• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Will Mankind Survive?

But from what I "know" animals use sex for other things than humans do, there is not a lot of animals that have sex purely for pleasure (if any) besides humans.
To be perfectly honest I think unless humans use the sex instinct as God intended, regardless of what motivates animals to use it, adverse consequences must result both to individuals and society because humans, as already pointed out, are radically different in nature to animals. Off the top of my head I can’t, for example, imagine animals thinking in the abstract or harnessing the forces of nature for his personal benefit as can be seen through the use of science.

While humans share in many respects with animals some of the same physical qualities the human mind sets him entirely apart from animals. As a result his rationality does not require concrete physical routines as can be seen in nature generally. Religion has attributed this to his rational soul which survives physical death rather than some difference to his physical brain from other animals.

Apparently, atheists are not inclined toward religious truths as expressed through religious Founders firstly because they apparently demand some kind of empirical scientific proof God exists. Since that is impossible they refuse from what appears to be from ordinary humans self-proclaimed Prophets to speak for God. Therefore if atheists see anything positive about religions at all they see it as some kind of sociological development and nothing more, regardless of the teachings of religions or declarations from them that all existence is due to a Creator rather than some mindless, natural process.

For example, there is the Big Bang theory of the origin of the known universe which caused expansion but now there is evidence the universe is contracting? Sorry but a scientist I am not. However, I do seem to remember the noted Einstein saying he could not imagine the universe without some kind of directive force behind it as a process. That appears to correspond to teachings in the Baha’i Faith that the universe is without beginning or end and that to imagine that is like imagining a King without a kingdom. One is not possible without the other. Thus the imagined religious notion that creation means coming into existence out of nothingness is simply not true. So in the Baha’i Faith true religion and true science are understood to be in harmony rather than being incompatible with each other. In fact it is considered religious truth carries forward an ever advancing civilization and that without it civilization falls apart as we can see going on in today’s headline news! :eek:

By the way, according to the last statistics I heard the US reigns supreme for having within it the most deadly acts of violence! That is utterly sickening! Also, acts of violence by white supremacists in the US, according to the FBI, are also on the rise. The US has a long history of racism! I need to be careful here since in the Baha’i Faith we are not supposed to get directly involved in politics since it is so divisive. However, that doesn’t preclude having opinions of what is going on in politics.

Thus I will conclude by saying I consider narcissism to be beyond in scope to psychology despite it being a psychological term in the sense that from a religious perspective I consider it is an evidence of spiritual depravity. :)
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
Homosexual sex is not my concern, but apparently it is God’s concern. I understand your sensitivity to the feelings of homosexuals, but just because people enjoy certain activities, that does not make them right in the sight of God. People also enjoy drinking alcohol and taking recreational drugs, but that is also prohibited in Baha’i Law.

Homosexual sex is no worse than sex between unmarried heterosexuals according to the Bible, the laws of the Qur’an, and the Baha’i Laws. Both are against the law, so we do not single out homosexuals. The whole idea that sex is so important for people to be happy is extremely problematic. The primary purpose of sex is procreation and aside from that it is not necessary as is food and sleep, but people act as if it is of the same necessity as food and sleep, which is a really sad commentary on society and how pleasure-oriented people are. Just think of how society could be transformed if people put aside their selfish desires and cared more about other people rather than their enjoyments. I am not only referring to sex, but sex is a big time waster and it also takes the thoughts of people away from what is more important.
Its doesn't have anything especially to do with homosexuality, personally I don't care at all about peoples sexuality, The reason I react to it, is because its an obvious example and you show it quite good in what you are saying here and will try to list them.

1. Make the assumption that God exists, without there being any evidence for it.
2. Based on this assumption people ought to behave in certain ways to fit that of this none proven God.
3. Wrong claims regarding what the bible say. (Sex between unmarried couples and homosexuality is not equally bad. You don't ought to be killed if you do have sex outside married, there are other rules for that.)
4. Unjustified judgement in regards to what is right and wrong, what is needed and not needed. Unless you can demonstrate why people shouldn't have sex with each other, if they enjoy it. There is not valid reason why they shouldn't. It doesn't hurt anyone if some enjoy having lots of sex. Trying to force or put judgement on such behavior when there is no valid reason for it, except one based on an unproven God is not good enough.
5. This way of telling others how they ought to behave, how they are wrong, because they doesn't fit with your world view is in general what religions does. And none of these things are justified.

