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

[Trailblazer]

And still, when was that time? And it is not in 457BC with the decree to rebuild Jerusalem. The daily sacrifice was taken away and the abomination was set up. When did that happen?

And is it me bringing up the Bible or is it you? And how will you and the other Baha'is dance around this question?

It is you bringing up the Bible, I just respond to what you bring up.

I do not have time to do Bible research in order to find out The daily sacrifice was taken away and the abomination was set up. Maybe someday i will have time and I will let you know what I find out.

 

[Trailblazer]

As if nobody ever said they were God's prophet but weren't. But even some of the "accepted" "messengers" of God told very different stories about who God is... Like Krishna... And it's questionable if Buddha ever taught about God. And, I'm not sure, but I was told Zoroastrianism is dualistic. But one of the Gods, the bad one, isn't as strong as the good one. And I don't see any problem with people making up stories about their Gods. But, do they have to be true? Even the Baha'is make some of them fictional... Like the dying and rising God/man Jesus. They say he was real, and he really died, but he didn't come back to life and he wasn't God.

Before the Bab and Baha'u'llah appeared no Messenger of God ever wrote their own scriptures so we have no idea what the hell they really said. That or course also applies to Jesus. These are all the words of men who never even knew Jesus and the same applies to all the other so-called scriptures that allegedly represent the teachings of the Messengers of God.

 

[Trailblazer]

Hmmm? Isn't that you quoting the Bible? Well then, in Revelation who is the Lamb? A long, long time ago you actually said it was Jesus. Do you still think that way? I would be very surprised, because the "Lamb" is a key character and maybe even the returning character. Which, if the Baha'is are right, the Lamb has to be Baha'u'llah. Can you or any of the other Baha'is make Baha'u'llah fit the description given in Revelation about who this Lamb is?

No, I was not quoting the Bible, I was talking about what I believe the verses in Daniel 12 mean.

Baha'u'llah is the key character in the Book of Revelation and He is the ONLY returning character.

Baha’u’llah means Glory of God in Arabic and the following verses refer to Him.

Revelation 21:22-23 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

Jesus was the Lamb of God and Baha'u'llah was the return of the Lamb of God. Simple dimple, not hard math.

There might be other verses that refer to the Bab because the Bab was also the return of the Spirit of Christ.

 

[Trailblazer]

Did God speak directly to some of the other "manifestations"? Like Adam and Noah and Abraham and Moses? 'Cause the Bible says that God did. Or is this another example of something written into the Bible but is wrong?

God speaks through the Holy Spirit and that is as direct as it gets. Remember Moses at the burning bush? that was God's Spirit speaking to Moses. Remember Jesus and the dove? That was the Holy Spirit descending upon Jesus and speaking to Jesus.

Matthew 3:16-17 NIV
As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”

Then we have Baha'u'llah.

“And whenever I chose to hold my peace and be still, lo, the voice of the Holy Ghost, standing on my right hand, aroused me, and the Supreme Spirit appeared before my face, and Gabriel overshadowed me, and the Spirit of Glory stirred within my bosom, bidding me arise and break my silence. If your hearing be purged and your ears be attentive, ye will assuredly perceive that every limb of my body, nay all the atoms of my being, proclaim and bear witness to this call: “God, besides Whom is none other God, and He, Whose beauty is now manifest, is the reflection of His glory unto all that are in heaven and on earth.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 103-104

 

[Tiberius]

Well that also would require more explanation, as I am not TransmutingSoul that is an avatar.

Regards Tony

I see you are incapable of actually addressing what I say. Stop wasting my time.

 

[Tiberius]

Do you mean the prophecies? What I said still applies. The Bible does not have to come into a discussion of the Baha’i Faith. It comes into the discussion only because it is brought into the discussion. If people bring up the prophecies or ask me how they were fulfilled by Baha'u'llah I will tell them but I do not need the prophecies to support the Bahai position because it stands on its own two feet.

I don't recall asking you to use the Bible to show me how Baha'i is true. You brought it up all by yourself as far as I remember.

No, Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God that God spoke to through the Holy Spirit, just as Jesus did.
The Holy Spirit is not God's proxy because the Holy Spirit is not a Person.
The Messengers of God act as God's proxy, although they do more than that.

