They are actual facts but everyone will interpret them as they see fit.
No, you have opinions, you do not have facts which show they really are messengers from God.
Potentially a fact could be proven to everyone but not all facts are the same. Simple facts such as 1+1-2, are not the same as facts of history. Facts of history can be interpreted differently by different people. You cannot twist 1+1-2 but people can twist historical facts.
Don't confuse people's interpretations of real events with the events themselves.
For example, if there's a guy who ran a factory and changed it so it was environmentally friendly and got tax benefits for doing so, some people might say he was motivated by wanting to help the environment, and others might say he was motivated by the tax benefits. And we may never know the truth. But the fact still remains that the guy was actually motivated by something. And it was a fact he was motivated by a particular thing, even if we will be forever ignorant of it.
Why do you think that just because a fact as been proven everyone will believe it? It was proven as a fact that the U.S. Presidential election was not ‘stolen’ but many people still believe it was stolen.
And those people refuse to believe it because of their opinions.
Pesky and dangerous things, those opinions...
No, because God is not a moral agent. Only humans are moral agents. God sets the standards for human morality but God is not subject to morality because God is not a human. Moreover, God does not have to discern right from wrong because God already knows what is right and wrong, and that is why He can set the standards for what is right.
You see, this has never made sense to me. How can God know what is right and what is wrong if he is the one setting the standards? I mean, I can invent a new unit of measuring distance, let's say I call it the Tib. You might ask me, "How many tibs high is that tree?" And I'll say, "That tree is 7.352 tibs high exactly."
Now of course, it doesn't matter that I haven't actually measured the tree in any way, because I can just arbitrarily assign any value I want to the height of that tree in tibs. It's entirely arbitrary. And God faces the same problem. If he is the one who sets the standard of what is right and what is wrong, then he can know absolutely nothing about it and still set the standard because it is entirely arbitrary.
What does it mean to be a moral agent?
A
moral agent is any person or collective entity with the capacity to exercise
moral agency. It is suggested that rational thought and deliberation are prerequisite skills for any
agent. In this way,
moral agents can discern between right and wrong and be held accountable for the consequences of their actions.
Moral Agency - Physiopedia
Okay, so you've said that God is NOT a moral agent, and her defined what a moral agent is. Specifically, a moral agent:
- Can use rational thought and deliberation
- Can discern right from wrong
- Held accountable for their actions.
Now, I think most religious people, especially Christians, would agree that God meets the first criteria here, unless you want to claim that God is a simpleton. And your own reply claims that God meets the second criteria. So the only way you have to claim that God is not a moral agent is to claim that God should not be held accountable for his actions.
And if you're going to claim that, I'm going to ask:
why not?
I can understand how what I said sounded to you, so let me start over. I have looked at what the anti-Baha’is say about Baha’u’llah and other things that surround Baha’i history and I determined they are not true. For one thing, the fact that they are anti-Baha’i shows that they are biased right out the door, and the Christians and Muslims are always gunning for us. For another thing, there is no proof that their allegations are true.
And why are they biased? Because they take a position against Bahai? If that's the case, it's still cherry picking, because you are deciding whether or not to agree with a source based on whether it agrees with your predetermined conclusions or not.
Also, you have to use logic. Why would a Christian writing about Baha’i history represent it as accurately as a Baha’i who was actually there when that history was unfolding? Why would a Christian even be writing about Baha’i history? Baha’is do not write about Christian history. They do it hipong to denigrate the Baha’i Faith because we are competition for them.
From what you've said, it's Baha'is taking elements of Christianity and using it for their own purposes, yet here you make it sound like the Christian writers you speak of are agreeing with you about your faith.
It says in the chronicles of the Baha’i Faith that “the unrecorded verses that streamed from His lips averaged, in a single day and night, the equivalent of the Qur’án!” and that means that someone was there who actually witnessed that happening, so it is not a claim that Baha’u’llah made.
So who was the witness? What was his name? Where is his firsthand account?
I never said that we achieved world peace 150 years ago. I said “you are about 150 years late, because it happened in the last half of the 19th century and how it happened is all in that video you won’t watch.” What happened was not world peace; it was the coming of Baha’u’llah that thereby fulfilled the prophecies for the return of Christ/Messiah. Baha’u’llah ushered in the age in which world peace will be established but there are many prophecies that have not been fulfilled yet because they were set to be fulfilled sometime during the messianic age which will last no less than 1000 years from the date Baha’u’llah first got His revelation in 1852 AD.
Then you are shifting the goalposts, changing the subject we were talking about to one where you could support your claims. Naughty naughty.
Just because God has all power that does not mean He can change the nature of the humans He created after they were created.