Not myth, to them.

Those of God's people do not write them off as myth, because God had these real events recorded for a purpose.
Romans 15:3, 4 ;Hebrews 12:25, 26 ; Jude 5-7

I agree. Jesus sure seems to take the Bible very literal. But, I real those stories and the ones in the NT and I also somewhat agree with the Baha'is... what are the chances that those things really happened? So how can they say they "believe" in Jesus and the Bible, yet still not take it literally? For them, it is to make the stories allegorical. Great fiction. A man of God comes to the Earth and does all kinds of miracles... like healing the sick and restoring sight to the blind.... then, he himself is killed, but rises from the dead and ascends into heaven. But, since it is all fictional stories and didn't really happen, what is the allegorical meaning going on in those stories? That's what Baha'is do to them. And they do find spiritual meaning to all of those stories. But it's a lot different then the meaning that a person gets if they take the stories as literal, historical facts.

The good thing that happens when we look at the Bible their way is that we can accept all religions as true and coming from one God. The bad thing about taking the Bible as a literalist Christian does, it makes every other religion false. And who wants to do that? To go around telling people that they believe in false Gods and a false religion? With the Baha'is, they can tell those same people that their old religion is the truth, but now God has sent a new messenger and updated his truth. But, in the fine print, Baha'is actually say that all the older religions have strayed off the true path and that none of them are teaching and believing the real truth from God... And that is why God has had to send a new messenger... to straighten things out and get us all the right path again. Or something like that.

 

[Trailblazer]

How about the Jews 2000 or 3000 years ago? How about Christians even a few hundred years ago? Today, things are different. Probably Darwin had a big influence on people being able to more openly question the "fact" that the Bible is the Truth. Reformed Jews and liberal Christians are fine with me. My only problem with the Baha'i Faith is that they say the stories are fictional and not to be taken literally, whereas I think the stories were most likely fiction and definitely written to be taken literally.

Let's just say they they were written to be taken literally, does that mean they literally happened?
Let's just say they they were written to be taken literally, does that mean the authors believe they literally happened?

Why do you have a problem with the Baha'i Faith saying that the stories are fictional and not to be taken literally, whereas you do not have a problem with liberal Christians and reformed Jews who say the same thing? Do you think that the liberal Christians and reformed Jews believe they were most likely fiction but written to be taken literally? If you believe they are fictional why would it matter what the author's intentions were? It seems to be you have not quite decided what to believe about the stories but it seems to matter to you if they were true stories or fiction. How would knowing one way or another affect your belief in Christianity vs. the Baha'i Faith?

I'm confused.

 

[Trailblazer]

The good thing that happens when we look at the Bible their way is that we can accept all religions as true and coming from one God. The bad thing about taking the Bible as a literalist Christian does, it makes every other religion false. And who wants to do that?

Literalist Christians.

 

[Dawnofhope]

And how'd that spiritual journey go for them? Oh yeah, all but a few died while wandering in the wilderness. Then, the next generation is the one that goes in a kills all the people, including woman and children, in some of the cities they conquered. I still think that thousands of years ago, it makes more sense to me, that if those things didn't really happen, they were just plain old myths and legends. The big lesson... Obey God or he's gonna get you.

We don’t really know for certain about much of what happened with the establishment of Israel during this period if anything. Following God and His Commandments is certainly a central theme throughout the Tanakh and NT.

 

[Trailblazer]

But, in the fine print, Baha'is actually say that all the older religions have strayed off the true path and that none of them are teaching and believing the real truth from God... And that is why God has had to send a new messenger... to straighten things out and get us all the right path again. Or something like that.

No that is not the main reason we need a new religion. The new religion has the effect of straightening things out that need straightening out but not everything needs straightening out. Mostly we just need a new message from God to suit the circumstances of the age we live in. Moreover, every religion had a purpose for which it was revealed and once a religion has fulfilled its purpose for humanity it is time to move on to the next religion so it can fulfill its purpose.

