True and False Prophets - Just and Honest Determination

[CG Didymus]

You are still talking but not actually saying anything. You are just saying Baha'u'llah is a true prophet because there are good fruits and evil fruits. You have not shown any difference between Baha'u'llah and Ahmad. You have not clarified any difference between good fruits and evil fruits.

Here's a quote from part of a speech given by an Ahmadiyya leader. Sounds like there aim is to produce good. So, what are Baha'is going to do? Call them evil and a false religion with a false prophet? Yeah, technically... according to Baha'i beliefs, they could do that. But then, technically, according to Christian and even for Muslims, Baha'is could be and, for many, are called a false religion with a false prophet.

At a time when the world would, in the most part, have forgotten its Creator, the Promised Messiah would also provide the people of other religions with guidance so that they too could develop a loving bond with God Almighty. In fulfilment of that grand prophecy, we Ahmadi Muslims believe that the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian(as), was the very person who was sent by God as the Imam Mahdi and as the Promised Messiah. Not only did the Promised Messiah(as) announce that he had been sent by God, but he also established a Community of his followers. The Promised Messiah(as) himself explained the key objectives of his advent. He said:​

​

“The task with which God Almighty has appointed me is that I should remove the malaise that has formed between God and His Creation and restore the relationship of love and sincerity between them.”​

​

He further said:​

​

“The second purpose is that for the sake of God’s people and out of compassion all persons should engage their strengths and capabilities in the service and well-wishing of God’s people.​

And they must treat gratefully and beneficially all people – from Kings and Emperors down to an ordinary person – who has done them any favour.”​

Indeed, people should not only restrict themselves to responding with gratitude and by benefiting others. In fact, the Promised Messiah(as) has further added:​

​

“One should love mankind to such a degree that he should consider the trials and tribulations of others as his own and should pray for them.”​

It is on the basis of these compassionate teachings that the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community makes every effort to spread love, kindness, brotherhood and peace to every corner of the world. Ahmadi Muslims can literally be described in just two lines – as those people who fulfil the rights owed to God and those who fulfil the rights owed to God’s Creation. Without acting upon these teachings a person cannot claim to be a true Ahmadi Muslim. If we reflect and consider, we will realise that these are the very virtues that today’s world stands in urgent need of. These are the principles which can become the means of establishing world peace. I say this because a relationship of love and sincerity can only be formed with God when a person fulfils the rights owed to Him and God’s rights can only be fulfilled when His commands are followed.​

 

[Truthseeker]

Yeah, my family were Catholics. There was so much fear built into their teachings. Does a kid dare not go to Church on Sunday? It's a mortal sin, and they'd go straight to hell if they die.

I heard the same kind of stories from my wife Sara, who was raised in a Catholic family, but is a Baha'i like me. She also has recently associated with Catholics, and spoke of how afraid they were about her, that somehow she would induce them to not be Catholic anymore, even though Sara knew better than to try to do that.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

What do you think an honest and just determination is?

One hears of the Message of Baha’u’llah and researches it for their own self. That is being honest and just, not relying on 2nd hand opinions.

One should never demand or hint that others are responsible to deliver the answers they themselves should be seeking and deciding upon for their own selves.

Regards Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

Like I was just telling @Trailblazer, Jesus talked about when he'd return and where. For me that's more important than what's figurative and what's literal. Sure it's significant to many but for me it's a sidetrack.

Hmm? A sidetrack to tell them the truth about what Baha'is believe... interesting.

our focus should be on the sacred text where we all agree and moving into other truths where we can have more agreement.

Ah, ignore the differences.

Then I said this...

Except... many of the times, it tells you... this is a parable... Jesus was talking symbolically. One of my main arguments with Baha'is is why they make the resurrection story symbolic? They might say, "Because we know, scientifically, that it can't be literal." Yes, now we know that. Did people know that 2000 years ago?

The story is told as if it was all true. For me, if it's not, then why can't it just be a fictional, made up story to made Jesus into a God?

And this was your response?

Ok, you have problems there. Maybe someday if you ever want my help we can get into it but that you don't want my input now.

All I'm saying is that the Gospel writers tell us when it is being a parable or being symbolic. So, what are you going to "get into"? How Baha'is make whatever they want symbolic?

Then I said this...

