The Destruction of America

[Trailblazer]

You’re still not getting it. Think of it like this: if you became handicapped in some way, you wouldn’t ever “get better.” You’d always be handicapped. Some people wallow in that handicap, let it consume them, become that handicap, and it ruins them. Others learn to live with that reality and find joy, because they don’t let it consume them.

I get it alright, you are blaming people for their suffering, judging them.

You are judging those people because you are saying that suffering is a choice, that everyone could learn to live with whatever their handicap is and find joy.

Some people might wallow in their handicap but not all people wallow in it. That is what you are missing. Whenever you make generalizations about entire groups of people, you are committing the fallacy of hasty generalization.

There will be pain, there will be grief, loss, regrets, disappointments, accidents, injuries, and illness. But suffering doesn’t have to be part of any of that.

Sometimes suffering is avoidable and sometimes suffering is unavoidable. To generalize about all people and to say it is always avoidable is illogical as well as cruel and insensitive.

By virtue of your attitude, you are being very judgmental of people who are suffering, blaming them for their suffering.

Matthew 7:1-3 Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Compassion? Compassion is helping others find the joy in the midst of sorrow.

No, that is not the definition of compassion.

compassion: sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others.
compassion meaning - Google Search

Sometimes that is possible to help people but for many reasons that does not always work. Some people can go to counselors for years and years and never be helped and they might even take drugs that do not help. As for having family or personal friends who can help, not everyone has someone who can help them and even if they do, not everyone can be helped.
.
To say that you know that everyone can be helped and they instead choose to wallow in their situation is cruel and insensitive. You do not know the situation of everyone in the world and you do not know other people better than they know themselves.

66: O EMIGRANTS! The tongue I have designed for the mention of Me, defile it not with detraction. If the fire of self overcome you, remember your own faults and not the faults of My creatures, inasmuch as every one of you knoweth his own self better than he knoweth others. The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 45

Clearly you have a bias and you are not going to give it up, but don’t pretend to know about mental health issues because you are not trained in the field.

 

[sojourner]

I get it alright, you are blaming people for their suffering, judging them.

You are judging those people because you are saying that suffering is a choice, that everyone could learn to live with whatever their handicap is and find joy.

Some people might wallow in their handicap but not all people wallow in it. That is what you are missing. Whenever you make generalizations about entire groups of people, you are committing the fallacy of hasty generalization.

Sometimes suffering is avoidable and sometimes suffering is unavoidable. To generalize about all people and to say it is always avoidable is illogical as well as cruel and insensitive.

By virtue of your attitude, you are being very judgmental of people who are suffering, blaming them for their suffering.

Matthew 7:1-3 Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

No, that is not the definition of compassion.

compassion: sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others.
compassion meaning - Google Search

Sometimes that is possible to help people but for many reasons that does not always work. Some people can go to counselors for years and years and never be helped and they might even take drugs that do not help. As for having family or personal friends who can help, not everyone has someone who can help them and even if they do, not everyone can be helped.
.
To say that you know that everyone can be helped and they instead choose to wallow in their situation is cruel and insensitive. You do not know the situation of everyone in the world and you do not know other people better than they know themselves.

66: O EMIGRANTS! The tongue I have designed for the mention of Me, defile it not with detraction. If the fire of self overcome you, remember your own faults and not the faults of My creatures, inasmuch as every one of you knoweth his own self better than he knoweth others. The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 45

Clearly you have a bias and you are not going to give it up, but don’t pretend to know about mental health issues because you are not trained in the field.

Clearly you’re defining suffering differently than I am and you’re biased. Suffering is a spiritual issue. Don’t pretend to know about spiritual issues, because you are not trained in the field.

 

[sojourner]

I get it alright, you are blaming people for their suffering, judging them.

No, but I am holding them responsible for their own attitudes and reactions to life's challenges.

You are judging those people because you are saying that suffering is a choice

It is a choice. If one chooses to wallow in victimhood, that's choosing to suffer. If one chooses to meet the challenges positively and in life-affirming ways, that's choosing to not suffer. I thought every first-year psychology student understood that. The pain doesn't magically go away, but at least one doesn't get locked into unhealthy repeated patterns.

Some people might wallow in their handicap but not all people wallow in it. That is what you are missing.

That's what I said. You're not reading my posts. See above.

Sometimes suffering is avoidable and sometimes suffering is unavoidable.

I disagree. Mishaps, illnesses, losses, mistakes, injuries, and life situations are not always avoidable. But choosing to continue in a cyclical pattern of victimhood is.

