If we ask God for Proof we must be content with one proof.

[CG Didymus]

It may be, that the possibility of an Atheist jumping that hurdle, is easier then a believer who has allowed the veil of Names or false teachers to interpose between them and the New Messenger?

But what if the supposed "manifestation/messenger" is a false teacher/false prophet? And even Baha'is have a few of those. Like Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. And I don't understand how Baha'is don't include Joseph Smith as a false prophet, since he claimed the angel Moroni spoke to him and gave him knowledge of where to find a book about God and how to translate it.

But, as you well know, many Christians see Baha'u'llah as a false Christ. And since there are prophecies saying that in the end times there will be many people claiming to be The Christ, to not listen to them... that it will be very clear and obvious when he does return. It was not clear and obvious when Baha'u'llah came.

I would offer that the Baha'i Writings 100% offer there is verifiable proof and evidence for/of God.

What is verifiable about it? That he claimed it?

That verifiable evidence and proof is the Person, the Life and the Message of the Messengers given from God.

Ah, that he was such a holy person and led such a holy life and gave such a profound message.

I couldn't care less what some self-proclaimed 'messenger' says some god being told them.

And this is the problem... Baha'u'llah is his own proof that his claims are true?

Baha'u'llah has proved God to me and verified that proof with the evidence of His Person, His life and the Message He gave from God.

But for a guy like me, I checked some of the stuff out. Did he fulfill all the prophesies from every major religion? Very questionable. You say "yes". I say, "Hmmm, I don't think so."

He says all the manifestations/messenger came from the same God? Hmmm, I don't think so. Baha'u'llah didn't even mention Krishna or Buddha. They got added later, and Baha'is now are still trying to make their case that Baha'u'llah is Kalki and Maitreya.

The Baha'i Faith isn't all that bad, but is it all that it's claimed to be? And one of the main claims is about the peace and unity between Baha'is. It is painfully obvious that some Baha'is can't get along and can't agree.

So, I'm doubling down on my one proof... Let the Baha'is show the world the love, the peace and the unity that they claim that their religion will bring.

 

[Trailblazer]

Baha'u'llah has proved God to me and verified that proof with the evidence of His Person, His life and the Message He gave from God.

I do see your stance on this is relative to you, as I personally have based my faith on the verifiable proof of Baha'u'llah's person, life and Message.

Regards Tony

Baha'u'llah has proved God to you so you have verified Baha'u'llah's person, life and Message and based your faith on that.

 

[CG Didymus]

God spoke to the Prophets, Messengers, one of which was Jesus and not to ordinary man, that is the essence of all past Revelations.

The things Baha'is claim for manifestations is one thing, but how different are prophets than ordinary people? Did their brains have some special covering so their heads would explode or burn up when God spoke to them?

And going by what TB seems to be saying, those stories in the Bible about the prophets are probably fictional. Like the story of how Elijah "proved" that the God of Israel was real, and that Baal was a false god.

But you know what... I agree with her. I don't think that story really happened. I think the writer made it up just to try and convince the people to keep believing in God... that he was there and was all-powerful and able to send fire from heaven.

But what is the official Baha'i stance on a story like that? Call it real and it shows that God will do something to prove himself. Call it a fictional story and you make the Bible a work of fiction.

Oh, and there is one more "proof" God can do. This one is something he supposed has already done. He can raise Baha'u'llah from the dead.

No wait, Baha'is already have said that God didn't "physically" raise Jesus from the dead... it was only a symbolic, spiritual resurrection... in other words... it didn't happen... it was a fictional story. Which means... it wasn't proof of anything.

 

[Trailblazer]

But, as you well know, many Christians see Baha'u'llah as a false Christ. And since there are prophecies saying that in the end times there will be many people claiming to be The Christ, to not listen to them... that it will be very clear and obvious when he does return. It was not clear and obvious when Baha'u'llah came.

There are prophecies saying that in the end times there will be many people claiming to be Christ, to not listen to them, but there are no prophecies saying that it will be very 'clear and obvious' when he does return. In fact, there are prophecies that say it will NOT be clear or obvious, only prophecies that say he will come like a thief in the night.