That's not all that good of an approach. Why not try to understand the Scriptures of another religion in the way the followers of that religion believe them?

We might still think they are wrong and not being rational in their thinking. Especially when people in some religions believe in things like a human flying off into space. Or that a wooden walking staff turned into a snake.

Some of us are always going to have a problem with people that believe in things that they can't see and can't prove... Like those religious people that believe there is a God but can't see him or prove that he exists. That can sound so irrational and unscientific to some people.

And to that you said...

This is bit hard for me to follow. What I'm getting is that there are a lot of things you don't like. My take is that it's not healthy to focus on what we don't like. My preference is to focus on what I see as good

So, you say it's not "healthy" to focus on the things we don't like by telling me what you don't like about what I said? Do you agree with anything I said?

And you said that it was hard to follow... So, let me simplify it.

I think it is important to understand what the people in the religion believe about their own Scriptures. If, for instance, Born Again Christians take something like the resurrection of Jesus literally, what is the "good" you see in that? And, since you don't want to get into what's literal and figurative with them, you don't tell them that Baha'is don't believe Jesus literally came back to life with a flesh and bone body?

So, without telling me what Baha'is don't like about the interpretations made by Born Again Christians, tell me why Baha'is believe them to be wrong?

Actually, don't do that. I'm okay with Baha'is telling me why they disagree with Christians. Trouble is... I disagree with Baha'is. And I agree more with how those Born Again Christians interpret their Scriptures. But I don't believe those Scriptures are necessarily true. They might be.

Just like the Baha'i Scriptures might be true. But I don't believe they are, because there are things that they say I don't like. And why don't I like them? Because I don't think they are true.

Now let's see if there is something we can agree on... I think it's okay to point out why I think some beliefs in some religions are wrong. Do you agree or disagree?

Like was it okay for some ancient religions to sacrifice humans to their Gods? Do you think it was okay for the leaders in one religion to kill and torture people in another religion to try and get them to convert?

Or... when one religion says that its leader is the new manifestation of God for today... What are people supposed to do when they are told about the claims and beliefs of that religion? Only talk about what they like about it?

Or question them and ask them for proof and evidence of the claims? And... even get into things they don't like about the teachings and beliefs about that religion? Now being too negative or being too accepting I can agree... is not healthy. But to ignore the areas of disagreement doesn't sound all that healthy either. Do you agree?

 

[CG Didymus]

That is what 'God of Gaps' is about. Is it neccessary to have a unproven belief? That is all that these people do - argue, fight, loot, maim, rape, kill. It is a method in madness. A nice way to show 'God's love'! How can they prove anything when you yourself accept that it is unprovable? CG, just think about what you have written.

All I'm saying is that their belief about their God becomes real to them. For a person to convert from one religion to another the one belief, I think, has to be let go of and even denied as being true. And the new belief about God becomes their new reality. But I'll bet that while they were believing in that other version of God, it seemed absolutely true to them.

 

[CG Didymus]

What do you think an honest and just determination is?

I have done my own research. I was asking about your research.

Some people have done what they believe to be an honest and just determination. Some of those people have become Baha'is, but how deep and thorough was their research?

There seems to be a problem that now that they believe, they are no longer unbiased. They "know" that the Baha'i Faith is the truth. But what if they are presented with new information they hadn't considered before?

Do they do a new honest and just determination or just go by their beliefs that they have accepted as being the absolute truth... and they never question those belief ever again?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

All I'm saying is that their belief about their God becomes real to them. For a person to convert from one religion to another the one belief, I think, has to be let go of and even denied as being true. And the new belief about God becomes their new reality. But I'll bet that while they were believing in that other version of God, it seemed absolutely true to them.

God is real, the proof is the fruit of the Messengers and the subsequent Message that becomes the set standard people can choose to live by.

Not being motivated to live to that standard, becomes our greatest challenge.

Regards Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

It could be fictional, I don't really know. I prefer to acknowledge that I don't really know the truth of that. To me, whether the story is symbolic or fictional is not important.

It becomes important when one religion takes a story like the resurrection as literal as possible, and another religion says it is not "literally" true but "symbolically" true. The one supports the belief that Jesus is the only way... Jesus is the only one that can save people from hell... And that Jesus is God.

