The Exclusivity of Christianity

[Exaltist Ethan]

I believe it is the opposite way around, that God has sovereignty over people after they die.

That is what I meant and if you thought I meant the opposite then it was probably an error on my part.

I think that the purpose of purgatory is so people can think about what they have done in this life and realize what they have done wrong. The more they have done wrong, the longer they will spend in purgatory. After they are purged they can move on and choose the right path.

See, I didn't even know before that Baha'is believed in purgatory. Is that a common held belief for the Baha'is or is that something only you and a handful of other Baha'is believe in?

I will say however, one large distinction between both of our belief systems, is that, I don't think you are necessarily a better person just because you proclaim any amount of belief, faith or hope. Even if someone I didn't knew told me he was a syntheist or a member of Earthseed, I would have an interesting discussion with that person, but that person would be no less or more than me or anyone else for said beliefs. And honestly, that did actually happen to me recently. On my website there is my phone number, someone called me from that, and we had a discussion that lasted about twenty minutes about our shared beliefs. It was very interesting. But it's not in my power to tell other people that me and that individual are going somewhere better than other people in the afterlife because we have hope of a better future. As my signature says, "God is what nature is becoming", and nature doesn't play favorites with people. Everybody lives, they die, and then if there is any hope out there, they might have an afterlife of some sort. I consider life too valuable to let the 72+ billion people who have died at one point remain in oblivion forever. That's where F1fan, Trailblazer and I disagree.

 

[Trailblazer]

That is what I meant and if you thought I meant the opposite then it was probably an error on my part.

Thanks for clarifying that.

See, I didn't even know before that Baha'is believed in purgatory. Is that a common held belief for the Baha'is or is that something only you and a handful of other Baha'is believe in?

Purgatory is not an official Baha'i belief, it is my personal belief. Maybe some other Baha'is share that belief, but it is nowhere to be found in the Baha'i Writings, not that I am aware of anyway. It makes sense to me which is why I believe it. In another book I read called Heaven and Hell, there is a place like purgatory, the world of spirits, which is where souls go when they first die and enter the spiritual world. It is in the world of spirits that it is determined whether they will go to heaven or to hell.

I will say however, one large distinction between both of our belief systems, is that, I don't think you are necessarily a better person just because you proclaim any amount of belief, faith or hope. Even if someone I didn't knew told me he was a syntheist or a member of Earthseed, I would have an interesting discussion with that person, but that person would be no less or more than me or anyone else for said beliefs.

That is a very spiritual attitude towards people and I feel the same way. I do not think anyone is a better person because of what they believe or disbelieve. Baha'u'llah said to let deeds not words be our adorning. What good are beliefs if they do not yield fruits?

It was very interesting. But it's not in my power to tell other people that me and that individual are going somewhere better than other people in the afterlife because we have hope of a better future. As my signature says, "God is what nature is becoming", and nature doesn't play favorites with people. Everybody lives, they die, and then if there is any hope out there, they might have an afterlife of some sort. I consider life too valuable to let the 72+ billion people who have died at one point remain in oblivion forever. That's where F1fan, Trailblazer and I disagree.

It is also not in my power to tell other people that me and that individual are going somewhere better than other people in the afterlife. I don't even know where I will be going, let alone anyone else. I can only 'hope' it will be in accordance with the promises of Baha'u'llah:

“O My servants! Sorrow not if, in these days and on this earthly plane, things contrary to your wishes have been ordained and manifested by God, for days of blissful joy, of heavenly delight, are assuredly in store for you. Worlds, holy and spiritually glorious, will be unveiled to your eyes. You are destined by Him, in this world and hereafter, to partake of their benefits, to share in their joys, and to obtain a portion of their sustaining grace. To each and every one of them you will, no doubt, attain.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 329

I do not disagree with you. I believe that everybody lives and then they die, and there is an afterlife of some sort for everyone. Nobody remains in oblivion. There would be no purpose to gong through everything we have to endure in this life if there was no afterlife.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It is also not in my power to tell other people that me and that individual are going somewhere better than other people in the afterlife. I don't even know where I will be going, let alone anyone else.