“And now concerning thy question regarding the nature of religion. Know thou that they who are truly wise have likened the world unto the human temple. As the body of man needeth a garment to clothe it, so the body of mankind must needs be adorned with the mantle of justice and wisdom. Its robe is the Revelation vouchsafed unto it by God. Whenever this robe hath fulfilled its purpose, the Almighty will assuredly renew it. For every age requireth a fresh measure of the light of God. Every Divine Revelation hath been sent down in a manner that befitted the circumstances of the age in which it hath appeared.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 81

 

[nPeace]

I agree. Jesus sure seems to take the Bible very literal. But, I real those stories and the ones in the NT and I also somewhat agree with the Baha'is... what are the chances that those things really happened? So how can they say they "believe" in Jesus and the Bible, yet still not take it literally? For them, it is to make the stories allegorical. Great fiction. A man of God comes to the Earth and does all kinds of miracles... like healing the sick and restoring sight to the blind.... then, he himself is killed, but rises from the dead and ascends into heaven. But, since it is all fictional stories and didn't really happen, what is the allegorical meaning going on in those stories? That's what Baha'is do to them. And they do find spiritual meaning to all of those stories. But it's a lot different then the meaning that a person gets if they take the stories as literal, historical facts.

The good thing that happens when we look at the Bible their way is that we can accept all religions as true and coming from one God. The bad thing about taking the Bible as a literalist Christian does, it makes every other religion false. And who wants to do that? To go around telling people that they believe in false Gods and a false religion? With the Baha'is, they can tell those same people that their old religion is the truth, but now God has sent a new messenger and updated his truth. But, in the fine print, Baha'is actually say that all the older religions have strayed off the true path and that none of them are teaching and believing the real truth from God... And that is why God has had to send a new messenger... to straighten things out and get us all the right path again. Or something like that.

There is solid basis for why the Bible cannot be myth and allegory. So far that evidence has not been shown to be false. There have been plenty opinions, yes.

The 66 books of the Bible were not written by one person, nor a group of persons. Nor were they all written during the same period.
1600 years is far too long a time for 40 different writers from different backgrounds and walks of life to make up stories that all connect into one unified story from 66 different writings... which some even claim were more writers and scripts.
It's not even your everyday kind of story.

Not even heirs to their father's throne, of 15 generations, could accomplish a project like that - especially one with the contents we have in those 66 books.
That would be asking for a feat greater than any science can produce.

The only way that is possible is for the 66 books to have one author, and we know no human live 1600 year, so that rules out human authorship.
So one would have to credit God with allegory.
Why would God write a book of allegory, especially one containing what we have in the Bible?

I'm just playing along here, but really, the whole myth allegory thing does not stand up under the afore mentioned facts.
If one can prove that all 66 books were written in one lifetime, or by a collaboration of members, they may have a case, but we know they cannot, because the facts are, the writings cover a period of about 16 centuries, and the writers were no less than 40 - some claim more.

The thing is, that's just one solid basis, and it's not even the strongest.

 

[Trailblazer]

There is solid basis for why the Bible cannot be myth and allegory. So far that evidence has not been shown to be false. There have been plenty opinions, yes.

There is solid basis for why the Bible stories can be myth and allegory. So far there is no evidence they the stories are literally true. There have been plenty beliefs, yes.

 

[Trailblazer]

So one would have to credit God with allegory.
Why would God write a book of allegory, especially one containing what we have in the Bible?

Why would God write a book of facts, especially one containing what we have in the Bible?

 

[Muffled]

For some of us our religious beliefs are founded on historical characters who we can attribute coherent teachings and know of their lives. For others our beliefs have little if anything that can be attributed as historically true, yet we believe. Does historical fact matter or should religious myth be accorded the same status as fact? We’re discussing religion after all. How important are facts to you within your religious belief or worldview? Does it really matter? Why or why not?

I believe RF has the view that there are no facts only beliefs. For me the most important indicator of veracity is the source. How much will I learn from a poet and a one man band?

 

[Muffled]

Facts are in the realm of the intellect. Truth comes from a higher realm and manifests as intuition.