The other opens the way for other religions to be true. Which opens the way for Baha'u'llah to be the return of the "spirit" of Christ.

But the other thing I was putting out there is if the resurrection was a hoax. If the disciples of Jesus took his body and hid it, then claimed that Jesus had risen from the dead, that's not being symbolic, that is lying.

I do believe that the Gospels are claiming that Jesus did come back to life in a flesh and bone body, and in Acts it says that he showed himself to be alive by many proofs.

That is really, really hard for some of us to believe. Then that he could appear and disappear and could float off into the sky, that makes it sound to me like myth. But a myth, a hoax, or even if it was symbolic, doesn't have the power of the story being literally true. Literally true is very important for many Christians. Symbolically true is important for Baha'is. Being a lie and a hoax? That's bad for both Christians and Baha'is but could it be true?

Or... we could soften it up and call it a "white lie", an exaggeration... the writers were just embellishing the story. That's what I think is very likely. The writers were either going by traditions and legends that were going around or they were the ones making them up, and they added in the resurrection to make the story more powerful... to give it more impact. And it did. But... to me... that just makes it all a myth. Great story, but not true.

 

[CG Didymus]

God is real, the proof is the fruit of the Messengers and the subsequent Message that becomes the set standard people can choose to live by.

Not being motivated to live to that standard, becomes our greatest challenge.

Regards Tony

Yeah, let's look at Christianity for an example. The fruit? A lot of rotten and bad fruit in there. The Inquisitions, people being burned at the stake for heresy or being accused of being a witch.

And the message? Jesus is God and the only way to get to heaven. Lot of centuries with the Roman Church in charge. Then were the Protestants any better? There were still witch hunts and people being killed for not believing correctly. Even now... lots of Church leaders in it for money and a lot of them getting caught "fooling around".

So, you say God is real? How about the Christian Trinitarian God? Real or not real?

Yeah, some good fruit some bad. So, you can't go by that. Beliefs though? According to Baha'is, no... The Christian beliefs are wrong. So, you can't go by that either.

 

[CG Didymus]

not relying on 2nd hand opinions.

You mean like reading Bill Sears book and using that to help them make a decision? Or... even the Gospels. They were at least second hand stories about Jesus. Or... what if I'm influenced by you? You seem trustworthy... And you researched it. Should I consider your thoughts on whether Baha'u'llah is for real?

Too bad, your thoughts are considered. Bill Sears is considered. And the Gospels are considered. But I double check all of them to see if I think what is being said is true.

 

[Truthseeker]

But the other thing I was putting out there is if the resurrection was a hoax. If the disciples of Jesus took his body and hid it, then claimed that Jesus had risen from the dead, that's not being symbolic, that is lying.

I don't believe that's very likely.The Gospels were written decades apparently after the crucifixion and not by the disciples probably. That opens the way for the possibly of it being fiction or a legendary story developed over time. Being that long after there were differences in the accounts. Luke seems to be the Gospel that Christians like to use to "prove" that the resurrection was physical because Jesus said he was flesh and blood in that one and ate a fish. The other Gospels are weaker in that regard. But the same writer of Luke scholars know wrote the Acts of the Apostles, and first thing, Jesus ascends bodily to heaven in that one, which by today's science we know that "heaven" as in going up in the sky is empty space. There is no physical heaven there. There is no proof from the Gospels that a physical resurrection happened.

If the body was stolen maybe to cover their tracks they would use the same story in all the Gospels. But I'm not sure that my logic is sound on that one. I just don't think that the disciples were that wayward in their ethics would make up a story to sell to people as the truth. I do believe in Christ and he taught them better than that in my opinion.

 

[Sumadji]

She also has recently associated with Catholics, and spoke of how afraid they were about her, that somehow she would induce them to not be Catholic anymore, even though Sara knew better than to try to do that.

OMG what world do you live in? There are more than 1.2 billion Catholics on the planet. Most South Americans and a large proportion of Europeans are Catholic. There are millions of Catholics in Africa and the Baltics and Eastern Europe and elsewhere living ordinary lives. Do you think individual Catholics are so insecure as to feel their faith threatened by Baha’i beliefs?

See post #227 here ...

