What would you expect people to do if a real God sent a real Messenger to earth?

[Trailblazer]

Why?
The evidence is against the Exodus literally happening, so why assume that the leader of the Exodus literally existed?

I believe that Moses existed because Baha'u'llah verified His existence. For the same reason I believe that Jesus existed. I do not necessarily believe the stories in the Old Testament such as Exodus.

Kinda moving the goalposts there, but Socrstes was certainly a great educator.

That is true, but he did not train a nation or people, causing it to rise from the lowest depths of ignorance to the highest station of knowledge, as Moses and Jesus and Muhammad did.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe that Moses existed because Baha'u'llah verified His existence. For the same reason I believe that Jesus existed. I do not necessarily believe the stories in the Old Testament such as Exodus.

So you believe in a guy named Moses who lived sometime and did nothing specific?

That is true, but he did not train a nation or people, causing it to rise from the lowest depths of ignorance to the highest station of knowledge, as Moses and Jesus and Muhammad did.

So?

This would go a lot quicker if you would just make whatever point or argument you’re trying to make and skip the cheap rhetorical tricks.

 

[Trailblazer]

So you believe in a guy named Moses who lived sometime and did nothing specific?

I did not mean Moses did not do anything. I meant that He might not have done everything attributed to him in the OT.

So?

This would go a lot quicker if you would just make whatever point or argument you’re trying to make and skip the cheap rhetorical tricks.

My point is that the effect that messengers have on individuals and upon civilization is more profound and longer lasting than the effect that any ordinary man has ever had.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I did not mean Moses did not do anything. I meant that He might not have done everything attributed to him in the OT.

But you can't say what he did do?

My point is that the effect that messengers have on individuals and upon civilization is more profound and longer lasting than the effect that any ordinary man has ever had.

Do you think that the effect of the Bab and Baha'u'llah has been "profound and long lasting?"

In terms of number of adherents of their religion, both men have had much less impact than, say, Guru Nanak Dev or Li Hongzhi.

Are you speaking to some future profound effect that hasn't happened yet?

 

[Vinayaka]

You have no right to misrepresent how the Baha’i Faith operates or what the motives of Baha’is are. That is disrespectful and unjust.

Just my observations after about a year of dialogue, and research. (I have no intention of watching the movie again.) Nothing personal. Of course people have the right to arrive at conclusions from observation. You have. We all do.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I had no interest in talking about Baha’u’llah, and if the conversation led to that it was not intentional.

I don't believe this for a minute.

 

[ChristineM]

What I believe about Baha’u’llah is not based upon faith or hearsay. It is based on facts about Him that are verifiable.
To be clear, the evidence that Baha’u’llah was who He claimed to be is not that Baha’u’llah claimed to receive a message from God because that would be circular reasoning.

The evidence that Baha’u’llah was who He claimed to be is everything that surrounds the Revelation of Baha’u’llah, including who He was as a Person (His character); His mission on earth; the history of His Cause, from the time He appeared moving forward; the scriptures that He wrote; what His authorized interpreters wrote; what others have written about the Baha’i Faith; the Bible prophecies that He fulfilled, as well as prophecies of other religions that He fulfilled; predictions He made that have come to pass; the religion that He established (followers) all over the world and what they have done and are doing now.

So prove a god then prove that god made Baha’u’llah his messenger and set him about proselytizing and your faith will be miraculously converted to fact

 

[ChristineM]

'Evidence' in the Baha'i faith is only other stuff from Baha'i sources. Any other sources aren't allowed. If they are at all, its all done through the Bahai lens. One of the characteristics of threads like these is that they're meant as proselytizing, but it's disguised somewhat. (Unfortunately, I was in one of the longest running threads ever on RF, with 3 or 4 members of the Baha'i faith, very (eerily) similar to this one. I regret it now, as it wasn't debate at all, just proselytizing.) So the strategy goes like this (most likely in the proselytizing 'how to' manual, but I'm not privy to this): Post a reasonably sounding question that seems like it's a legitimate question, but one that can easily be answered by all things Baha'i'. It's a method that's used to get people talking about Baha'i. So the title of this thread could well read, "Real God sent a real messenger to earth, his name was Baha'u'llah, and I'll sooner or later get around to demonstrating that." So in and around 'debate' which really isn't debate at all, the adherents of the Bahai faith get their message across.

Now I wish everyone the best of luck in this 'debate', but I can already tell you the outcome, based totally on previous experiences. There will be no movement whatsoever, and people will talk past each other.

And oh yes ... in case you haven't noticed it already, there will be plenty of Baha'u'llah quotes thrown in for good measure. That IS in the handbook. (See post 276 right above this one for the evidence)

In such cases, banging my head against a brick wall comes to mind but i have this personality defect, i have no tolerance for deliberate ignorance. And besides it can be fun.

Its interesting how they manipulate definitions to advance their cause while denying the dictionary definitions, my personality objects.

I am heading for the stage of quoting forum rules on proselytizing. Not quite yet but its close.