I answered "only a little" because, for me, whether Meher Baba did something or other is of only minor importance. Who I believe Meher Baba was and is critically important.

I believe you may have something there. I want what is good so the fact that God says He is good fits what I want. I don't like being deceived so when Jesus says He is the Truth then I am all for that.

 

[Muffled]

Why would God write a book of facts, especially one containing what we have in the Bible?

I believe since God doesn't lie, everything He says is a fact. He just doesn't tell us everything, only what we need to know.

 

[CG Didymus]

Let's just say they they were written to be taken literally, does that mean they literally happened?
Let's just say they they were written to be taken literally, does that mean the authors believe they literally happened?

Even if a historian or a reporter writes down something as if it is factual, sometimes it isn't. When the Bible stories got written down who knows? I think that the stories were probably oral traditions that got passed down before they got written down. So how were they told? As if real factual events or were the people told that the stories were fictional? Even the laws... what has more authority? That some people made up the laws or an all-knowing, all-powerful invisible God that punishes those who disobey?

Why do you have a problem with the Baha'i Faith saying that the stories are fictional and not to be taken literally, whereas you do not have a problem with liberal Christians and reformed Jews who say the same thing? Do you think that the liberal Christians and reformed Jews believe they were most likely fiction but written to be taken literally? If you believe they are fictional why would it matter what the author's intentions were? It seems to be you have not quite decided what to believe about the stories but it seems to matter to you if they were true stories or fiction. How would knowing one way or another affect your belief in Christianity vs. the Baha'i Faith?

For liberal Christians and Reformed Jews to not take the Bible stories literally is a step forward. It is breaking away from believing in superstitious beliefs and using their brains. They take the "truths" from the stories and leave off the rest.

Baha'is almost do the same thing, but then they add in their own "mythology" about what happened. Did Adam, Noah and Abraham exist? Baha'is say "yes" and that they were manifestations of God. But... do they really fit the definition of a manifestation? I'd don't think so. A manifestation is part man part divine. He brings a book and starts a new religion etc. All those people were all part of the Jewish mythology. What new religion did they bring? And, were they "perfectly" polished mirrors? Not by what is said about them in the Bible. So what do Baha'is do? They reject the Bible stories about them and come up with their own stories about them. Baha'u'llah makes no mention of the flood when he talks about Noah and with Abraham he says that Ishmael, not Isaac, was the one taken to be sacrificed.

Then lets get to the NT and Jesus. Talk about being confused. Did Baha'u'llah make it absolutely clear about what Jesus really said and did? I'm not sure. I know Baha'is say that he died and didn't rise or ascend physically from the dead, that he is not one coming back. But then Baha'is say he was born of a virgin? And who knows what Baha'is believe about the healing and walking on water. Are they allegorical or did they really happen? And what about Jesus casting out demons? Those have to be allegorical, because Baha'is say there are no demons nor a real Satan.

So what exactly do Baha'i believe? Who knows? But what they do believe is anything that sounds like a prophecy about Baha'u'llah. The government will be on his shoulders? That's gotta be him. Even though it says that unto us a child is given. How does that refer to Baha'u'llah. And then there is the "comforter". It sure seems it fits with the Holy Spirit coming at Pentecost, but Baha'is say "no". That's Baha'u'llah. Along with the third "Woe" in Revelation. The "Son of man", the "Christ" are said to be talking about Baha'u'llah and not Jesus. Even if it says "Jesus" it is not Jesus. Like in Revelation where it says that "I" Jesus sent his angel to say those things and that he is coming soon.

So Baha'is are very similar to liberal Christians and Reformed Jews, but then interpret all the "fictional" stories to point to them being the one and only true religion for today. Maybe, I just don't believe everything that Baha'is say that "proves" it. And one little statement attributed to Jesus bothers me... And that's when he said that there will be wars and rumors of wars but that is not yet the end. Peace is not here. The "lessor" peace is not here? Baha'is are doing the same thing Born-Again Christians are doing... Waiting for a supernatural event that changes the world. When that happens, then what? If Jesus doesn't return then, are the Baha'is ready to show us the way?