By virtue of your attitude, you are being very judgmental of people who are suffering, blaming them for their suffering.

By virtue of your attitude, you're buying in to that unhealthy pattern of victimhood.

No, that is not the definition of compassion.

compassion: sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others.
compassion meaning - Google Search

Ok. And so what do we do with our compassion? Huh? We help others find a way out of their suffering. We don't just throw up our hands, throw drugs at people, and shrug and tell them, "It's OK to be a victim." Even the most rudimentary, entry level, survey course in psychology gives us some detail about enabling. You should know that!

Sometimes that is possible to help people but for many reasons that does not always work. Some people can go to counselors for years and years and never be helped and they might even take drugs that do not help. As for having family or personal friends who can help, not everyone has someone who can help them and even if they do, not everyone can be helped.

See above. I'm just glad you're not my counselor. I'd never get better if your attitude really is: "he'll never get better." That's not helping and it's not compassionate. It's enabling.

To say that you know that everyone can be helped and they instead choose to wallow in their situation is cruel and insensitive.

To say that you know that everyone can't be helped and instead choose to allow them to wallow in their situation is cruel and insensitive. Your "professional advice" appears to be the "comfortably numb therapy." That can't be true, can it?

I dunno -- I don't get how you can be that way. Don't you advocate helping people take responsibility for their own well-being and attitudes toward the vicissitudes of life?

I really think there's a miscommunication here, because I'm not a dispassionate SOB, and I don't think you are either.

 

[Deeje]

It was only the Christians who were disappointed....
The Baha'is are not disappointed at all.

That is the one thing about Baha'i's that puzzle me....how do you accept Jesus and some of our scripture, but not claim to be Christians? Being a little bit "Christian" but a little bit of everything else makes you worshippers of which God? It certainly cannot be the God of Jesus because all false gods were rejected by Israel's God and worshiping them incurred the death penalty.....where did this God change his mind and alter the rules?

 

[Trailblazer]

That is the one thing about Baha'i's that puzzle me....how do you accept Jesus and some of our scripture, but not claim to be Christians?

That has an easy answer. We do not claim to be Christians because we are Baha'is, and as Baha'is we believe what Baha'u'llah wrote referring to God and the Bible, that the Bible is “His holy Book, His most great testimony amongst His creatures.”

“We have also heard a number of the foolish of the earth assert that the genuine text of the heavenly Gospel doth not exist amongst the Christians, that it hath ascended unto heaven. How grievously they have erred! How oblivious of the fact that such a statement imputeth the gravest injustice and tyranny to a gracious and loving Providence! “How could God, when once the Day-star of the beauty of Jesus had disappeared from the sight of His people, and ascended unto the fourth heaven, cause His holy Book, His most great testimony amongst His creatures, to disappear also?” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, p. 89

Being a little bit "Christian" but a little bit of everything else makes you worshippers of which God? It certainly cannot be the God of Jesus because all false gods were rejected by Israel's God and worshiping them incurred the death penalty.....where did this God change his mind and alter the rules?

Do you really believe there is more than one God? How could there be more than one God who is omnipotent and omniscient? The false gods that were rejected by Israel's God were any gods people worshiped other than the one true God of Israel.

Were False Gods in the Bible Demons in Disguise?

Baha'is worship the same God as Christians worship, the one true God.

“Regard thou the one true God as One Who is apart from, and immeasurably exalted above, all created things. The whole universe reflecteth His glory, while He is Himself independent of, and transcendeth His creatures. This is the true meaning of Divine unity. He Who is the Eternal Truth is the one Power Who exerciseth undisputed sovereignty over the world of being, Whose image is reflected in the mirror of the entire creation. All existence is dependent upon Him, and from Him is derived the source of the sustenance of all things. This is what is meant by Divine unity; this is its fundamental principle.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 167

 

[Deeje]

Baha'is worship the same God as Christians worship, the one true God.

This is what you are led to believe but it is so far from the truth as to be comical......do you include all the gods of the nations as if their prophets were all sent by this one God of Israel?

How do you tell a true God from a false one? The Hebrew Bible says that there is one God, who is not a trinity and who tolerates the worship of no other god but himself.....where does that leave Baha'i? They seem to have successfully squeezed him into every other belief system and called him by a variety of names down through history......what is the name of your God?

 

[Deeje]

Were False Gods in the Bible Demons in Disguise?

I am somewhat puzzled by the inclusion of this link in your post as it does the opposite of what you intended it to IMO.

