Loved ones in hell - take 2.

[Tiberius]

I do not blame you for anything. I know I said that I do not believe in the resurrection stories are true but I was nit clear as to what I actually believe is true. To be honest, I never gave the Bible any serious thought until I started posting to Christians on forums about eight years ago, and I had never even read one Bible verse until then. I got interested in knowing what is in the Bible only because I was debating with Christians so I had to know.

I never read the Bible cover to cover, and that is another reason why I don't really have an opinion as to what I consider true or false. I do not believe that Jesus rose from the grave because I consider it absurd and unnecessary to the mission of Jesus, and my religion teaches that the stories were only symbolic, symbolizing the Cause of Christ coming back to life after three days, not the body.

“Therefore, we say that the meaning of Christ’s resurrection is as follows: the disciples were troubled and agitated after the martyrdom of Christ. The Reality of Christ, which signifies His teachings, His bounties, His perfections and His spiritual power, was hidden and concealed for two or three days after His martyrdom, and was not resplendent and manifest. No, rather it was lost, for the believers were few in number and were troubled and agitated. The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body; and when after three days the disciples became assured and steadfast, and began to serve the Cause of Christ, and resolved to spread the divine teachings, putting His counsels into practice, and arising to serve Him, the Reality of Christ became resplendent and His bounty appeared; His religion found life; His teachings and His admonitions became evident and visible. In other words, the Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body until the life and the bounty of the Holy Spirit surrounded it.

Such is the meaning of the resurrection of Christ, and this was a true resurrection. But as the clergy have neither understood the meaning of the Gospels nor comprehended the symbols, therefore, it has been said that religion is in contradiction to science, and science in opposition to religion, as, for example, this subject of the ascension of Christ with an elemental body to the visible heaven is contrary to the science of mathematics. But when the truth of this subject becomes clear, and the symbol is explained, science in no way contradicts it; but, on the contrary, science and the intelligence affirm it. Some Answered Questions, pp. 103-105

