How important are facts within your religious beliefs?

[Trailblazer]

The problem you seem to be having, is that you want both to work.
The scriptures say, they don't.

The scriptures do not SAY anything. People read them and interpret them, assigning meanings to them as they read.
You assign a certain meaning but that does not mean that is the only possible meaning or the meaning God intended.
If scriptures could only have one meaning Christians would not disagree on what they mean and there would not be thousands of sects of Christianity.

 

[nPeace]

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.

Reading through your posts, I understand your viewpoint.
May I ask, do you believe there is a creator, or you're just not sure, one way or other?
Do you think we can glean any facts in the area of spirit - what is not seen physically?

 

[Trailblazer]

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?

Nobody knows and nobody will ever know. Why does it matter?

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.

Baha'u'llah called them Prophets in The Kitab-i-Quan. I cannot say if they were Manifestations of God or not, but why does it matter? These are just Baha'i beliefs and Baha'is might vary in their beliefs. If a Baha'i really wanted to know he/she would have to write to the UHJ.

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.

Baha'is do not go by what is in the Bible. Why should we, do Christians go by what Baha'u'llah wrote?
Baha'is do not make up stories, we believe what Baha'u'llah wrote.

If Baha'u'llah did not write about something that is in the Bible that is because He did not consider it significant. After all, Baha'u'llah did not come to talk about the past, He came with a NEW Revelation of God to establish a NEW religion. Please tell me why it matters if it was Ishmael or Isaac? Please tell me why it matters if there was really a flood or not or how it happened. How is that going to change anything that is going on now or in the future?

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.

Why would Baha'u'llah make absolutely clear everything that Jesus said and did? As I said above, Baha'u'llah did not come to talk about history, He came with a NEW Revelation from God.

If Baha'u'llah did not write about these things, they were covered by Abdu'l-Baha or Shoghi Effendi.
You already know the answers to many of these questions because you have discussed this with me and other Baha'is before

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.

We believe what is in the Writings of Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi, and from what they wrote we can make our own determinations about what the Bible means.

The Bible does not fit with the Comforter being the Holy Spirit that came at Pentecost, and one cannot make it fit without changing what the Bible actually says. I have proven this dozens of times with Bible verses.

If Jesus doesn't return then, are the Baha'is ready to show us the way?

Jesus is not coming back to this world unless the Bible is in error, and if these verses are wrong, how can we trust any other verses? (John 14:19, John 17:11, John 17:4, John 19:30, John 18:36)

The Baha'is are ready and getting readier all the time. That is what most Baha'is do.

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?

We don't know what is going to happen in the future yet. It is not going to happen tomorrow but we will be ready when it happens.

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?

What Baha'is do is completely irrelevant. Most of the laws are between a person and God. They do not need to be enforced unless they affect society, in which case the UHJ will enforce them.

 

[Trailblazer]

And I don't suppose Baha'u'llah mentioned what was the purpose of each manifestation and his religion?

Baha'u'llah did write about the purposes of some of the Manifestations and Prophets in The Kitab-i-Iqan.

And was part of that "purpose" was to get misunderstood and divided up into several sects and denominations?

No, that was not part of God's purpose, that is what happened as the result of there being no written Covenant that would have prevented that from happening.

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.

That was how Christianity changed the world, but not for the better. The changing I was referring to is changing the hearts of man with the teachings of Jesus. Christianity had already gone through its spring and summer by the time Islam came into being but I believe that fall and winter came later. Christianity is definitely in winter now.

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.

It is not an either/or. If a true Prophet of God came to those people, the religion was true, but I believe that some people and cultures made up their own Gods and beliefs that served a purpose within that society, and those religions were not true.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Facts are important, I see strong faith is built on such a foundation, but since many a truth is predudiced by subjective thoughts, facts do become clouded, even when on sees them as objective.

The longer the time between an event and it recording, the more objective truth becomes clouded by subjective input.

Regards Tony

 

[Dawnofhope]

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.

What do scholars say about facts?

The consensus of modern scholars is that the Bible does not give an accurate account of the origins of the Israelites, who appear instead to have formed as an entity in the central highlands of Canaan in the late second millennium BCE from the indigenous Canaanite culture. Most modern scholars believe that the story of the Exodus has some historical basis,[6] but that few elements have been, or can be, proven historical.

The Exodus - Wikipedia

If you read through the link you will find a diverse range of scholarly opinion.

