Why are “some atheists” so intolerant of religious believers?

[Shad]

Problem is, that was not a DEMAND. I said they were spitting in the wind. I did not make a demand. You took what I said and projected your own thoughts onto it.

Nope as per the word "unless" which is "except on the condition of" which is namely some sort of manuscript

They can write down anything they want to but I do not have to accept it as true.

Of course you wont as you have been conditioning already to hold a view opposite regardless of the evidence.

I believe what my religion says is true because I believe Baha’u’llah was infallible. I do not CARE what other people think. I only have to answer to myself and to God.

Which is your bias thus double-standard

The Baha’i Faith has the original Writings of Baha’u’llah but the Buddhist faith does not have the original writings of Buddha since Buddha never wrote anything. I believe what Abdu’l-Baha wrote about Buddha because Abdu’l-Baha is the Centre of the Covenant of Baha’u’llah, thus He had the authority to speak for Baha’u’llah and translate His Writings.

Irrelevant

I am under no obligation to believe those who wrote down what they thought were Buddha’s teachings many years later, and Buddhists are not obligated to believe what Abdu’l-Baha wrote about Buddha.

Irrelevant

There is nothing illogical about that; logic does not even enter into this because I am not demanding anything of anyone, so I am not applying a double-standard to anybody.

Your double-standard was the demand for scripture as per "unless" and you not demanding the same to validate your knowledge claim. That is still a double-standard. Try again.

Definition of DOUBLE STANDARD

 

[Trailblazer]

Okay, let me make this clear. The Bible, the Vedas, the Torah, etc cannot be used as neutral evidence of those specific religions. This is inherently circular.

Okay, let’s approach this from a different angle…. What would be the evidence for those religions if not their scriptures?

And Christianity is based upon Jesus, his character and his instructions, given they are followers of Christ. (The clue is in the title.)
I agree that Christians will use the Bible as evidence for their belief system. Much like you relied on your religious writings and the character of your prophet as your evidence. Hence I dismissed it as biased, by nature.

I explained why it is not biased. Biased means unfairly prejudiced for or against someone or something, but a religion is not biased against another religion just because it is different. People who believe in the religion might be biased towards or against another religion, but that is a different matter altogether.

So I ask you again, where would the evidence come from, if not from the religion itself? WHY would evidence for a given religion come from OUTSIDE that religion? That makes no logical sense at all. That would be like saying that evidence for a crime committed in the United States should come from Russia. That would be like saying that we should go to a car manufacturer to find out how to build airplanes. You have taken this thing about circular reasoning and applied it to something it does not apply to…

The best evidence for any religion comes from the religion itself. Any evidence you would you get from a Jew about Christianity would be necessarily biased by their non-belief in Christianity. The same would apply to any religion.

“But it is unfortunate that there really is no other better evidence than the Bible.”

Indeed.
Not to sound harsh or mean, but that's not my problem. Y'all have to figure out another way to demonstrate your claims.

I won’t find another way because there is no better way, just stupid ways, illogical ways, for the reasons I noted above.

You literally did not demonstrate anything different. The Historical figure of Jesus is disputed, to be sure.
Christians claim historical evidence by citing their specific Gospels and scripture. How does your claim differ? All I have seen you do is the exact same. Cite your specific scripture. So in order to demonstrate you are being different, you have to now cite contemporary neutral sources outside of your specific scripture that support your claims.
Take your time. I'll wait.

Gimmie a break? How does it differ? The person of Baha’u’llah is a historical figure that is unquestioned by any scholar so you will find Him in the Encyclopedia as a person who was born in 1817 and died in 1892. This is indisputable. Bahá'u'lláh

Let me make this clear, I do not cite the scripture as proof. I cite it as a way to support something I am explaining.

There are plenty of contemporary sources outside of the specific scripture that address the Baha’i Faith and the writers are not all Baha’is. However, most scholars who researched the Baha’i Faith became convinced so they are Baha’is. There are many Baha’i scholars. There are others who oppose the Baha’i Faith so they write false papers and books about it. There are very few neutral sources because people either love it and become Baha’is or they hate it and write calumnies about it. In the future, there will be more neutral scholarly works, but it is too early. All new religions have been opposed by most people in the first few centuries. This is history.

Bit rich, considering all scriptures were written by man, anyway.