Where do you get the idea that a proxy must be a person?

I proxy is anything that is used as a representative of someone or something else.

I did not say it was less valid. I said they have not verified their faith in the same way I have verified my faith since all people verify their faith differently.

So if their beliefs can be just as valid as yours, how can they have a belief that says yours must be wrong? If you say your belief is true and theirs says your belief is wrong, how can you possibly believe that their belief is NOT less valid than yours?

No, we should not conclude one particular interpretation is true because we have an event that fits our interpretation, but if we know how all the events (prophecies) are tied together then we can assume that event (prophecy) is part of the bigger picture.

And at this point, I'm sure you'll tell me how the Baha'is aren't concluding that their interpretation is true because it fits their interpretation...

That is a straw man because I never said that the Baha'i Faith is the 'only correct faith' although I did say that all other faiths have made mistakes somewhere.

You make me laugh.

You say that you haven't claimed that Baha'i is the only correct faith, and then (in the very same sentence, no less!) you turn around and say that all other faiths are incorrect in some way.

I don't know of any other religion that makes that claim.

You don't know of any other religion that makes the claim that they are the only ones to have figured it all out correctly? REALLY!?

 

[Tiberius]

Who is making excuses? I don't need to make excuses for what is not my fault.

But when you use those texts, it carries your tacit approval.

We already covered this. I am not making a deliberate attempt to keep the religious belief unfalsifiable because I have no control over that since I did not write the scriptures that cannot be falsified. Now are we square?

Several times you have automatically concluded that any interpretation of a religious text that renders it falsifiable is the wrong interpretation. Your claims of innocence would be a lot more convincing if you didn't do that.

But believers don't pray to a toaster. If they did I can guarantee they'd get no answers but they might get answers if they prayed to God, even if they cannot prove that God answered their prayers, since what happened as a result of the prayer might have happened anyway. But to take this a step further, if everything is firmly in the grasp of God's will, whatever happened was God's will whether it was the result of the prayer or not. But to take this a step further, we can influence God's will by praying, so that is why people pray.

How you fail to understand the point I am making escapes me.

Group A believes in God, prays to God.

Group B believes in toaster, prays to toaster.

Both groups have the same amount of answered prayers.

This is not a difficult concept to grasp.

 

[Tiberius]

But science is not religion as I have said before so the methods of verification are different. Peer review and testing cannot be used with religion so we have to do an individual investigation of truth and try to just look at the facts surrounding the religion and focus on those and not what we want to be true.

Special pleading. You claim religion must use different methods to prove it is true, yet you fail to see an alternative solution - that religion is just all bunk.

Just because it cannot he verified to be false that does not mean it cannot be verified to be true.

Please, give me an example of such a thing. I bet you have to resort to some wishy washy "I verified it in a way that can't be checked by anyone else" excuse.

What I said before was clumsy so let me restate that: Messengers of God can only be explained by the existence of God IF Messengers of God were sent by God because there has to be a God IF God sends Messengers.

I never said that proves that the alleged Messengers of God were sent by God. That is for you to prove to yourself should you accept that task.

Okay then. You're still stuck with a premise that you can't prove, and since your entire argument depends on that premise being true, the fact you can't prove it leaves your whole position rather shaky.

Again, what I said before was clumsy so allow me to restate it:
What was on Baha'u'llah's agenda were the following:

1. represent God, and
2. carry out His mission/serve the Cause of God, and
3. write scriptures

By carrying out His agenda items 1-3, Baha'u'llah provided evidence that:

(a) He was a Messenger of God, and
(b) God exists.

No it does not prove that God exists.

God does not need to exist in order for someone to represent him. Lots of people have claimed their religion is Jedi because they want to represent the ideals of the Jedi, but that doesn't mean the Force is real.

 

[Tiberius]

They should not claim to know it since it cannot be proven as a fact (it is not established) but they can still believe that they know it in the following sense: 2a: to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of

Definition of know

1a(1): to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2): to have understanding of importance of knowing oneself(3): to recognize the nature of : discernb(1): to recognize as being the same as something previously known(2): to be acquainted or familiar with (3): to have experience of

2a: to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of b: to have a practical understanding of knows how to write

Definition of KNOW

One can not be aware of the truth or factuality of something if that thing is not the truth or a fact.

