How important are facts within your religious beliefs?

[Dawnofhope]

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

Another gratuitous off topic troll post from an atheist with an axe to grind.

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.


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


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.

I find harmony between science and religion. There is one reality and we can view that reality through the lens of science or religion or both. The biblical literalists need to radically change science to make it fit the Bible. The liberal Christians will radically alter their religion to fit science. The Baha’i view finds a middle ground between these two extremes. Where simply on different places on that spectrum. Unfortunately the literalists use scriptures of dismiss and marginise the perspectives of those who sit outside their paradigm. It is what it is.

 

[Dawnofhope]

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.

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.

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?

You’re on fire today and I have to admit the position of being a cynic and skeptic sounds like a lot of fun and makes a certain amount of sense. Its good you used to hang out with the Baha’is back in your youth as you hang around the Baha’is on this forum. Christianity and the Baha’i Faith are two great religions IMHO each with their unique narratives. All the best finding your way and thanks for an entertaining post.

 

[joelr]

Another gratuitous off topic troll post from an atheist with an axe to grind.



.

Demonstrably false. You asked about facts and said they were important. So how is a post about facts "off topic"?
How is a post about facts "gratuitous" when I have information about facts and this is a discussion board?
The ad-hom shows something, fear, anger issues, not sure?
"Ax to grind"? it's called a "discussion" ? Odd thing to say for someone who posts so much? We all sharpen our ax through discussion. Your attempt to frame this as negative is completely wrong.

Anyway, the proponents of Bahai put forth 2 books as proof in a recent thread. One described 3 things that must occur to prove a person is actually a prophet of God. So we have a clear chance to review actual facts. The 3 elements listed were a complete fail. I will review each fact in further detail and demonstrate why each does not meet the standard required. I have to find the thread with the link to the book.
I can only find a reference to the thread at this point.

Let me re-visit "troll". Besides being an obvious violation, Please demonstrate a post where I "troll" and fail to make a clear argument using sources? Flag yourself and send you a warning.

"
Now with internet access more people are being exposed to skepticism, critical thinking and empirical evidence. The Bahai put forth 2 books as evidence. One details prophecies from many religions that supposedly prove Bah'ai is real. They botch/mistranslate prophecies or simply pick and choose random elements of prophecies while ignoring the bulk of the prediction and pass it off as a fulfilled prophecy. An entire book could be written explaining each point that doesn't add up to a prophecy. One example was detailed in another thread. A prophecy using a metaphor about the entire world undergoing massive positive change when the savior comes is interpreted as coming true because a garden was built on Mt Carmel which was one of the metaphorical locations used to say the world will be full of life and joy. Example after example of nothing does not add up to evidence.

Then the other book claims 3 attributes a messenger of God must posess and all 3 are a complete failure. Scientific knowledge and political knowledge beyond what is known are two but on both (especially science) it's literally all wrong. The politics is basic and the philosophy is very beginner not remotely close to any western philosophers like Kant or anyone...but every single science proclimation is wrong. There should be pages and pages of science that we do not yet know but it's just a bunch of incorrect science.
It can be demonstrated that this is not a messenger of a God by the book that claims it shows that he is. 99% of the text is flowery statements that sort of hide the fact that there is good evidence that this is a man making stuff up. It's far too easily debunkable to become a world religion.
He should have just claimed to be a new-age guru because he had some good ideas."

 

[joelr]

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.



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.

Wow, well look at this. First a discussion about facts related to the Israelite religion. Then opinions regarding facts of the Bahai stories. Huh?
Yet I add something, regarding only facts from a book explaining why the Bahai prophet is a "real" prophet, and I'm called a troll and it's somehow gratuitious and I have an "ax to grind". Terrible posting.

 

[Trailblazer]

Anyway, the proponents of Bahai put forth 2 books as proof in a recent thread. One described 3 things that must occur to prove a person is actually a prophet of God. So we have a clear chance to review actual facts. The 3 elements listed were a complete fail.

In your opinion.

