Who was Baha'u'llah?

[WonderingWorrier]

That's very abstract and vague. It's not an actual example.

It is straight and includes all examples. Only the amounts of disrespect earned and the suitable payback differs.

Forgiveness would be logically impossible without having something to forgive. Thats a fact.

 

[Trailblazer]

Didn't you notice the first one made no sense from my point of view? If I actually said that it wouldn't be truthful.

No, he did not notice that. He just grabbed onto what he wanted to believe you meant without even thinking...
So much for critical thinking skills.

I noticed immediately that it made no sense since I have critical thinking skills.

 

[F1fan]

No, it was not what he intended to say. It was a mistake he made and later corrected.

No it wasn't, it was an honest statement, and you were embarrassed by it.

No, it was not what he intended to say. It was a mistake he made and later corrected.

After you prompted him as if he crossed a line. And then he followed your prompt as if that changed anything.

If you knew anything about psychology you would have realized that when you said "you don't care whether your beliefs are actually reasoned and true" that was psychological projection. That was you projecting what you think he thinks onto him, thus speaking for him as if you know what he cares about. You don't know what anybody cares about, you only know what you care about.

Here you are projecting and getting defensive, which is what you do when your beliefs are exposed, and you get frightened.

And his statements were clear and needed no interpretation. You are trying to cover for his honesty.

And I suggest you not speak for other people and what they care about because it only makes you look like an arrogant fool.
You know we can all see your posts, yes?

His statements were clear and transparent.

If you actually had critical thinking skills or logical abilities you would have realized immediately that he made a mistake and he never intended to say what he said originally. Instead, you grabbed onto what he said and tried to use it for your nefarious purposes.

And now your usual insult, and no debate skill.

This is what he originally said: Why should I care? What difference does that make whether He was genuine or not?
That makes no logical sense at all given He is a Baha'i who believes that Baha'u'llah is genuine. That is why I immediately caught his mistake and pointed it out to him after which time he realized that he never intended to say that. He went back and corrected it because he realized that he had made a mistake, not in an attempt to cover anything up.

He was being honest and clear. He revealed his true belief and you are trying to cover it up. Too late.

We all make mistakes because we are fallible humans. Only God is infallible.

No Gods are known to exist, so you made a mistake by making a claim you can't support with facts.

It looked honest to you because you projected your own lack of belief onto @Truthseeker. This is psych 101 stuff.
The way you speak for other people as if you know what they were thinking and their intentions is a disgrace. It is sure good that I do not judge all atheists by your sordid behavior.

His comment was clear and honest. You didn't like that.

Now would be a good time to admit it was you who made a mistake and apologize to @Truthseeker for speaking for him.

Oh the irony.

 

[F1fan]

It is straight and includes all examples. Only the amounts of disrespect earned and the suitable payback differs.

Forgiveness would be logically impossible without having something to forgive. Thats a fact.

Except there is no one set of standards of what earns respect or disresepect, and what is your set of values could differ from anyone else. That's why your vague example isn't YOUR example. YOu need to explain what you resvect and disrespect. If you are a hardend criminal you will respect and disrespect different things than most others.

For example I don't respect Trump or MAGAs due to their lack of respect for the law and democracy, but MAGAs have a very low standard for character and integrity so their values differ from mine.

 

[CG Didymus]

How do you know his fantastic claims are factual?

Because he wrote them, and he is not a fraud? Well, that settles it. There's the proof. Just like the Christians that say, "The Bible says it. I believe it. And that settles it."

Oh, and also, was that a claim or just a "belief" that Baha'u'llah was not a fraud?

 

[Truthseeker]

He was being honest and clear. He revealed his true belief and you are trying to cover it up. Too late.

You know full well that is not true. She backed you in a corner, and now you are counterattacking. Isn't it interesting how when a person knows he is wrong he counterattacks like Trump does.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

His statements were clear and transparent.

Do you have difficulty with reading and comprehension?

I think his statement was clear but you have misunderstood his words.



Remember you said:

Look at the poll, the majority doubt he was genuine.

Then he said:
"Why should I care? What difference does that make whether He was genuine or not?"


I see that as referring to why should he care about the poll that you told him to look at.


To avoid confusion it was edited to:

Why should I care? What difference does that make whether people think He was genuine or not?

You still seem to think you have him on some sort of gotcha moment.
But it seems to me that is just showing your lack of ability to comprehend what he said.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Then you have to determine what evidence would be valid for you.

Any objective evidence which is independently verifiable, is okay.

I can only tell you what evidence was valid for me, but since you are a separate person what is valid for me won't necessarily be valid for you.

When the validity of evidence depends on the person, then it's not objective evidence.

You cannot just look at the claims. You have to also look at the evidence that supports the claims.

That's what I said.
But there needs to be evidence in order to be able to do that.

You are correct that for most religious claims there is nothing to investigate, nothing that is verifiable. For example, for the Christianity you simply have to accept what is written in the Bible, but there is no way to verify any of it. That is not true for the Baha'i Faith since we can investigate the person of Baha'u'llah and the history of His life and what He did on His mission. We also have His original scriptures penned in His own hand.

how is that different from simply believing the bible writings?

