Is Atheism the Easier Position?

[ecco]

Who Wrote the Bible?

It's a moot point as you have already told me that the official Bahai line is that the Bible should be taken as allegory unless otherwise instructed. BUt you have not idea who makes these decisions or on what they are based.

 

[ecco]

There is no inner circle. Only God knows who has been initiated into the divine mysteries. As believers we can believe we are initiated and be wrong.

That is not in accordance with the official Bahia writings which I copied and pasted several pages ago from the link you provided...

Regarding Adam and Eve, the official Baha’i position is as follows: 30: ADAM AND EVE

Here it is again...

Here is an excerpt:
We must reflect a little: if the literal meaning of this story were attributed to a wise man, certainly all would logically deny that this arrangement, this invention, could have emanated from an intelligent being. Therefore, this story of Adam and Eve who ate from the tree, and their expulsion from Paradise, must be thought of simply as a symbol. It contains divine mysteries and universal meanings, and it is capable of marvelous explanations. Only those who are initiated into mysteries, and those who are near the Court of the All-Powerful, are aware of these secrets. Hence these verses of the Bible have numerous meanings.

Note the red...it clearly implies that mortals are initiated into mysteries by mortals. These mortals who are doing the initiating are near the Court of the All-Powerful.

Therefore your understanding on the subject is wrong on multiple levels.

I am not on the fringes of the Baha'i faith, nobody is on the fringes, they are either a Baha'i or not. We are all one unified group even though we are all different.

Unquestionably, some are more close to the center than others. You are not close to the center.

 

[Trailblazer]

You asked a question, I responded to it. You were saying you believed in Balulah and not in others because: "What do they have to show for themselves...?"

All the people I listed did all the things you sneered about.

Do try to remember what you posted. Or were you hoping I would forget the context?

What did those people do that was equivalent to what Baha'u'llah did, that is the hundred-dollar question...
Did you think I'd just accept you saying that they did "all the things?"

 

[ecco]

I did not mean that literally when I said that atheists are loyal to the Bible, but they sure seem interested.
Otherwise why would they talk about it so much?

Obviously, it's not just the Bible. I also discuss with Bahai's like you. Therefore I need to have an understanding of the "Gleanings" from Balulah and the writings of Shogi Effendi and whatever else I come across.

If I didn't, I might find myself believing things just because you, or another Bahai, says so.

Heck, with that kind of outlook, I'd end up believing in Genesis after discussions with creationists.

Nobody is holding a gun to their heads telling them that had better talk to Christians so they need to know the Bible.

If I was an atheist I would be off sunning myself on a beach somewhere, not here talking to religious people.

Yet here you are. Judging by post count, you spend a lot more time here than I do.

 

[ecco]

Are polytheistic gods all that different from monotheistic gods when it comes to their power over nature, supernatural qualities, power and authority over beings? Don't they have these four things in common with monotheism?

Polytheistic gods exactly the same as monotheistic gods in the only sense that matters: They are all the creations of man's imaginings.

Zeus and Aphrodite and Obatala and Jehova and Shiva and Glooskap all fit this bill. The one other thing they have in common is that they were created in their creator's image. Well, at least an idealized version thereof.

 

[Trailblazer]

Is the quote from Matthew one of the passages from the Christian Bible that is supposed to be taken literally, as opposed to Genesis which you stated you were instructed to consider as allegory? How would you even know?

No, the quote from Matthew is not to be taken literally since there is no actual gate people walk through and no road people walk on. The gate symbolizes what people choose to believe and the road symbolizes what they walk down, what they do after they believe, metaphorically speaking. I said I believe that Adam and Eve story is an allegory, not al of Genesis.

You know this because the guy who started your new religion told you so. Just as the members of LDS "know" what Joseph Smith told them.

I know because it is in the Writings of Baha'u'llah, not because He told me so. Logically speaking, the Baha'i Faith is either true or false, it does not matter what the LDS does or what Joseph Smith told them.

