Atheist looking for religious debate. Any religion. Let's see if I can be convinced.

[Truthseeker]

However, Trailblazer specifically stated, "As for Jesus rising from the dead, those are just stories and not all Christians interpret them literally."

She said "all", and you said "most". You celebrated the fact that most Christians believe that. However, I take your point.

So it's rather rude of you to jump into a conversation I am having with someone else, then say that it's irrelevant what Christians believe in a conversation that is literally about what Christians believe.

Sorry for being rude.

 

[Truthseeker]

We're not talking about that, are we?

No we weren't but we should. It should not be just a one way consideration in my opinion.

 

[Truthseeker]

Are you suggesting that what I quoted was not said?

No. But I observed that you didn't care that she updated her message. Is all you're interested in is tripping her up? Are you interested at all in the truth?

 

[Truthseeker]

So why do you keep replying to me if you have no intention of having a discussion with me?

You're right. I should have had a real discussion instead of those short statements with no explanation. I won't bother you any more.

 

[Truthseeker]

I don't know; I believe.

Okay, why do you believe that?

 

[Truthseeker]

Yeah. I think the message is hidden in the details of the bible and the Quran.
And there are other religions around the world with exactly the same message.


But I could not find the same message in the words of Baha'u'llah.

Why do you say that?

 

[Tiberius]

No. But I observed that you didn't care that she updated her message. Is all you're interested in is tripping her up? Are you interested at all in the truth?

The original quote from her comes from post 772. That post currently reads (in part):

"Obviously you need something you do not have in order to become a believer, because you would be a believer if you had what you need.​

However, I believe that everyone has been given what they need, which is the capacity to believe in God, because if God had not given everyone the capacity to believe how could God expect people to believe?​

Baha’u’llah wrote that we all have the capacity to believe in God, because otherwise we could not be held accountable....."
​

That post does not say it has been edited.

 

[Truthseeker]

The original quote from her comes from post 772. That post currently reads (in part):

"Obviously you need something you do not have in order to become a believer, because you would be a believer if you had what you need.​

However, I believe that everyone has been given what they need, which is the capacity to believe in God, because if God had not given everyone the capacity to believe how could God expect people to believe?​

Baha’u’llah wrote that we all have the capacity to believe in God, because otherwise we could not be held accountable....."
​

That post does not say it has been edited.

What about what she said later? Does she have to say everything at one go? She said later, as did I that we have the capacity but will we live up to that capacity, or words to that effect? You expect her to be perfect? Or are you just interested in making her look bad?

 

[CG Didymus]

It's always interesting when Baha'is get into the mix. So you're supposed to be trying to convince an Atheist?

I know that God knows because God is all-knowing, which means that God knows everything; so God has to know that His Messengers have been successful, since they have been successful.

Who was you logic professor? So you think messengers have been successful? Wasn't there a thread about this? If there was, was it successful?

I never said that. I said I certainly do not believe that everything that Christianity teaches is consistent with what my religion teaches. The same applies to Judaism and Islam. Christianity, Judaism and Islam have all been changed by men since they were originally revealed by God revealed and in many cases they have been corrupted by man.

Okay, the "changed" religions, the ones you don't believe in, because they strayed away from the original teachings of the messenger, have been successful? And you don't have to come up with a big explanation of why you are right, I know you're right. You're always right. But you would never say that.

On the one hand we know what Baha'u'llah wrote, on the other hand we don't know what the Buddha said according to scholarship which has it's limitations, but it's all we have.

So what is the true teachings of the Buddha? What Baha'is say it is? Or, what Buddhists say it is?

However, you said that any true messenger of God can't contradict another religion.

I suppose you should have said that any true messenger of God can't contradict the bits and pieces of other religions you've decided are compatible with your religion, but he can contradict the bits of other religions you've decided don't count.