So whether we are talking about homosexuality, people wearing certain cloth or having a lot of sex, its really about freedom and passing judgement on others behavior based on no rational reasoning. That is what im against. Those five things I listed you should see more as general things when talking with theists and not especially aimed at you.

Baha’u’llah was the Messiah the Jews were waiting for as well as the return of Christ, and no misinterpretations of scripture by Jews or Christians will ever change that.

Why would the name Baha’u’llah be in the OT, He had not even gotten a name until He was born? Yet the Glory of God means Baha’u’llah in Arabic and that is throughout the OT and the name Baha’u’llah was in Arabic Bibles, which were taken from the shelves.
You remember the example I gave you in another post, about someone building a huge cross in Berlin, I think it was, because it said that in the bible or something like that? If a person decided to do it and then claimed that the prophecy had come true and that it proof that the bible is correct, that it would not be valid?

You know that Baha'u'llah was actually born under the name Mírza Husayn 'Alí right? So it doesn't really matter what he liked to call himself, exactly as the example above, because he chooses to call himself Baha'u'llah and it means Glory of God in Arabic, doesn't proof anything whatsoever.

In the Book of Revelation of St John there is a famous passage that thrills every heart especially where It reveals that on that Day the New City will not need the sun or the moon because the light of that City will be the Glory of God.
So you believe that Glory of God here refer to Baha'u'llah and not God, is that correctly understood?


I have the Photocopies of the 1833 and 1856 New Testaments if you want to see them.
Thanks for the offer, but I prefer the newer translations as I assume that they are more accurate than the older ones. And also they are probably written in some old english or something. Remember english is not my first language so I doubt it would do me any good :D

I really do not know what you are referring to. I have a different interpretation of some verses than Jews and Christians but so what? They do not OWN those scriptures. Moreover, the book was intended to be sealed up until the time of the end as per Daniel 12, so only now can the book be understood, since we are in the time of the end ushered in by the Bab and Baha’u’llah.
Its not about who owns the scriptures its about reading text, so lets say you have 10 verses, and saying that verse 1 to 4 and 6 and 7 is true the rest are not. That is what I mean with cherry picking, so when you say that those verses in the middle of a story is to extreme and therefore you don't think they are describing the God you believe in, then I think that is an unreasonable way to approach these texts. That is what I mean. There need to be some justification to why certain verses are not valid while others are and that justification comes from presenting some sort of evidence to why those verses are invalid. An argument that its because they are to extreme to your liking is not evidence for anything and therefore I find it invalid.

I do not deny that God might have ordered certain things that are in the OT, I just say I do not know if God did that because men wrote it and there is no way to verify where they got their information. Why should I believe it came from God through prophets? I have no way to know that. I don’t know why you say “then God is dead.”
So if we can't verify any of it and where it came from isn't the most rational position to say "I don't know"? Which is basically what atheists do when they look at these text, we don't know if God exists, and some atheist will go as far as to claim that God doesn't exists. Both of them are valid atheists views. Me personal hold the believe that I do not see any evidence for God anywhere. The bible and other scriptures make X amount of claims, so using them as evidence for God is not valid as these are what makes the claim in the first place. Do you see why that is a rational approach?

It would be the same as me saying to you that the Earth is the centre of the Universe, because I read it in a book. And as evidence for this claim, I give you the very book from where I got the claim. It simply not how one approach something in a critical way.