The Torah is a religious text that has some historically useful information but is not a reliable historical text.

People will always disobey God's laws of course. That is the whole story of the Jewish people from the law given to them on Mt Sinai to repeated capitulations and turning to false gods leading to division, being conquered and successive exiles until the Jewish diaspora under the Romans.

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.

I disagree with the assertion Christianity is a lawless religion. The early Christians, particularly those from a Jewish background took the Hebrew Scriptures (at that time the Septuagint) very seriously. Laws were very important in establishing the early Churches (whether for those of Jewish or Gentile origin) as is clear from the Apostle Epistles. Obviously the NT is still a collection of religious, not historical texts. There are important Christian theological narratives that have their origin from these texts. I reject the assertion the Tanakh and is nothing but a collection of 'made up legends and story', though there are clearly many stories interwoven into an historical narrative that are not historical at all.

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.

Baha'i do need some of the stories to be factual and there is certainly good evidence to support at least some of the stories. If there is a moral to the story then it probably has an allegorical aspect to it, whether its historical or not. It would be more correct to say the Bible contains the 'Word of God' as there is an account of the Words spoken by Moses and Jesus. Like Christians and Jews, Baha'is often speak of some of the stories as if they were historically true, even though we know some weren't. Prophecies often refer to processes and broad general principles rather than specific events or facts. Like most things, there are exceptions.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Does historical fact matter or should religious myth be accorded the same status as fact? How important are facts to you within your religious belief or worldview? Does it really matter? Why or why not?

Greetings,

To answer your question.

Historical fact is a requirement in what I hold by. Myth is just that - myth and thus is only learned to know what to avoid. Facts are a "religious requirement" in my worldview even though I don't use the word religion. Facts do really matter.

The reason why is because a life based on facts is better lived as compared to one based on something that is not factual i.e. not true and thus false. Further, the facts of reality were not created to trip people up or veil the real reality from them. The facts were placed into reality to benefit those who exist in reality.

At least that is my view of it all.

 

[Marcion]

Believing in virgin births and believing all or most of the words of Paul and Jesus in the New Testament to be historical are examples of belief in religious myths.

My spiritual path has no religious beliefs, it does away with religious myths and superstitions and embraces science, both the intuitive or introspective science and the science of the objective world.

But reconsidering my answer, facts can never be very important in a religious belief, because if they were, there would be no need to speak of a belief nor of a religion. A belief or religion is by definition not a spiritual and social philosophy but rather an ideology dominated by superstitions, rituals and myths.

 

[Spirit of Light]

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?

Personally i see the Islamic/sufi teaching as autentic and by that it means i believe Muhammad was real, and of course the 40 grand shaykhs in Sufism So if they can not find Scientific "proof" that Muhammad lived, that is not what i see as a problem, the teaching is here and that is what counts.

 

[Trailblazer]

A belief or religion is by definition not a spiritual and social philosophy but rather an ideology dominated by superstitions, rituals and myths.

That is not the Baha'i definition of religion.

“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

A religion does not have to be dominated by superstitions, rituals and myths; it can consist of facts that support beliefs.

 

[Marcion]

A religion does not have to be dominated by superstitions, rituals and myths; it can consist of facts that support beliefs.

Why call something a belief if it is supported by factual knowledge?
You are simply confusing things by using facts and belief side by side in that way.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why call something a belief if it is supported by factual knowledge?
You are simply confusing things by using facts and belief side by side in that way.

Sorry, I should have said that a religion can consist of facts that support that religion.
Facts can support religions but facts do not support beliefs, since they would not be beliefs if they were supported by facts.

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

Facts can support religions but facts do not support beliefs, since they would not be beliefs if they were supported by facts.

I will gently disagree with this. Beliefs can certainly be based on facts, as presently known. It was believed for centuries that the earth stood still and the sun moved around it. All one had to do is watch it happen in reality with one's own eyes. That didn't make the belief true, but the facts, until we got better facts, certainly justified the belief.

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

A belief or religion is by definition not a spiritual and social philosophy but rather an ideology dominated by superstitions, rituals and myths.