No, because a Messenger of God is not a man. He is more than a man. The Messengers (Manifestations of God) are another order of creation above an ordinary man. Their souls had pre-existence in the spiritual world before their bodies were born in this world, whereas the souls of all humans come into being at the moment of conception. The spiritual world is where they get their special powers from God. They possess a universal divine mind that is different than ours and that is why God only speaks to them directly and through Them God communicates to humanity.

“So we have to ask: what is religion?”

In the interests of transparency. Here's the definition I use.
Religion is a cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements. However, there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion.[1][2]

Religion - Wikipedia

Okay, that is the general definition of religion, but it does not describe the NATURE of religion, where it comes from and what its purpose is.

Objective evidence can't be objective if it is subjectively interpreted. That's the literal antonym of objective. And back to speaking in circles. Show me the evidence.

You are arguing semantics. Objective evidence can be interpreted differently by different people because all people are different. So two people can read the same history of Baha’u’llah, which are objective facts, and interpret them differently.

Yes, I am aware of the definition. I said texts which are trying to prove their worth and gain followers all have an inherent bias towards their own team, so to speak. How does that challenge my previous statement, exactly?

A text does not have a bias because it is just words on a page. Texts do not try to prove anything, they just explain things. Only humans can have a bias towards or against that text and only humans try to prove things.

The Abrahamics always sound like a beaten down housewife/husband, justifying the abusive practices of their deity. To be fair, every religious person sounds like that to varying degrees. Probably because religion evolved out of a need to explain why the world was so callous and cruelty existed. (And humans have long had their own existential crisis).

Like I said, I do not buy that the deity did what the Bible claims. It is so easy to blame God for everything because God is not here to defend Himself… True religion does explain why the world is so callous and cruelty exists; it is because humans have free will and some choose to be cruel and callous.

Ahh thank you.
But I do recall the original question being, what credible scientist studies supernatural phenomenon. Not which ones believe in it.

Probably not many scientists study supernatural phenomena because there is no way to study that which is not measurable. There are some mysteries in the universe that some scientists are starting to study though, and maybe they will come up with some answers.

Brilliant Scientists Are Open-Minded about Paranormal Stuff, So Why Not You?

 

[Trailblazer]

Nope as per the word "unless" which is "except on the condition of" which is namely some sort of manuscript
Of course you wont as you have been conditioning already to hold a view opposite regardless of the evidence.
Which is your bias thus double-standard
Irrelevant
Irrelevant
Your double-standard was the demand for scripture as per "unless" and you not demanding the same to validate your knowledge claim. That is still a double-standard. Try again.
Definition of DOUBLE STANDARD

No, I am not going to try again. I am done with this conversation.
If you want to think you won I do not care, because winning is not something that matters to me since it is the epitome of arrogance. People cannot ever win when they insist they are right about other people, they just think they have won.

I do not demand anything of anyone, other peoples' beliefs are their own business.
I do not have to validate my religion to you or to anyone else. I only have to validate it to myself.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What we have in the Baha'i Faith is as contemporary as it gets, since no new Prophets have come since Baha'u'llah.

How do you know?

 

[Trailblazer]

"What we have in the Baha'i Faith is as contemporary as it gets, since no new Prophets have come since Baha'u'llah."

How do you know?

I know it because I have certitude that Baha'u'llah was a Manifestation of God and as such whatever He wrote was identical with the Will of God, as He stated in His Writings. What Baha'u'llah wrote is that there will be no more Prophets before the year 2852, and that is how I know it.

“Whoso layeth claim to a Revelation direct from God, ere the expiration of a full thousand years, such a man is assuredly a lying impostor. We pray God that He may graciously assist him to retract and repudiate such claim. Should he repent, God will, no doubt, forgive him. If, however, he persisteth in his error, God will, assuredly, send down one who will deal mercilessly with him. Terrible, indeed, is God in punishing! Whosoever interpreteth this verse otherwise than its obvious meaning is deprived of the Spirit of God and of His mercy which encompasseth all created things. Fear God, and follow not your idle fancies. Nay, rather follow the bidding of your Lord, the Almighty, the All-Wise.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 346




.

 

[charlie sc]

I know it because I have certitude that Baha'u'llah was a Manifestation of God and as such whatever He wrote was identical with the Will of God, as He stated in His Writings. What Baha'u'llah wrote is that there will be no more Prophets before the year 2852, and that is how I know it.