Will the "government" be on the shoulders of the LSA's, the NSA's and the UHJ? And what are they going to say? That all people now, for your own good have to follow all the Baha'i God-given laws? Laws that are the prescribed "medicine" to heal the world of its ills? And my question then is... how will the Baha'is enforce these laws? If it happened tomorrow, would the Baha'is be ready? Do the Baha'is themselves abide by all the laws? Are Baha'is perfect? Of course not. So how and why are imperfect people going to and want to follow unenforceable laws. And if Baha'is do enforce then, with police and armies, how is that different than what we got going right now?

 

[Dawnofhope]

I trust the Bible because it gives evidence of being truthful - including what it says about God and Christ. I believe it is the inspired word of God, based on what I observe to be true in conjunction with what's stated in the Bible.

It's like... a man said to me, there are plenty fish at point x. I go to point x, let out my rod, and catch plenty fish. The man does that repeatedly in various situations, and I find it to be just as he says. I would not say I have faith in the man. I trust him. I might have faith in his promises, as I have faith in the Bible's promises which have yet to be fulfilled, but the Bible presents facts which I believe and take them as such. So I trust it.

I'm good with that. I view the Bible similarly and the Baha'i writings too.

You accept what science "tells" you, based on evidence it presents. Would you say you have faith in science, or would you say you believe science provides you with truthful answers? Are there one and the same?
Perhaps I don't understand what you mean by faith. People tend to use the word differently, so I hope you understand what I am saying.

Faith, belief and trust are all interconnected.

I think you have that first statement backwards.
As I said, I trust the Bible to be the word of God, based on what have been confirmed, and what we have observed to be true.
Therefore, the parting of the Red Sea would be an accurate account, since it follows the events in which God, is the one delivering his people with Moses as leader.

Having faith, belief and trust in the Bible does not mean literal interpretation to Baha'is as well as many Christians and Jews. Clearly you and your fellow JWs are more closely aligned to the approach of fundamentalist and evangelical Christians who interpret the Bible literally. We have a different approach to interpreting and understanding the Bible.

I think you have that first statement backwards.
As I said, I trust the Bible to be the word of God, based on what have been confirmed, and what we have observed to be true.
Therefore, the parting of the Red Sea would be an accurate account, since it follows the events in which God, is the one delivering his people with Moses as leader.

Do you believe these accounts in Genesis should be taken literally:

1/ The creation of the earth in six days;
2/ The story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and;
3/ The story of Noah's ark

I don't based on science and reason. Therefore other stories in Genesis and the Torah (allegedly written by the same author) need not be taken literally.

Though I did not see Moses part the sea, I have no reason to doubt an account written down as history, just because it contains supernatural elements.
A person skeptical of thes things may dismiss the accounts because of this, but why should I take that position? I don't dismiss the accounts of Sargon, Nebuchadnezzar, Josephus, etc., simply because I was not there to witness the events, so there is no reason for me to dismiss the accounts of the record of earlier 'historians'. Even archaeologist don't dismiss them because of the magic practiced within it, to their gods.

Perhaps we're not hearing each other. I don't dismiss these accounts. They may or may not have happened literally as recorded. For me, whether or not they happened literally makes no difference to my faith, belief and trust in the Bible. Clearly it makes a huge difference to your faith, believe and trust and God.

Why do you think I should not accept the Biblical accounts as literal truths?

I'm not asking anything of you. If you wish to take the verses literally, take them literally. My faith in the Bible is flexible enough to allow me to think for myself and either accept or reject some literal accounts based on my investigation of truth. It is also fine to say I don't know whether certain events happened literally or not.

Do you think the accounts of Josephus are literally true?

There is nothing in the accounts of Josephus that portray extraordinary supernatural events.

I think for me to be honest in dismissing the account of the parting of the sea by Moses as myth, I would have to dismiss everything else related to God's dealing with Israel under the leadership of Moses, and any other deliverer, as myth. Otherwise, what I would be doing is taking it upon myself to limit God, and deny his intervention, or activity, where ever I see fit to do so. or choose which parts i will accept as history or not.

