Who was Baha'u'llah?

[Muffled]

You don't seem very confident as you don't even try to show us what you have. That's not our problem, it's your lack of confidence.

I believe people who want to know will seek to know. I am confident that most people do not wish to know and I have found that those presented evidence will discount it illogically because they do not wish to know.

 

[Trailblazer]

I believe you are mistaken. I know God personally through the Paraclete.

I believe you are mistaken. I nobody knows God personally.

 

[Windwalker]

I believe the source would be the Paraclete whose job it is to inform the writers. Since Jesus is one with the Paraclete it is Jesus testifying of what was said when He was by Himself.

I see that as a bit of a stretch. I don't see the Holy Spirit as person taking notes and telling someone else events of history behind the scenes. It's much easier to read this as the author of the gospel telling a story about Jesus from stories others were tell each other to inspire one another.

 

[F1fan]

I believe people who want to know will seek to know.

That is what critical thinkers do, and they can't find evidence that supports a rational conclusion that any gods exist.

I am confident that most people do not wish to know ...

And what does "wishing to know" affect what can be known? All we can do is follow facts. Wanting to know that the Tooth Fairy exists will only result in delusion.

... and I have found that those presented evidence will discount it illogically because they do not wish to know.

And they explain that the evidence is not credible, or adequate, or anything that allows proper reasoning to any religious conclusion. That's the fault of the religious who claim they have evidence to support their judgments that a God exists. They don't.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Now it is time, time ask the question about Baha'u'llah.

Please choose one of the options.

I voted for "don't know and don't care"


If I had to care about every character claiming to be some god or manifestation of god or messenger of god or.... what-have-you and "investigate" them all, then that would take multiple life times.

So I need a filter here. A triage concerning what claims are worth investigating and which aren't.
Considering the common baseline of religion / supernatural stuff in general, I don't bother anymore with stories about anything supernatural. Gods, ghosts, poltergeists, spirits, souls, magic (harry potter magic; not david copperfield type magic), demons, hell/heaven, ... none of it passes my initial triage.

It's a gigantic waste of time.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, it is not a logical fallacy unless he is making a claim. A belief is not a claim.

I kind of disagree with that.

A belief and a claim are extremely closely related. To the point that I feel they are the same thing, just expressed differently.

"X is a fraud"
"I believe X is a fraud".

What is the practical difference between these two statements?
I say they express the exact same thing. The first statement implies the second. The words "I believe" are just ommitted.
But why would you make that statement, if you did not believe it?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Matthew 24 describes the times we’re living in, the Last Days.

How do you understand Matthew 24:23?

And really, why wouldn’t Jesus, when he returns, come back as himself? (With the name Jesus?)

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is what critical thinkers do, and they can't find evidence that supports a rational conclusion that any gods exist.

And what does "wishing to know" affect what can be known? All we can do is follow facts. Wanting to know that the Tooth Fairy exists will only result in delusion.

And they explain that the evidence is not credible, or adequate, or anything that allows proper reasoning to any religious conclusion. That's the fault of the religious who claim they have evidence to support their judgments that a God exists. They don't.

That is all fair and well and I agree, but that is a subset of the problem of the universe is Y and not Z. The same problem is so, for that the universe is natural/material/physical.
So you speak for your kind of critical thinkers and I will still do it differently.
The game we are playing is this. If just like that human mobility is limited as to what we can do in that sense, rationality is limited to what we can do in that sense.
There is a rational reason, it is methodological naturalism and not philosophical naturalism.

The joke is that the answer to the universe is from God or the universe is natural, is the same: No!
Both are neither true not false, but too simple in practice.

 

[Balthazzar]

Baha'u'llah claimed to be a Manifestation of God, and truly He was the Manifestation of God.​

I would follow the first line of reason with the second as stated in the first. "A" manifestation is more accurate than "the" manifestation. I might suggest he was much like Jesus in being fully human and acknowledged awareness of his oneness with God.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I voted for "don't know and don't care"


If I had to care about every character claiming to be some god or manifestation of god or messenger of god or.... what-have-you and "investigate" them all, then that would take multiple life times.

So I need a filter here. A triage concerning what claims are worth investigating and which aren't.
Considering the common baseline of religion / supernatural stuff in general, I don't bother anymore with stories about anything supernatural. Gods, ghosts, poltergeists, spirits, souls, magic (harry potter magic; not david copperfield type magic), demons, hell/heaven, ... none of it passes my initial triage.

It's a gigantic waste of time.

When you try to distinguish fake / counterfeit money from real money, all you need to do is examine and get very familiar with genuine money’s characteristics.

Jesus said what to look for, at John 13:34,35…”I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
“By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves.”

That’s the quality to look for in a group representing the God of impartiality (Acts 10:34,35: “At this Peter began to speak, and he said: ‘Now I truly understand that God is not partial, but in every nation the man who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him’”), the Creator of all men. Acts 17:26

His blessing, His spirit, engenders love & peace among His worshippers. Galatians 5:22,23.

Not hard to look for, amidst blood-guilty religious organizations.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

When you try to distinguish fake / counterfeit money from real money, all you need to do is examine and get very familiar with genuine money’s characteristics.