If it was going to be so easy to recognize the return of Christ, why are we told to be watchful, so as not to miss him?

Rev 3:2 Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God.
3 Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.

Rev 16:15 Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.

Luke 12:39 And this know, that if the goodman of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched, and not have suffered his house to be broken through. 40 Be ye therefore ready also: for the Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not.

Matthew 24:42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come. 43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up. 44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

Baha'u'llah came as a thief in the night, and that is why Christians missed him. The other reason that they missed him is because they were waiting for the man Jesus to return, even though Jesus never said he was going to return.

But not everyone missed his coming. The Babis did not miss him and it was obvious to them who Baha'u'llah was because they were not blinded by their love for Jesus.

 

[Trailblazer]

The things Baha'is claim for manifestations is one thing, but how different are prophets than ordinary people? Did their brains have some special covering so their heads would explode or burn up when God spoke to them?

Baha'u'llah explained how the Manifestations of God are different from ordinary people.
Manifestations of God are a different order of creation than ordinary humans because they have a 'twofold nature' that ordinary humans do not have. Ordinary humans only have one nature, a human nature.

“Unto this subtle, this mysterious and ethereal Being He hath assigned a twofold nature; the physical, pertaining to the world of matter, and the spiritual, which is born of the substance of God Himself. He hath, moreover, conferred upon Him a double station. The first station, which is related to His innermost reality, representeth Him as One Whose voice is the voice of God Himself. To this testifieth the tradition: “Manifold and mysterious is My relationship with God. I am He, Himself, and He is I, Myself, except that I am that I am, and He is that He is.” …. The second station is the human station, exemplified by the following verses: “I am but a man like you.” “Say, praise be to my Lord! Am I more than a man, an apostle?”

Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 64-69

The spiritual (divine) nature of Manifestations of God is why they can understand God. Their human nature is why they can understand humans. Their twofold nature is why they can act as mediators between God and humans.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

The things Baha'is claim for manifestations is one thing, but how different are prophets than ordinary people? Did their brains have some special covering so their heads would explode or burn up when God spoke to them?

The mystery of the virgin birth can be considered with your question CG. Jesus was Annointed as Christ, Christ is the Holy Spirit which is eternal, pre-existing. The human spirit is given at conception. We need the Spirit of Faith to embrace the Holy Spirit.

That is the difference, they are able to use the full capacity of mind, this was seen by people way before they became Messengers.

The Story of the childhood of the Bab gives us great insight as to the progress of a Messenger born into this world, chosen to he Annointed of God. Likewise the childhood of Baha’u’llah.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Baha'u'llah has proved God to you so you have verified Baha'u'llah's person, life and Message and based your faith on that.

Bab, Baha'u'llah, Jesus, Moses, Abraham Muhammad, Zoroaster, Krishna, to name a few have proved God to nearly all of humanity, those that have veiled themselves to the proof of the evidence of God, are a vast minority. There is a quandary that the proof and evidence we used to determine one Messenger, seems easily disregarded when testing the claim of other Messengers.

It is our personal responsibility to find God, but we are not the only individual that finds that proof and evidence. It is impossible to make it personal evidence and proofs.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Ah, that he was such a holy person and led such a holy life and gave such a profound message.
And this is the problem... Baha'u'llah is his own proof that his claims are true

"The Self of God" is the best proof of "God. So yes they are their own proof.

Yes they lived the Message God gave them and the Message is the "New Creation" the New Heaven and Earth are the laws and ordinances.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

So, I'm doubling down on my one proof... Let the Baha'is show the world the love, the peace and the unity that they claim that their religion will bring.

That's would be most peoples choices CG, they go with the flow, they do not change the world by changing themselves.

Regards Tony

 

[sayak83]

It can be proof, if the Messengers are all we can and will ever know of God.

Regards Tony

Then there exists no proof of God. Hence one ought not to believe in a God.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That verifiable evidence and proof is the Person, the Life and the Message of the Messengers given from God.