“Whoso layeth claim to a Revelation direct from God, ere the expiration of a full thousand years, such a man is assuredly a lying impostor. We pray God that He may graciously assist him to retract and repudiate such claim. Should he repent, God will, no doubt, forgive him. If, however, he persisteth in his error, God will, assuredly, send down one who will deal mercilessly with him. Terrible, indeed, is God in punishing! Whosoever interpreteth this verse otherwise than its obvious meaning is deprived of the Spirit of God and of His mercy which encompasseth all created things. Fear God, and follow not your idle fancies. Nay, rather follow the bidding of your Lord, the Almighty, the All-Wise.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 346

You're wrong because of what a great person said and that's how I know it.

Charlie sc The Great said, "All the self-proclaimed prophets were either crazy or scam artists and god(s) do not exist. Oh praise Charlie sc the wise and merciful." Profit be upon his greatness(pbuhg).

I wonder how we can verify each claim? Meh, who cares, my great person is better cause I said so. The end.

 

[Trailblazer]

You're wrong because of what a great person said and that's how I know it.

Charlie sc The Great said, "All the self-proclaimed prophets were either crazy or scam artists and god(s) do not exist. Oh praise Charlie sc the wise and merciful." Profit be upon his greatness(pbuhg).

I wonder how we can verify each claim? Meh, who cares, my great person is better cause I said so. The end.

Yes, we are all free to believe as we wish...Oh, the beauty of free will...

 

[charlie sc]

Yes, we are all free to believe as we wish...Oh, the beauty of free will...

Charlie sc The Great said, "You don't have free-will" Profit be upon his greatness(pbuhg).

Sorry

 

[SomeRandom]

Okay, let’s approach this from a different angle…. What would be the evidence for those religions if not their scriptures?

Something tangible and verifiable. Evidence of the miracles, perhaps. Cross references from contemporary sources from the time period. Something I can sink my teeth into, so to speak.

I explained why it is not biased. Biased means unfairly prejudiced for or against someone or something, but a religion is not biased against another religion just because it is different. People who believe in the religion might be biased towards or against another religion, but that is a different matter altogether.

I explained why the sources of the religions, ie the holy books, are inherently biased. They want to convince you, so obviously they all start with the premise of "X is true."

So I ask you again, where would the evidence come from, if not from the religion itself? WHY would evidence for a given religion come from OUTSIDE that religion? That makes no logical sense at all. That would be like saying that evidence for a crime committed in the United States should come from Russia. That would be like saying that we should go to a car manufacturer to find out how to build airplanes. You have taken this thing about circular reasoning and applied it to something it does not apply to…

It's called corroboration. Outside sources present a neutral take, free from any preconceived notions and are therefore (slightly) more reliable.
And no, it would be like asking for DNA evidence that someone committed a crime.

The best evidence for any religion comes from the religion itself. Any evidence you would you get from a Jew about Christianity would be necessarily biased by their non-belief in Christianity. The same would apply to any religion.

Then I discount it as inherently biased. If it comes from the people themselves, they're not exactly neutral.
It's more like a sales pitch at that stage.

There are plenty of contemporary sources outside of the specific scripture that address the Baha’i Faith and the writers are not all Baha’is. However, most scholars who researched the Baha’i Faith became convinced so they are Baha’is. There are many Baha’i scholars. There are others who oppose the Baha’i Faith so they write false papers and books about it. There are very few neutral sources because people either love it and become Baha’is or they hate it and write calumnies about it. In the future, there will be more neutral scholarly works, but it is too early. All new religions have been opposed by most people in the first few centuries. This is history.

Then it should be a breeze to show these sources.

(I won't report you for proselytizing if that's what you're concerned about. And if you get in trouble with the mods, I'll take to blame.)

No, because a Messenger of God is not a man. He is more than a man. The Messengers (Manifestations of God) are another order of creation above an ordinary man. Their souls had pre-existence in the spiritual world before their bodies were born in this world, whereas the souls of all humans come into being at the moment of conception. The spiritual world is where they get their special powers from God. They possess a universal divine mind that is different than ours and that is why God only speaks to them directly and through Them God communicates to humanity.

So they claim. Words are cheap.

Okay, that is the general definition of religion, but it does not describe the NATURE of religion, where it comes from and what its purpose is.

It's nature, source and purpose is subjective and up for personal interpretation.
Religions are at the end of the day, just an opinion.

A text does not have a bias because it is just words on a page. Texts do not try to prove anything, they just explain things. Only humans can have a bias towards or against that text and only humans try to prove things.