The reason God would die, is because if you as a believer think God is real. But the very material which is the only source for God, is not to be trusted, because every single person can look at these texts and throw out whatever they think is wrong as it might not fit their view of what God ought to be, then there is no need to use the scriptures for anything in the first place and in that case you might as well write you own ideas of what God is.
Reference material that no one agrees on what means, because everyone just twist and turn the texts and cherry pick from it as they pleases makes that God (The biblical) completely useless in terms of what he is and what purpose he served for those that originally wrote about him. I could ask you what God is and you would give me your version with references to the verse you like in the scriptures and then I could ask someone else and they would choose those that they liked. And whenever someone is confronted with verses clearly contradicting their view, they just say that this is not what they believe and that those parts of the scriptures are not to be trusted.
Which leave us with peoples personal views of what God is to them, which makes it completely pointless to even talk about God in the first place, because he changes constantly depending on whom you are speaking with. That is why he would be dead, does that makes sense?

Continue..
 
Last edited:

Nimos

Well-Known Member
What a distortion. This is the result of misinterpreted scriptures. Satan is not a real entity; it is the lower selfish nature of man. That is obvious to Baha’is because we know what Baha’u’llah and Abdu’l-Baha wrote.
The verse you reference was not the one I meant, its was the one about Jesus temptation in the desert. Anyway, this was just an example. And I personally do not believe any of what I wrote or that this is how it should be understood. But do you see that if I were convince that this were in fact true, whatever argument you could come up with, I could just keep making the claim that its because you have been deceived exactly as my interpretation say. So regardless of how many verses in the bible you find that contradict what I say, I just keep ignoring them. The reason I can do that, is because I read the bible out of context and that is simply not a valid way to do it.

So to me its basically what you do when you throw Baha'u'llah into all the scriptures, as you completely disregard what the Messiah meant for the Jews, what his purpose was in regard to their beliefs and history. The Jews weren't interested in Baha'u'llah, they wanted to get rid of the Romans and come back to God, free the Jews etc. and was waiting for this to happen, not in 5000 years, but soon. Jesus was an apocalyptic Messiah or prophet depending on how you look at him. Paul believed that as well just as the others, all that you can get to if you study the bible and the history of the ancient Jews.

All that said, I do wonder about God, if God is All-Loving why so many people suffer, but that is another matter.
That is a good question and one that most religious people have a really hard time explaining. And to me I think it points towards two things, that God doesn't exists, which would explain why there is suffering and the second option is that God is not all good. To me those are the two best explanations and God is perfectly in his right to explain it to us humans if he exists, yet he have chosen not to. So again what does that tell us about God?

Okay, I understand it from this perspective. You are comparing the laws that men wrote in the Bible back then with what exists in modern times. In that sense you are more competent because you have knowledge that men did not have back then.
Yes exactly. Look this is the material I look at, its what I can read and its from those that the claims are made about God etc. Therefore I judge it based on that and not what people think I ought to believe about God. The material is right there for me to read for my self, I don't need someone to give me their interpretation of something that is very clearly written and perfectly easy to understand. In cases where some of the verses gets complicated or to understand the beliefs in a greater contexts, that is when I seek support from historians and scholars about these things, because they have spend a whole lot more time studying these things than I have.

For instance I reasonably completed a 26 hour long open course in the new testament from Yale university. Because I wanted to get a better understanding of how these things work, how historians approach these things from a historic point of view. Im really interested in all these things and therefore spend a lot of time seeking information about it and all kinds of other things. I have examined things about evolution, genetics and epi-genetics, psychology, human behavior, I think that was from Stanford university, which also have open classes. stuff about political systems, animal behavior, I spend a **** load of time with the whole nature vs nurture debate, biology, society, history, climate change, economics, science and especially the scientific method, space and the universe in general, so religion is just part of my interests. I wonder about a lot of things and therefore I spend a huge amount of time seeking knowledge about whatever gets my attention to try to figure out how different things works. But also so I can adjust my beliefs, remember I told you Im interested in getting as close to the truth as I can and want to be honest towards my self. Therefore my beliefs are not sacred to me and if im wrong, that is fine. I just throw them out or adjust them, that is also why I told you earlier that I on a regular basis try to test my current beliefs to see if they are wrong or not.
And in general I prefer getting my information from Universities whenever possible or from people that are considered trustworthy within a given field. So the things listed here are just the ones I can think of, but to me seeking knowledge and trying to understand these things is what I find very interesting.