The Bahai put forth 2 books as evidence. One details prophecies from many religions that supposedly prove Bah'ai is real. They botch/mistranslate prophecies or simply pick and choose random elements of prophecies while ignoring the bulk of the prediction and pass it off as a fulfilled prophecy.

In your opinion.

An entire book could be written explaining each point that doesn't add up to a prophecy.

Go ahead, knock yourself out.

Then the other book claims 3 attributes a messenger of God must posess and all 3 are a complete failure.

In your opinion.

It can be demonstrated that this is not a messenger of a God by the book that claims it shows that he is. 99% of the text is flowery statements that sort of hide the fact that there is good evidence that this is a man making stuff up.

It cannot be demonstrated. It is just your personal opinion.

It's far too easily debunkable to become a world religion.
He should have just claimed to be a new-age guru because he had some good ideas."

In your opinion.
All you have are personal opinions. Let's not confuse facts with personal opinions. Facts are provable, personal opinions are not.
Personal opinions are a dime a dozen. Facts are harder to come by.
Who do you think cares about your personal opinions about the Baha'i Faith?
You cannot demonstrate anything with personal opinions..
You cannot debunk or eradicate a world religion with "personal opinions."

 

[Dawnofhope]

Wow, well look at this. First a discussion about facts related to the Israelite religion. Then opinions regarding facts of the Bahai stories. Huh?
Yet I add something, regarding only facts from a book explaining why the Bahai prophet is a "real" prophet, and I'm called a troll and it's somehow gratuitious and I have an "ax to grind". Terrible posting.

To be clear I referred to your 'post' as trolling. If you want to create a thread examining the Baha'i Faith and any criticisms you have, go ahead. Tag me if you want. This is a thread set up to examine the general relationship between religion, history and science.

 

[Marcion]

I find harmony between science and religion. There is one reality and we can view that reality through the lens of science or religion or both. .

If you had used 'spiritual and social philosophy' instead of the term 'religion' then I would have agreed with you.

But religion is not the same as spiritual and social philosophy, it always contains superstitions and/or ritualism and/or mythical thinking. And that makes religion incompatible with a rational outlook on things and often in conflict with science. You don't have to be an atheist to agree with the last sentence.

 

[Dawnofhope]

If you had used 'spiritual and social philosophy' instead of the term 'religion' then I would have agreed with you.

But religion is not the same as spiritual and social philosophy, it always contains superstitions and/or ritualism and/or mythical thinking. And that makes religion incompatible with a rational outlook on things and often in conflict with science. You don't have to be an atheist to agree with the last sentence.

There are different ways of understanding the term 'religion'. Generally the main world religions contain both spiritual practices and have social philosophy. The Abrahamics have practices in regards prayer and fasting (spiritual practices) as well as laws that concern family and laws for maintaining social order and cohesiveness.

 

[Marcion]

There are different ways of understanding the term 'religion'. Generally the main world religions contain both spiritual practices and have social philosophy. The Abrahamics have practices in regards prayer and fasting (spiritual practices) as well as laws that concern family and laws for maintaining social order and cohesiveness.

And precisely because there is no proper understanding of the term religion and its fundamental difference with spiritual and social philosophy and practices there is so much confusion about its relation to science.

I can understand that you would rather see religion through the lense of your founder. But then the confusion will only remain.
In order to progress on the spiritual path there is no need for having a religion, only spiritual and social practices suffice.

If you insist that this or that religion is better or needed for spiritual progress then you are no longer thinking rationally or in harmony with science.

 

[Dawnofhope]

And precisely because there is no proper understanding of the term religion and its fundamental difference with spiritual and social philosophy and practices there is so much confusion about its relation to science.

I can understand that you would rather see religion through the lense of your founder. But then the confusion will only remain.
In order to progress on the spiritual path there is no need for having a religion, only spiritual and social practices suffice.

If you insist that this or that religion is better or needed for spiritual progress then you are no longer thinking rationally or in harmony with science.