Yes, all acceptable bits and pieces of religions agree. Obviously, since all bits and pieces of religions agree, anything that is contradictory to the Baha'i Faith is not true teachings from the messenger.

Sounds to me like this is just saying, "You have to find an interpretation that lets you fit everything together and then decide that it's true based solely on your desire to make these different religions play nice together.

Yes, those people in the other religions misinterpreted the things that other people wrote down about what the messenger said. Like the resurrection of Jesus. That is scientifically impossible, therefore... that part of the gospel story must be interpreted allegorically. Then... it matches perfectly with Baha'i beliefs. And, this must be true because Baha'u'llah is a messenger from God and can't lie.

If you have a source that shows that my claim that most Christians think the resurrection was literal is wrong, please provide it.

Like I just said, they interpreted the words of the gospel writers wrong. The gospel writers made it sound like Jesus rose from the grave and talked and ate and even let them touch him to show he was real, but they meant it to be that he "symbolically" rose from the dead. Those few dumb Christians stupidly took the gospels as being literally true. How dumb is that? The smart Christians reject a literal Biblical interpretation. But doesn't that make the NT and the rest of the Bible works of fiction? Yes and no, depends on what the Baha'is tell us. What they say is true is true. What they say is allegorical is allegorical.

This is just an assertion. Where is the actual reasoning? If god has a message for everybody, and the means to communicate directly to everybody (without the confusion and untold suffering caused by going through 'messengers' that contradict each other and don't even communicate with everyone anyway) then what on earth would be the point of not communicating with everybody directly?

But be sensible... How would we be in such a confused state of religious beliefs if he did that? Much better to send messengers that don't write down what they say but let others tell us what they said. That is until Baha'u'llah, and I guess Muhammad and The Bab. So now things are cleared up. Whatever the Baha'i Faith says is true is true. And if you don't see it that way, then you need to have your eyes checked and get those special Baha'i goggles to fix your vision.

But actually, there's a lot of things I like about the Baha'i Faith. Unfortunately, there's somethings I don't... Like pretending that all religions, "originally", agreed. Yeah, yeah Baha'is, I know you don't say that. You say they all agreed on "spiritual" teachings but each messenger brought different "social" teachings. And if I say that even the "spiritual" teachings don't agree, then you say that those weren't part of the original teachings of the messenger but were added on man made teachings that weren't true.

Of course it hasn't worked, it's an obvious abject failure, otherwise everybody would accept the latest messenger and be Baha'is.

And those religions with those made up teachings in it spread around the world proving just how successful God's method of sending messengers is... right.

 

[Trailblazer]

What about what she said later? Does she have to say everything at one go? She said later, as did I that we have the capacity but will we live up to that capacity, or words to that effect? You expect her to be perfect? Or are you just interested in making her look bad?

What I said originally is that we all have the capacity to recognize the signs of God.....

“I have perfected in every one of you My creation, so that the excellence of My handiwork may be fully revealed unto men. It follows, therefore, that every man hath been, and will continue to be, able of himself to appreciate the Beauty of God, the Glorified. Had he not been endowed with such a capacity, how could he be called to account for his failure?”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 143

“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, pp. 105-106

What I said later, several times, is that in order to utilize our capacity we also need the motivation to search for God.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's always interesting when Baha'is get into the mix. So you're supposed to be trying to convince an Atheist?

No, and I am not trying to convince any atheists. I am just here for the conversation.

Who was you logic professor? So you think messengers have been successful? Wasn't there a thread about this? If there was, was it successful?

I posted a thread about this some time ago: God’s Method of delivering messages, is it flawed?

Most people in the world believe in God because of a Messenger of God so that method has been very successful.

According to the statistics, 84 percent of the world population has a faith.

Because most faiths have a religious Founder or what I call a Messenger that means most people believe in God because of a Messenger. We know that Christians and Muslims believe in a Messenger and they comprise 55% of the world population. It does not matter if you call them a Messenger; they are holy men who founded the religions, so they are intermediaries between God and man. Sure, there are a few believers who believe in God but not a Messenger but that is not the norm. The point is that with no Messengers or holy men very few people would believe in God.