 

[sojourner]

I wanted to know what others thought would happen if a real god sent a real messenger to earth, and that is why I posted this thread.

AFAIK, according to the Christian faith, God is real, and God has sent messengers. And what happened is obvious. Whats the point in asking such a question? To see if the thread will bear out as all such threads normally do?

 

[ChristineM]

AFAIK, according to the Christian faith, God is real, and God has sent messengers. And what happened is obvious. Whats the point in asking such a question? To see if the thread will bear out as all such threads normally do?

Opps, went wrong there didn't it?

 

[sojourner]

Opps, went wrong there didn't it?

Mmm... not so sure there’s a “right” or “wrong.” But it’s an interesting ride...

 

[ChristineM]

Mmm... not so sure there’s a “right” or “wrong.” But it’s an interesting ride...

Depends how you view the evidence or lack of it.

 

[Vinayaka]

In such cases, banging my head against a brick wall comes to mind but i have this personality defect, i have no tolerance for deliberate ignorance. And besides it can be fun.

Its interesting how they manipulate definitions to advance their cause while denying the dictionary definitions, my personality objects.

I am heading for the stage of quoting forum rules on proselytizing. Not quite yet but its close.

I banged my head on a brick wall for a long time, falsely thinking there just might be some movement. It's not just definitions but entire words. Proselytizing becomes sharing or teaching. Missionary becomes pioneer. For awhile there I referred to it as Bahaispeak. Most intelligent people realise you can't change an action by changing a word for it. The sun doesn't become the moon because we call it a moon. But you're correct that it can be an interesting study in human behaviour. I actually don't think much of it is intentional at all, it's just the overwhelming conditioning in the faith. So the subconscious takes over.

Have fun.

 

[Trailblazer]

AFAIK, according to the Christian faith, God is real, and God has sent messengers. And what happened is obvious. Whats the point in asking such a question? To see if the thread will bear out as all such threads normally do?

I started it because an atheist on another forum I post on kept insisting that if a real god sent a real messenger to earth almost everyone would believe in the messenger as soon as he appeared or shortly afterward. I wanted to know what others thought would happen if a real god sent a real messenger to earth, and that is why I posted this thread.

I wanted to keep it open-ended because I did not want to bias the responses. What I was discussing with this atheist is why the Baha'i Faith is only .1% of the world population, after 165 years. He said that less than one tenth of one percent of the population getting or believing a message allegedly delivered by a messenger for a god can only be considered a truly terrible communication debacle, a result indicative, not of a real and a real messenger, but only of a phony messenger for an imaginary god.

In sum, this atheist insists it has to be failure in communication on the part of God, and that Baha'u'llah could not be a real messenger of God, because if he had been almost everyone in the world would be Baha'is by now. This is utterly ridiculous, given the FACT that all religions are very small in the beginning and grow very slowly over time.

“There were 1,000 Christians in the year 40, 1 400 Christians in 50, 1,960 Christians in 60, 2,744 Christians in 70, 3,842 Christians in 80, 5,378 Christians in 90 and 7,530 Christians at the end of the first century.

These figures are very suggestive, and reinforce the point that in its initial decades the Christian movement represented a tiny fraction of the ancient world.”
From: How many Jews became Christians in the first century?

There are many reasons for the slow growth of new religions. One reason people do not accept the new messenger because he brings new teachings that are diametrically opposed to the status quo, Baha'u'llah was a radical, just as was Jesus a radical to the Jews who were entrenched in their religious traditions. That is why the new messenger is not accepted by those he presented himself to initially, but even after that, for centuries, the followers of the older religions cling to their older religions and older messengers as being the only truth from God, making it impossible for them to recognize and accept a new messenger. The rest of the world population is nonbelievers and they already do not like the whole idea of messengers of God or that God should/would communicate that way.

So there you have it in a nutshell, the reasons why Baha'u'llah was rejected, explaining why the Baha'i Faith is not any larger than it might otherwise be.

 

[Trailblazer]

But you can't say what he did do?

Moses said that he could not speak eloquently, so God allowed Aaron, his brother, to become his spokesperson. After the Ten Plagues, Moses led the Exodus of the Israelites out of Egypt and across the Red Sea, after which they based themselves at Mount Sinai, where Moses received the Ten Commandments.
Moses - Wikipedia

Do you think that the effect of the Bab and Baha'u'llah has been "profound and long lasting?"

In terms of number of adherents of their religion, both men have had much less impact than, say, Guru Nanak Dev or Li Hongzhi.

I think the effect has been profound, even though it is not visible to many people yet. Of course it is not long-lasting because the religion is only 165 years old. I was referring to the older messengers such as Jesus and Muhammad, who have had a chance to have a profound and long lasting effect upon the world.

Are you speaking to some future profound effect that hasn't happened yet?

It is the future "I believe" was ushered in by the Bab and Baha'u'llah, but it will be a long time before it is realized. It is humanity that will build the Kingdom of God on earth, not God.