Precisely .. nobody knows what will happen to them in the afterlife.
However, a person of faith should have hope in God's mercy, and that they die with faith, and eventually enter the paradise. Amen.

 

[F1fan]

I already explained why I said "God is real because God exists." I said it because @F1fan said that god is imaginary, so it was a simple retort.
I was not claiming that God is real because God exists since I could never prove such a claim.
I believe that God is real because God exists. That is alll

What I said was that god concepts are in the same category as imaginary characters because there in nothing real they correlate to. You assert that God is real because it exists. Yet you fail to explain how that is true, so it’s rejected by default.

You keep turning my beliefs into arguments but there is no circular argument because there is no argument.
Why do you keep misrepresenting my position?

Because as you present your beliefs are part of a discussion which is synonymous with then being your claim and argument.

It’s like you insisting your Toyota sedan is a delivery vehicle not a car.

 

[Trailblazer]

What I said was that god concepts are in the same category as imaginary characters because there in nothing real they correlate to. You assert that God is real because it exists. Yet you fail to explain how that is true, so it’s rejected by default.

I had to correct that post because I can see I made a mistake. I believe that God is real because I believe God exists.
In other words, the reason I believe God is real is because I believe that God exists.

You are correct. There is nothing in the material world that God correlates to, so if you believe that there is nothing real outside of the material world then you are going to believe God is imaginary, since God exists outside of the material world.

Because as you present your beliefs are part of a discussion which is synonymous with then being your claim and argument.

It’s like you insisting your Toyota sedan is a delivery vehicle not a car.

I present my beliefs as beliefs as part of a discussion. I believe they are true but I am not claiming they are true since I cannot prove they are true.
In order for the conclusion to be true, the premise must be true. I am not presenting a logical argument because the premise God exists can never be proven true, so the conclusion God exists cannot be supported by the premise that God exists.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I already explained why I said "God is real because God exists." I said it because @F1fan said that god is imaginary, so it was a simple retort.
I was not claiming that God is real because God exists since I could never prove such a claim.

Calling it a retort doesn't change anything. Your retort contained a claim. You claimed God exists. And you gave a supporting argument, upgrading a bare claim to an argued conclusion - because God is real (the word because makes it an argument).

You keep turning my beliefs into arguments but there is no circular argument because there is no argument.
Why do you keep misrepresenting my position?

I'm not misrepresenting you. These are your words, and they constitute a circular argument and a logical fallacy. That argument could be offered in support of any nonexistent thing. X is real because X exists. Try it with Santa or Superman. It's just as flawed an argument. You don't need to understand that, but you might consider the possibility that it is correct. If it is, you won't be able to rebut it, which is surely the case.

In your opinion, spiritual apprehension without empirical justification, which is proof, means unjustified belief, but in my opinion and the opinion of 93% of people in the world, spiritual apprehension without empirical justification, which is or proof, is justified belief.

But you and they aren't using the academic standard to call such beliefs justified. When you borrow such words and phrases as justified, reasoned, and sound, and use them private meanings, you should expect to be called on that.

 

[F1fan]

I had to correct that post because I can see I made a mistake. I believe that God is real because I believe God exists.
In other words, the reason I believe God is real is because I believe that God exists.

You are correct. There is nothing in the material world that God correlates to, so if you believe that there is nothing real outside of the material world then you are going to believe God is imaginary, since God exists outside of the material world.

There are an estimated 4-5000 god concepts in human history, and some are by definition the "one true God" so that suggests the rest must be imagined by mortals. So the huge set of gods means we can treat them as products of human imagination rather than real phenomenon that correlate to some reality that a select few claim to detect.

