Nothing lasts forever in this life

[KWED]

Most of the questions i ask about your reason for doing what you do toward religious people. Your answers is lacking quality.

*sigh*
This. Is. A. Religious. Debate. Forum!
I enjoy debating religion.
I want to understand why people hold patently irrational beliefs.
What part of that don't you understand?

 

[KWED]

First of all, it seems like you are the confused one.
Second of all, you dont actually listening to what others telling you, you make up your own assumption of what othe4s telling you, so it fits your agenda in debate.

Clever way to fool people to think you know what you talking about...

Interesting to note that you didn't actually explain why you claim I am confused.
(If you look back at my post that you are responding to, you will see I gave a detailed explanation of your confusion)

Second of all, I respond exactly to the implications of the statements people make. What sometimes happens is that the person making the statement doesn't really understand the implications of what they are saying - or even the basic meaning sometimes. (eg "stating my belief is true is not making a claim")

It really is like the remedial class on here sometimes.

 

[KWED]

No, they are not claims because I am not claiming anything since I have nothing to claim.
Baha'u'llah made claims and I believe His claims because of the evidence.

Claim: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.
claim means - Google Search

Claim: to say that something is true or is a fact, although you cannot prove it and other people might not believe it: claim

Belief:
1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"

2. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"a belief in democratic politics"
https://www.google.com/search

Belief:
the feeling of being certain that something exists or is true:
His belief in God gave him hope during difficult times.
Recent scandals have shaken many people's belief in (= caused people to have doubts about) politicians.
belief

Dear gods!
You have just shown that stating a belief as true is making a claim - but you don't even realise you did!
*smh*
This lack of even the most basic awareness and understanding must be pretty difficult, not so much for you because you are clearly blissfully unaware of it, but for the people around you.

 

[Trailblazer]

But the only "evidence" you have ever presented is stuff he said, so it is just classic circular logic, as I explained.

That is a straw man. The evidence I have presented is not the stuff He said. The evidence is who He was as a Person and what He did on His Mission, not what He said.

His Person is who He was, His character (His qualities). That can be determined by reading about Him in books such as the following: The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4

His Revelation is what He accomplished (His Mission on earth/ the history of His Cause)
That can be determined by reading about His mission in books such as the following:
God Passes By (1844-1944)
The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4, which cover the 40 years of His Mission, from 1853-1892.

And why do you think so many people find "his self" and "his testimony" so unconvincing?

Why would it matter what so many people think? That is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so." Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

The converse of this is that if many or most people do not believe it, it cannot be so, and that is fallacious.

The Narrow Way

13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because[a] narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

 

[KWED]

You don't WANT to believe .. there is bound to be a reason .. just like there is a reason why we are all here until we die.

If one particular version of god really is true, then I want to believe it - why would I not?
The problem is that every single religious claim is obvious nonsense with clear human origins.

 

[Trailblazer]

And what did he do that convinces you that what he said was true?
Be specific.

You can read about what He did in the following books.

His Revelation is what He accomplished (His Mission on earth/ the history of His Cause)
That can be determined by reading about His mission in books such as the following:
God Passes By (1844-1944)
The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4, which cover the 40 years of His Mission, from 1853-1892.

 

[Spirit of Light]

So you are defending the homophobia, sexual discrimination and barbaric punishments taught in Bahaism?
You don't see it as a problem?
Yikes!

Did i say that?

 

[Spirit of Light]

*sigh*
This. Is. A. Religious. Debate. Forum!
I enjoy debating religion.
I want to understand why people hold patently irrational beliefs.
What part of that don't you understand?

Just because it seems as a irrational belief to you....does not mean it is irrational to me or other believers.

 

[KWED]

What is good evidence is a subjective call.

No it isn't.
It can be examined and tested by various means.
What you mean is that what people find convincing is subjective.

No, most people would not find it convincing because most people do not recognize the evidence, only a few do.

So god has provided what he considers to be the best evidence for his existence, knowing that only a few people will find it convincing.
And you find this argument convincing?

When Jesus walked the Earth, only a few recognized Him. It was not till much later that He was universally recognized for who He was.

Jesus is not "universally recognised" and the Bahai version of Jesus. Even the Christian version is not universally recognised.
And the reason that Christianity and Islam became so widespread was mainly through empire and conquest.

Now, with Baha'u'llah, history repeats itself.
“The Book of God is wide open, and His Word is summoning mankind unto Him.

But you just said that god designed his "evidence" so only a few people can see it.

No more than a mere handful, however, hath been found willing to cleave to His Cause, or to become the instruments for its promotion.

These few have been endued with the Divine Elixir that can, alone, transmute into purest gold the dross of the world, and have been empowered to administer the infallible remedy for all the ills that afflict the children of men. No man can obtain everlasting life, unless he embraceth the truth of this inestimable, this wondrous, and sublime Revelation.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 183

Most cults start with only a few followers. Most remain that way. Bahaism will always be a minority cult with relatively few followers. Your man's meaningless platitudes dressed up in flowery prose aren't convincing to rational thinkers, or even just "thinkers".

 

[muhammad_isa]

If one particular version of god really is true..

You can't even get that far..
You deny there is a Creator .. full stop!
..so why you go on about "versions", is just a distraction.

 

[Trailblazer]

So you claim that some Hindu beliefs are untrue (wrong), even though they just as sincere in their beliefs and convinced that have "evidence" as you are in yours.