Why can’t you simply accept that those texts were written to aply to people who lived thousands of years ago, so they could have been appropriate for those people? Slavery might have been needed back then and homosexuality might have needed to be controlled by strict laws. How does that make God incompetent?
I can fully accept that these texts were written for people back then. It doesn't change however that if someone claim that these texts accurately describe a God that we are told is true and that this God is presented as being all good etc. And this belief causes harm to people, that I think its reasonable to demand proof for these claims.

So when someone tell me that God is all good, but at the same time read that he endorse slavery, then I see no issue in demanding an explanation for such statement. As I said before, I do not care what people believe or don't believe. I only care about bad ideas that causes harm to others for what appears to be for no good reason to me, then I will react. I don't care, if you told me that you believed in Big foot, I would probably be curios of how you got to believe it. But your believe in it, doesn't cause harm to anyone. It not about just accepting something, its the result of just accepting something that matter. Does that make sense?

Now you are doing an about face. If these laws were relevant for the culture and life these people lived, how would that make God incompetent?
This would probably require a much more thorough explanation than what I will give here. But what we are looking at is related to how societies and cultures work. So for instance if we take something as "simple" as law enforcement and crime. Back in those days, how would you solve a murder or a rape? you have no access to DNA, modern methods of gathering evidence, camera, phones etc most likely what we call law enforcement today, would have been some sort of military or guards or whatever, which you can't contact when you need them. Also you wouldn't send someone out to investigate the crime scene to gather fingerprints etc. A murder could happen outside a town in a remote area and the murderer could be long gone with no way to ever catch them before it was even discovered. So what means did people have to defend themselves and to prevent people from running around killing and stealing from each other? You most likely would have hired guards to defend you, if you had the money. slaves could also help defend you. But none of them are effective way to combat crimes right? But if you can plant the idea in people's head that some God is going to punish you forever if you do these things and people believe this to be true, it could encourage a lot of them to maybe not commit crimes because they are scared of being punished. Basically the same as it is today right, people know that if they kill or rob someone that they might end up in jail or be executed etc. So you scare people to prevent them from doing these things, the difference as mention above is, that it would be almost impossible to solve a crime unless you caught the person while they were committing the actual crime. Therefore I think they made all these laws they did, with God as the "judge" to help control people. Therefore some of these laws might have been due to that, while others might have been due to other reasons.
But still it doesn't change the fact that God is still considered highly immoral from ours point of view, but is claimed to be good, while apparently unable to solve it in a morally good way back then. And that is where the problem is as I see it, so to me the most rational explanation is that these law were made by man, because that would explain why they are immoral, because that is what they were capable of at the time, with their current level of technology and understand of the world in which they lived. If an all mighty God was in charge, I would simply expect much better solutions. But obviously this is a lot more complicated as I said, as I only looked at how crime might have been look at. I think its extremely difficult for us to imagine how it must be to live in a society where there is no real effective law enforcement.

Continue..
 
Last edited:

Nimos

Well-Known Member
The soul is a mystery of God no human has ever been able to unravel. Animals have an animal spirit, but not a rational soul. It is a claim based upon my religious belief, for which there is evidence.
Ok? I mean fair enough its a claim, I don't see any way for me to argue against it, except that I see no evidence for it to be true