I present my beliefs as beliefs as part of a discussion.

It comes with risks and obligations to honor.

I believe they are true but I am not claiming they are true since I cannot prove they are true.

Then what purpose does your contribution sevre in these forums? That sounds like fellowshi where we share what we believe. this is dialectic where ideas are heavily scrutinized. And I find your exemption a little suspicisou because if your intent really was to share your views why haven't you moved on? You deliberately engage, and do so pushing back on criticism. You sound like you want to box an opponent but the other fighter isn't allowed to punch back. Either admit you want a discussion of ideas that include your own, or admit this isn't the right forum for you.

In order for the conclusion to be true, the premise must be true. I am not presenting a logical argument because the premise God exists can never be proven true, so the conclusion God exists cannot be supported by the premise that God exists.

This strikes me an an excuse. You are claiming there is some weak basis for you deciding what you believe. When you attempt explaining that even the reasons are very weak and dubious. I get the sense you never have subjected what you believe to serious scrutiny. Your reasons are essentially that you read texts, you think they re true at face value, and you believe. There is nothing about why you think the texts suggest they could only come from interaction with a real God.

 

[Trailblazer]

There are an estimated 4-5000 god concepts in human history, and some are by definition the "one true God" so that suggests the rest must be imagined by mortals.

No, it suggests that mortals are all divided between different religions and sects within those religions so much so that nobody can tell what is true anymore, unless they read the Baha'i Writings, which explain why there is so much division.

It comes with risks and obligations to honor.

As I do.

Then what purpose does your contribution serve in these forums?

I post many threads that get people to think and discuss and learn new things, but some people don't learn anything new because they 'believe' they already know everything, so their only reason for being here is to argue and show off what they 'believe' they know, which is nothing short of their personal opinion which they call a reasoned argument and critical thinking. These posters just keep spewing that same garbage year after year, 'believing' they are winning arguments. It is funny to watch but sad to see.

That sounds like fellowship where we share what we believe.

In case you haven't noticed, the name of this forum is called Religious Forums and that involves talking about what people believe, not what they can prove, since beliefs cannot be proven.

this is dialectic where ideas are heavily scrutinized. And I find your exemption a little suspicious because if your intent really was to share your views why haven't you moved on? You deliberately engage, and do so pushing back on criticism.

In some instances I have moved on, as I respond only to posts I feel are worthwhile to answer.

You sound like you want to box an opponent but the other fighter isn't allowed to punch back. Either admit you want a discussion of ideas that include your own, or admit this isn't the right forum for you.

I am not here to fight and I am not here to prove anything. How many times do I have to say that the existence of God can never be proven?
How many times do I have to say that religious beliefs can never be proven?

This strikes me an an excuse.

I see you did not understand what I said and I cannot help that. It is really rather simple, it is not rocket science.

I said: In order for the conclusion to be true, the premise must be true. I am not presenting a logical argument because the premise God exists can never be proven true, so the conclusion God exists cannot be supported by the premise that God exists.

I do not need an excuse for not being able to prove what can never be proven. I suggest you read the OP on my latest thread as I explained it there.
What is Faith?

You are claiming there is some weak basis for you deciding what you believe. When you attempt explaining that even the reasons are very weak and dubious. I get the sense you never have subjected what you believe to serious scrutiny. Your reasons are essentially that you read texts, you think they re true at face value, and you believe. There is nothing about why you think the texts suggest they could only come from interaction with a real God.

The basis for what I believe has been amply explained over and over and over again. If you think it is weak and I think it is strong. I see the futility of discussing it anymore.

I alone know what I subjected to serious scrutiny and I have been subjecting it to serious scrutiny for decades and coming to the same conclusions.
I believe the texts come from a real God is because I know who was behind them, and I have determined that He was sent by God.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

No. This interpretation is out of context. Just one verse before (Ephesians 4:3) we can read that Paul is beseeching this community to endeavour "to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." It's about the unity of the Christians. Like Jesus prayed for disciples and all believers in the Gospel of John that they may all be one (John 17:11-25).