“God’s purpose is none other than to usher in, in ways He alone can bring about, and the full significance of which He alone can fathom, the Great, the Golden Age of a long-divided, a long-afflicted humanity. Its present state, indeed even its immediate future, is dark, distressingly dark. Its distant future, however, is radiant, gloriously radiant—so radiant that no eye can visualize it......” The Promised Day is Come, p. 116

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I started it because an atheist on another forum I post on kept insisting that if a real god sent a real messenger to earth almost everyone would believe in the messenger as soon as he appeared or shortly afterward. I wanted to know what others thought would happen if a real god sent a real messenger to earth, and that is why I posted this thread.

That atheist's conclusion seems reasonable enough to me: if a God worth his salt wanted to get a message to all of humanity, wouldn't he be able to do it efficiently?

I wanted to keep it open-ended because I did not want to bias the responses. What I was discussing with this atheist is why the Baha'i Faith is only .1% of the world population, after 165 years. He said that less than one tenth of one percent of the population getting or believing a message allegedly delivered by a messenger for a god can only be considered a truly terrible communication debacle, a result indicative, not of a real and a real messenger, but only of a phony messenger for an imaginary god.

It's certainly a worse track record than many religions that I'm confident you would agree are human creations.

In sum, this atheist insists it has to be failure in communication on the part of God, and that Baha'u'llah could not be a real messenger of God, because if he had been almost everyone in the world would be Baha'is by now. This is utterly ridiculous, given the FACT that all religions are very small in the beginning and grow very slowly over time.

Is slow growth a sign that a religion is true?

“There were 1,000 Christians in the year 40, 1 400 Christians in 50, 1,960 Christians in 60, 2,744 Christians in 70, 3,842 Christians in 80, 5,378 Christians in 90 and 7,530 Christians at the end of the first century.

These figures are very suggestive, and reinforce the point that in its initial decades the Christian movement represented a tiny fraction of the ancient world.”
From: How many Jews became Christians in the first century?

There are many reasons for the slow growth of new religions. One reason people do not accept the new messenger because he brings new teachings that are diametrically opposed to the status quo, Baha'u'llah was a radical, just as was Jesus a radical to the Jews who were entrenched in their religious traditions. That is why the new messenger is not accepted by those he presented himself to initially, but even after that, for centuries, the followers of the older religions cling to their older religions and older messengers as being the only truth from God, making it impossible for them to recognize and accept a new messenger.

But some people are convinced, right?

And if the message was more convincing, more people would be convinced, no?

If the message is true, why can't God overcome these difficulties and get people to recognize the truth?

Every day, people are convinced of new ideas that were diametrically opposed to old ideas. Why is God incapable of doing this?

The rest of the world population is nonbelievers and they already do not like the whole idea of messengers of God or that God should/would communicate that way.

Because we find the case for God utterly unconvincing. A better case for God would convince more non-believers.

So there you have it in a nutshell, the reasons why Baha'u'llah was rejected, explaining why the Baha'i Faith is not any larger than it might otherwise be.

Because the Baha'i message doesn't reach many people and those who do hear it usually find it uncompelling?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Moses said that he could not speak eloquently, so God allowed Aaron, his brother, to become his spokesperson. After the Ten Plagues, Moses led the Exodus of the Israelites out of Egypt and across the Red Sea, after which they based themselves at Mount Sinai, where Moses received the Ten Commandments.
Moses - Wikipedia

I thought you said you didn't believe in a literal Exodus.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't believe this for a minute.

So you are calling me a liar.

The last thing I needed was all these posts to answer, since I have many things I should be doing other than posting on forums. I bemoaned my plight the next day when I saw all these posts to answer, but I posted the thread so I considered it my responsibility to respond to the posts.

The proof as to why I posted this thread is on the other forum, if you want to go and check it out. This dialogue between me and the atheist -- about messengers and how they represent imaginary gods -- has been going on for years. I just wanted to get some opinions from atheists here. But then the thread got off track and people started talking about messengers in general, which led to what I believe.

I just go down the road and follow where it leads. I just respond to posts posted to me.

 

[Trailblazer]

So prove a god then prove that god made Baha’u’llah his messenger and set him about proselytizing and your faith will be miraculously converted to fact

I have no interest in proving anything to anyone and that is not my responsibility.

"For the faith of no man can be conditioned by any one except himself.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 143

I have repeated stated that, but people keep asking me to prove that God exists and that Baha'u'llah was a messenger of God, and then I get blamed for proselytizing because I answer their questions.

That is terribly unjust.

 

[ChristineM]

I have no interest in proving anything to anyone and that is not my responsibility.

"For the faith of no man can be conditioned by any one except himself.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 143

I have repeated stated that, but p eople keep asking me to prove that God exists and that Baha'u'llah was a messenger of God, and then I get blamed for proselytizing because I answer their questions.

That is terribly unjust.

You are making claims, you are denigrating definition and fact, surely, in all fairness and for the sake of your credibility you should offer evidence to back up statements rather than copy and pasting verse after verse after verse of canned evangelism