23: THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST

```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Perhaps the following citations will help you better understand the official position Baha'is take regarding the Bible.

The Bahá'í viewpoint proposed by this essay has been established as follows: The Bible is a reliable source of Divine guidance and salvation, and rightly regarded as a sacred and holy book. However, as a collection of the writings of independent and human authors, it is not necessarily historically accurate. Nor can the words of its writers, although inspired, be strictly defined as 'The Word of God' in the way the original words of Moses and Jesus could have been. Instead there is an area of continuing interest for Bahá'í scholars, possibly involving the creation of new categories for defining authoritative religious literature.

A Baháí View of the Bible
(Rosebery, Australia: Association for Baha'i Studies Australia, 1996)

In studying the Bible Bahá'ís must bear two principles in mind. The first is that many passages in Sacred Scriptures are intended to be taken metaphorically, not literally, and some of the paradoxes and apparent contradictions which appear are intended to indicate this. The second is the fact that the text of the early Scriptures, such as the Bible, is not wholly authentic.
(28 May 1984 to an individual believer)

The Bahá'ís believe what is in the Bible to be true in substance. This does not mean that every word recorded in that Book is to be taken literally and treated as the authentic saying of a Prophet....

The Bahá'ís believe that God's Revelation is under His care and protection and that the essence, or essential elements, of what His Manifestations intended to convey has been recorded and preserved in Their Holy Books. However, as the sayings of the ancient Prophets were written down some time later, we cannot categorically state, as we do in the case of the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, that the words and phrases attributed to Them are Their exact words
(9 August 1984 to an individual believer)

The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments
(From letters written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice)

I'm sure you'll understand if I say that this sounds like an elaborate justification for people of your faith to pick and choose the bits of the Bible they want by claiming that those parts are the "reliable source of divine guidance and salvation," while the bits you don't agree with are the "not necessarily historically accurate" and "not wholly authentic" parts.

 

[Trailblazer]

But that position is logically flawed.

Let's say I have an autograph of George Clooney on a napkin. It says, "I, George Clooney, autographed this napkin. You can be sure that this autograph is a genuine George Clooney autograph because I, George Clooney, confirm that it is genuine."

Now, I can say, "That proves it. George Clooney wrote this, because George Clooney claims it was him, and who would know better than George Clooney?"

And you would say, "But anyone could write that, it doesn't prove George wrote it."

And I would say, "But it's got George's autograph on it. If George didn't write it, why would it have his autograph?"

And you'd say, "How do you know that's George's actual autograph?"

And I'd say, "Because it's got an assurance of authenticity written by George himself."

And you would say, "But anyone could have written that assurance, it doesn't prove George wrote it."

And I would say, "But it's got George's autograph on it. If George didn't write it, why would it have his autograph?"

And we'd go around in that little circle forever. And the whole thing could have been written by anyone.

Tiberius said: So you believe it is true because B wrote it, and since B wrote it, you know it is true.

Trailblazer said: Yes, and that is because I believe that Baha’u’llah was a true Messenger of God.

Tiberius said: But that position is logically flawed.

What position is logically flawed?
You sure spent a long time typing all that out just to reply to a straw man.

I said that I believe that Baha’u’llah was a true Messenger of God. I did not say I believe it is true just because Baha’u’llah wrote it.
First I had to determine that He was a Messenger of God and then I believed whatever He wrote was true. There is nothing logically flawed about that.

As an aside, and as a courtesy, since you typed all if that out, the whole thing could not have been written by anyone else except Baha’u’llah because it was stamped by Him with His official seal and His handwriting has been authenticated by experts in the field. In short, we KNOW that Baha’u’llah wrote it and the pens with which He wrote are in a British museum, along with some of His original writings.

Exhibition of Baha’u’llah’s writings opens at British Museum

I'm curious why you wouldn't claim to know for a fact that God is real if one of the arguments is utterly convincing to you.

I mean, there's an argument that 9.999... is equal to exactly 1 that is utterly convincing to me, and I'll happily claim to know for a fact that 9.999... is exactly equal to 1.

Simple, I cannot claim it as a fact unless I can prove it.

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

It does not matter if it is convincing to me. It is not established as a fact unless I can prove it is true. Nobody can establish the truth of “God exists” as a fact.

 

[Truthseeker]

As an aside, and as a courtesy, since you typed all if that out, the whole thing could not have been written by anyone else except Baha’u’llah because it was stamped by Him with His official seal and His handwriting has been authenticated by experts in the field. In short, we KNOW that Baha’u’llah wrote it and the pens with which He wrote are in a British museum, along with some of His original writings.

Exhibition of Baha’u’llah’s writings opens at British Museum

Over time, you come up with quite a collection of online material, it seems.

As to definitions, I use Marriam-Webster, but that's just a preference.

 

[Trailblazer]

Over time, you come up with quite a collection of online material, it seems.

If you ever saw everything I have collected it would make your head spin. It is good I finally backed it up on another external device but I need to do that again since it has been a few months. Meanwhile I always save everything on the original external device as well as on the hard drive so I have a backup copy. My whole life is in these files!

The only reason I can post so much information about the Faith is because I have already done this work and I have an eidetic memory so I know exactly where everything is located in files and folders. I don't feel like I am good for much else but at least I am good for something. I guess God gave me this memory and drive for a reason.

 

[Truthseeker]

If you ever saw everything I have collected it would make your head spin. It is good I finally backed it up on another external device but I need to do that again since it has been a few months. Meanwhile I always save everything on the original external device as well as on the hard drive so I have a backup copy. My whole life is in these files!

The only reason I can post so much information about the Faith is because I have already done this work and I have an eidetic memory so I know exactly where everything is located in files and folders. I don't feel like I am good for much else but at least I am good for something. I guess God gave me this memory and drive for a reason.

Wish I had an eidetic memory. My neurologist says I had a mini-stoke, though I felt nothing, and that is why my memory is so poor these days. It is true that my memory has worsened. My wife and I brought corn dogs today, and I couldn't remember that the corn stuff around the hot dog is called cornbread. Just an example.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. I have an eidetic memory so I know exactly where everything is located in files and folders.

It would not be difficult with an indexed material. It seems you are basically a copy and paste person.

 

[Trailblazer]

By this logic, no one could claim anything unless they've seen it for themselves, yet we don't actually do that.

I do not think people should be claiming things they cannot prove.

Lots of people can and have made the same exact claim about lots of different people that you discount. I don't see what's different between them and you.

I have evidence and they don’t.

So when I said, "I have very large doubts that a person named Jesus existed who was anything like the character depicted in the Bible," and you replied, "I also have my doubts about that," what exactly was it that you were having doubts about?