Agree because Eph 4:4 stresses the importance of 'unity' in verses 4-6 and is a list of factors that unite the congregation.
One body " aka the Christian congregation" compared to a human body. Jesus of course being the Head of this: spiritual body. Eph. 1:22-23
One spirit of course is God's spirit - 1st Cor. 12:13; 2nd Cor. 5:5; Psalm 104:30
One hope to be set free from sin and death - Heb. 3:1; Romans 8:20-21,24
One Lord meaning Jesus - 1st Cor. 8:6
One faith or one acceptable way to worship God - John 4:23-24; John 3:16; Romans 10:16-17; 2nd Cor. 4:13
One baptism in the name of the Father, the Son and the holy spirit as the key to unity. - Acts19:1-6
One God and Father .... Deut. 6:4

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Precisely .. nobody knows what will happen to them in the afterlife.
However, a person of faith should have hope in God's mercy, and that they die with faith, and eventually enter the paradise. Amen.

I find in the Bible that Jesus knows what will happen.
No 'afterlife' (afterlife meaning: more alive after death than before death) because the dead know nothing according to Jesus and the OT.
Jesus and the OT both teach ' sleep ' in death - John 11:11-14; Psalms 6:5; 13:3; 115:17; Isaiah 38:18; Ecclesiastes 9:5
Sleep in death until awakened on Resurrection Day (John 6:40,44) meaning Jesus coming Millennium-Long Day of governing over Earth for a thousand years.

Yes, those who die faithful (Matt. 24:13) will have a resurrection of being counted as being righteous - Acts 24:15
Those resurrected as un-righteous (un-just KJV) can become righteous during Jesus thousand-year reign over Earth.
Those who choose righteousness can live forever on a beautiful paradisical edenic Earth - Matt. 5:5; Psalm 37:9-11; SURAH XXI 105; XXXIX 73
A paradise Earth as described in the 35th chapter of Isaiah.
Only the wicked will be 'destroyed forever' - Psalms 92:7; 104:35; Proverbs 2:21-22

 

[F1fan]

No, it suggests that mortals are all divided between different religions and sects within those religions so much so that nobody can tell what is true anymore, unless they read the Baha'i Writings, which explain why there is so much division.

The texts explain no such thing as far as I have read. And the social science do vastly better in explaining the diversirty of belief, and why humans believe in irrational, superstitions. Your belief is part of the division your religion is believed to resolve, but it hasn't. For example the texts offer no emotional solution to the religious beliefs of others, and given your own testimony reason doesn't work. The texts might suggest a basic unity of nations, and as much rational sense this makes it isn't adequate to cause the change needed. Why don't the texts ofer a solution that can actually be effective

I post many threads that get people to think and discuss and learn new things, but some people don't learn anything new because they 'believe' they already know everything, so their only reason for being here is to argue and show off what they 'believe' they know, which is nothing short of their personal opinion which they call a reasoned argument and critical thinking. These posters just keep spewing that same garbage year after year, 'believing' they are winning arguments. It is funny to watch but sad to see.

I see your posts appeal to other types of believers, notably other fringe believers. Your posts don't offer compelling arguments to critical thinkers.

In case you haven't noticed, the name of this forum is called Religious Forums and that involves talking about what people believe, not what they can prove, since beliefs cannot be proven.

Do you think this means that all posts have to argue FOR reigion and can't offer criticisms?

In some instances I have moved on, as I respond only to posts I feel are worthwhile to answer.

A lot of that goin around. Your posts from a few days were full on defensiveness and repeating of claims/beliefs you ahve already made but can't support. I didn't bother to respond again. You have that blind spot, and claim excuses.

I am not here to fight and I am not here to prove anything. How many times do I have to say that the existence of God can never be proven?
How many times do I have to say that religious beliefs can never be proven?