You can't verify that any of that has anything to do with a god. It was a mundane life lived by a typical human being promoting his religious beliefs. It was evidence that a human being can live such a life. It was no more distinguished than my former pastor's life, who is also a missionary and runs a charity putting the homeless in homes:

Thousands of people live lives like that and deliver messages they claim come from a god that are indistinguishable from the one you have chosen seemingly at random to exalt and declare to be evidence of the god he reports about.

Not everyone will choose to see that evidence and proof is verifiable, I would disagree, it is relative to one's chosen frames of reference.

You're saying that your evaluation is subjective. My frame of reference is reality as I experience it evaluated according to the rules of inference that define critical thought (valid reasoning). This orders thought in words the way arithmetic orders numbers. There are limited, defined pathways to get from evidence to sound conclusions just as there are rigorous pathways from addends to sums. If you vary from them, you do not reach sound conclusions or correct sums.

And you do vary from them. You simply declare mundane evidence as sufficient to support the extraordinary claim that it comes from a tri-omni deity.

Baha'u'llah has proved God to you so you have verified Baha'u'llah's person, life and Message and based your faith on that.

Yes. His belief is faith-based even though he claims it derives from the evidence he offers, which is why I called it subjective. It's also arbitrary. He could just as well switch from his messenger to my old pastor and offer that life and message as evidence that a god exists.

And he'd have a better exemplar than either Jesus or Baha'u'llah. Pastor King does more than just talk.

Why do you think that God, the most powerful being that exists, would speak to you directly?

I doubt he does. What he said was, "If there is some god being that has a message for me then that god being can tell me about it itself. If it doesn't want to tell me itself I can only conclude that it must not be a very important message, because any god being worth it's salt would know that I'm not going to be convinced by some second hand claims made by people I'll never meet about the most powerful being that exists."

He's telling you that the evidence being offered isn't evidence of a deity to him, and that he would need more than that before believing. You're saying that if your god hasn't done that, it's because it doesn't feel any need to. I'd say that that is one explanation, but even if one grants that possibility, he still should not believe in such a thing.

My attitude - and I'm guessing he would agree - is that even if you have guessed correctly, there's no value in it for me to do the same and no loss by not making that guess. Such a god would be irrelevant in our lives even if it exists.

Why do you think that God, the most powerful being that exists, cares if you are convinced that He exists?

Same answer. Obviously, no god exists that is willing and able to convince people like him and me that it exists. You're fine with that and go on believing anyway, but for the critically thinking empiricist, that's the end of the matter, and he settles on agnostic atheism never giving the matter serious consideration again absent that evidence.

 

[CG Didymus]

The mystery of the virgin birth

Yes, the mystery... did it really happen? In that other thread it is being question whether or not there were eyewitnesses that wrote the Gospels. When it comes to the virgin birth the two writers that wrote about it, I think, for sure weren't eyewitnesses. So, where did they get this story? And why do their stories differ? They had different sources? There were different traditions being told?

My argument to Baha'is is that Matthew takes the one verse out of Isaiah and makes it a prophecy about Jesus. In context, it wasn't. The context of Isaiah 7 is about a sign for King Ahaz. That when this boy reaches a certain age, the two kings that Ahaz fears will be dead.

How can Baha'is justify pulling only one verse out of that and make it about Jesus being born several hundred years later? Do Baha'is really think for themselves and investigate truth for themselves? Because it seems like Baha'is are happy just to take whatever their religion tells them and believe it as the truth. And that's a mystery... Why do religious people keep doing that?

 

[CG Didymus]

My reasons to think that it will be clear and obvious when Jesus comes.

Rev 1:7 “Look, he is coming with the clouds,” and “every eye will see him, even those who pierced him”​

​

Matthew 26 “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. 27 For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.​

​

Maybe it's like a "thief" because nobody knows when Jesus will come, but when he does come it will be as obvious as a lightning flash. But also it says that if people say "here he is" to not believe them. And that's what Baha'is are doing. They are saying, "Here is the Christ". He came and left like a thief.