Here Bahá’u’lláh is saying the book is wide open. Weren't you just touting that something narrow is better than something wide open? Have you confused yourself?

The Book of God is wide open because it is available to anyone who wants it, but the gate to get to the Book is narrow because few people will enter the gate and believe in the Book. The narrow gate is better because it leads to eternal life.

In any case, it's just another example of: You know this because the guy who started the new religion told you so. Just as the members of LDS "know" what Joseph Smith told them.

I don't know because Baha'u'llah "told me so." I know because of the evidence that shows that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God.

 

[ecco]

I don't for a second believe that there is such a being but, if there were, how would it not be natural? I just don't get the label 'supernatural' and what it adds to anything.

Time is natural. Therefore an entity existing outside of time is not natural.

An omnipotent entity that can create a universe in six days is not natural.

An omnipotent entity that created our universe last Thurssday is not natural.

An omnipotent entity that could make a rock too heavy for it to lift is not possible in nature. An omnipotent entity that could not lift a rock it created is not possible in nature. If something is not possible in nature, it is supernatural.

What it adds to the discussion is the first level of skepticism.

 

[ecco]

What did those people do that was equivalent to what Baha'u'llah did, that is the hundred-dollar question...

I already showed you. You really need to look back if you cannot remember.

Rev. Sun Myung Moon built a religious movement with 1,500,000 followers.

7th day Adventists founded by Ellen G. White, Joseph Bates, James Springer White have 18,700,000 followers.

Joseph Smith founded Mormonism which has 15,000,000 followers.

Mirza Husayn 'Ali Nuri founded Bahai which has 6,000,000 followers.

Did you think I'd just accept you saying that they did "all the things?"

Are you saying you doubt that the religion founded by Joseph Smith has 15,000,000 followers? Are you saying you don't know about the golden plates and the messenger Moroni?

Moroni: Messenger of the Restoration

On the night of September 21, 1823, Joseph Smith prayed to know God’s further will toward him. Steadily a light grew as though the house was filled with consuming and unquenchable fire.” Moroni, a messenger sent from God, stood before him. In mortal life Moroni had been the last of ancient American prophets having authority from God and whose teachings were recorded for our time.​

This part "Steadily a light grew “as though the house was filled with consuming and unquenchable fire" sounds familiar. Where have I heard something similar? Oh yeah. Balulahs revelation in a dank dark prison.

 

[Trailblazer]

What you are saying is that you believe that some few people have had revelations from God. Those few people are the ones your Bahá’u’lláh said are people who have had revelations from God. Of course, Bahá’u’lláh includes himself in this list.

Joseph Smith would include himself and reject Bahá’u’lláh.
Rev Sung Myong Moon would include himself and reject Bahá’u’lláh.
Charles Taze Russell would include himself and reject Bahá’u’lláh.

Are you starting to see a pattern?

What you are doing is completely illogical. It does not MATTER what Joseph Smith or any of the others would say, it only MATTERS who is a true Messenger of God and who is a false messenger. NOTHING else matters so you are just deflecting from what matters by comparing what others would say.

Who cares if they would reject Baha'u'llah? Most people reject a true Messenger of God for a long time after He appears, but that does not mean He was not a true Messenger of God. Most people just cannot see that yet because the gate is narrow and difficult to get through.

“Just how small was the Christian movement in the first century is clear from the calculations of the sociologist R Stark (1996:5-7; so too Hopkins 1998:192-193).Stark begins his analysis with a rough estimation of six million Christians in the Roman Empire (or about ten percent of the total population) at the start of the fourth century... There were 1,000 Christians in the year 40, 1,400 Christians in 50, 1,960 Christians in 60, 2,744 Christians in 70, 3,842 Christians in 80, 5,378 Christians in 90 and 7,530 Christians at the end of the first century.