How many times do you write posts that are not valid, yet you repeat the pattern? If your beliefs are valid then they can be argued successfully. You believe in ideas you admit you can't support (prove) yet still think they can be believed and posted in a forum where ideas are scrutized regardless of your attempt to exempt them. Every idea is open for analysis and debate, including god concepts.

I see you did not understand what I said and I cannot help that. It is really rather simple, it is not rocket science. I said: In order for the conclusion to be true, the premise must be true. I am not presenting a logical argument because the premise God exists can never be proven true, so the conclusion God exists cannot be supported by the premise that God exists.

You have blind spots for rational explanations of things you believe.

I do not need an excuse for not being able to prove what can never be proven. I suggest you read the OP on my latest thread as I explained it there.
What is Faith?

You must subconsciously need excuses because you do make attempts to make them, like insisting god concepts are off limits to reason.

The basis for what I believe has been amply explained over and over and over again. If you think it is weak and I think it is strong. I see the futility of discussing it anymore.

Belief for rational minds has to be based on an adequate level of evidence. The faithful believe in their religious ideas for less than adequate evidence for critical thinkers, as had been explained. So that you believe does not mean you are justified in what and why you believe. By your own claim at the top of this response you cited Baha'i texts as a source for why the planet doesn't unify, so by that way of thinking all those folks who believe in the diversity of gods are believing in ways opposed to Baha'i texts, so must be incorrect in their belief. Yet you can't consider that your belief is as incorrect for their reasons.

I alone know what I subjected to serious scrutiny and I have been subjecting it to serious scrutiny for decades and coming to the same conclusions.
I believe the texts come from a real God is because I know who was behind them, and I have determined that He was sent by God.

I suggest you lack clarity in your personal beliefs, and lack why you are motivated to believe as yyou do, while critical thinkers ARE able to be more objective and assess what you believe. This is common among believers of any dogma, they have their own blindspots to what they believe, but are critical of other belief. Special pleading is the fallacy.

 

[Trailblazer]

The texts explain no such thing as far as I have read.

I a not sure it is explained in the official Baha'i Writings explains this but it has been written about by Baha'i authors, but anyone can see that people are all divided between different religions and sects within those religions because they believe in their religion or sect so they disagree with others who do not agree with them.

For example the texts offer no emotional solution to the religious beliefs of others, and given your own testimony reason doesn't work.

The emotions of other religious believers are not the responsibility of anyone except themselves.

The texts might suggest a basic unity of nations, and as much rational sense this makes it isn't adequate to cause the change needed. Why don't the texts offer a solution that can actually be effective

The solution is for people to follow the counsels of Baha'u'llah. Change cannot come unless people act.

Do you think this means that all posts have to argue FOR religion and can't offer criticisms?

Of course not.

How many times do you write posts that are not valid, yet you repeat the pattern? If your beliefs are valid then they can be argued successfully. You believe in ideas you admit you can't support (prove) yet still think they can be believed and posted in a forum where ideas are scrutized regardless of your attempt to exempt them. Every idea is open for analysis and debate, including god concepts.

How many times do I have to say that the existence of God can never be proven?
How many times do I have to say that religious beliefs can never be proven?
Why can't you at least acknowledge that?

If you want proof of God and I say there is no proof, only evidence, and I tell you what I believe the evidence is, and you disagree, what is there to debate? You can scrutinize my beliefs all you want to but what's the point? I am not going to change my mind about what I believe.

You have blind spots for rational explanations of things you believe.

I see you did not understand what I said and I cannot help that. It is really rather simple, it is not rocket science. I said: In order for the conclusion to be true, the premise must be true. I am not presenting a logical argument because the premise God exists can never be proven true, so the conclusion God exists cannot be supported by the premise that God exists.

You must subconsciously need excuses because you do make attempts to make them, like insisting god concepts are off limits to reason.