Maybe, but I have too many doubts to believe the Baha'i claims.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Then there exists no proof of God. Hence one ought not to believe in a God.

If that is a personal choice one wants to make, they have free will to do so.

There is the best reason to beleive in God though, as God gives us the path to goodness and peace via the Messengers, all the proof of God is via those Messengers.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

You can't verify that any of that has anything to do with a god.

It is the Manifestation that can verify that, only to those that look at the evidence and proofs of their life.

Regards Tony

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is the Manifestation that can verify that, only to those that look at the evidence and proofs of their life.

Regards Tony

What about a person's life do you think could prove the existence of a god?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

It was a mundane life lived by a typical human being promoting his religious beliefs

Then you have not looked at that life and have no knowledge of it, or have obtained a very superficial knowledge of that life.

Regards Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

Bab, Baha'u'llah, Jesus, Moses, Abraham Muhammad, Zoroaster, Krishna, to name a few have proved God to nearly all of humanity, those that have veiled themselves to the proof of the evidence of God, are a vast minority.

Baha'is say that "manifestations" of God are special people. They perfectly reflect God. This is from Bahaipedia...

In essence, the Manifestations of God are seen as Divine Educators, who are raised up by God with the purpose of uplifting mankind and expressing His will. In expressing God's intent, these Manifestations are seen to establish religion in the world and each one brings a book, and reveals teachings and laws according to the time and place which they appear.​

​

Bahá’u’lláh referred to several historical figures as Manifestations. They include Adam, Noah, Zoroaster, Krishna, Abraham, Moses, Buddha, Jesus and Muhammad. The Báb, as well as Himself, were included in this definition. Thus religious history is interpreted as a series of dispensations, where each Manifestation brings a somewhat broader and more advanced revelation, suited for the time and place in which it was expressed.​

​

The Baha'i claim is that these people "progressively" told us about God and brought new social laws to meet the needs of the times. This analogy I heard all the time from Baha'is...

A common analogy is like different grades at a school. When you are in first grade you can't handle calculus, you need to learn addition. A few years later you learn multiplication. A few years after that you learn about exponentials and graphing. Then finally years later you have the foundation to proceed to the next level, calculus. Learning Calculus doesn't make addition wrong, and it doesn't make it useless, they all build on each other.​

​

The different religions have not been like different grades of school. They all taught different things.... How do Baha'is make their claim of a progression work when a religion like Hinduism has major sects that believe in many Gods and reincarnation?

And how many of these people that Baha'is claim are manifestations actually brought a book? And some didn't start a new religion. And if it was a progression, why not call it the same name? Since it is supposedly the continuation of teachings from the same God?

Anyway, I would agree... If there is one true God, then religion should have been one continuous progression. But, to me, that's not what it looks like. It looks like each people and culture made up their own Gods and religion.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

What about a person's life do you think could prove the existence of a god?

For a Messenger their very existence which results in the given Message. The proof of their person and life can only be evaluated by our willingness to look at what they provided to us by that life.

For those that lived at that time, they could witness the power of their person and the influence of their life. We can only read and acknowledge the evidence and proof they have provided.

The Bible says "By their fruits you will know them". Then the same scriptures tell us to be aware that many false prophets will also make the same claim.

Thus the need for us to be just and honest when we do decide to judge a person who made such a claim.

Regards Tony

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

For a Messenger their very existence which results in the given Message. The proof of their person and life can only be evaluated by our willingness to look at what they provided to us by that life.

For those that lived at that time, they could witness the power of their person and the influence of their life. We can only read and acknowledge the evidence and proof they have provided.

The Bible says "By their fruits you will know them". Then the same scriptures tell us to be aware that many false prophets will also make the same claim.

Thus the need for us to be just and honest when we do decide to judge a person who made such a claim.

Regards Tony

This doesn't really answer the question. What I'm looking for is a specific set of claims about Baha'u'llah (or anyone else), then a chain of logical arguments that builds on those premises, ending with "therefore God must exist."

Can you do this?