These figures are very suggestive, and reinforce the point that in its initial decades the Christian movement represented a tiny fraction of the ancient world.”

How many Jews became Christians in the first century?

There may be others? Seriously? Doesn't your religion specify who is and who is not a primary Messenger?

It specifies certain Messengers but there may have been others. The Baha'i Faith is not about the past ages, it is about the present age and that is what we should be concerned about.

“The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and center your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 213

 

[ecco]

No, the quote from Matthew is not to be taken literally since there is no actual gate people walk through and no road people walk on. The gate symbolizes what people choose to believe and the road symbolizes what they walk down, what they do after they believe, metaphorically speaking.

Ah, just an allegorical teaching moment. If it's allegory do all Bahais interpret it the same way? Where have other Bahais commented on it?

If you don't know, then you are just stating your opinion.

I said I believe that Adam and Eve story is an allegory, not al of Genesis.

Please clarify. Did God create everything in six days? Was the Flood Real? Did Australia zip across the Pacific after the ark unloaded the kangaroos on Mt. Ararat?

Are you answers the official Bahai teachings or more of your opinions?

 

[ecco]

I know because it is in the Writings of Baha'u'llah, not because He told me so.

Don't start being childish. You know very well I was referring to your beliefs based on Bahai writings in general and Balaulah's in specific.

Logically speaking, the Baha'i Faith is either true or false, it does not matter what the LDS does or what Joseph Smith told them.

You keep forgetting that it was you who mockingly asked for comparisons.
Mormons believe their stuff for the exact same reason Bahais believe their stuff. Bahais believe their stuff for the exact same reason Mormons believe their stuff. And both groups insist that their stuff is right and the other guy's stuff is wrong.
Ditto Christians; Hindus; Moonies; JW; etc Ad nauseam.

 

[ecco]

I don't know because Baha'u'llah "told me so." I know because of the evidence that shows that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God.

So was Joseph Smith and all the others I listed (at least that's what their followers believe).

It's really funny that all claim to be right. Right?

 

[Trailblazer]

Aw heck. Are ya sure we can't include Mormons and JW's and Moonies? Some of them are bigger than Bahai. So why do you want to exclude them?

Mormonism's origins are well documented from its inception. Ditto JW. Moonies, definitely.

I exclude JWs and Mormons because they are sects of Christianity.

It does not matter about the origins if Mormonism because Joseph Smith is not a Messenger of God and he never claimed to be one. Rather, he promoted Jesus and claimed to renew Christianity. The same holds true for the JWs, they claim to renew Christianity.

Moonies are also a sect of Christianity:

Unification Church, byname of Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity, religious movement founded in Pusan, South Korea, by the Reverend Sun Myung Moon in 1954. ... It has generated much controversy, and its members are commonly derided as “Moonies.”
Related people: Sun Myung Moon
Areas of involvement: Christianity
Date: 1954 - present

Unification Church | Britannica

The point is that Christianity's origins are not as well-documented as the origins if the Baha'i Faith, not even close, so it does not matter if we know the origins of SECTS of Christianity.

Wrong! See above. Also, mostly second-hand. Shogi Effendi never met Balulah.

Even second hand would be better than what Christianity or any other religion has.
Besides, when I said it was revealed by men who knew Baha'u'llah personally, I was not talking about Shoghi Effendi.
The Dawn-Breakers Nabíl’s Narrative of the Early Days of the Bahá’í Revelation

Even some Christians would argue that the Gospel writers were eyewitnesses.

Christian believers can argue anything they want to but scholars know better. The Gospel writers never knew Jesus. Besides that, do we have any original copies of the original scriptures we now see published in the Bible?

Don't even try to compare the authenticity of the Writings of Baha'ullah, Abdu'l-Baha or Shoghi Effendi with the authenticity of the Bible. All the originals Baha'i Writings are all at the Baha'i World Centre in Haifa, Israel in the archives building.

