Respect for Marriage Act makes Congresswoman cry real tears.

[Subduction Zone]

As already offered vetting is up to you. This is plain and simple free will choice 101.

I already have vetted the Bab and Baha'u'llah and found they are trustworthy and truthful and what they offered did come from God. In that light, I share them.

So now we have again gone in a full circle.

Regards Tony

But now you are back to claiming that your God is evil.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

But now you are back to claiming that your God is evil.

If that is the deception you like to share from our conversations about our One God of Love, I am not here to change that choice.

Regards Tony

 

[F1fan]

This is based on the Poll question and not the OP title, so I will continue.

The yes and no poll question.

"Religious Freedom" means the right to make others conform to your religious worldview."

I answered No to this poll question.

Of course, your religion is a minority and you benefit with government protection. If Baha'i was the majority in the USA would you have answered "no"? Given your adamant belief in Baha'i I'm not sure you would. What better way to spread your beliefs than putting a boot on the neck of other religions?

As such, no one is compelled to look at the evidence I presented, or even accept it is evidence.

I provided evidence for my replies from the source.

Your source (texts) is part of your claim. You are making these claims as a representative of the texts. You need to provide evidence the texts are true and valid, and you never have.

I will supply the entire source of the evidence I draw upon again, in case you have missed it. This is the source of evidence I will use in all my replies.

Evidence that God has spoken to humanity

If you do not accept this as evidence of God speaking to humanity, I can say no more, as IMHO, it is the evidence.

Where is the evidence and the explanation? Your link just goes to the Baha'i website.

Feel free to present this crucial evidence in a post. It needs to be factual, and the explanation objective, and free of assumptions like a God existing.

I would ask, are you able to prove it is not evidence that God has spoken to us? Remember, that was asked with 100% no obligation for you to respond.

First we need to see this evidence, and then we can assess it. Note that the evidence needs to ESTABLISH that it is highly likely that God spoke to humans before you can ask if this, and other evidence, counters that conclusion. You have a sloppy habit of thinking all of us should make the same religious assumptions you do. Your evidence and explanations need to address this lack of assumption.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Given your adamant belief in Baha'i I'm not sure you would.

That would be incorrect.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Your source (texts) is part of your claim. You are making these claims as a representative of the texts. You need to provide evidence the texts are true and valid, and you never have.

Incorrect, the Evidence is the Messengers. We have offered their lives of the example of their given Message, time and again.

That people ignore the God given proofs, are there own concern, not mine.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Where is the evidence and the explanation? Your link just goes to the Baha'i website.

After the Manifestations have left the earth, the Word remains as the proof.

"He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men can never be known except through His Manifestation, and His Manifestation can adduce no greater proof of the truth of His Mission than the proof of His own Person.". Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah

"Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful." Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah

So I provided a link to all the proof that remains.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

First we need to see this evidence, and then we can assess it. Note that the evidence needs to ESTABLISH that it is highly likely that God spoke to humans before you can ask if this, and other evidence, counters that conclusion. You have a sloppy habit of thinking all of us should make the same religious assumptions you do. Your evidence and explanations need to address this lack of assumption.

As per my last 3 replies.

Your choice to pursue. I am finished with this.

Regards Tony

 

[Subduction Zone]

Incorrect, the Evidence is the Messengers. We have offered their lives of the example of their given Message, time and again.

That people ignore the God given proofs, are there own concern, not mine.

Regards Tony

No, you can't claim them to be "messengers" without proper evidence. All you have is "Well it sounds pretty good to me". That is not evidence. You might be able to make a rational argument supporting them. But you cannot even seem to do that. By saying that people have to search these folks out and believe them without good evidence or rational reasons only tells us that you think that God is evil If God is willing to punish those who do not find him after hiding from 99.99999% of men for all of the existence of man that God is evil.

 

[Subduction Zone]

After the Manifestations have left the earth, the Word remains as the proof.

"He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men can never be known except through His Manifestation, and His Manifestation can adduce no greater proof of the truth of His Mission than the proof of His own Person.". Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah

"Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful." Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah

So I provided a link to all the proof that remains.

Regards Tony

I see. So now you are saying that there is no proof at all since there did not appear to be any in your link.

 

[F1fan]

Incorrect, the Evidence is the Messengers.

No, I explained this isn't acceptable. Your messengers make claims that are not true or verified UNTIL there is substantial evidence presented. Thjat Baha'u'llah claims to be a messenger means nothing until it is established with convincing evidence, not more claims, not devotion, not more repeating claims. So you need to present evidence they are authentic and their claims true. You haven't.

We don't make the assumptions you do, we require evidence.

We have offered their lives of the example of their given Message, time and again.

So what? They have stories. We need evidence their claims are true.

Let's note that the texts are not anything that ordinary humans could write. They even have errors. And let's not forget the bigotry.

That people ignore the God given proofs, are there own concern, not mine.