I don't see it that way. Beliefs are not just dominated by everything else except facts. I had many beliefs during my life which I used facts, as then understood, to keep my beliefs. When I get new and better facts, I change my beliefs, but they are still based on the new updated "facts" even though they are provisional, as all facts actually are anyway.
Rituals are not at all in the same category as superstitions. Rituals are repeated events such as the United States Presidential inauguration every four years. Ritual is a repeated occurrence of something. Now a belief in what a ritual does may be quite wrong, but the ritual itself goes on and certainly does affect the doers of rituals.

 

[Trailblazer]

I will gently disagree with this. Beliefs can certainly be based on facts, as presently known. It was believed for centuries that the earth stood still and the sun moved around it. All one had to do is watch it happen in reality with one's own eyes. That didn't make the belief true, but the facts, until we got better facts, certainly justified the belief.

You raised a good point and religious beliefs can also be based on facts.
I think that the facts that surround religious beliefs justify those beliefs.

 

[Dawnofhope]

According to the Merriam Webster dictionary there are a variety of definitions of religion.

Definition of religion

1a: the state of a religious nun in her 20th year of religion
1 b: the service and worship of God or the supernatural
2: commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Other Words from religion

Definition of RELIGION

It makes sense that religion can involve:

1/ Worship of God or god.
2/ Adherence to set of beliefs, practices and attitudes

Clearly religious practice or worship may be founded on something tangible and real in the phenomenal world or not. Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the Baha'i Faith are clearly religions as with Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism and folk religions. To what extent a religious practice (or non-religious practice) reflects something that can be objectively perceived is the topic of the OP.

 

[Marcion]

I don't see it that way. Beliefs are not just dominated by everything else except facts. I had many beliefs during my life which I used facts, as then understood, to keep my beliefs. When I get new and better facts, I change my beliefs, but they are still based on the new updated "facts" even though they are provisional, as all facts actually are anyway.
Rituals are not at all in the same category as superstitions. Rituals are repeated events such as the United States Presidential inauguration every four years. Ritual is a repeated occurrence of something. Now a belief in what a ritual does may be quite wrong, but the ritual itself goes on and certainly does affect the doers of rituals.

A religious ritual is something that is believed to have a spiritual effect but in fact is more based in irrational beliefs than anything else.
So a religious ritual is a type of superstitious practice.
A religious belief is not a general belief but accepting a spiritual type of idea without any proof or factual experience.

A religious belief system is something different from a spiritual and social philosophy which is for the largest part based on facts and experimentations.
In the West the two are confused with each other and erroniously brought under the same umbrella of religion.
The West also does not make a distinction between Vedic and Tantric practices and their theoretical expressions and sees them both as religion whereas the latter (Tantra) is not religion but mainly spiritual practice and its theoretical descriptions.

Jesus taught Tantra, but Christianity is a religion.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Why call something a belief if it is supported by factual knowledge?

Sometimes the title "beleif" - "religion" - "faith" are placed on things by outsiders and not those who are insiders. It is like how one person in history may be called a hero/warrior/brave person by some but others in history may call the same person a traitor/anarchist/terrorist.

 

[joelr]

Facts are very important in my faith. The Baha’i faith explicitly emphasises the importance of fact and science as opposed to fiction and myth. It goes as far as labelling some religious beliefs as superstition.

God has endowed man with intelligence and reason whereby he is required to determine the verity of questions and propositions. If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition. Unquestionably there must be agreement between true religion and science. If a question be found contrary to reason, faith and belief in it are impossible… – Abdu’l-Baha, Baha’i World Faith, p. 239

Unity of Science & Religion

But the book that gave 3 critera that must be met for a prophet failed on all 3 accounts. The science given was completely wrong and no new concepts were introduced.

Someone posted a book about why the Bahai prophet was real and it detailed why he is real. It was a full on fail? The prophecies were misreading scripture, the "new" concepts introduced to the world were simple and far below the works of contemporary writers and the science was complete crank

 

[CG Didymus]

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.

As you know, I don't believe the Bible is literally true either. And sure, there is a chance it is, I don't know for sure, but Baha'is do know for sure, because they believe their religion is the truth. And it says some of the Bible stories are allegorical.

And, as you know, I disagree with that. 2000 years ago when the stories about Jesus began to be told and then eventually written down, I think they were probably told to people as being the facts of what really happened. The stories were told of crippled man that was healed and about a man who was demon possessed and the demons cast out of him. I think all those stories were told and believed to be true. When a story was a parable, it was made clear it was a parable and it was Jesus the one telling it.