Have you never heard of propaganda? Texts can prove, disprove and even sell ideas and have been doing so since it's invention.
Actually all Holy Texts are inherently biased. Because they start with the premise that it is the spoken word of God/s. That's their entire reason for existence, at least in the Abrahamic circles. Are you seriously telling me that religions that have been notorious for "spreading their message" from the get go didn't actively learn that from their own Holy Book/s? Really? Holy Books are trying to actively entice members. It is no mere work of art. It has different interpretations, but it has an objective from the start.

Like I said, I do not buy that the deity did what the Bible claims. It is so easy to blame God for everything because God is not here to defend Himself… True religion does explain why the world is so callous and cruelty exists; it is because humans have free will and some choose to be cruel and callous.

Maybe. But it's also devastatingly easy to get good people to do awful things, so long as you can convince them it is what God ultimately wants. Like it or not, that's what religion can be used for.

Probably not many scientists study supernatural phenomena because there is no way to study that which is not measurable. There are some mysteries in the universe that some scientists are starting to study though, and maybe they will come up with some answers.

Maybe. I won't be holding my breath, though.

 

[Trailblazer]

Something tangible and verifiable. Evidence of the miracles, perhaps. Cross references from contemporary sources from the time period. Something I can sink my teeth into, so to speak.

The execution of the Bab was a verifiable miracle and it was witnessed by contemporaries of that time period.

There were witnesses to the “miracle” of the execution of the Bab that occurred in 1850. There were many thousands of witnesses and it was in all the newspapers in Europe. It is verifiable history. Not even any nonbelievers contested it then or now.

“It would indeed be no exaggeration to say that nowhere in the whole compass of the world’s religious literature, except in the Gospels, do we find any record relating to the death of any of the religion-founders of the past comparable to the martyrdom suffered by the Prophet of Shíráz. So strange, so inexplicable a phenomenon, attested by eye-witnesses, corroborated by men of recognized standing, and acknowledged by government as well as unofficial historians among the people who had sworn undying hostility to the Bábí Faith, may be truly regarded as the most marvelous manifestation of the unique potentialities with which a Dispensation promised by all the Dispensations of the past had been endowed. The passion of Jesus Christ, and indeed His whole public ministry, alone offer a parallel to the Mission and death of the Báb, a parallel which no student of comparative religion can fail to perceive or ignore. In the youthfulness and meekness of the Inaugurator of the Bábí Dispensation; in the extreme brevity and turbulence of His public ministry; in the dramatic swiftness with which that ministry moved towards its climax; in the apostolic order which He instituted, and the primacy which He conferred on one of its members; in the boldness of His challenge to the time-honored conventions, rites and laws which had been woven into the fabric of the religion He Himself had been born into; in the rôle which an officially recognized and firmly entrenched religious hierarchy played as chief instigator of the outrages which He was made to suffer; in the indignities heaped upon Him; in the suddenness of His arrest; in the interrogation to which He was subjected; in the derision poured, and the scourging inflicted, upon Him; in the public affront He sustained; and, finally, in His ignominious suspension before the gaze of a hostile multitude—in all these we cannot fail to discern a remarkable similarity to the distinguishing features of the career of Jesus Christ.” ​

Cited in (God Passes By)
For the full story: The Execution of the Báb​

I explained why the sources of the religions, ie the holy books, are inherently biased. They want to convince you, so obviously they all start with the premise of "X is true."

Show me where Holy Books say “X is true.” It is the followers who cite the Books and say that. The Holy Books only describe God and god’s Will.

It's called corroboration. Outside sources present a neutral take, free from any preconceived notions and are therefore (slightly) more reliable.
And no, it would be like asking for DNA evidence that someone committed a crime.

There were some outside sources that corroborated the character of Baha’u’llah. For example, this man was an outsider who actually had an Encounter with Baha’u’llah:

Then I discount it as inherently biased. If it comes from the people themselves, they're not exactly neutral.
It's more like a sales pitch at that stage.

The followers of the religion are not neutral but the religious scriptures themselves stand on their own merit and no scriptures speak of being better than other scriptures… People took them and tried to make them mean that much later.

Then it should be a breeze to show these sources.

There are not that many neutral sources because as I said most people who studied the Baha’i Faith became Baha’is and the others were biased against the Faith for their own reasons.

So they claim. Words are cheap.