Homosexuals cannot have their own children and raise them the way heterosexuals do. The basis for society is the family with parents and children so if nobody ever had children the human race would eventually die out. That does not mean homosexuals cannot contribute to society in other ways. My husband and I never had any children, but we try to contribute to society.
So first of all there is no especially reason to believe that society is needed. We just happen to be social animals and prefer to live close together, because it makes things easier for us. I don't really think its a choice we have as you say, when it comes to surviving. It doesn't however demonstrate why being alive is better than being dead, and in fact some people prefer this due to some medical conditions or whatever. Which might sound very weird, but the assumption that a lot of people make is, that survival of the species is what is important. Which I personally disagree with, because I think there is sufficient evidence that people will try to save themselves first and their children, before any of that becomes relevant. Imagine a huge catastrophe on Earth and you survived it along with a few others around the world. You first thought would not be, about the survival of the human race. It would be about how you survive, you might look for other humans because you would like company and it would make it easier for you to survive. But I don't think any human work with the goal of securing the human race, when it comes to it. Its a byproduct of how we are able to think about survival, but for us as individuals its not all that important I think. Most people you ask that want kids, rarely, at least in my experience give the reason that its to help secure the survival of the human race, rather its selfish reason, because they want it and they enjoy it. Also its kind of funny how people react to these things, you have most likely experienced this yourself. When one of your friends tells you that they are pregnant and everyone goes "Congratulations" and how good it is. But when someone say that they are going to be married, the reaction is sort of like "Ohh... are you sure, is it the right person?" etc. Which makes no sense at all, one is simply two people making a statement. Whereas bringing a child into the world really requires a lot of energy, commitment and attention and in case the parent split up it can cause massive problems for the child etc. To me it just seems completely backwards. Anyway that was a bit off topic, just an observation :D

Personally, I do not view one’s sexual preference as important, so I do not see what the big deal is. On the other hand, I do not think that just because something makes people happy that makes it right to do. I might be happy going out to a bar and drinking but this is not good for me or for society. Do you understand how sex is no different? It is just something people enjoy doing, but it is not something they have to do, not anymore than I have to drink alcohol. The primary problem with society as I see it is that all people care about is themselves and what they enjoy doing. This pleasure-seeking attitude can lead to nothing beneficial for society.
It depends how you look at it. You going out to have a drink and getting completely wasted causing all sorts of issues, surely isn't good for society. But you going out to have a drink with some friends having a good time, sharing stories and making each other feel good and have fun is. It helps reduce stress, it make money flow around, so what would be the issue about that? Is it needed? No, but is it really needed for anyone to go to the cinema and watch a movie or watch television. Imagine if we got rid of televisions, movies, the internet etc. We could probably solve the climate change issues simply by doing that. People have survived without these things before, so that shouldn't be a problem.
So I don't understand you reasoning, lots of things we do is not needed, but what is the point of living, if we remove all the stuff that help us enjoy life? That you don't like going to a bar and drink and have fun with friends is fair enough, it doesn't mean that others shouldn't be allowed. Exactly the same as with people wanting to have sex, if they enjoy having it, homosexuals or not, why should we care, they don't hurt anyone?

Driving is not a fair comparison because the UHJ is just ONE institution that women cannot serve on. If it was more than that that women could not do I might question it but is just ONE THING.
It doesn't matter if its just one thing or whether there is certain things men can't do either. Its about whether there is a rational reason for it. And since it appears, based on what you have told me that there ain't. Then it makes no sense.

Baha’u’llah got His information from God and wrote it Himself, so I put far more trust in it than in the Bible, which was only inspired by God but written by men.
No, Baha'u'llah claims he got his information from God. Its no difference than Paul claiming he had an encounter with Jesus. Do you believe Paul is telling the truth and what reason do we have to trust what he is saying?

The prophecy about the temple being built has been fulfilled by Baha’u’llah, and it was never about an actual building. Baha’u’llah was the Temple.
Ok, that explains it then. I do however think you will have a hard time selling that to the Jews. From the link you referenced:


The Third Temple (Hebrew: בית המקדש השלישי‎, Beit haMikdash haShlishi, literally: The House, the Holy, the Third) would be the third Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, after Solomon's Temple and the rebuilt Second Temple.

Jesus did not come to earth to build the Kingdom of God on Earth. Jesus explained to the Jews why He came:
I think you misunderstand this and what Jesus meant is that its not of the current Earth. But rather when the time comes as it is said in Revelation, that a new earth will come, when the Jews are free and Jesus with the angels descend from Heaven in all their glory. That is what he is talking about, its a new era for the Jews.