You haven't demonstrated any god exists. You then need to demonstrate the messages are from this God, and not some other god, or that they were fabricated by this guy, which is the most likely. That is your problem. If it exists then you shouldn't have any problem showing us it exists. If you can't, well, we aren't just going to take your word for it.

You seem to expect thinkers to take your word for what you claim, but that isn't how reason works.

 

[F1fan]

After the Manifestations have left the earth, the Word remains as the proof.

Oh, so like how Hemingway and Dickens' books remain after they have left earth. So Charles Dickens is evidence of God?

"He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men can never be known except through His Manifestation, and His Manifestation can adduce no greater proof of the truth of His Mission than the proof of His own Person.". Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah

"Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful." Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah

So I provided a link to all the proof that remains.

This demonstrates nothing except that this is what is claimed. Where is the evidence that any of this is true? All this is circular reasoning. Anyone can use circular reasoning to claim anything is true. That is why it is a fallacy.

Did you know my grandmother was the greatest grandmother that ever lived? It's true, she said so. She even wrote me a letter saying this, so it must be true. If you don't believe it, well that's your problem. I gave you the evidence, her letter.

As per my last 3 replies.

Your choice to pursue. I am finished with this.

Remember how I pointed out how you post until you get frustrated and then leave in a huff? If you had the truth it should be easy for you to offer us evidence that is valid and doesn't require religious assumptions.

You keep posting as if you have the truth, and then it's revealed that you don't. You'll be back, and we will be here too. We will still ask for evidence.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Liberty is taking responsibility for one's own actions, under the Law.

Scratch out "under the law" and you've got a valid point... Why add to it unnecessarily?

Otherwise it is branching out to Anarchy

...which changes nothing. Anarchy doesn't absolve us from responsibility any more than obedience does.

There is no sure guide to follow, but God's Messengers.

And for those of us who consider such self-proclaimed "messengers" to be unreliable -- or worse, untrustworthy -- then there is no sure path at all.

Only our own guidance... and our responsibility for wherever it may take us.

It is mankind working outside of God's guidance that is the cause of all the Woes we face. A great majority working outside of God's guidance, does include people who are claiming to have Faith. IMHO

Regards Tony

That said, why would you oppose the Respect for Marriage Act? What has the LGBT community ever done to you?

 

[Truthseeker]

Of course, your religion is a minority and you benefit with government protection. If Baha'i was the majority in the USA would you have answered "no"? Given your adamant belief in Baha'i I'm not sure you would. What better way to spread your beliefs than putting a boot on the neck of other religions?

He's not that way at all. I know him better than you do.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is based on the Poll question and not the OP title, so I will continue.

You do you. *shrug*

The yes and no poll question.

"Religious Freedom" means the right to make others conform to your religious worldview."

I answered No to this poll question.

As such, no one is compelled to look at the evidence I presented, or even accept it is evidence.

The evidence you plan to present, you mean?

I provided evidence for my replies from the source.

No, you didn't.

I will supply the entire source of the evidence I draw upon again, in case you have missed it. This is the source of evidence I will use in all my replies.

Evidence that God has spoken to humanity

While I only scanned the link - I'm only inclined to put as much effort into reviewing random linked web pages as the other person put into copy-pasting the link - it seems like it's just another collection of claims. It isn't evidence for anything except for what Baha'is believe.

If there's something there you consider evidence, feel free to quote it specifically.

If you do not accept this as evidence of God speaking to humanity, I can say no more, as IMHO, it is the evidence.

Again: claims aren't evidence.

I would ask, are you able to prove it is not evidence that God has spoken to us? Remember, that was asked with 100% no obligation for you to respond.

"You can't prove is isn't false" is a pretty weak foundation to build a belief system on.

In any case, I can disprove your religion to the same level of certainty that you can disprove that leprechauns are real. This is good enough for me... and unless you live your life open to the prospect of leprechauns, I'd say it's good enough for you, too, in any context but the religion you've invested yourself in.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

After the Manifestations have left the earth, the Word remains as the proof.

"He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men can never be known except through His Manifestation, and His Manifestation can adduce no greater proof of the truth of His Mission than the proof of His own Person.". Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah

"Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful." Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah

So I provided a link to all the proof that remains.

Regards Tony

"Hearsay claims will have to do because that's all we have, but it's been said - through hearsay claims - that there was a time before any of us were alive when these claims were justified by more than just hearsay."

 

[TransmutingSoul]

If there's something there you consider evidence, feel free to quote it specifically.

That is all I will give. Justice takes effort.

You will get from the evidence the effort you put into researching it.

The biggest court cases have boxes of evidence. RF is full of people that have no interest in pursuing all the boxes of evidence that have been provided, they want the work done for them, lazy really.

Regards Tony

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is all I will give. Justice takes effort.

You will get from the evidence the effort you put into researching it.