 

[F1fan]

You know full well that is not true. She backed you in a corner, and now you are counterattacking. Isn't it interesting how when a person knows he is wrong he counterattacks like Trump does.

What's not true, that you were being honest?

So you are becoming defensive too? You made an honest statement and she pointed it out to you, and now you both are trying to do damage control.

You decided to edit your comment instead of explaining why you asked why it matters if Baha'u'llah was genuine or not. Explain why it doesn't matter. That is germane to the topic.

 

[F1fan]

Do you have difficulty with reading and comprehension?

No. It's not as if believers DON'T have difficultly expressing themselves as they try to promote ideas that lack evidence. And they have to navigate the claims of other believers who disagree with them.

And look at your demeaning question here, as if I am some dummy who "just doesn't get it". Are you going to come back and claim your question here isn't passive aggressive, emotional, and defensive?

I think his statement was clear but you have misunderstood his words.

Do you?

Remember you said:


Then he said:
"Why should I care? What difference does that make whether He was genuine or not?"


I see that as referring to why should he care about the poll that you told him to look at.

That was his first statement, which is typical of believers who face anyone who doubts their beliefs. Believers have few ways to argue for, or defend, their religious beliefs, so naturally they are often indignant (I don't care. I have God on my side. You're a heathen. You don't get it. Etc.). Of course he doesn't care, what argument has he been able to make to counter the doubt and critique among the vast majority of members? None.

And what difference does it make whether he was genuine or not? Seriously? The difference is truth versus fraud. His comment suggests that he understands the evidence isn't sufficient to show he was genuine, but he's a believer, and likely falling back on faith rather than reason. Will he continue to clarify his openness and honesty? No, because he is getting peer pressure to toe the line of the masquerade by his fellow believers. That is how religions get spread, and false ideas are pressured into belief.

To avoid confusion it was edited to:

You still seem to think you have him on some sort of gotcha moment.
But it seems to me that is just showing your lack of ability to comprehend what he said.

I suggest the confusion is his. He's the one having to edit, and you believers trying to provide cover, and be so bold as to accuse me of being confused. Do you still I have reading and comprehension problems?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

It was clear. You tried to defend slavery and the Holocaust as just mistakes made by Christians.

No way did I ever do that!

This was my post you were quoting from:

Were they making a mistake, or was it purposely hurting others?

Good Christians make mistakes, but they shouldn’t be involved in practicing hurtful things. And adamantly refuse any coercion to do so.

Jesus said “you are my friends if you do what I tell you.”(John 15:14)
“Love your enemy.” - Matt.5:44

The club has rules to follow.

Because they don’t follow the rules.
Jesus said there would be, and that he would deny them. - Matt. 7:21-23.

Have a good day.

See that part: “Because they [professed Christians] don’t follow the rules” & “Matt.7:21-23”?

If you don’t quote my clear post accurately, basically quote-mining, then it really only makes you look bad. And ill-equipped to carry on a debate

 

[Trailblazer]

You still seem to think you have him on some sort of gotcha moment.
But it seems to me that is just showing your lack of ability to comprehend what he said.

I don't think it is a lack of ability to comprehend. I think he knows what @Truthseeker meant in his revised statement.
He just refuses to accept the revised statement because he would have to admit he was wrong, and his ego won't allow him to do that.

He also refuses to accept the revised statement because he wants to think that @Truthseeker meant what he originally said:
What difference does that make whether He was genuine or not?,

He wants to think that so he can say that @Truthseeker doesn't really care if Baha'u'llah was genuine, but rather it is all a masquerade.
He even said that in post #498

F1fan said:
It looked deeply honest, and bypassed your veil of faith. Religious faith is often a certain masquerade, and you were honest for that moment. Now, looks like the masquerade has resumed.

But the bigger problem in all this is that @F1fan speaks for other people as if he knows what are thinking, and he gets his own thoughts all mixed up with what other people think because he has no personal boundaries.

 

[Trailblazer]

And look at your demeaning question here, as if I am some dummy who "just doesn't get it". Are you going to come back and claim your question here isn't passive aggressive, emotional, and defensive?

WonderingWorrier said: Do you have difficulty with reading and comprehension?

There was nothing demeaning about that. He just asked you a simple question. You took it as demeaning because you are defensive and then you 'projected' and accused him of being passive aggressive, emotional, and defensive, which is what you are.

That was his first statement, which is typical of believers who face anyone who doubts their beliefs.

No, the first statement is not typical of any believer and that is why other people on this forum saw the inconsistency. No believer would ever say he does not care if the prophet he believes in is genuine! Just imagine a Christian saying he doesn't really care if Jesus was who He claimed to be.
It is YOU who thinks that believers don't care and you are projecting your thoughts onto believers.

I suggest the confusion is his. He's the one having to edit, and you believers trying to provide cover, and be so bold as to accuse me of being confused. Do you still I have reading and comprehension problems?