I use a dictionary or encyclopedia to define religion as earlier in this thread. The main religion in the country I reside is Christianity. Most people would accept Christianity is a religion and it has spiritual practices as well as social laws. Go beyond Christianity and we have many other religions that would be clearly identified as such.

In regards the relationship with science, religions as well as their adherents have often adjusted positively to new discoveries and insights. Biblical literalists are a group within Christianity that will reject established science in favour of a particular way of interpretation Young Earth Christians are a group that believe the earth is very young (less than ten thousand years old) based on their view of the bible. This contradicts established science of course.

If religious perceptions and practices are able to adjust to science and social changes then progress need not be hindered. I'm not claiming religion is essential for progress and agreeit can hinder the soul. Clearly progress is possible without religion but many of us find religion can enable as opposed to retard spiritual progress.

 

[Marcion]

I use a dictionary or encyclopedia to define religion as earlier in this thread.

With such broad concepts as religion and dharma it is unwise to depend on dictionary definitions because you then surrender to the limited understandings of those who coined those definitions.

If you take out all of the irrational ideas and practices from a religious cult* you are left with a much smaller spiritual cult that often lacks enough inner coherence.
However that smaller cult will then be compatible with any other such cult that you can find in the rest of the world.

And this is just like in science.
You can make a new discovery in science on one side of the world and then make a quite different discovery in a different part of the world but the two new discoveries combined can help to find new insights. That is because science is univeral and not built on speculation.

The same with spiritual and social philosophy which is based on practical intuitive experimentation and not mingled with religious theorizing.

* cult is not meant here in the derogatory but in its original way

 

[nPeace]

Another gratuitous off topic troll post from an atheist with an axe to grind.



I find harmony between science and religion. There is one reality and we can view that reality through the lens of science or religion or both. The biblical literalists need to radically change science to make it fit the Bible. The liberal Christians will radically alter their religion to fit science. The Baha’i view finds a middle ground between these two extremes. Where simply on different places on that spectrum. Unfortunately the literalists use scriptures of dismiss and marginise the perspectives of those who sit outside their paradigm. It is what it is.

True, it is what it is - That's what I am seeing, where the Bahais adjust their view to fit worldly wisdom, where it is convenient to do so.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

Baha’is are not a uniform group when it comes to the Bible.

Although Bahá'ís universally share a great respect for the Bible, and acknowledge its status as sacred literature, their individual views about its authoritative status range along the full spectrum of possibilities. At one end there are those who assume the uncritical evangelical or fundamentalist-Christian view that the Bible is wholly and indisputably the word of God. At the other end are Bahá'ís attracted to the liberal, scholarly conclusion that the Bible is no more than a product of complex historical and human forces. Between these extremes is the possibility that the Bible contains the Word of God, but only in a particular sense of the phrase 'Word of God' or in particular texts. I hope to show that a Bahá'í view must lie in this middle area, and can be defined to some degree.

A Baháí View of the Bible
(Rosebery, Australia: Association for Baha'i Studies Australia, 1996)

I believe that God had something to do with what was written and some of it such as the OT and even the NT prophecies is factual, but I do not believe all of it is factual. Much if the Bible I believe is metaphorical.

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.

We would think it must have been a metaphor and nowadays, unless we were a literalist Christian, we would believe that Jesus coming down in the clouds with trumpets and angels is metaphorical.

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.

I do not know about the reporter’s motives, but the reason that the biblical authors did not make it clear is because it would be possible for people with spiritual eyes to recognize what is metaphorical vs. literal. Those who cannot figure it out and instead cling to the literal interpretation and to their religious traditions will just remain in the dark. Baha’u’llah wrote something about that. The wheat is thereby separated from the chaff.

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.

It might sound as if it really happened but there is no way we can know that the original intent of God and/or the writers was that the stories were metaphors. But why does it matter what was the intended meaning of a book that as written for people living thousands of years ago? The Bible was not written for people living in this age so to try to try to understand what the original intended meaning was serves no purpose. Moreover, if we turn to the Revelation of Baha’u’llah it is very easy to determine what the meaning was intended to be, since Baha’u’llah unsealed the Bible as per Daniel 12.