The biggest court cases have boxes of evidence. RF is full of people that have no interest in pursuing all the boxes of evidence that have been provided, they want the work done for them, lazy really.

Regards Tony

Not laziness; prudence.

I see nothing in the Baha'i faith that makes me think that it's more likely than any other religion to be worth exploring.

There are only 24 hours in the day. What makes investigating whether your religion might be true more worthy of my time than what I'm already filling my time with?

 

[Spiderman]

Yes, according to Genesis 6:6-7, God Almighty regretted creating not only mankind but also every animal, every creature that creeps on the ground, and the birds of the air. The Bible contains several other verses that mention God's regrets in addition to creating humanity, all animals, and birds (1 Samuel 15:11; 2 Samuel 24:16; Jeremiah 42:10). The Bible also mentions God changing his mind about bringing disasters down on his own people as punishment for their transgressions against him (Jeremiah 26:13, 1 Chronicles 21:15, Joel 2:13). For the record, Jeremiah 26:13, 1 Chronicles 21:15, and Joel 2:13 coincide with Isaiah 45:7 (NIV), which says, "I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things." The New King James Version uses the word "calamity" instead of "disaster," and the King James Version uses the word "evil" and not "disaster" or "calamity."

It seems like God "Almighty Yahweh" didn't learn from his own mistake of creating man and then regretting it, because after he threw a temper tantrum and wiped out all of humanity (aside from Noah and his family), he then turned around and repopulated the world with the same kind of morally flawed people that he had just destroyed in a global flood. It appears that God is incapable of learning from his own mistakes, even after expressing regret for creating humanity, the animals, every creature that creeps on the ground, and the birds in the air. Shouldn't an all-knowing and all-powerful God know better than to make the same mistake twice? But God did commit the same mistake twice, which, in my opinion, was either extremely irresponsible in terms of morality, or he is a psychotic and sadistic monster who delights in cruelly punishing flawed humanity for acting precisely as he intended for humanity to behave.



There are scriptures which claim that God never changes, such as Numbers 23:19, which says, "God is not a man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said it, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?" And Malachi 3:6 says, "I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed." However, other verses imply that God changes his mind (Jeremiah 18:5–10; Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2), describe God changing his mind (Exodus 32:14; Amos 7:3, 6; Jonah 3:10), or assume that God will change his mind (Jeremiah 26:3; Joel 2:14; Jonah 3:9). It's clear that these verses contradict the first two.

Amos 7:3 "The Lord changed His mind about this. "It shall not be," said the LORD.

Amos 7:6 "The Lord changed His mind about this. "This too shall not be," said the Lord God.

Exodus 32:14 "So the Lord changed His mind about the harm that He said He would do to His people."

Jonah 3:10 "When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil ways, he relented on the disaster that he had said he would do to them, and he did not do it."

Jeremiah 26:3 "Perhaps they will listen and each one will turn back from his evil way, and I will change my mind concerning the calamity that I intend to bring on them because of their evil deeds."

As a former Christian, I don't think that anyone should look to the Bible to learn about morality. In my opinion, the following Bible stories aren't exemplary examples of upright moral behavior: forcing a rape victim to marry her rapist; smashing infants' heads against rocks; ordering the death of witches; God commanding his "chosen people" to kill an entire populace of foreign nations for their land in a conquest to possess a "promised land"; or God being irrationally angry and committing global genocide by killing every living creature and eradicating the entire human race (aside from Noah and his family) in a worldwide flood. Is that a loving God?

1 Samuel 15:3 states that God commanded the Israelites to attack and not spare the Amalekites (killing every man, woman, child, newborn, and animal and destroying everything that belonged to them). And Psalm 137:9 states, "Happy is the one who seizes your children and smashes them against the rocks." So much for the biblical commandment of "Thou shalt not kill." In my opinion, the God of the Bible has a sadistic mentality of "Do as I say, not as I do," making him the most hypocritical (detestable and barbarous) figure known to mankind. And this article, "Violence in the Bible: Greatest Hits," has several other instances of severe violence in the Bible.

Despite my criticism of the Bible and assertion that it should not be relied on for moral guidance, I believe that what the Bible says should be taken with a grain of salt. As far as I'm concerned, there are a lot of contradictions in the Bible, as well as a few stories of Jesus that were copied and adapted from Greek mythology and other pagan religions, as I explained in other posts, such as this one.

God might actually admire and favor you for fighting him and knowing how to make him look like an idiot from the scriptures. A lot of people are too ignorant of what the Bible says, or scared to do so.

The name Israel means "Contender with God", it is actually a clear sign God favors people who can kick his ***!

Jacob was blessed by God for committing idolatry with a woman, having only loyalty to her telling him to lie, steal from the male superior God placed in his life, and deceive. He got the greatest blessing in scripture , for committing idolatry with a woman.

Then he fought with what it says is a man, then an Angel, then says it is God, and he is blessed for it, when God says "you have fought with God and won, your name is now "fighter with God"!