I suggest the confusion is yours, and even after it has been pointed out you still cannot admit you were wrong because it would be too much of a blow to your ego.

A person edits a post if they realize they made a mistake, and that is the honest thing to do in order to avoid confusion. People do not edit a post because they are trying to cover something up. Only a paranoid person would think like that.

 

[F1fan]

No way did I ever do that!

This was my post you were quoting from

Why even mention “mistakes” where it comes to slavery and the Holocaust? You claimed good Christians only make mistakes, so the whole Confederacy were bad Christians? All of Nazi Germany were bad Christians? The SS guards in concentration camps would go home to their families at night and live normally. They celebrated Easter and Christmas. So where did Christianity go wrong?

My questions

See that part: “Because they [professed Christians] don’t follow the rules” & “Matt.7:21-2

Which rules of which version of Christianity? You tell me what the rules are SPECIFICALLY. If a Christian gets a blood transfusion are they breaking a rule?

If you don’t quote my clear post accurately, basically quote-mining, then it really only makes you look bad. And ill-equipped to carry on a

You are free to correct any errors I make in quoting you.

 

[F1fan]

WonderingWorrier said: Do you have difficulty with reading and comprehension?

There was nothing demeaning about that. He just asked you a simple question. You took it as demeaning because you are defensive and then you 'projected' and accused him of being passive aggressive, emotional, and defensive, which is what you are.

No, the first statement is not typical of any believer and that is why other people on this forum saw the inconsistency. No believer would ever say he does not care if the prophet he believes in is genuine! Just imagine a Christian saying he doesn't really care if Jesus was who He claimed to be.
It is YOU who thinks that believers don't care and you are projecting your thoughts onto believers.

I suggest the confusion is yours, and even after it has been pointed out you still cannot admit you were wrong because it would be too much of a blow to your ego.

A person edits a post if they realize they made a mistake, and that is the honest thing to do in order to avoid confusion. People do not edit a post because they are trying to cover something up. Only a paranoid person would think like that.

Quite a dramatic fuss you are making.

 

[Trailblazer]

Quite a dramatic fuss you are making.

There is nothing dramatic. I am only correcting misconceptions for the sake of justice.

 

[Trailblazer]

Any objective evidence which is independently verifiable, is okay.

I am not sure what you mean by 'independently verifiable.' Do you mean evidence you can verify independently?

Subjective evidence is evidence that we cannot evaluate. In fact, we have two choices; to accept what somebody says or reject it. ...
Objective evidence is evidence that we can examine and evaluate for ourselves.
Objective evidence - definition and meaning - Market ...

We can examine and evaluate the evidence for the Baha'i Faith for ourselves thus it is objective evidence. For example, we can examine and evaluate the evidence for Baha'u'llah for ourselves because there are actual facts surrounding the Person, the Life, and the Mission of Baha'u'llah.

When the validity of evidence depends on the person, then it's not objective evidence.

That's true. The evidence does not depend on the person but it is about the person. Otherwise, how could it be evidence for the person?

That's what I said.
But there needs to be evidence in order to be able to do that.

There is evidence.

how is that different from simply believing the bible writings?

It is as I said. For Christianity's claims about Jesus you simply have to accept what is written in the Bible, but there is no way to verify that any of it is factual. That is not true for the Baha'i Faith since He lived in contemporary history, so we have actual facts about Baha'u'llah and facts about what He did on His mission. As such, we can investigate the person of Baha'u'llah and the history of His life and what He did on His mission. We also have His original scriptures penned in His own hand. We don't have any of that for Jesus. We only have what the gospel authors wrote about Him decades after He lived and thse writers did not even know Jesus personally.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

Do you still I have reading and comprehension problems?

Yes. I still you have reading and comprehension problem. Its a misunderstanding.
I think @Trailblazer didnt understand what he said either and calling it a mistake made.

Listen carefully.
What he said was a direct reply to your telling him to look at the poll.


I will repeat:

You said:

Look at the poll, the majority doubt he was genuine.

Then he replied to that exact sentence.

He replied "Why should I care? What difference does that make whether He was genuine or not?"

Notice the word he used "that".

He did not use the word "it" which could lead to possibly misunderstanding as it could be interpreted either way about being about the poll or not.

Are you able to tell the difference?



And honestly why should he care about the poll?
Thats called argumentum ad populum.

Majority does not necessarily correspond to correctness.

 

[Trailblazer]

Notice the word he used "that".

He did not use the word "it" which could lead to possibly misunderstanding as it could be interpreted either way about being about the poll or not.

Are you able to tell the difference?

So what you are saying is that the word that refers to the poll.
What difference does it make what people voted for on the poll regarding whether he was genuine or not?
Good catch. It all makes sense now.

 

[Truthseeker]

You decided to edit your comment instead of explaining why you asked why it matters if Baha'u'llah was genuine or not. Explain why it doesn't matter. That is germane to the topic.

There's nothing to discuss. My revised statement is what I really think. The original post was a blooper.