My doubts were about Jesus being as He was depicted in the New Testament, esp. the part where Jesus allegedly rose from the dead.

Because... reasons.

There is more than one reason why God does not speak to anyone except His Messengers. Do you want the short version or the long version?

Yet you believe that's real.

Why would God be any less real if He intentionally set up a system that he knew would result in suffering when he could have avoided it?

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm sure you'll understand if I say that this sounds like an elaborate justification for people of your faith to pick and choose the bits of the Bible they want by claiming that those parts are the "reliable source of divine guidance and salvation," while the bits you don't agree with are the "not necessarily historically accurate" and "not wholly authentic" parts.

You are assuming a motive that does not exist. Baha'i scholars have studied the Bible and some to certain conclusions about what is accurate. People all faiths and nonbelievers pick and choose what they believe that is in the Bible. Most Christians do not even interpret all of the Bible literally.

 

[Aupmanyav]

There is more than one reason why God does not speak to anyone except His Messengers. Do you want the short version or the long version?
Why would God be any less real if He intentionally set up a system that he knew would result in suffering when he could have avoided it?

The long version, please. That will be more interesting to debate.
Yeah, a mad man also will do something like that. Like keeping cats to torture them.

 

[Trailblazer]

Wish I had an eidetic memory. My neurologist says I had a mini-stoke, though I felt nothing, and that is why my memory is so poor these days. It is true that my memory has worsened. My wife and I brought corn dogs today, and I couldn't remember that the corn stuff around the hot dog is called cornbread. Just an example.

Don't feel bad... I keep forgetting the names of the cats, but I never forget Baha'i stuff.
When we had many more cats I never forgot their names, so I think it is the heat and something emotional going on.

 

[Trailblazer]

The long version, please. That will be more interesting to debate.

I will wait for Tiberius to put in his request and then I will reply with the different versions.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Don't feel bad... I keep forgetting the names of the cats, but I never forget Baha'i stuff.

Selective memory can mean any of the following:

• Confirmation bias, the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses.
• Lacunar amnesia, the loss of memory about one specific event.
• Selective amnesia, the loss of memory about certain things

Selective memory - Wikipedia

 

[Tiberius]

Tiberius said: So you believe it is true because B wrote it, and since B wrote it, you know it is true.

Trailblazer said: Yes, and that is because I believe that Baha’u’llah was a true Messenger of God.

Tiberius said: But that position is logically flawed.

What position is logically flawed?
You sure spent a long time typing all that out just to reply to a straw man.

I said that I believe that Baha’u’llah was a true Messenger of God. I did not say I believe it is true just because Baha’u’llah wrote it.
First I had to determine that He was a Messenger of God and then I believed whatever He wrote was true. There is nothing logically flawed about that.

You also believe that whatever was written about him was true, and you only believe that he is a messenger of God because of what was written about him.

Simple, I cannot claim it as a fact unless I can prove it.

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

It does not matter if it is convincing to me. It is not established as a fact unless I can prove it is true. Nobody can establish the truth of “God exists” as a fact.

Then how can you claim that any of the arguments for God is utterly convincing?

If you are willing to accept that the argument is wrong, you don't seem to be utterly convinced.

 

[Tiberius]

I do not think people should be claiming things they cannot prove.

Strange, since you have claimed that Baha was the return of the messiah, and yet you agree that you can't prove it. SOURCE

Sounds like you have a double standard.

I have evidence and they don’t.

So what?

You claim to have evidence, and you dismiss their evidence.

They do exactly the same thing. They claim to have evidence that they are right, and they dismiss your evidence. How do you not see that you are both exactly the same. You each claim that you have it right while the other has it wrong.

My doubts were about Jesus being as He was depicted in the New Testament, esp. the part where Jesus allegedly rose from the dead.

If you have doubts about Jesus being as he was depicted in the NT, then how do you even know he exists, since that's pretty much the only place in the Bible where he is depicted at all?

I mean, that's like me saying that I'm convinced that Harry Potter is a real person, but he was nothing like the character depicted in the Harry Potter books.

There is more than one reason why God does not speak to anyone except His Messengers. Do you want the short version or the long version?

I already know why. Because he doesn't exist, and when people claim to hear God speaking to them it's a sign of mental illness of some sort. Schizophrenia often causes people to either believe they are being spoken to by God, or that they are the return of the Messiah.

" Sufferers may believe that they are a saint, a prophet or God himself, (which is more common in men), or (in women) that they are a saint or are pregnant with the Messiah." SOURCE

"Patients may believe that they are God, or God's chosen messenger." SOURCE

Why would God be any less real if He intentionally set up a system that he knew would result in suffering when he could have avoided it?

Well, it makes God a jerk, for a start, and certainly means he isn't worthy of worship.

 

[Tiberius]

You are assuming a motive that does not exist. Baha'i scholars have studied the Bible and some to certain conclusions about what is accurate. People all faiths and nonbelievers pick and choose what they believe that is in the Bible. Most Christians do not even interpret all of the Bible literally.

Are you actually telling me that Bahai scholars don't cherrypick, and then say that all faiths cherrypick?

 

[Tiberius]

I will wait for Tiberius to put in his request and then I will reply with the different versions.

The long version is fine with me. I'm curious to see what Aupmanyav has to say about it.

As I've already mentioned, I've already got an answer that works and is entirely consistent with what we know and what can be shown to exist (unless you're going to say schizophrenia isn't real). Whatever explanation you provide is gonna have to be pretty damn good to get me to view your religiously-based explanation as more likely.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You also believe that whatever was written about him was true, and you only believe that he is a messenger of God because of what was written about him.

Let me put a little correction here. Nobody wrote about him except his son and great grandson. It was what all he himself wrote about himself.

 

[Trailblazer]

Let me put a little correction here. Nobody wrote about him except his son and great grandson. It was what all he himself wrote about himself.

Let me put a little correction here. Nobody wrote about him except his son and great grandson. It was what all he himself wrote about himself.

That's not true at all. Others have written about Baha'u'llah. For example:
.
His character (His qualities) can be determined by reading about Him on books such as the following: The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4

What He accomplished (His Mission on earth/ the history of His Cause) can be determined by reading about His mission on books such as the following:

God Passes By (1844-1944)
The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4, which cover the 40 years of His Mission, from 1853-1892.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Both these are Bahai publications, a repeat of what Bahaollah, Abdul-Baha and Shoghi wrote. A family enterprise till the family lasted.

 

[Trailblazer]

Both these are Bahai publications, a repeat of what Bahaollah, Abdul-Baha and Shoghi wrote. A family enterprise till the family lasted.

No, that is not true. The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4, were written by Adib Taherzadeh. God Passes By was written by Shoghi Effendi. There was no "family enterprise."