I accept that is how you see it. God requires of me to be open and contemplate deeply what scriptures are saying. I don't believe God is going to punish me because biblical literalists and Christian fundamentalists disagree with my approach.

If there is a scriptural basis for me to take the account as allegory, then certainly, I could see that as 'noble'... for want of a better word.
I don't see that though.
There is no scriptural basis for taking that position. A worldly basis? Yes. Doing so based on worldly views.

The basis for rejecting literal interpretation is that there are certain narratives that so fundamentally contradict science, they can not be literally true, even allowing for an Omnipotent, All-Powerful God.

 

[Dawnofhope]

The scriptures are clear and specific in saying that this act - the parting of the sea, allowing Israel to cross with their enemies pursuing them, was among one of the great acts of God to have his name declared, that nations would hear, and know that there is no God that performs like this one. Not only nations, but the people he chose to fulfil his covenant with Abraham - a real person.
Exodus 6:1-8 ; Exodus 9:16 But for this very reason I have kept you in existence: to show you my power and to have my name declared in all the earth.
(Exodus 13:3) Then Moses said to the people: “Remember this day on which you went out of Egypt, from the house of slavery, because with a mighty hand Jehovah brought you out of here.. . .
(Exodus 14:17) As for me, I am allowing the hearts of the Egyptians to become obstinate, so that they will go in after them; thus I will glorify myself by means of Pharaoh and all his army, his war chariots, and his cavalrymen.
(Joshua 2:9, 10) 9 She said to the men: “I do know that Jehovah will give you the land and that the fear of you has fallen upon us. All the inhabitants of the land are disheartened because of you, 10 for we heard how Jehovah dried up the waters of the Red Sea before you when you left Egypt and what you did to the two kings of the Amʹorites, Sihon and Og, whom you devoted to destruction on the other side of the Jordan.
(Isaiah 63:12) The One who made His glorious arm go with the right hand of Moses, The One who split the waters before them To make an everlasting name for himself,

Is that from a JW translation? You see it literally, I don't. Nor do many other Christians and Jews.

It was God glorifying his name, just as he did through his acts in behalf of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, and Daniel, before the Babylonian rulers.
So it seems evident to me, to minimize these accounts, is only in keeping with the words of Isaiah, as quoted by Jesus, where he said, Quote You hypocrites, Isaiah aptly prophesied about you when he said: This people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far removed from me. Unquote - Matthew 15:7, 8
Since, as the scriptures say, they are recorded for a purpose, as I mentioned before - inspired to be written down. 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 ; 2 Peter 1:21, and they were related, not as allegory, or myth, but history, by those subsequent to John the Baptist.

What would that tell us about those who come afterward, and claim otherwise?

It tells me you are accusing me of hypocrisy. You are associating me with the Pharisees Jesus criticises in Matthew 15. You are using scripture for the purpose of personal attack and insult. It is sadly the modus operandi of religious fundamentalists when they deal with those outside their narrow paradigm.

I don't really understand what you mean by faith in teachings. I do not have faith in teachings. Maybe you mean something other than what I am thinking, but you will have to explain.
Do you mean like when a mother tells her son, "This is hot. Don't touch it. It will hurt you badly." However, because the child doesn't know, they must have faith, or trust that their mother is telling them the truth?
Yes, of course, I have not seen God's promises fulfilled, so I do need faith in them. I have not seen God, so I do need faith in him, but is that not true of all of us?
You have not seen evolution of a four footed wolf-like creature, to a whale, but you have faith that the scientist are stating the truth... and that goes for a truckload of other beliefs.

What do I mean by faith in teachings? You and the JWs have a world view based on alignment with your particular church. Your approach in some aspects is fundamentally at variance with most of your fellow Christians whom you associate as being part of corrupt Christendom as opposed to the JW Church which you consider to be free from such corruption and in alignment with the pure NT teachings. As far as I can see your approach is rejected by all Christendom and I reject it to. In my experience JWs like to see themself as an outlier and take heart from the criticism of their fellow Christians, remembering that Christ was rejected and condemned too. So you have faith, believe and trust in the JW view of he Bible.