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: I get it alright, you are blaming people for their suffering, judging them.

No, but I am holding them responsible for their own attitudes and reactions to life's challenges.

Holding them responsible is the same thing as judging them. But that is not the point. Who are you to hold other people responsible for their own attitudes and reactions to life's challenges?

Trailblazer said: You are judging those people because you are saying that suffering is a choice.

It is a choice. If one chooses to wallow in victimhood, that's choosing to suffer. If one chooses to meet the challenges positively and in life-affirming ways, that's choosing to not suffer. I thought every first-year psychology student understood that. The pain doesn't magically go away, but at least one doesn't get locked into unhealthy repeated patterns.

No, it is not a choice. Sometimes it might be a choice, but not usually.

I cannot believe that Jesus would ever say such a thing to anyone.

I have an MA in Counseling Psychology, and no counselor would ever tell a client they have a choice. Moreover, I have been in counseling myself for over 20 years and no psychiatrist, psychologist or MA level counselor ever told me I have a choice as to whether I would suffer or not. That is unethical as well as insensitive and unnecessary to help a client. I cannot even imagine a counselor telling a client they have a choice as to whether they would be depressed or not. The only job for a counselor is to help the client by listening to their problems and working with them to develop a treatment plan.

Trailblazer said: Some people might wallow in their handicap but not all people wallow in it. That is what you are missing.

That's what I said. You're not reading my posts. See above.

Okay, so do you now admit that all people who are suffering are not wallowing in their handicap?

Trailblazer said: Sometimes suffering is avoidable and sometimes suffering is unavoidable.

I disagree. Mishaps, illnesses, losses, mistakes, injuries, and life situations are not always avoidable. But choosing to continue in a cyclical pattern of victimhood is.

Who do you think you are to judge people and say they are wallowing in a cyclical pattern of victimhood? How can you know that? Are you God, do you know what is in their hearts and minds?

Trailblazer said: By virtue of your attitude, you are being very judgmental of people who are suffering, blaming them for their suffering.

By virtue of your attitude, you're buying in to that unhealthy pattern of victimhood.

It is not my job to judge other people. What do you get out of judging other people, a feeling of superiority? I cannot think of any other reason why you would judge others. You certainly are not helping anyone by judging them.

Ok. And so what do we do with our compassion? Huh? We help others find a way out of their suffering. We don't just throw up our hands, throw drugs at people, and shrug and tell them, "It's OK to be a victim." Even the most rudimentary, entry level, survey course in psychology gives us some detail about enabling. You should know that!

Everyone is not playing a victim role just because they are suffering. That is where you are wrong.

Enabling is 1980s Codependents Anonymous stuff – been there, done that. Nobody teaches that in schools these days.

See above. I'm just glad you're not my counselor. I'd never get better if your attitude really is: "he'll never get better." That's not helping and it's not compassionate. It's enabling.

That is a straw man. I would never tell a client they would never get better, but I also would never judge them because they are suffering. You simply cannot see that it is not necessary to judge people and tell them they are victims in order to help them. You cannot see the forest thorough the trees because you are attached to one tree – your personal opinion about victimhood.

Trailblazer said: To say that you know that everyone can be helped and they instead choose to wallow in their situation is cruel and insensitive.

To say that you know that everyone can't be helped and instead choose to allow them to wallow in their situation is cruel and insensitive. Your "professional advice" appears to be the "comfortably numb therapy." That can't be true, can it?

That is a big fat straw man. I never said I know that nobody can be helped and I never said I would allow them to wallow in their situation. I said that some people can be helped but not all people can be helped. I learned that in my freshman year psychology class. You really cannot be so naïve that you think you have the magic formula to cure all depression.

I dunno -- I don't get how you can be that way. Don't you advocate helping people take responsibility for their own well-being and attitudes toward the vicissitudes of life?

That is a big fat straw man. I never said that I do not advocate helping people take responsibility for their own well-being and attitudes toward the vicissitudes of life.

I really think there's a miscommunication here, because I'm not a dispassionate SOB, and I don't think you are either.

It is not as if I have not clearly stated my position.

 

[Trailblazer]

Clearly you’re defining suffering differently than I am and you’re biased. Suffering is a spiritual issue. Don’t pretend to know about spiritual issues, because you are not trained in the field.

I disagree that suffering is always spiritual issue. It might be caused by spiritual problems or it might be caused by psychological problems.