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?

Very early Christianity knew and taught the truth, but it went off track after the first few centuries. The First Council of Nicaea was the beginning of the end of true true Christianity.

Christianity and Judaism are true religions because they were true Revelations from God, but later they were mucked up by men and no longer represented what was first revealed.

“This is the Day when the loved ones of God should keep their eyes directed towards His Manifestation, and fasten them upon whatsoever that Manifestation may be pleased to reveal. Certain traditions of bygone ages rest on no foundations whatever, while the notions entertained by past generations, and which they have recorded in their books, have, for the most part, been influenced by the desires of a corrupt inclination. Thou dost witness how most of the commentaries and interpretations of the words of God, now current amongst men, are devoid of truth.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 171

 

[Marcion]

Very early Christianity knew and taught the truth, but it went off track after the first few centuries. The First Council of Nicaea was the beginning of the end of true true Christianity.

Which period of time are you referring to when referring to 'very early Christianity'?
How exactly would you describe that 'very early Christianity' ideologically?
How does it differ from the Christianity we know now?
How did the council of Nicea of 325 affect that in your eyes 'still perfect Christianity'?
Do you think the Christian scriptures were corrupted starting from the council of Nicea and if yes, how was it different from what it is now before the council started?

 

[CG Didymus]

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?

In the 70's as a wandering hippie I first learned about the Baha'i Faith, then a friend "found" Jesus. I was in Southern California and there was a huge "Jesus" movement going on. At Calvary Chapel, Costa Mesa every Saturday night they had Christian rock concerts and a short alter call kind of message. The Baha'is, along with saying their prophet was the return of every promised one of every major religion, focused more on bringing peace and unity to the world. I hadn't read the Bible, so when they quoted things from the Bible in support of their prophet and religion being true, I assumed they were telling the truth.

But then my friend started taking me Church services and Bible studies at an Evangelical type of Church, along with going to Calvary Chapel on Saturday night. Then there was home Bible studies. These were all young people doing all this except for the Sunday service at the Church. To see the Bible verses the Baha'is had quoted in context was a big problem. So I started doubting what the Baha'is had been saying and listening more and more to the Christians.

So the "facts" according to those Christians... The Bible is the infallible and inerrant Word of God. Jesus is part of a Trinitarian God. Satan and hell are real. Believe in Jesus and he will save you and give you eternal life and all the rest of the stuff they say. The focus was mostly on being saved and that the end was coming soon when God and Jesus would judge the world. The other religions and most all Christians sects and denominations were not part of the "truth". I tried it and enjoyed it, but then found things I questioned. So I fell away from them too. Now I doubt both Baha'is and Christians. But what I do believe is that no matter what religion a person believes, if they believe it, it will make sense to them and they will get something out of it. For me, it's difficult to believe everything a religion says.

 

[CG Didymus]

the biblical authors did not make it clear is because it would be possible for people with spiritual eyes to recognize what is metaphorical vs. literal. Those who cannot figure it out and instead cling to the literal interpretation and to their religious traditions will just remain in the dark.

That I don't believe is true. When Jesus did one of his parables the writers made it clear. They were telling the story about the things Jesus said and did. If they embellished it in anyway, then I think they weren't being metaphorical, they telling lies.

Very early Christianity knew and taught the truth, but it went off track after the first few centuries.

There's too many things in the NT that are already contrary to Baha'i beliefs, so that makes Christianity, if the Baha'is are correct, wrong from very, very early on. Now a lot of those things are what Baha'is are calling metaphorical... Like Satan, God speaking from heaven, Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead etc. But, the apostles, the gospel writers and the early Church leaders could have corrected those "wrong", misinterpreted beliefs, but, as far as I can tell, they were teaching those things as real.