Of course Baha'is are criticised and rejected in some Christian quarters too, but generally we aspire to good relationships with peoples of all faith and good will.

However, just as you don't need faith to know that if you stab yourself with a pencil, you will bleed, I don't need faith to know that following the Bible teachings do benefit me... greatly.

Sure, the bible has a great deal of wisdom and sage advice for practical living.

Now that you are on this subject of fact and faith, you do not know that anything is myth, so it seems you have faith in your belief that what you say is myth, actually is.
So it's not about facts. You don't have those, in this case.

Nor do you. That is why its OK to say " I don't know" in some circumstances.

Our faith does not agree in a lot of things, of course. Your faith in the belief that all living things came from one ancestor, is not shared with many people.

When did I say that's what I believed in. Your are making an assumption, one of many in your last two posts to me.

You are saying that Jesus' miracles mean nothing. They are unimportant. He might as well not have done them. is that what you are saying?
This is what I mean by the Bahais discrediting and dishonoring God. You just gave a perfect example of what I mean.

When did I say the account of Jesus's miracles mean nothing? To the contrary, the story of Jesus healing a blind and tells us that through His Teachings we can see the Kingdom of God and walk the spiritual path. It is extremely meaningful. The importance of the story lies in the meaning, not whether or not it literally happened.

Jesus performed miracles for a reason. did he not?
According to the scriptures, his miracles proved he was of, or from God.
(Luke 7:20-23) 20 When they came to him, the men said: “John the Baptist sent us to you to ask, ‘Are you the Coming One, or are we to expect another?’” 21 In that hour he cured many people of sicknesses, serious diseases, and wicked spirits, and he granted many blind people the gift of sight. 22 In reply he said to them: “Go and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind are now seeing, the lame are walking, the lepers are being cleansed, the deaf are hearing, the dead are being raised up, and the poor are being told the good news. 23 Happy is the one who finds no cause for stumbling in me.”
Matthew 13:58 - And he did not perform many powerful works there on account of their lack of faith.
John 15:24 - If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would have no sin; but now they have both seen me and hated me as well as my Father.

Jesus performed miracles to teach us something of the nature of God's plan and purpose for us. Baha'is don't deny He performed any of these miracles. We do see the emphasis on miracles problematic when it comes to constructive dialogue with others.

1/ The main purpose of the recorded miracle is to teach us important lessons about the spiritual nature of being a human.
2/ It can not be proven that any of the miracles recorded in the Bible actually happened. The one exception is the profound affect the Gospel accounts have had on the hearts and minds of countless people over two thousand years. That is the greatest miracle where evidence abounds.

 

[nPeace]

I'm good with that. I view the Bible similarly and the Baha'i writings too.



Faith, belief and trust are all interconnected.



Having faith, belief and trust in the Bible does not mean literal interpretation to Baha'is as well as many Christians and Jews. Clearly you and your fellow JWs are more closely aligned to the approach of fundamentalist and evangelical Christians who interpret the Bible literally. We have a different approach to interpreting and understanding the Bible.



Do you believe these accounts in Genesis should be taken literally:

1/ The creation of the earth in six days;
2/ The story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and;
3/ The story of Noah's ark

I don't based on science and reason. Therefore other stories in Genesis and the Torah (allegedly written by the same author) need not be taken literally.



Perhaps we're not hearing each other. I don't dismiss these accounts. They may or may not have happened literally as recorded. For me, whether or not they happened literally makes no difference to my faith, belief and trust in the Bible. Clearly it makes a huge difference to your faith, believe and trust and God.



I'm not asking anything of you. If you wish to take the verses literally, take them literally. My faith in the Bible is flexible enough to allow me to think for myself and either accept or reject some literal accounts based on my investigation of truth. It is also fine to say I don't know whether certain events happened literally or not.



There is nothing in the accounts of Josephus that portray extraordinary supernatural events.



I accept that is how you see it. God requires of me to be open and contemplate deeply what scriptures are saying. I don't believe God is going to punish me because biblical literalists and Christian fundamentalists disagree with my approach.