And I see no reason why the disciples would tell a metaphorical parable to the people they were trying to convert. Like really? One of the disciples says, "There was a certain man with leprosy and the Lord saw him and laid hands on him and he was made clean." Then the guy asks, "Really?" "No, not really that's a metaphor. The guy still has leprosy, but the leprosy of his heart has been cleansed."

But I know Baha'is can't see it my way, because that would mean that the disciples and the gospel writers were making up stories about Jesus that didn't happen. And that would be lying. Although, Baha'is, including you, have said that the writers did embellish the stories. But Baha'is make it all okay by saying that God "inspired" them to embellish the stories and to write a metaphorical story about healings, the raising of the dead, walking on water and casting out demons that didn't really happen in the physical world, but they were conveying a spiritual message about God?

Then God could have and should have made that clear. "And God metaphorically parted the seas of turmoil and confusion to allow his people to escape the waywardness of doubt that is metaphorically represented by the Egyptian army that is in constant chase. But, by faith, that army of doubt was swept away with the metaphorically waters of belief. And the people continued on their 40 year journey into the desert. Where most all of them died, because they continued to doubt. Then the next generation entered the metaphorical Promised Land. Where they had to kill the metaphorical evils of this world that were represented by the people of Jericho. Where those walls of doubt fell and the people rose up and kill all the metaphorical people, including the metaphorical woman and children."

But God didn't do that. Or, like what I think, the people just wrote myths and legends about their mythical journey to the land of Canaan and how their God had led them there.

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.

Why are there still Christian healing services? The people there are already believers. They believe that Jesus has saved them, has forgiven their sins and made them spiritual pure. Yet, physically, they are blind, crippled or suffering from some disease. They didn't get the memo. "Spiritual healing is all you get. It was a metaphor. There is no physical healing. Do you think God can just presto make a new eyeball for you?

But, on the other hand, what happens at Christian healing services? Lots of people get healed... or at least they say they were. Have you ever had a patient that was miraculously healed? I'm sure it happens. But I've never seen it happen at any Christian healing service. It all looked fake. The only ones "healed" had a bad back or something that you couldn't know for sure. Then, all of a sudden, after being "slain in the spirit" and prayed over in "tongues" got up and started dancing around. So you, as a doctor, have you ever seen God heal anyone of something that was impossible for you or science to explain?

'Cause that was the sort of thing the NT says Jesus could do. Heal things that were clearly visible and that people knew a miracle of God had just taken place. So the only "faking" would be if they healings didn't happen and they were just part of the embellishment of the Jesus story.

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.

Okay, we know that as fact, I think, God did not write the Bible... People did. But, people said that God did say things. But, do we know that God really inspired the writers? Maybe you know. Is that what Baha'is believe? But, either way, even if he inspired what got written doesn't mean it factual? So God inspired people to write things that weren't factual? That's don't sound right. Oh, but you're saying that some of the things were metaphors? Oh.

Problem with that is if a historian said that in 2020 Donald Trump, while giving a speech, lifted off the ground and into the air. He hovered 40 feet above the ground and finished his speech and returned back to the ground. Now we know that didn't happen, so what would we think? Probably that the reporter was lying or on drugs. Or, would we think that the reporter, since it can't be true that Trump could float in the air, it must be a metaphor. Or course we can make a metaphor out of it, but why didn't the idiot reporter make it clear that, as he saw it... It was so profound that it seemed like Trump had risen above it all and stood alone looking down at a troubled world.

Did God do that? No, he let it be written as if it really happened. And this to people thousands of years ago when all myths and legends had people dying and rising and floating off into the heavens to hang out with the Gods. And then the God coming down and doing things on Earth. So no, I think it was written as if it was true. Now, we have good reasons to doubt that those stories literally happened. But, as you well know by now, I don't agree with the Baha'i Faith when they say that the original intent of God and/or the writers was that the stories were metaphors.

Christians have missed much of what God was trying to convey? Yeah Christians... like no, you didn't inherit sin from Adam. And no, Jesus didn't have to die as a sacrifice to pay the penalty for that inherited sin. No, there is no Satan etc. Yeah, they missed a lot by taking it too literal. Like pretty much everything. So again, I ask you and the other Baha'is, when was Christianity ever knowing and teaching the truth? It sure seems that right from the start they were missing what God was trying to convey. Yet, after telling them that they are wrong in what they believe, Baha'is say that Judaism and Christianity are true religions?