God concepts are off limits for proof but not for reason.

Belief for rational minds has to be based on an adequate level of evidence. The faithful believe in their religious ideas for less than adequate evidence for critical thinkers, as had been explained. So that you believe does not mean you are justified in what and why you believe.

I have a rational mind and I have an adequate level of evidence. If it is not adequate for you you don't have to believe what I do.
I am justified in what I believe because I am the one who justifies what I believe. Many other people understand that people justify their own beliefs. It is only you and one other person on this forum who say my belief is unjustified because you do not think it is justified. But you do not determine what is justified for other people, only for yourself.

I suggest you lack clarity in your personal beliefs, and lack why you are motivated to believe as you do

I suggest you have no idea what goes on in my mind or why I am motivated to believe as I do, not unless I tell you. I know I have told you how I came to my beliefs but you continue to contradict me because you cannot see anything from any other perspective except your own. If I did not come to the same conclusions you did, I must be wrong and lacking in critical thinking skills. You cannot accept what I say since you think you know me better than I know myself, but you don't.

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

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The solution is for people to follow the counsels of Baha'u'llah.

That's not a solution. The solution includes getting them to do it. And solutions involving the Abrahamic god n particular don't work. They never have.

How many times do I have to say that the existence of God can never be proven?

Probably a few hundred more times, since you say it more or less at random. Nobody is asking you for proof.

I said: In order for the conclusion to be true, the premise must be true. I am not presenting a logical argument because the premise God exists can never be proven true, so the conclusion God exists cannot be supported by the premise that God exists.

You don't seem to know what a logical argument is. If-then statements are conditional arguments. You've seen All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal. The premises are given as fact and the conclusion is therefore a statement of fact. Change it to the conditional and the syllogism is still valid: If all men are mortal and if Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal. That's an argument. So is your if-then comment, and it might be deemed unsound if your logic is faulty: If the room is dark, then the lamp must be broken. That's an argument, and a fallacious one at that.

I have a rational mind and I have an adequate level of evidence.

Perhaps you are willing to say that your evidence justifies your belief, but not by the standards of critical thought.

I am justified in what I believe because I am the one who justifies what I believe.

Your standards for justification lead you to hold unsound beliefs. That's good enough for you. You're like the person in court claiming that her actions were justified by her own standards, who is then convicted by others using their own standards for justification - the common legal one. It doesn't matter to the jury if the defendant uses a private standard that exonerates her. Trump does. He commonly calls his actions justified and then uses his own criteria, and a lot of soft thinking people will accept that claim, but juries might not. They are told what standards to employ during jury instruction, just as critical thinkers are trained in the standards for determining soundness in an argument.

I have told you how I came to my beliefs but you continue to contradict me because you cannot see anything from any other perspective except your own.

He doesn't believe you. Neither do I. You came to your beliefs using faith, and you trot out the 'I use evidence not proof' trope as if that mattered. Nobody uses proof to believe or disbelieve in gods, and regarding what you call evidence, you might as well hold up anything and call that your evidence. Maybe your car keys. Just say that they are evidence that justifies belief for you, and make sure to add that you never called it proof, just evidence that justifies your belief, and you don't care what others think about that because it's good enough to justify your beliefs for you. And do you know what? It will still be called unjustified belief.

If I did not come to the same conclusions you did, I must be wrong and lacking in critical thinking skills.

You're like a student in a math class arguing with the teacher when she gives an answer that is wrong. Uh, yeah, if you came to a different conclusion than the math teacher and the rest of the class, most of whom agree with the math teacher, then you've done it wrong. This would be where you say have evidence that you're right but can't prove it, or that his answer is just his opinion.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's not a solution. The solution includes getting them to do it.

True.

And solutions involving the Abrahamic god n particular don't work. They never have.

Just because they never have that doesn't mean they never will. This is a new age with a new Messenger and a new message.