 

[Trailblazer]

The only times I post on these threads is in response to Baha’i comparing Baha’u’llah to Jesus or other Biblical figures and distorting and cherry-picking from the New Testament to support their claims. Your whole post #627 above is dedicated to comparing Baha'u'llah to Jesus, and so are countless other of your posts on this thread alone.

No, I am not the one who compares Baha'ullah to Jesus, it is Christians who do that, when they say that Jesus is the only way to God for all of time and Baha'u'llah is a false prophet.

The most I ever do is say that Jesus and Baha'u'llah have the same station since they are both Manifestations of God.
I never put Jesus down in order to raise Baha'u'llah up. It is Christians who constantly put Baha'u'llah down in order to raise Jesus up.

Post #627 above was not written by me.

It is the Baha’i who regard Baha’u’llah as the return of the Christ in the station of the Father, above the station of Jesus Christ the Son. You just said it yourself, right in this same post

I said that Baha'u'llah came in the station of the Father, but I never said that station is above the station of Jesus Christ the Son.

Baha’u’llah sternly warned us never to make any distinction between any of the Messengers of God (who are the Manifestations of His Cause) because they all arise to proclaim the same religion, since there is only one eternal religion of God. Baha’u’llah wrote that the works and acts of all the Manifestations of God were all ordained by God, a reflection of His Will and Purpose, meaning that all the religions are equally true and all the Messengers are equal in stature.

“Beware, O believers in the Unity of God, lest ye be tempted to make any distinction between any of the Manifestations of His Cause, or to discriminate against the signs that have accompanied and proclaimed their Revelation. This indeed is the true meaning of Divine Unity, if ye be of them that apprehend and believe this truth. Be ye assured, moreover, that the works and acts of each and every one of these Manifestations of God, nay whatever pertaineth unto them, and whatsoever they may manifest in the future, are all ordained by God, and are a reflection of His Will and Purpose. Whoso maketh the slightest possible difference between their persons, their words, their messages, their acts and manners, hath indeed disbelieved in God, hath repudiated His signs, and betrayed the Cause of His Messengers.”

Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 59-60

Anyway, since I’m not interested in trying to compare a false Christ to the true one I only respond to Baha’i claims and distortions of the Christian scriptures that may mislead others who don’t know.

You just did what you said you are NOT interested in doing. You just compared Baha'u'llah to Jesus, calling Baha'u'llah a false Christ and calling Jesus the true one.

Baha'u'llah never claimed to be Christ, so he cannot be a false Christ.

Everyone knows the Christian scriptures so they can make their own determinations regarding their meanings.

 

[Trailblazer]

I have done my own research. I was asking about your research. With no explanation it seems clear that you don't know a difference between a true prophet and a false prophet.

I have done my own research. I know that Baha'u'llah is a true prophet, and that means that Ahmad has to be a false prophet, given what Bahaullah wrote about no more prophets for 1000 years from 1852 AD.

I already told you that I know the difference between a true prophet and a false prophet. A true prophet has good fruits and a false prophet has evil fruits. I believe that Baha'u'llah had good fruits and Ahmad had evil fruits.

So you don't actually know if Baha'u'llah is a true prophet or not. Your belief is only based on the assumption that he is.

I do know that Baha'u'llah is a true prophet. That is not an assumption, it is a belief, and my belief is based on extensive research.

 

[Trailblazer]

Something I've been learning here is the fact that while nobody has found any quote from an authoritative source that says the Bible is not the word of God, neither have any of us produced a similar quote say that it is. While there's still another source that I could check later, for now my thinking is that a core Baha'i belief is the oneness of religion and the oneness of God's messengers and that the idea of the Bible being the word of God is in the opinion department.

It is in the opinion department, and I have my own opinion. My opinion lies in the middle between the two extremes.

Introduction

Although Bahá'ís universally share a great respect for the Bible, and acknowledge its status as sacred literature, their individual views about its authoritative status range along the full spectrum of possibilities. At one end there are those who assume the uncritical evangelical or fundamentalist-Christian view that the Bible is wholly and indisputably the word of God. At the other end are Bahá'ís attracted to the liberal, scholarly conclusion that the Bible is no more than a product of complex historical and human forces. Between these extremes is the possibility that the Bible contains the Word of God, but only in a particular sense of the phrase 'Word of God' or in particular texts. I hope to show that a Bahá'í view must lie in this middle area, and can be defined to some degree.