The International Archives

 

[Trailblazer]

It's a moot point as you have already told me that the official Bahai line is that the Bible should be taken as allegory unless otherwise instructed. But you have not idea who makes these decisions or on what they are based.

Show me where I ever said that that the official Bahai line is that all of the Bible should be taken as allegory unless otherwise instructed. That is not the official Baha'i position at all.

Here are some Baha'i views of the Bible:

Introduction

Although Bahá'ís universally share a great respect for the Bible, and acknowledge its status as sacred literature, their individual views about its authoritative status range along the full spectrum of possibilities. At one end there are those who assume the uncritical evangelical or fundamentalist-Christian view that the Bible is wholly and indisputably the word of God. At the other end are Bahá'ís attracted to the liberal, scholarly conclusion that the Bible is no more than a product of complex historical and human forces. Between these extremes is the possibility that the Bible contains the Word of God, but only in a particular sense of the phrase 'Word of God' or in particular texts. I hope to show that a Bahá'í view must lie in this middle area, and can be defined to some degree.

Conclusion

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

``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Here is the official position on the Bible from the Guardian Shoghi Effendi:

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

Regarding the stories in the Bible, the following are more letters from Shoghi Efffendi about the Bible:

When 'Abdu'l-Bahá states we believe what is in the Bible, He means in substance. Not that we believe every word of it to be taken literally or that every word is the authentic saying of the Prophet.
(11 February 1944 to an individual believer)

We cannot be sure of the authenticity of any of the phrases in the Old or the New Testament. What we can be sure of is when such references or words are cited or quoted in either the Quran or the Bahá'í writings.
(4 July 1947 to an individual believer)

We have no way of substantiating the stories of the Old Testament other than references to them in our own teachings, so we cannot say exactly what happened at the battle of Jericho.
(25 November 1950 to an individual believer)

Except for what has been explained by Bahá'u'lláh and 'Abdu'l-Bahá, we have no way of knowing what various symbolic allusions in the Bible mean.
(31 January 1955 to an individual believer)

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

 

[Trailblazer]

Note the red...it clearly implies that mortals are initiated into mysteries by mortals. These mortals who are doing the initiating are near the Court of the All-Powerful.

Therefore your understanding on the subject is wrong on multiple levels.

We must reflect a little: if the literal meaning of this story were attributed to a wise man, certainly all would logically deny that this arrangement, this invention, could have emanated from an intelligent being. Therefore, this story of Adam and Eve who ate from the tree, and their expulsion from Paradise, must be thought of simply as a symbol. It contains divine mysteries and universal meanings, and it is capable of marvelous explanations. Only those who are initiated into mysteries, and those who are near the Court of the All-Powerful, are aware of these secrets. Hence these verses of the Bible have numerous meanings.

That sentence in red does not say who is doing the initiating. It does not imply that it is mortals. What do you think, that Baha'is have an initiation ceremony where they decide who is initiated?

Unquestionably, some are more close to the center than others. You are not close to the center.

I don't know what you mean by close to the center, close to the center of what? How would you know which Baha'is are close to the center?

 

[ecco]

I exclude JWs and Mormons because they are sects of Christianity.

With all due respect, there are many who consider Bahaia a cult religion.

A cult is a system of veneration, worship or devotion directed towards an idol, object, or figure. In modern use, it is usually taken to mean a religious (or pseudo-religious) group having beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister. When used in a pejorative sense, the term may be used by some to criticize or demean major religious groups (such as Catholicism or Islam) that are otherwise generally regarded as legitimate, which oftens betrays religious prejudice on the part of the user.​

Although the Bahá’í Faith still remains little known to the greater public, it is not generally regarded as a cult,[1] the major exception being among certain evangelical Christian groups and Muslim theocracies (including Iran, where Bahá’ís have been persecuted since the religion's inception)
​

People in glass houses...