Which period of time are you referring to when referring to 'very early Christianity'?
How exactly would you describe that 'very early Christianity' ideologically?
How does it differ from the Christianity we know now?
How did the council of Nicea of 325 affect that in your eyes 'still perfect Christianity'?
Do you think the Christian scriptures were corrupted starting from the council of Nicea and if yes, how was it different from what it is now before the council started?

Yeah, If Baha'u'llah is the return of Christ, he knew the answers to all these questions. But instead, Baha'is are left guessing and giving weak, unsatisfactory answers. So for a religion that likes "facts", it'd be nice to have some "facts".

 

[Dawnofhope]

In the 70's as a wandering hippie I first learned about the Baha'i Faith, then a friend "found" Jesus. I was in Southern California and there was a huge "Jesus" movement going on. At Calvary Chapel, Costa Mesa every Saturday night they had Christian rock concerts and a short alter call kind of message. The Baha'is, along with saying their prophet was the return of every promised one of every major religion, focused more on bringing peace and unity to the world. I hadn't read the Bible, so when they quoted things from the Bible in support of their prophet and religion being true, I assumed they were telling the truth.

But then my friend started taking me Church services and Bible studies at an Evangelical type of Church, along with going to Calvary Chapel on Saturday night. Then there was home Bible studies. These were all young people doing all this except for the Sunday service at the Church. To see the Bible verses the Baha'is had quoted in context was a big problem. So I started doubting what the Baha'is had been saying and listening more and more to the Christians.

So the "facts" according to those Christians... The Bible is the infallible and inerrant Word of God. Jesus is part of a Trinitarian God. Satan and hell are real. Believe in Jesus and he will save you and give you eternal life and all the rest of the stuff they say. The focus was mostly on being saved and that the end was coming soon when God and Jesus would judge the world. The other religions and most all Christians sects and denominations were not part of the "truth". I tried it and enjoyed it, but then found things I questioned. So I fell away from them too. Now I doubt both Baha'is and Christians. But what I do believe is that no matter what religion a person believes, if they believe it, it will make sense to them and they will get something out of it. For me, it's difficult to believe everything a religion says.

That makes sense why you are where you are in relation to both Christianity and the Baha’i Faith. Clearly there is a significant movement within Christendom that is departing from the more literal approach of the evangelical Christians and JWs. Why would you join any religion if none make sense and they require a degree of commitment from you?

 

[We Never Know]

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?

Many things in history are only known about by recordings in writing's. I often wonder why someone will accept one but yet deny another. After all the writing is the only/main evidence for both.

 

[Trailblazer]

That I don't believe is true. When Jesus did one of his parables the writers made it clear. They were telling the story about the things Jesus said and did. If they embellished it in anyway, then I think they weren't being metaphorical, they telling lies.

You have a right to your opinion on that. You already know my opinion.

There's too many things in the NT that are already contrary to Baha'i beliefs, so that makes Christianity, if the Baha'is are correct, wrong from very, very early on.

No, it just makes the literal Christian interpretation of the NT wrong.

Now a lot of those things are what Baha'is are calling metaphorical... Like Satan, God speaking from heaven, Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead etc. But, the apostles, the gospel writers and the early Church leaders could have corrected those "wrong", misinterpreted beliefs, but, as far as I can tell, they were teaching those things as real.

Someone wrote those things and Christianity taught that they were real. Nobody could have corrected these beliefs after they were written down and the NT was canonized. It was up to the believers to separate truth from falsehood, but most Christians just believed what they were taught.

Yeah, If Baha'u'llah is the return of Christ, he knew the answers to all these questions. But instead, Baha'is are left guessing and giving weak, unsatisfactory answers. So for a religion that likes "facts", it'd be nice to have some "facts".

You say we do not provide facts about the Baha'i Faith but all you talk about is the Bible. It is incredible that after all these years you still don't see that.

 

[Marcion]

Yeah, If Baha'u'llah is the return of Christ, he knew the answers to all these questions. But instead, Baha'is are left guessing and giving weak, unsatisfactory answers. So for a religion that likes "facts", it'd be nice to have some "facts".

Everyone finds the path that fits with them for the time being.