Conclusion

The Bahá'í viewpoint proposed by this essay has been established as follows: The Bible is a reliable source of Divine guidance and salvation, and rightly regarded as a sacred and holy book. However, as a collection of the writings of independent and human authors, it is not necessarily historically accurate. Nor can the words of its writers, although inspired, be strictly defined as 'The Word of God' in the way the original words of Moses and Jesus could have been. Instead there is an area of continuing interest for Bahá'í scholars, possibly involving the creation of new categories for defining authoritative religious literature.

Bahá'í Library Online

Baha'i articles, books, translations, and historical materials

bahai-library.com

I do not only believe the Baha'i authoritative sources. I can read what scholars have to say and believe them if I want to.

Mírza Abú'l-Fadl was praised and recommended by 'Abdu'l-Bahá and has been justifiably called the most learned and erudite Bahá'í scholar[16]
Concerning the Book of Christ, he wrote that "The Holy Gospels alone contain teachings which can be regarded as the true Words of God; and these teachings do not exceed the contents of a few pages."[18]

 

[CG Didymus]

I just don't think that the disciples were that wayward in their ethics would make up a story to sell to people as the truth. I do believe in Christ and he taught them better than that in my opinion.

But how about exaggerating and embellishing? The nicest way I can put it is that they were telling it in a mythical way... as opposed to a symbolic way.

As with the story of the Exodus... Moses leads the people out of Egypt and here comes the Egyptian Army. How to show the power of God? A great "legend", "tall tale" or myth would be to have God part the seas. Or when the Israelites were winning in a battle, but they needed more time. What to do? Have God stop the Sun in the sky.

With Jesus we have so many things... The virgin birth, him casting out demons, him walking on water, and him rising from the dead... all are great embellishment that beef up the story to show people how powerful that God is and how Jesus must be God's Son.

Anyway, that's just an interpretation to get around the Bible and NT being true. And I think it's simpler and more plausible than thinking that the various writers all told stories about events that sounded like they really happened, but they didn't really happen... but weren't meant to be taken symbolically. And the reason that they should be taken symbolically is because they describe things that happened that we know could not have happened. Like the parting of the sea or the Sun standing still.

My answer to that is that in those days, I think people would have thought those things possible. Why literal believe Christians believe them possible today kind of shows that it is still possible to get people to believe things that scientifically, we know couldn't have happened.

But that doesn't matter, because those Christians believe that anything is possible for God. And those things prove how great and powerful God is that He can defy physical laws.

 

[Trailblazer]

But how about exaggerating and embellishing? The nicest way I can put it is that they were telling it in a mythical way... as opposed to a symbolic way.

As with the story of the Exodus... Moses leads the people out of Egypt and here comes the Egyptian Army. How to show the power of God? A great "legend", "tall tale" or myth would be to have God part the seas. Or when the Israelites were winning in a battle, but they needed more time. What to do? Have God stop the Sun in the sky.

With Jesus we have so many things... The virgin birth, him casting out demons, him walking on water, and him rising from the dead... all are great embellishment that beef up the story to show people how powerful that God is and how Jesus must be God's Son.

Anyway, that's just an interpretation to get around the Bible and NT being true. And I think it's simpler and more plausible than thinking that the various writers all told stories about events that sounded like they really happened, but they didn't really happen... but weren't meant to be taken symbolically. And the reason that they should be taken symbolically is because they describe things that happened that we know could not have happened. Like the parting of the sea or the Sun standing still.

My answer to that is that in those days, I think people would have thought those things possible. Why literal believe Christians believe them possible today kind of shows that it is still possible to get people to believe things that scientifically, we know couldn't have happened.

But that doesn't matter, because those Christians believe that anything is possible for God. And those things prove how great and powerful God is that He can defy physical laws.

Great synopsis.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Yeah, let's look at Christianity for an example. The fruit? A lot of rotten and bad fruit in there. The Inquisitions, people being burned at the stake for heresy or being accused of being a witch.

And the message? Jesus is God and the only way to get to heaven. Lot of centuries with the Roman Church in charge. Then were the Protestants any better? There were still witch hunts and people being killed for not believing correctly. Even now... lots of Church leaders in it for money and a lot of them getting caught "fooling around".