It does not matter about the origins if Mormonism because Joseph Smith is not a Messenger of God and he never claimed to be one. Rather, he promoted Jesus and claimed to renew Christianity. The same holds true for the JWs, they claim to renew Christianity.

Moroni was an angel speaking for God. He spoke to Smith. Smith told others about the conversations. Just what do you think a messenger is?

 

[Trailblazer]

Obviously, it's not just the Bible. I also discuss with Bahai's like you. Therefore I need to have an understanding of the "Gleanings" from Balulah and the writings of Shogi Effendi and whatever else I come across.

If I didn't, I might find myself believing things just because you, or another Bahai, says so.

Heck, with that kind of outlook, I'd end up believing in Genesis after discussions with creationists.

It is good that you look at the source material rather than just believing what a Baha'i tells you. I don't know anyone else who has done that but that is what people are instructed to do.

Yet here you are. Judging by post count, you spend a lot more time here than I do.

Too much time, but the reasons for that are complicated.
Here I am even though I'd rather be somewhere on a beach sunning myself is because that is not possible for various reasons, but since I am here I try to make the best of it.

 

[ecco]

I exclude JWs and Mormons because they are sects of Christianity.
Moonies are also a sect of Christianity:

Protestanism is a sect of Christianity. Your Point?

 

[ecco]

Christian believers can argue anything they want to but scholars know better. The Gospel writers never knew Jesus. Besides that, do we have any original copies of the original scriptures we now see published in the Bible?

You don't have to try to convince me.

Don't even try to compare the authenticity of the Writings of Baha'ullah, Abdu'l-Baha or Shoghi Effendi with the authenticity of the Bible.

I don't. I evaluate the writings of Bahai on their own.

The writings of Balulah are gibberish. I can quote two or three paragraphs of his writings and ask you to explain what it means. If I did that with five Bahais, I'd get five very different interpretations.

Even his prison writings need interpretation.

The writings of Shogi Effendi speaking about Balulah are made up stuff. The two men had no contact with each other.

All the originals Baha'i Writings are all at the Baha'i World Centre in Haifa, Israel in the archives building.

So? Gibberish and third-hand information is gibberish and third-hand information regardless of where it is housed. I'm sure the writings of Sung Myung Moon are also carefully preserved as are those of Smith and even Applewhite.

 

[Trailblazer]

I already showed you. You really need to look back if you cannot remember.

I see nothing equivalent to what Baha’u’llah did, it is not even in the same ball park.

We already covered the number of followers and what that demonstrates. It does not prove that these religions are true because many people believe in them.

Argumentum ad populum

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so." Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

The converse of this is that if many or most people do not believe it, it cannot be so, and that is fallacious.

Matthew 7:13-14 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

Are you saying you doubt that the religion founded by Joseph Smith has 15,000,000 followers? Are you saying you don't know about the golden plates and the messenger Moroni?

No, I do not question the number of followers or what Mormons believe about the golden plates and the messenger Moroni, but I was not talking about that. Maybe I need to be more specific about what I meant by pointing out the evidence that I was talking about and you can be the judge as to whether you believe Joseph Smith is in the same ball park as Baha’u’llah. Good luck trying to show that Joseph Smith even holds a candle to Baha’u’llah. How long was his mission? Where are his 15,000 tablets?

Besides, Mormonism would not even have gotten off the ground without Jesus, whereas Baha’u’llah did not depend upon another religion to give Him clout, He revealed a whole new religion.

Below is what Baha’u’llah wrote about the 'evidence' that establishes the truth of His claims. Baha’u’llah enjoined us to look at His own Self (His character), His Revelation (His mission and works, which can be seen in Baha'i history), and His words (His Writings).

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106

His own Self is who He was, His character (His qualities). That can be determined by reading about Him on books such as the following: The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4

His Revelation is what He accomplished (His Mission on earth/ the history of His Cause)
That 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.

The words He hath revealed is what He wrote can be found in books that are posted online: The Works of Bahá'u'lláh