Okay, the "changed" religions, the ones you don't believe in, because they strayed away from the original teachings of the messenger, have been successful? And you don't have to come up with a big explanation of why you are right, I know you're right. You're always right. But you would never say that.

Those religions have been successful, otherwise they would not have so many followers, and they were also responsible for great civilizations.

I would never say I am right because this is not about me. I would only ever say that Baha'u'llah is right.

 

[Trailblazer]

You seem incapable of understanding a very simple point.

Joe says it is a fact that the Earth is flat.

The Earth is not flat.

Joe, however, is utterly convinced that the Earth is flat. From Joe's point of view, he is justified in claiming that "the earth is flat" is a fact.

Once again, just because someone is convinced that a statement is factual does not mean that the statement really is a fact.

I never said that just because someone is 'convinced' that a statement is factual that means that the statement really is a fact. I only ever said that a fact is by definition:

fact
something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information:

fact

 

[Trailblazer]

A convenient excuse.

Excuse for what?

I consider it a false belief that only I can demonstrate it to myself. Thus I reject your answer and ask you again to demonstrate that your belief is correct.

I do not care what you consider it. I cannot demonstrate that what I believe is true to anyone except myself and that is not my responsibility. I can tell you what convinced me and that is all I can do, but what convinced me will not convince you because you are a different person with different requirements.

If you knew anything about psychology you would know why people cannot convince other people that what they believe is true. However, that does not mean that what they believe is a false belief. It is either true or false.

lol, you decide that you are better qualified as to what counts as an accurate source for Christian beliefs than the Christian churches.

This is not about me. Anyone who knows Christian history knows that the nature of Jesus was debated for centuries and finally settled upon by mean at the Council of Ephesus.

Different views would be debated for centuries by Christians and finally settled on the idea that he was both fully human and fully divine by the middle of the 5th century in the Council of Ephesus.

Christology - Wikipedia

Jesus never claimed to be God or even implied it. Men decided to make Jesus into God at councils.

If Jesus Never Called Himself God, How Did He Become One?

Then your beliefs are nothing but opinion. When it comes to objective fact, you do not get to believe whatever you want. You do not get to believe that it is sunny if there is rain pouring from thick clouds.

There are objective facts associated with my religion. However, the basis of my religion is that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God. Whether or not Baha'u'llah was a Messenger "of God" or not can never be proven as an objective fact, for obvious logical reasons.

Why didn't you answer my questions?

Why would I want to follow a Bronze Age religion that has been corrupted by man and does not have the message that mankind needs in this new age when I have a new religion that has not been corrupted by man and has the message mankind needs for this new age?

 

[Tiberius]

What about what she said later? Does she have to say everything at one go? She said later, as did I that we have the capacity but will we live up to that capacity, or words to that effect? You expect her to be perfect? Or are you just interested in making her look bad?

You mean like the bit where she claimed to have never said that, like in post 912?

I am not trying to make her look bad, I am pointing out that her position is inconsistent.

 

[Trailblazer]

And the only things that count as evidence for the truth of a religion are the things that say the religion is true. You said it yourself. So if there's something that suggests your religious belief is false, then you reject it, because (according to your logic) it isn't actually evidence.

I never said I would only look at the evidence that support my beliefs. I said I would look at anything that (other people consider evidence) that suggests that my beliefs are false. I might reject it if I determine it is false, but I will look at it.

 

[Tiberius]

I never said that just because someone is 'convinced' that a statement is factual that means that the statement really is a fact. I only ever said that a fact is by definition:

fact
something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information:

fact

Then we must be careful to differentiate between "actual facts" and "false statements that people mistakenly believe are true facts."

And thus we have a problem.