So, you say God is real? How about the Christian Trinitarian God? Real or not real?

Yeah, some good fruit some bad. So, you can't go by that. Beliefs though? According to Baha'is, no... The Christian beliefs are wrong. So, you can't go by that either.

If that is what you want to look for CG. They are actions of men, can you find that in the Bible, that is, the authority for the Inquisitions, people being burned at the stake for heresy or being accused of being a witch?

Jesus, a chosen Messenger, the Holy Spirit and God are all the correct reality, all else's is a mirage.

The Good millions of Christians have done over thousands of years is what we should look at, that is the fruit we pick and not the rotten apples that have fallen from the tree.

Regards Tony

 

[Truthseeker]

OMG what world do you live in? There are more than 1.2 billion Catholics on the planet. Most South Americans and a large proportion of Europeans are Catholic. There are millions of Catholics in Africa and the Baltics and Eastern Europe and elsewhere living ordinary lives. Do you think individual Catholics are so insecure as to feel their faith threatened by Baha’i beliefs?

See post #227 here ...

Some of them. Sara still has a few Catholic friends she does things with, and they are not afraid of her. Specifically Sara for a while was with secular Franciscans, and actually most in the nearby Catholic branch were not threatened by her, a few were. Then the local branch became too small, and there was a merger with another church, and the leader of that group banned Sara, saying that she had to "protect" the secular Franciscans there.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Hmm? A sidetrack to tell them the truth about what Baha'is believe... interesting.


Ah, ignore the differences.

Then I said this...


And this was your response?

All I'm saying is that the Gospel writers tell us when it is being a parable or being symbolic. So, what are you going to "get into"? How Baha'is make whatever they want symbolic?

Then I said this...


And to that you said...


So, you say it's not "healthy" to focus on the things we don't like by telling me what you don't like about what I said? Do you agree with anything I said?

And you said that it was hard to follow... So, let me simplify it.

I think it is important to understand what the people in the religion believe about their own Scriptures. If, for instance, Born Again Christians take something like the resurrection of Jesus literally, what is the "good" you see in that? And, since you don't want to get into what's literal and figurative with them, you don't tell them that Baha'is don't believe Jesus literally came back to life with a flesh and bone body?

So, without telling me what Baha'is don't like about the interpretations made by Born Again Christians, tell me why Baha'is believe them to be wrong?

Actually, don't do that. I'm okay with Baha'is telling me why they disagree with Christians. Trouble is... I disagree with Baha'is. And I agree more with how those Born Again Christians interpret their Scriptures. But I don't believe those Scriptures are necessarily true. They might be.

Just like the Baha'i Scriptures might be true. But I don't believe they are, because there are things that they say I don't like. And why don't I like them? Because I don't think they are true.

Now let's see if there is something we can agree on... I think it's okay to point out why I think some beliefs in some religions are wrong. Do you agree or disagree?

Like was it okay for some ancient religions to sacrifice humans to their Gods? Do you think it was okay for the leaders in one religion to kill and torture people in another religion to try and get them to convert?

Or... when one religion says that its leader is the new manifestation of God for today... What are people supposed to do when they are told about the claims and beliefs of that religion? Only talk about what they like about it?

Or question them and ask them for proof and evidence of the claims? And... even get into things they don't like about the teachings and beliefs about that religion? Now being too negative or being too accepting I can agree... is not healthy. But to ignore the areas of disagreement doesn't sound all that healthy either. Do you agree?

There's so much there I don't know where to begin but please understand that I do thank you for putting so much thought into it all.

Perhaps a key divergence in our thinking has to do w/ our attitude toward religion in general. What I see as basic to all human endeavor are 3 general themes, we make things for use and swapping, we organize for self governance, and we reach an accord on right and wrong. OK, so I know it's not polite to talk about making money, or politics, and religion but it's what we do and I see humankind as good.

Our topic here is religion and it was my understanding that we all agreed in the oneness of religion, that Moses, Jesus, Mohamed, the Bab, and Baha'u'llah all had the same presence --they were all equal in their value and they came at different times for distinct dispensations. They were all good, they all left a sacred book, and while some of their followers were bad the vast majority did well and humankind carried forward an ever advancing civilization.

Your thoughts?