So you believe them or you don’t. All they have are words and deeds that support their words. What else would you expect to have? Nobody can prove something like this, because it is supernatural.

It's nature, source and purpose is subjective and up for personal interpretation.
Religions are at the end of the day, just an opinion.

Religions are based upon beliefs and people have opinions about those beliefs.

Have you never heard of propaganda? Texts can prove, disprove and even sell ideas and have been doing so since it's invention.

That is true of some books but not Holy Books. God does not need to sell Himself because God has no need for people to believe in Him.

Actually all Holy Texts are inherently biased. Because they start with the premise that it is the spoken word of God/s. That's their entire reason for existence, at least in the Abrahamic circles. Are you seriously telling me that religions that have been notorious for "spreading their message" from the get go didn't actively learn that from their own Holy Book/s? Really? Holy Books are trying to actively entice members. It is no mere work of art. It has different interpretations, but it has an objective from the start.

The Holy Books tell people to go out and spread the Word, and people spread it. Didn’t Jesus tell His disciples to spread the gospel message? That does not mean Jesus was biased against other religions. Show me a major religion that says it is better than another one, in the scriptures. All scriptures read as if they are the only way to God and that is because they were the only way to God during their dispensations. So Jesus said he was the Only Way to God because He was the only way to God during His dispensation, since He abrogated the former dispensations by His coming. But the followers of the previous religions rejected Jesus and kept believing in their older religions. The same thing is happening today with Baha’u’llah. Most of the people of the older religions have rejected Him because they are biased towards their own religions.

Maybe. But it's also devastatingly easy to get good people to do awful things, so long as you can convince them it is what God ultimately wants. Like it or not, that's what religion can be used for.

But true religions from God do not tell people to do awful things. It is when humans distort the original teachings to suit their own purposes that this happens.

Maybe. I won't be holding my breath, though.

I won’t either. It probably won’t be anytime soon, but just think of all the advances in science we have seen in the last 200 years. Nobody would have ever known they were possible back then. The Coming of the Bab and Baha’u’llah set all this in motion beginning in 1844.

 

[Shad]

No, I am not going to try again. I am done with this conversation.
If you want to think you won I do not care, because winning is not something that matters to me since it is the epitome of arrogance. People cannot ever win when they insist they are right about other people, they just think they have won.

Rant

I do not demand anything of anyone, other peoples' beliefs are their own business.

Wrong. Get a dictionary and look up "unless"

I do not have to validate my religion to you or to anyone else. I only have to validate it to myself.

Deflection as you are not validating your religion to me. You are using your religion as a dodge to avoid the requirement of evidence you demanded from A but not for your own view.

 

[Shad]

How do you know?

His book says so.

 

[Trailblazer]

Rant

Wrong. Get a dictionary and look up "unless"

Deflection as you are not validating your religion to me. You are using your religion as a dodge to avoid the requirement of evidence you demanded from A but not for your own view.

I told you I was done with this conversation...
I am not TRYING to validate my religion to ANYBODY. That is not my job.
As for rants, if the shoe fits wear it.

 

[Shad]

I told you I was done with this conversation...

Feel free to use your own will power to stop replying.

I am not TRYING to validate my religion to ANYBODY. That is not my job.

Read your post again. You missed the point to my reply.

As for rants, if the shoe fits wear it.

Better be those easy slip-on shoes

 

[ACEofALLaces]

I know it because I have certitude that Baha'u'llah was a Manifestation of God and as such whatever He wrote was identical with the Will of God, as He stated in His Writings. What Baha'u'llah wrote is that there will be no more Prophets before the year 2852, and that is how I know it.

Hello Susan...have resisted becoming involved in this thread until now.....
In regards to your statement about "no more prophets before the year 2852"....I would suppose that say, a rogue asteroid would impact this planet, causing the obliteration of ALL life forms in the year 2052, that your response would likely be, something to the effect, "see, that's what I told ya"...."none before 2852"...so Baha'u'llah told the TRUTH"......is that a fair presumption?

 

[ACEofALLaces]

9-10ths_Penguin said: ↑
How do you know?

His book says so.

And if we ask how can we know what the book says is so.....I suppose the answer would be, something to the effect, that he "says so" in the book.

 

[Trailblazer]

Hello Susan...have resisted becoming involved in this thread until now.....
In regards to your statement about "no more prophets before the year 2852"....I would suppose that say, a rogue asteroid would impact this planet, causing the obliteration of ALL life forms in the year 2052, that your response would likely be, something to the effect, "see, that's what I told ya"...."none before 2852"...so Baha'u'llah told the TRUTH"......is that a fair presumption?

