You still haven't provided any evidence or argument to show that religions have been "corrupted by man" from the original message.
I already told you it is not my job to provide such evidence. If you want to know how they have been corrupted you would have to do your own research.
Why didn't god instruct the other messengers to put such protections in place? Given his omnipotence and omniscient it suggests he wanted them to be corrupted.
That is a good question. God did not do that because the people living in the past were not spiritually advanced enough to keep a Covenant with the Messenger. That does not mean God
wanted those religions to become corrupted, only that God allowed that to take place, since man allows free will.
This corruption was all part of God's plan, otherwise it would not have taken place. Since God is omniscient God knew that He would be sending Baha'u'llah in the future to explain all of this to people who are willing to listen. So far that has been very few people but it is still early in this revelation. More will follow in time.
There was massive conversion to Christianity around the world over 1000 years after it was established.
Similarly, Islam gained many new members several centuries after Muhammad.
We don't see mass cultural conversions today because the days of colonialism and empire are over. However, the fall of communism saw large numbers of conversions to both Christianity and Islam (depending on the region).
All that is true. All I was trying to say is that individuals 'generally' stay with the religions they were raised in.
And presumably you accept this applies to your beliefs just as much as it applies to yours?
I think I have already admitted that.
As does theirs. So why is yours different?
Not always, because many people just believe without doing an investigation. Some believe unquestioningly because they were raised in the religion and others come to believe later in life, but not necessarily because they did an investigation. Have you never heard of 'born again' Christians? I know two such men who came to believe in Jesus in middle age because of a few verses from the Bible.
But even if they did an investigation they came to different conclusions because they are different from me and other Baha'is, since they had a different upbringing and education and life experiences.
Two problems immediately.
1. Question begging - that there is "a path of faith", or that faith is better than reason.
2. "Certitude" is both impractical and unwise. Absolute certainly precludes considering alternatives. It shuts down enquiry and exploration. This why science never claims absolute certainty, only the best current explanation. We must always accept the possibility of new information that could change our position.
Three problems immediately.
1. You quoted that passage out of context.
2. Faith does not have to preclude reason, both should be employed.
3. Who said anything about absolute certainty? Maybe some Baha'is are
absolutely certain but that does not mean they all are. But even for those like me who are absolutely certain, absolute certainly precludes considering alternatives. Baha'is believe that a person should always keep their mind open and continue to search for truth all their lives, so if I found something that caused me to lose my belief in Baha'u'llah I would have to consider the alternatives.
Your man seems to be telling you to not question the "god explanation", and ignore any alternative presented.
Of course He is telling us that, because the 'assumption' is that He is addressing people who are seeking the truth about God (as otherwise they would not be reading The Kitab-i-Iqan).
That is the opposite of "doing your own investigation". It is telling you to ignore anything that suggests an explanation other than god.
The passage is not telling you to ignore anything that suggests an explanation other than God. That is not the
purpose of the passage. Again, the assumption in the passage is that it is being read by someone who is seeking the truth about God, and the passage is suggesting how to go about that seeking.
The irony of you presenting such a passage as evidence that you have considered all possible explanations is off the scale.
The irony is that you think that I presented the passage as
evidence that I have considered all possible explanations and that has nothing to do with the reason I presented the passage.
I clearly explained why I presented that passage.
What it essentially says in
bold italics at the end is that we will never discover the truth for ourselves if we use the words and deeds of other people as a standard by which to understand God and His Prophets. In other words,
we cannot measure truth according to what other people say, think or do. We have to investigate the truth for ourselves.
The point is that we have to investigate the Messenger by ourselves and not make our decision as to what to believe about Him by listening to what 'other people' say,think or do.
So essentially "we will never discover the truth for ourselves if we undertake objective research. We must only accept what the messenger tells us".
I am sorry
you still do not understand what I have been saying although I have repeated myself over and over and over again. You either have a reading comprehension problem or a bias that is impossible to overcome.
Baha'u'llah
did not enjoin us to blindly accept what He told us, quite the contrary! Why do you keep repeating this same old mantra? You should undertake research and not just believe what Baha'u'llah claimed.
"Bahá’u’lláh asked no one to accept His statements and His tokens blindly. On the contrary, He put in the very forefront of His teachings emphatic warnings against blind acceptance of authority, and urged all to open their eyes and ears, and use their own judgement, independently and fearlessly, in order to ascertain the truth. He enjoined the fullest investigation and never concealed Himself, offering, as the supreme proofs of His Prophethood, His words and works and their effects in transforming the lives and characters of men......
In the chapters that follow, we shall endeavor to show whether Bahá’u’lláh’s claim to Prophethood stands or falls by application of these tests: whether the things that He had spoken have followed and come to pass, and whether His fruits have been good or evil; in other words, whether His prophecies are being fulfilled and His ordinances established, and whether His lifework has contributed to the education and upliftment of humanity and the betterment of morals, or the contrary." Proofs of Prophethood, Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, pp. 8-9
But how can you investigate something without referring to what others have said and done?
Also, loving the irony of the
"We must't follow what others say - Bahaullah said so"!
That means we should not believe what other people say about Baha'u'llah, what He has said and done, but rather we should investigate what He has said and done for ourselves. It means that we should investigate what Baha'u'llah has said and done. The 'others' that we should refer to are those who know what Baha'u'llah has said and done.
What you actually mean is that you converted to Bahaiism and ever since then all your "investigations" have been subject to confirmation bias and other forms of cognitive dissonance - as illustrated by your inability to provide any evidence that any god actually exists, never mind that there were ever any actual "messengers".
I said: "The way I know is that I have looked at the Baha'i Faith for over 51 years, so I have had plenty of time to investigate and confirm what I believed when I discovered the faith in 1970."
Then you twisted the meaning of what I said and created a straw man and threw in a red herring.
My "investigations" have not been subject to confirmation bias and other forms of cognitive dissonance. My inability to prove to you that God exists or that there are Messengers is unrelated to MY investigation of the Baha'i Faith and that is why it is a red herring.
I have provided the only evidence that God actually exists, the evidence that God provided, which is the Messengers of God.