Probably a few hundred more times, since you say it more or less at random. Nobody is asking you for proof.

Atheists are asking me for verifiable evidence which is proof.

You don't seem to know what a logical argument is. If-then statements are conditional arguments.

I certainly do know what a logical argument is, but I have told you 100 times that religious beliefs are not subject to logical proofs and I have told you why.

Perhaps you are willing to say that your evidence justifies your belief, but not by the standards of critical thought.

My evidence justifies my belief to me by the standards of my own critical thought.

Your standards for justification lead you to hold unsound beliefs.

My beliefs are neither sound nor unsound since they are not subject to logical arguments.

He doesn't believe you. Neither do I.

Ask me if I care.

You came to your beliefs using faith, and you trot out the 'I use evidence not proof' trope as if that mattered.

That is absolutely false because I had NO FAITH before I came to my beliefs by looking at the evidence for the Baha'i Faith.

Nobody uses proof to believe or disbelieve in gods, and regarding what you call evidence, you might as well hold up anything and call that your evidence.

I gave you a chance to come up with something better than Messengers of God for evidence of God and you failed miserably.
You thought God writing in the sky would be better evidence than Messengers of God who established all the great religions of the world. That is by no means the product of critical thinking.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I gave you a chance to come up with something better than Messengers of God for evidence of God and you failed miserably.
You thought God writing in the sky would be better evidence than Messengers of God who established all the great religions of the world. That is by no means the product of critical thinking.

I totally agree with you.
Some people are just spiritually blind .. oh well.

 

[CG Didymus]

He doesn't believe you. Neither do I. You came to your beliefs using faith, and you trot out the 'I use evidence not proof' trope as if that mattered. Nobody uses proof to believe or disbelieve in gods, and regarding what you call evidence, you might as well hold up anything and call that your evidence.

So, didn't the "evidence" prove it to her?

 

[CG Didymus]

I totally agree with you.
Some people are just spiritually blind

But do each of you believe in everything the other person does? Like do you believe Baha'u'llah is the messenger sent from God for today? If so, why aren't you a Baha'i? If not, then to the Baha'is you're one of the blind ones too. And that is one of the huge problems with the Baha'i Faith in actually being able to unify people from other religions. Their unity depends on the person recognizing their prophet as the true one from God.

 

[Trailblazer]

So, didn't the "evidence" prove it to her?

The evidence proved it to me but the evidence is not proof to everyone who looks at it.

 

[Trailblazer]

But do each of you believe in everything the other person does? Like do you believe Baha'u'llah is the messenger sent from God for today? If so, why aren't you a Baha'i? If not, then to the Baha'is you're one of the blind ones too. And that is one of the huge problems with the Baha'i Faith in actually being able to unify people from other religions. Their unity depends on the person recognizing their prophet as the true one from God.

No, that is not true.
Baha'is do not call other believers blind just because they haven't recognized Baha'u'llah and unity does not depend upon everyone recognizing Baha'u'llah.

“As difference in degree of capacity exists among human souls, as difference in capability is found, therefore, individualities will differ one from another. But in reality this is a reason for unity and not for discord and enmity. If the flowers of a garden were all of one color, the effect would be monotonous to the eye; but if the colors are variegated, it is most pleasing and wonderful. The difference in adornment of color and capacity of reflection among the flowers gives the garden its beauty and charm. Therefore, although we are of different individualities, different in ideas and of various fragrances, let us strive like flowers of the same divine garden to live together in harmony. Even though each soul has its own individual perfume and color, all are reflecting the same light, all contributing fragrance to the same breeze which blows through the garden, all continuing to grow in complete harmony and accord. Become as waves of one sea, trees of one forest, growing in the utmost love, agreement and unity.” – Abdu’l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace

 

[Muffled]

The evidence that God exists is the Messengers of God.

I believe that is insufficient because there are false messengers. I believe proof of God is that He does what He says He will do.