So, why are you right and they wrong, in this regard?
(This is where you cry "But it's not about being right or wrong, it's about being true or not true". )

The latest Revelation from God is the one that is most accurate since it was revealed for the current age and it corrects all the misconceptions people have about what was taught in the older religions. Those misconceptions are due to the fact that the older religions have been corrupted by men over the course of time.

However, the spiritual teachings of all the older religions are true, and they are just as true as they ever were, since those teachings are eternal.

 

[Trailblazer]

So although he is supposed to have had magical knowledge of all the world's religions, he really only knew about what he had been exposed to growing up.
Yeah, that makes more sense.

@Truthseeker did not say that Baha'u'llah did not know about all the world's religions.
@Truthseeker said that Baha'u'llah did not say anything about certain ones, and he explained why that was the case.

"It means he said nothing about Mormonism to be precise. After all, He lived in a Moslem country, and almost all His Tablets addressed to Muslims, Babis and Baha'is. The scope where what it was known what He would have said was limited at that time. There were no Western Baha'is at that time."

 

[Trailblazer]

So how do you know there are no animals in heaven?

I don't know.

 

[Trailblazer]

Therefore insisting that a person was a messenger of a god simply because they claimed to be one is irrational.
Claiming that their claims are evidence for god just because you believe their is doubly irrational.

No Baha'i ever said (let alone insisted) that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger because He claimed to be a Messenger. That is a big fat straw man. How many times do I have to tell you this?

 

[Trailblazer]

@trailblazer can believe what she likes, but there are two issues here:
1. She claims that her claims are not claims when they clearly are (although that is just down to a poor understanding of English).
2. She is making those claims on an open, public, religious debate forum - so she and you must expect that those claims will be challenged. Complaining when they are is irrational.

I am making no claims, I have beliefs, as I explained on a previous post.
I never complained when my beliefs were challenged.
In fact, I like it when they are challenged because that just provides me with free advertising.

 

[Trailblazer]

So you admit that god wants to be known, but then claim that he deliberately makes it difficult, even impossible for most people to know him because the "evidence" he provides looks like nonsense to most people.

So I ask again - why does he do that?

I already explained that and you rejected my explanation. Why should I explain it AGAIN?

But given that god created mankind "only to worship him" and he wants everyone to know him, why does he not want everyone to know him, and why does he make it so that most people can't know him?
It is utterly irrational.

God does not want everyone to know him, only the wheat. God separates the wheat from the chaff.

The proverbial phrase "separate the wheat from the chaff" may not be terribly meaningful to you — unless you happen to be a grain farmer. The chaff is the husk surrounding a seed, the part of the grain that is generally thrown away.

chaff - Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com

Matthew 3:12 King James Version (KJV)
12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

Matthew 13:29-30 King James Version (KJV)
29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

So you confirm that god only wants the indoctrinated, credulous and wishful thinkers to worship him. He doesn't want rational, critical, independent thinkers.

Straw man. God wants those who recognize His Messengers, whoever they are.

Why does he care?
Also, most people simply follow the faith they were raised in. Where is the effort in that?

You raised a very good point. There is no effort in that, but that is not what I mean by effort. The effort needs to be exerted to recognize the latest Messenger of God, not the previous ones.

I have studied more about more religions than most religionists. My effort and genuine enquiry far exceeds theirs, so why can't I believe? Why has god made it impossible?

It is not impossible if you look at Baha'u'llah with humility and an open mind.
You cannot believe because you reject the evidence that Baha'u'llah offered.

 

[Trailblazer]

Did i say that?

No, but @KWED speaks for you.

 

[Trailblazer]

So god has provided what he considers to be the best evidence for his existence, knowing that only a few people will find it convincing.
And you find this argument convincing?

It is not my argument. it is what scriptures say.
There is absolutely no logical reason why God would want a lot of people to believe in His latest Messenger since God has no need for anyone to believe in Him at all.

 

[YoursTrue]

In what way do you find evolution by natural selection to be "contrary to reason"?
Do you actually just mean "contrary to your beliefs"?

No to your second question. As I have said before I used to believe in the theory (concept) of evolution as taught by the Darwinian supporters. However, thinking about it with a closer look, as if putting pieces together of a scattered jigsaw puzzle with essential pieces missing, I'm seeing there's really nothing to prove the belief. Yes, I know there is no proof in science, but nevertheless, there certainly is no real true backup for the idea of evolution.
For instance, the idea that a landroving animal came forth from something that had been a water dwelling animal is not proven by showing the incremental steps presumed to have been necessary to go from a water dweller to a non-water (land) dwelling animal. There are conjectures made from living and dead animals (fossils) as if these must have "evolved," but no real proof or show of demonstrable emergence. That, along with the fact that there is no proof of the reality of the actual transfer shows me (true, not everybody) that it is contrary to reason, as if these changes automatically, naturally occurred by some natural happenstance.

 

[YoursTrue]

All you have done here is illustrate the irrational nature of your beliefs.
There is no evidence to support the existence of gods, so no claims to be their messengers can be assumed to be true.
Therefore insisting that a person was a messenger of a god simply because they claimed to be one is irrational.
Claiming that their claims are evidence for god just because you believe their is doubly irrational.

OK, I'm going to answer. We all make decisions. Some forced (by tribe) and some by choice (such as what a judge or jury believes). That means that if I hear a message or about a belief and I like it, I may choose to examine it closer. And if I think someone is bonkers, I'll make that decision. I don't want to go too far into that right now, so I'll just sum it up by saying that sometimes it's a mattetr of choice and what reaches the mind and heart.