The basis for rejecting literal interpretation is that there are certain narratives that so fundamentally contradict science, they can not be literally true, even allowing for an Omnipotent, All-Powerful God.

You are only explaining what I am saying Adrian.
All I am saying is exactly what you are saying... only we are expressing it from two different perspective, but it is really the same - just either negative, or positive depending on the perspectives.

Do you believe these accounts in Genesis should be taken literally:

1/ The creation of the earth in six days;
2/ The story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and;
3/ The story of Noah's ark

I don't based on science and reason. Therefore other stories in Genesis and the Torah (allegedly written by the same author) need not be taken literally

One view is based on worldly wisdom. One is not.

There is nothing in the accounts of Josephus that portray extraordinary supernatural events.

Supernatural elements determines one's acceptance, or rejection - worldly wisdom verses godly wisdom.

That's all I am saying.
Did you not get that from all those scriptures I quoted about the wisdom of this world being foolish to God, and the things of God being foolish from the world's point of view?

That's all.
The problem you seem to ne having, is that you want both to work.
The scriptures say, they don't.

 

[nPeace]

Is that from a JW translation? You see it literally, I don't. Nor do many other Christians and Jews.

They are the same as on RF, Biblehub, Bible Gateway, etc.

It tells me you are accusing me of hypocrisy. You are associating me with the Pharisees Jesus criticises in Matthew 15. You are using scripture for the purpose of personal attack and insult. It is sadly the modus operandi of religious fundamentalists when they deal with those outside their narrow paradigm.

I have not accused you of anything. Jesus' words are what I quoted. If you feel accused by them, my question is, do you feel they fit you?
I believe Jesus words apply to anyone who minimizes God's word - namely the Tanakh, and what Jesus and his followers taught.
You don't?

 

[Trailblazer]

I believe since God doesn't lie, everything He says is a fact. He just doesn't tell us everything, only what we need to know.

I believe:

1. God did not write the Bible, so God did not 'say' anything in the Bible.
2. God inspired the writers of the Bible but that does not mean that everything that is in the Bible is factual, since there is no reason to believe that God would not use metaphors for in order to convey spiritual truths.
3. Christians who believe that everything in the Bible is literally true have missed much of what God was trying to convey in metaphors, and that is indeed very sad.

I agree that God does not tell us everything, only what we need to know. God only reveals what we need to know at any given time as well as what we have the capacity to understand. As such, both Jesus and Baha'u'llah knew a lot more than they revealed to us in Scriptures.

“Oh, would that the world could believe Me! Were all the things that lie enshrined within the heart of Bahá, and which the Lord, His God, the Lord of all names, hath taught Him, to be unveiled to mankind, every man on earth would be dumbfounded.

How great the multitude of truths which the garment of words can never contain! How vast the number of such verities as no expression can adequately describe, whose significance can never be unfolded, and to which not even the remotest allusions can be made! How manifold are the truths which must remain unuttered until the appointed time is come! Even as it hath been said: “Not everything that a man knoweth can be disclosed, nor can everything that he can disclose be regarded as timely, nor can every timely utterance be considered as suited to the capacity of those who hear it.”

Of these truths some can be disclosed only to the extent of the capacity of the repositories of the light of Our knowledge, and the recipients of Our hidden grace.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 176

 

[osgart]

As far as facts are discernible they are crucially important. But my religious inclinations come from intuitions alongside factual matters.

Facts carry a lot of learned intuitions with them.

First and foremost humanity starts out knowing very little and have to fight and claw to know things about reality. Life is more a journey and far less a guided tour. Having said that I still feel that being alive is of vital significance to existence. So much so is it significant that it may have eternal value. Intelligence is a powerful tool and survival advantage. That's no mindless incidental event. The limits of facts can not sway my religious intuitions.

Consciousness is something that is poorly understood. And poorly defined; as to what it means to be alive.

I don't think any fact can rule out the religious conviction that life is of eternal value.

Strong intuitions and religious faith do have importance.