Thus, if a person claims to KNOW something, then what they claim to know must be true. One cannot claim to know a thing if the thing is false.

A flat earther claiming to know that the earth is flat is wrong, because what they claim to know is false, and thus it can't be known, only believed.

Baha'u'llah was not a reincarnation of Jesus! Baha'is do not believe in reincarnation.

Baha'u'llah was the return of Christ, the Comforter and the Spirit of truth who brought the Holy Spirit just as Jesus had brought the Holy Spirit.
Baha'u'llah was a different man in a different body with a different soul but He brought the SAME Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit.

Sure sounds like reincarnation to me.

In any case, you completely failed to address the point that I made.

You don't have proper evidence when it comes to Mr B being a <<whatever you want to call it>> of Jesus.

That is not what I did, I was suggesting you do it. I meant that an atheist has to entertain the possibility that a God exists before he is going to look for evidence of a God existing. I did not do it that way. I first believed in Baha'u'llah and later came to believe in God. I assumed that a God must exist if Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God, but I did not really 'believe in God' until much later.

But part of believing in Mr B is believing that he was sent by God, isn't it?

It is nothing like that. It is reading the claims so you will know what the claims are and then looking at the evidence that supports those claims. Feelings should not enter in because then you might only see what you want to see. It should be a purely intellectual exercise.

How do you not see the flaw here?

If you only look at the evidence that SUPPORTS the claims, you are going to get a very one sided view.

If a person hears about the moon landing hoax and only looks at the evidence that SUPPORTS the claim that it was faked, then they won't get the full picture and could well reach the incorrect conclusion that it wasn't real.

Do you see how this is a problem?

 

[samtonga43]

But to take this a step further, we can influence God's will by praying, so that is why people pray.

I can't believe I'm reading this. What on earth makes you think this way, Tb?

 

[samtonga43]

God.

Q. Who says?
A. The B.man.

 

[samtonga43]

#2788 Trailblazer, Yesterday at 5:13 PM
#2797 Trailblazer, Today at 8:58 AMhttps://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Argumentum+ad+verba

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Argumentum+ad+verba
I asked you where you posted the definition of Argumentum ad verba. You referred me to the two posts above.
I looked at these posts; there is no definition of Argumentum ad verba there.
So... where DID you post the definition of Argumentum ad verb?
***

That is your opinion, but I have a different opinion.

Yes, this does seem to be what forum discussions are all about.

Having now read quite a lot of the New Testament, the writings of men who never even knew Jesus, I have concluded that the wisdom, truth and knowledge contained in the Writings of Baha'u'llah, a Manifestation of God who either wrote or dictated His own scriptures, given by the Holy Spirit, cannot be improved upon.

Have the courage to use your own words, Tb.

 

[samtonga43]

Before the Bab and Baha'u'llah appeared no Messenger of God ever wrote their own scriptures so we have no idea what the hell they really said.

The two B.Men wrote their own scriptures.
Many, many people write fiction, Tb

 

[Trailblazer]

I can't believe I'm reading this. What on earth makes you think this way, Tb?

O thou who art the fruit of My Tree and the leaf thereof! On thee be My glory and My mercy. Let not thine heart grieve over what hath befallen thee. Wert thou to scan the pages of the Book of Life, thou wouldst, most certainly, discover that which would dissipate thy sorrows and dissolve thine anguish.

Know thou, O fruit of My Tree, that the decrees of the Sovereign Ordainer, as related to fate and predestination, are of two kinds. Both are to be obeyed and accepted. The one is irrevocable, the other is, as termed by men, impending. To the former all must unreservedly submit, inasmuch as it is fixed and settled. God, however, is able to alter or repeal it. As the harm that must result from such a change will be greater than if the decree had remained unaltered, all, therefore, should willingly acquiesce in what God hath willed and confidently abide by the same.

The decree that is impending, however, is such that prayer and entreaty can succeed in averting it.

God grant that thou who art the fruit of My Tree, and they that are associated with thee, may be shielded from its evil consequences.

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 132-133

 

[Trailblazer]

I asked you where you posted the definition of Argumentum ad verba. You referred me to the two posts above.
I looked at these posts; there is no definition of Argumentum ad verba there.
So... where DID you post the definition of Argumentum ad verb?