Jesus said what to look for, at John 13:34,35…”I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
“By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves.”

That’s the quality to look for in a group representing the God of impartiality (Acts 10:34,35: “At this Peter began to speak, and he said: ‘Now I truly understand that God is not partial, but in every nation the man who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him’”), the Creator of all men. Acts 17:26

His blessing, His spirit, engenders love & peace among His worshippers. Galatians 5:22,23.

Not hard to look for, amidst blood-guilty religious organizations.

It seems you have not read my post with attention.
I don't care for your preaching either.

Real money demonstrably exist.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

When you try to distinguish fake / counterfeit money from real money, all you need to do is examine and get very familiar with genuine money’s characteristics.

Eventually I asked Jesus why my money has a little guy with a monocle on it.

 

[F1fan]

That is all fair and well and I agree, but that is a subset of the problem of the universe is Y and not Z. The same problem is so, for that the universe is natural/material/physical.
So you speak for your kind of critical thinkers and I will still do it differently.

Why, just to be rebellious? Critical thinking is the only reliable method.

The game we are playing is this.

You are playing a game. I'm using the only reliable method we humans have to discern what is true.

If just like that human mobility is limited as to what we can do in that sense, rationality is limited to what we can do in that sense.

Human mobility is limited to our nature. Given what we are we value the fastest runners, cyclists, climbers, skiers, etc., and the elite athletes can do things that the average person could never do. The same with humans who are skilled thinkers versus the sloppy defaults of the average person. You like talking about limitations, but it is usually about the elite levels of human endeavor, like science and reasoning. You never talk about the limitation of sloppy thinking, or faith, which are things the average person can fix.

There is a rational reason, it is methodological naturalism and not philosophical naturalism.

Those interested in knowing what is true about how things are in the universe will use what works best, and most reliably. They won't get mired in the weeds of "limitations" and get nothing done. If athletes had your attitude of focus on limitations rather than what they CAN acheive then they would never excel.

The joke is that the answer to the universe is from God or the universe is natural, is the same: No!
Both are neither true not false, but too simple in practice.

That's why we follow evidence, not old traditions of belief.

 

[F1fan]

Eventually I asked Jesus why my money has a little guy with a monocle on it.

Just have faith that it's real. Be sure to have some extra in your pocket for bail money.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why, just to be rebellious? Critical thinking is the only reliable method.

You are playing a game. I'm using the only reliable method we humans have to discern what is true.

Human mobility is limited to our nature. Given what we are we value the fastest runners, cyclists, climbers, skiers, etc., and the elite athletes can do things that the average person could never do. The same with humans who are skilled thinkers versus the sloppy defaults of the average person. You like talking about limitations, but it is usually about the elite levels of human endeavor, like science and reasoning. You never talk about the limitation of sloppy thinking, or faith, which are things the average person can fix.

Those interested in knowing what is true about how things are in the universe will use what works best, and most reliably. They won't get mired in the weeds of "limitations" and get nothing done. If athletes had your attitude of focus on limitations rather than what they CAN acheive then they would never excel.

That's why we follow evidence, not old traditions of belief.

Yeah, and science is still limited.

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

 

[F1fan]

When you try to distinguish fake / counterfeit money from real money, all you need to do is examine and get very familiar with genuine money’s characteristics.

Jesus said what to look for, at John 13:34,35…”I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
“By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves.”

That’s the quality to look for in a group representing the God of impartiality (Acts 10:34,35: “At this Peter began to speak, and he said: ‘Now I truly understand that God is not partial, but in every nation the man who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him’”), the Creator of all men. Acts 17:26

His blessing, His spirit, engenders love & peace among His worshippers. Galatians 5:22,23.

Not hard to look for, amidst blood-guilty religious organizations.

Do you think the Southern Baptists of the Confederate States were good Christians as they held black people in slavery?

Do you think Lutherans and Catholics of Nazi Germany were good Christians even as they rounded up and murdered Jews?

Why isn't there a consistent pattern of Christians being moral? Explain.

 

[F1fan]

Yeah, and science is still limited.

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

Limited by facts, which isn't really a limitation. The question is: Is science reliable if humans follow the rules?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Limited by facts, which isn't really a limitation. The question is: Is science reliable if humans follow the rules?

The rules are not there for all of the world. That is the point. I will follow the rules of science, for which there are rules. For that which there are no rules, I won't follow the rules, because there are no rules.

 

[F1fan]

The rules are not there for all of the world.

Where on earth are the rules of science "not there"?

That is the point. I will follow the rules of science, for which there are rules. For that which there are no rules, I won't follow the rules, because there are no rules.

If there are "no rules" then there are no rules to NOT follow, so your defiance is imaginary.

If you follow the rules of science you can't have any genuine prejudice against science, yet you keep posting that science has limitations as if that's important. The "limitation" is that there is a method, and the method exists for reliability.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Where on earth are the rules of science "not there"?

If there are "no rules" then there are no rules to NOT follow, so your defiance is imaginary.

If you follow the rules of science you can't have any genuine prejudice against science, yet you keep posting that science has limitations as if that's important. The "limitation" is that there is a method, and the method exists for reliability.

So human laws are not rules?