Don’t pretend to know about spiritual issues, because you are not trained in the field. Neither am I.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Why would the Millerites and why would the SDA church begin the prophecy in 457 BC? There is only one conceivable reason, which is so that they can use it to arrive at 1844 BC. There is literally absolutely zero reason to begin the 2300 days in Daniel 8 from the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem (Daniel 9:25). In fact, the angel actually interprets the dream, telling Daniel that the vision of the goat in Danile 8 applies to the “king of Greece.” (Daniel 8:21). This absolutely rules out applying it to a decree of Artaxerxes the Persian.

That would be that you need to research into why William Miller made that decision. Have you watched the Movie?

Personally I do not need to know why he came to that conclusion, Abdu'lbaha has given a sound explanation.

Remember, using 457 rebuild also prove Christ using the 69and 70 week prophecies, so why not use it for the 2nd?

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

This is what you are led to believe but it is so far from the truth as to be comical......do you include all the gods of the nations as if their prophets were all sent by this one God of Israel?

No, there is only one true God, the one that sent all the true Messengers of God.

How do you tell a true God from a false one?......what is the name of your God?

A true God has true Messengers. God does not have a name.

 

[Trailblazer]

I am somewhat puzzled by the inclusion of this link in your post as it does the opposite of what you intended it to IMO.

What do you think I intended to do?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Here's another one. Daniel has the 2300 morning and evening prophecy. This one questions the use of 457BC as the starting date, since in Daniel 8 it says...

“How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled—the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, the surrender of the sanctuary and the trampling underfoot of the LORD’s people?”
14 He said to me, “It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be reconsecrated.”​

So this Christian site says...

Daniel 8 is a prophecy primarily concerned with the persecution of the Jews and the desolation of the temple which occurred in 167-164 BC. Even biblical skeptics and atheists agree that this is what the prophecy is about. Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated the temple in 167 BC, sacrificing pigs in the sancutary and putting a statue of himself in the Holy of Holies. God told his people through Daniel that the duration of the abomination of desolation would be 2300 days and nights. If we are going to try to date the prophecy and use it to make predictions, there is no doubt at all that the beginning of the prophetic time would be 167 BC. Why would the Millerites and why would the SDA church begin the prophecy in 457 BC? There is only one conceivable reason, which is so that they can use it to arrive at 1844 BC. There is literally absolutely zero reason to begin the 2300 days in Daniel 8 from the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem (Daniel 9:25). In fact, the angel actually interprets the dream, telling Daniel that the vision of the goat in Danile 8 applies to the “king of Greece.” (Daniel 8:21). This absolutely rules out applying it to a decree of Artaxerxes the Persian.

Add to this, the fact is that we can be quite sure that the 2300 days and evenings are not years for the simple reason that the interpretation of the time is fairly obvious from the historical context. The fact is that Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated the temple in November, 167 BC. The Maccabeean rebels kicked the troops of Antiochus Epiphanes out of the temple and rededicated the temple December 25, 164 BC. We know this because 1 Maccabees describes the events in detail. The date of the rededication became the date for the Jewish festival of Chanukkuh. The time between the desecration and the rededication was about 37-38 months, which is approximately 1150 days. Therefore the 2300 days and nights are 1150 days (one day and one night = one day). How do I know this? Because it fits the prophecy exactly, both in terms of what was said and what we know for a fact happened. In any case, the desecration of the temple certainly did not last for 2300 years!!! This Seventh Day Adventist interpretation makes absolutely no sense. It is only a prop to a belief held by the group since its founding.​

Prophecy can have multiple meanings, one outward and 70 hidden.

What has been a sign required by the divines of the age, is that a Messenger can explain old verses in a new way. The Bab and Baha'u'llah could do this with ease and as such is why the divines saw them as a danger to their sovereignty.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

This is what you are led to believe but it is so far from the truth as to be comical......do you include all the gods of the nations as if their prophets were all sent by this one God of Israel?

How do you tell a true God from a false one? The Hebrew Bible says that there is one God, who is not a trinity and who tolerates the worship of no other god but himself.....where does that leave Baha'i? They seem to have successfully squeezed him into every other belief system and called him by a variety of names down through history......what is the name of your God?

It leaves Baha'i as worshippers of the One True God the unknowable Essence who has come again in a New Name, as promised, as the Glory of God, the Father.

Of course IMHO.

You know, I have been doing this since the 1980's with my JW friend, in the end we just help each other out. I helped him build His house and he kept up the tea and coffee and was happy to give any spare materials he had when I needed to build mine. I went to some services of the JW and they kept away from and Baha'i services I prayed with them, they would not pray with us.