 

[CG Didymus]

We don’t really know for certain about much of what happened with the establishment of Israel during this period if anything. Following God and His Commandments is certainly a central theme throughout the Tanakh and NT.

Since we are talking about facts... If it is a fact that God spoke to Moses and gave him the laws, then the Jews should obey them. I don't think it is a fact, but probably fiction. Some of those laws don't sound to me like they came from some all-knowing God. And, as you know, I think the religious leaders of the people made up the laws and traditions and said that God gave them those laws to give the power and authority of an all-powerful God that will punish them, sometimes by death, if they disobey. But people disobeyed anyway. Some broke the Sabbath. Some committed adultery. Some were killed and some weren't... like King David. But people still broke the laws anyway.

Then comes Christians... They have no need for the law, but they still need some of the things in the Bible to support their beliefs. They need God to be a fact and, for the literalist Christians, they need most all of the stories to be historical fact. But I agree with you and other Baha'is, it don't sound reasonable or possible. It sounds to me more like nothing but made up legends and stories. But I also believe that to get people to follow the laws, they needed to be taught that those Bible stories were true. And with the NT, those early Christians needed to present Jesus as a risen Savior capable of forgiving them of their sins.

Baha'is don't need any of the stories to be factual. But they do need the prophets and their prophecies, and those that the Baha'is say are manifestations to be real. It seems to me that those things become the usable "facts" for the Baha'is. The stories? Especially the miraculous things, just get in the way. In this day and age, it doesn't take much to convince people those things didn't happen. But the Baha'is still need the Bible and the NT to be "The Word of God." Making them allegorical works for you, but not for me. Of course there is a "moral" to the story. But I think it is much simpler than what the Baha'is do. Like with the parting of the seas and Jesus walking on water or rising from the dead, it was just to show how powerful God is, and he will exert his power to help those that trust in him. Whereas the Baha'is make the water and everything else in the story something symbolic.

 

[CG Didymus]

No that is not the main reason we need a new religion. The new religion has the effect of straightening things out that need straightening out but not everything needs straightening out. Mostly we just need a new message from God to suit the circumstances of the age we live in. Moreover, every religion had a purpose for which it was revealed and once a religion has fulfilled its purpose for humanity it is time to move on to the next religion so it can fulfill its purpose.

“And now concerning thy question regarding the nature of religion. Know thou that they who are truly wise have likened the world unto the human temple. As the body of man needeth a garment to clothe it, so the body of mankind must needs be adorned with the mantle of justice and wisdom. Its robe is the Revelation vouchsafed unto it by God. Whenever this robe hath fulfilled its purpose, the Almighty will assuredly renew it. For every age requireth a fresh measure of the light of God. Every Divine Revelation hath been sent down in a manner that befitted the circumstances of the age in which it hath appeared.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 81

And I don't suppose Baha'u'llah mentioned what was the purpose of each manifestation and his religion? And was part of that "purpose" was to get misunderstood and divided up into several sects and denominations? I still think that the Christianity that changed the world, by Baha'is standards, was teaching false beliefs. Like going to India and complaining about the Hindus having multiple Gods and then teaching them the "truth" that there is only one God but in three co-equal parts? Or like conquering the Americas and outlawing the Native religions and getting them to instead pray to statues and to confess their sins to a priest? And that was all done long after the "purpose" of Christianity was supposed to be over and done with. Since some Baha'is have said that Christianity had already gone through its spring, summer, fall and winter by the time Islam came into being.

But, I do believe each religion did have a purpose. And each fit in very well with the people and the society from which they came. How many centuries did some tribal religions exist and worked perfectly fine until Christians came and made the people accept some form of Christianity? But was that religion true? Some of them sacrificed people. Some had good spirits and evil spirits and many Gods. I would call them "true", but I'd say that they were "true" for those people in that society. So what are Baha'is going to say that "originally" even the tribal religions were true and had a messenger from the one true God, but they misinterpreted it and got it all wrong? Or, like I think is more likely, each people and culture made up their own Gods and beliefs and each served a purpose within that society.