Sorry, I do not know what you are implying, you lost me...

But regarding the obliteration of ALL life forms in the year 2052 that cannot happen given what was predicted in the Bible as well as in the Baha’i Writings, since both predict that in the FUTURE we will see a Golden Age of humanity. And there can be no Golden Age OF humanity unless there IS a humanity.

Isaiah 11:6-9 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.

What this means to a Baha’i is that In the future diverse religions and races will become comrades, friends and companions. The contentions of races, the differences of religions, and the barriers between nations will be completely removed, and all will attain perfect union and reconciliation. Eventually, there will be only one religion, the religion of God. This is called the Golden Age...

“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......

What we witness at the present time, during “this gravest crisis in the history of civilization,” recalling such times in which “religions have perished and are born,” is the adolescent stage in the slow and painful evolution of humanity, preparatory to the attainment of the stage of manhood, the stage of maturity, the promise of which is embedded in the teachings, and enshrined in the prophecies, of Bahá’u’lláh. The tumult of this age of transition is characteristic of the impetuosity and irrational instincts of youth, its follies, its prodigality, its pride, its self-assurance, its rebelliousness, and contempt of discipline.” The Promised Day is Come, pp. 116-117

You can read the whole passage on that link if you want to know what is going to happen between para 1 and para 2.

 

[Trailblazer]

And if we ask how can we know what the book says is so.....I suppose the answer would be, something to the effect, that he "says so" in the book.

No, that is not what MY answer would be because that would be circular reasoning...

 

[ACEofALLaces]

But regarding the obliteration of ALL life forms in the year 2052 that cannot happen given what was predicted in the Bible as well as in the Baha’i Writings, since both predict that in the FUTURE we will see a Golden Age of humanity. And there can be no Golden Age OF humanity unless there IS a humanity.

You CAN'T possibly be serious? You're saying that just because some reject defector from Islam wrote that such and such is going to happen on some far off date, that there will NEVER be any cataclysmatic disasters, from outer space, BEFORE that prediction?

You better hope that Crimson Chariot of yours shows up soon, as I am afraid that if it doesn't happen in OUR lifetime, it WILL happen sooner than we think and it WILL rattle your bones, wherever they may be at the time.

I don't want to be known as just another one of those global warming conspiracy nuts, but the one thing that you are NOT aware of, is the number of asteroids that are out there, that have Planet Earth, dead in their sights. It is not a matter of IF it will happen, but WHEN it will happen, REGARDLESS of what your Baha’i Writings say.

 

[Trailblazer]

You CAN'T possibly be serious? You're saying that just because some reject defector from Islam wrote that such and such is going to happen on some far off date, that there will NEVER be any cataclysmatic disasters, from outer space, BEFORE that prediction?

Please note that Isaiah also predicted a Golden Age so this is not just coming from Baha'u'llah. I think that many other religious scriptures also predicted a Golden Age but I do not have those handy now.
I did not SAY that there would never be any cataclysmic disasters BEFORE that prediction. All I said is that ALL of humanity will not be wiped out, some people will be left to build the Kingdom of God on earth, as it is in heaven.

Indeed, Baha'u'llah warned of cataclysmic disasters more than once... Here is one such passage:

“The world is in travail, and its agitation waxeth day by day. Its face is turned towards waywardness and unbelief. Such shall be its plight, that to disclose it now would not be meet and seemly. Its perversity will long continue. And when the appointed hour is come, there shall suddenly appear that which shall cause the limbs of mankind to quake. Then, and only then, will the Divine Standard be unfurled, and the Nightingale of Paradise warble its melody.” Gleanings, pp. 118-119

You better hope that Crimson Chariot of yours shows up soon, as I am afraid that if it doesn't happen in OUR lifetime, it WILL happen sooner than we think and it WILL rattle your bones, wherever they may be at the time.

I don't want to be known as just another one of those global warming conspiracy nuts, but the one thing that you are NOT aware of, is the number of asteroids that are out there, that have Planet Earth, dead in their sights. It is not a matter of IF it will happen, but WHEN it will happen, REGARDLESS of what your Baha’i Writings say.

That could very well happen, but it won't wipe everyone out. Some people will be left to rebuild; how many, nobody knows.