Such is life

Your to yours,
Me to mine.
As to what is divine,
this unfolds in time.

RegardsTony

 

[CG Didymus]

from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

Hey Tony, my question is why is the start of this prophecy the Hegira or when Muhammad first declared his prophethood. How does that tie in with the "daily sacrifice" being taken away and the abomination being set up?

Daniel 8 it says...
“How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled—the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, the surrender of the sanctuary and the trampling underfoot of the LORD’s people?”
14 He said to me, “It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be reconsecrated.”

Personally I do not need to know why he came to that conclusion, Abdu'lbaha has given a sound explanation.

Remember, using 457 rebuild also prove Christ using the 69and 70 week prophecies, so why not use it for the 2nd?

The 457BC is the decree to rebuild Jerusalem. These other two, the 1290 and 2300 specifically say they start from when the sacrifice is taken and the abomination is set up. Sorry, but I'm not going to watch a 21/2 hour movie about 7th Day Adventists. I'll look it up on line to find out why he used 457.

 

[Deeje]

No, there is only one true God, the one that sent all the true Messengers of God.

Did all these "messengers of God" have one message or many different messages? Did they all support one true religion?

What was conveyed by the prophets in Israel.....what was their purpose? What was their message?

A true God has true Messengers. God does not have a name.

The God of Israel has a name...just one...he is not known in the Bible by any other name.
Exodus 3:13-15....(Tanakh)

"13 And Moses said to God, "Behold I come to the children of Israel, and I say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?"


14 God said to Moses, "Ehyeh asher ehyeh (I will be what I will be)," and He said, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'Ehyeh (I will be) has sent me to you.'"

15 And God said further to Moses, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'The Lord God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is My name forever, and this is how I should be mentioned in every generation."

In that last verse "The Lord God" is יְהֹוָ֞ה (Yahweh....Jehovah.) He alone has that name and it is above every other name. (Psalm 83:18)

Jesus on the other hand is identified by the names he is given in the various roles that he played. (Philippians 2:5-11; Revelation 3:12)

What do you think I intended to do?

Since Baha'i do not believe in the devil, I assumed that you intended it to show that demons were not responsible for demonstrations of uncanny power in the Bible.....? If not the devil and his demons...then who? Who else is described in the Bible as having such power?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I'm not going to watch a 21/2 hour movie about 7th Day Adventists

That's Ok, I enjoyed it, I have watched it twice. I was amazed that a man so connected with the spirit of age, still could not see beyond a physical resurrection. A lot that happened at that time was not the way he wanted it to go, the direction was steered by other self motivated individuals. Thus, if he had more people that wanted to look outside the box, who knows, he may very well have come to the conclusion that he had to look at the return in another way.

He sure knows now and God bless him with fulfilling his visions.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Jesus on the other hand is identified by the names he is given in the various roles that he played.

That would be Christ that is identified by the other names and as Such we can also say this is true of Krishna, Zoroaster, Buddha and Muhammad to name a few others that came in the 'Name of God'.

Jesus was flesh and what did Jesus say about flesh?

Regards Tony

 

[Deeje]

That would be Christ that is identified by the other names and as Such we can also say this is true of Krishna, Zoroaster, Buddha and Muhammad to name a few others that came in the 'Name of God'.

None of these came in the name of Yahweh....nor were they part of Israel or worshippers of Israel's God.

Jesus was flesh and what did Jesus say about flesh?

Perhaps you need to clarify that statement so that I don't misread you.....

there was a reason why Jesus was "flesh"....when he returned he was certainly NOT going to be in the flesh....and certainly not the kind of flesh that perishes from a disease. He was never a son of Adam, open to the defects of the flesh.....he was the son of God (self identified) and once he surrendered his flesh on behalf of all humankind, he secured a future for them that Adam took away.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

None of these came in the name of Yahweh....nor were they part of Israel or worshippers of Israel's God.

Not that simple, my view is that it is the Same One God.

'Lord of Lords' is Biblical.

Devesh - Devesh means the 'Lord of lords'. This beautiful name refers to Lord Krishna.
Dham - This name is an epithet of Lord Krishna and it means 'supreme spirit'.

108 more Names to explore - Lord Krishna Names - 108 names of Lord Krishna and all 3000 years before Jesus the Christ.

So one can say the One God also looked after other Nations and Other peoples with a Messenger of their own, who taught the same Truths suited to the age the Message was given in.

I am sure if we look at Zoroaster, we will find much the same, as the source is One. IMHO of course.

Regards Tony