Find it yourself if you want to. This is what I found when I searched on Argumentum ad verba:

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Argumentum+ad+verba

Have the courage to use your own words, Tb.

Those were my own words.

 

[Trailblazer]

Q. Who says?
A. The B.man.

Q. Who says Jesus ever heard from God?
A. The writers of the NT who never even knew Jesus.



2+2 = 4

 

[Trailblazer]

The two B.Men wrote their own scriptures.
Many, many people write fiction, Tb

Nobody knows who wrote the NT gospels, including the resurrection story.
Many, many people write fiction.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't recall asking you to use the Bible to show me how Baha'i is true. You brought it up all by yourself as far as I remember.

I never said that you brought it up, it is others on this thread that bring it up all the time, namely @CG Didymus.

Where do you get the idea that a proxy must be a person?

I proxy is anything that is used as a representative of someone or something else.

Perhaps I mistakenly thought you thought that the Holy Spirit is a Person, since that is a Christian belief and you used to be a Christian.

So, what did you mean when you said: "So then, Mr B wasn't a messenger from God. He was a messenger of God's proxy."

Baha'ullah was God's proxy by your definition of proxy, since He was a Representative of God.

“The Person of the Manifestation hath ever been the representative and mouthpiece of God. He, in truth, is the Day Spring of God’s most excellent Titles, and the Dawning-Place of His exalted Attributes.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 70

So if their beliefs can be just as valid as yours, how can they have a belief that says yours must be wrong? If you say your belief is true and theirs says your belief is wrong, how can you possibly believe that their belief is NOT less valid than yours?

Their belief is valid for them because that is what they have concluded. I am not saying that their belief is true, only that they have validated it.

And at this point, I'm sure you'll tell me how the Baha'is aren't concluding that their interpretation is true because it fits their interpretation...

I will tell you that. Baha'is believe our interpretation of true because of what Baha'u'llah wrote about interpretations of the scriptures.

“Know assuredly that just as thou firmly believest that the Word of God, exalted be His glory, endureth for ever, thou must, likewise, believe with undoubting faith that its meaning can never be exhausted. They who are its appointed interpreters, they whose hearts are the repositories of its secrets, are, however, the only ones who can comprehend its manifold wisdom. Whoso, while reading the Sacred Scriptures, is tempted to choose therefrom whatever may suit him with which to challenge the authority of the Representative of God among men, is, indeed, as one dead, though to outward seeming he may walk and converse with his neighbors, and share with them their food and their drink.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 175-176

I believe that Baha’u’llah was the Representative of God among men and He appointed interpreters through His Covenant, so I understand the Bible according to what they wrote that the Bible means.

You make me laugh.

You say that you haven't claimed that Baha'i is the only correct faith, and then (in the very same sentence, no less!) you turn around and say that all other faiths are incorrect in some way.

The Baha'i Faith is not the only true religion from God, but it is the religion that represents God's will and purpose for this age. The reason the older religions are incorrect in some ways is because they have been misunderstood the scriptures and they have been corrupted by man over time.

You don't know of any other religion that makes the claim that they are the only ones to have figured it all out correctly? REALLY!?

If you put it that way yes, most religions make that claim.

 

[Trailblazer]

How you fail to understand the point I am making escapes me.

Group A believes in God, prays to God.

Group B believes in toaster, prays to toaster.

Both groups have the same amount of answered prayers.

This is not a difficult concept to grasp.

Who is this Group B who prays to a toaster? I don't know of any such group.

 

[CG Didymus]

If it has not been established as a fact, how can they justifiably claim to know it? Remember, the term "know" carries with it the implication that what is being claimed to be known is true.

Funny how one religion contradicts the other and claims it is the other one that is wrong. Born again Christians say things like that there is proof of the flood and proof the Earth is not very old. Then other things like Jesus being resurrected. Baha'is then say "No" and will agree with Atheists that those things weren't true. But when it comes to their stuff, it is proof. Who, but a guy sent from God could do the things he did? So that's their proof? Yes, he said and did some profound things, but does that make everything he said the absolute truth from God? That's what I question Baha'is on because lots of things and contradictory to the other religions.