You said, "The facts about the religion are evidence for the truth of the religion if those facts indicate that the religion is true."

But of course, people can take that to mean, "What I believe to be the facts about the religion are evidence for the truth of the religion if those facts indicate that the religion is true."

We need some way of determining which are actually factual statements about a religion and which are merely opinions that lots of people mistakenly believe are factual.

 

[Trailblazer]

You mean like the bit where she claimed to have never said that, like in post 912?

I am not trying to make her look bad, I am pointing out that her position is inconsistent.

#950 Trailblazer, Today at 1:56 PM

 

[Tiberius]

Excuse for what?

For ignoring the bits of other religions that would indicate that your faith is wrong while embracing the bits of other religions that indicate that your faith is correct. Once again, it's just a way for you to pick and choose the bits you like and discard the rest.

I do not care what you consider it. I cannot demonstrate that what I believe is true to anyone except myself and that is not my responsibility. I can tell you what convinced me and that is all I can do, but what convinced me will not convince you because you are a different person with different requirements.

If you knew anything about psychology you would know why people cannot convince other people that what they believe is true. However, that does not mean that what they believe is a false belief. It is either true or false.

If there is no way you can demonstrate it as fact, you should not present it as such.

This is not about me. Anyone who knows Christian history knows that the nature of Jesus was debated for centuries and finally settled upon by mean at the Council of Ephesus.

Different views would be debated for centuries by Christians and finally settled on the idea that he was both fully human and fully divine by the middle of the 5th century in the Council of Ephesus.

Christology - Wikipedia

Jesus never claimed to be God or even implied it. Men decided to make Jesus into God at councils.

If Jesus Never Called Himself God, How Did He Become One?

Oh look, you're doing it again.

Trailblazer: Jesus never said he was God.

Tiberius: Yes he did, here's the passage, and here's the context to show that it was interpreted as him claiming to be God.

Trailblazer: Oh, but that doesn't count. So Jesus never claimed to be God.

You're ignoring the bits you disagree with in order to claim the Bible says what you want it to say. That is the very definition of cherry picking.

There are objective facts associated with my religion. However, the basis of my religion is that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God. Whether or not Baha'u'llah was a Messenger "of God" or not can never be proven as an objective fact, for obvious logical reasons.

There are objective facts about all religions. So what? Doesn't mean the religion in question is true. There are objectively true statements made in Star Trek, but that doesn't mean Klingons are real.

Why didn't you answer my questions?

Why would I want to follow a Bronze Age religion that has been corrupted by man and does not have the message that mankind needs in this new age when I have a new religion that has not been corrupted by man and has the message mankind needs for this new age?

I honestly don't see any reason to follow Christianity, or any other religion, and I don't know why you think I would say you should. My criticism of your position on Christianity is that you cherry pick it. You take what parts of Christianity that you can use to bolster your own faith, but ignore the rest. Your interpretation of Christianity is obviously self-serving.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then we must be careful to differentiate between "actual facts" and "false statements that people mistakenly believe are true facts."

And thus we have a problem.

You said, "The facts about the religion are evidence for the truth of the religion if those facts indicate that the religion is true."

But of course, people can take that to mean, "What I believe to be the facts about the religion are evidence for the truth of the religion if those facts indicate that the religion is true."

We need some way of determining which are actually factual statements about a religion and which are merely opinions that lots of people mistakenly believe are factual.

How do you think we can determine if they are true facts or false statements?

Let's say we could determine they are true facts. Those facts would not necessarily be evidence for the truth of the religion, not to everyone.

For example, it is a fact that Baha'u'llah lived from 1817 to 1892 and it is a fact that Baha'u'llah wrote His own scriptures in His own pen, but that does not mean that everyone is going to believe that He was a Messenger of God.

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

 

[samtonga43]

Okay, why do you believe that?

Why do I believe that Jesus is infallible? Because I believe that He is the Second Person of the Trinity.