If you read:
Matthew 6 9-13
9 “This, then, is how you should pray:

“‘Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
10 your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.

11 Give us today our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.’

LUKE 9:27
“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.”

Again as mentioned earlier about Jesus being apocalyptic, why would he tell people that they would see the kingdom of God, before they would be dead? The kingdom of God were to come to Earth.

Mark 1 14-15
14 After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. 15 “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!”


Again as above, according to Jesus the kingdom of God is right around the corner. And there are lots of example of this in the bible. You really don't think that Jesus would say something like that in such a way if he were referring to Baha'u'llah some 1700+ years later do you? That really makes little sense. Imagine how confusing and meaningless that would be for the ancient Jews?


You have your head stuck in the past. We are not living 200 years ago, we are living now. Baha’u’llah came to bring justice to this world so we could live in a just society; that was His primary message:
Im trying to keep things within context and its fine that Baha'u'llah wants to bring justice to the world, im simply saying that its not based on the bible, he might make that claim, it just doesn't fit within that context, despite what he is claiming.


I have no problem with looking at the Holy Spirit this way, as guiding Christians, and many Baha’is also believe this way. It is really God doing all this, through the Holy Spirit. All I was saying is that the Holy Spirit does not literally take up residence inside the physical body which is what most Christians believe.
As I said, I don't know exactly what Christians believe in regards to how the holy spirit works, only what the bible say. And again according to Peter in Acts, one receive the holy spirit by repenting their sins and when they are baptized.
Which to me seems to fit well with the story when Jesus were as well, so I see no reason to believe that for the Jews, this weren't how they imagine one received the holy spirit of God and that this were the requirements.

Why would I care about what the ancient Jews believed about the Comforter and the Spirit of Truth? Those did not even appear in the Bible until the NT was written. The correct interpretation of John 14, 15 and 16 is what I presented. Jesus was the first Comforter who brought the Holy Spirit to humanity and Baha'u'llah was another Comforter and He was also the Spirit of Truth.
You don't have to care about it, only to acknowledge that they believed it to be so. And that those that actually wrote the NT also believed in the OT as well and didn't see themselves as Christians, that label came later.
 
Last edited:

Nimos

Well-Known Member
Apparently, atheists are not inclined toward religious truths as expressed through religious Founders firstly because they apparently demand some kind of empirical scientific proof God exists.
There is no such thing as religious truth. And its not specifically against religion. I can only speak for my self, but I would react the same way to pretty much any remotely amazing claim, if it shared the same effect on people lives as religion does and when it comes to believing.

I don't know if you read the others post to trailblazer? But for instance if you claimed that big foot is real and you wanted others to believe that as well. Then I would demand evidence for it and if you can't provide them, then I will continue to see your statement as a claim. Its really that simple.

So when you tell me that we don't accept religious truth, I don't see them anywhere and therefore they don't exists. Can you give me an example of a religious truth, which is not just a claim?

Therefore if atheists see anything positive about religions at all they see it as some kind of sociological development and nothing more, regardless of the teachings of religions or declarations from them that all existence is due to a Creator rather than some mindless, natural process.
Are we looking for truth and what is most likely to be true or are we just looking for what we want to be true? That is the question, I only care about the first part and not what people think ought to be true. I can't use that for anything, Ill rather make up my own stuff then that fits what I think should be true. And I can see things that are good about religion as well, I don't deny that. It give comfort for a lot of people, there is a lot of culture etc. But to me all of this can come from other places and if the requirement is bad ideas that hurt people, then ill rather get rid of it. Because its not worth it.

For example, there is the Big Bang theory of the origin of the known universe which caused expansion but now there is evidence the universe is contracting? Sorry but a scientist I am not.
I have not heard that there is evidence for it contracting? do you have a source for that. I have only heard that the expansion is accelerating.

However, I do seem to remember the noted Einstein saying he could not imagine the universe without some kind of directive force behind it as a process.
I think people have to be very careful when linking Einstein to religion, he have said a lot of things and some of them are really not friendly towards religion.

So in the Baha’i Faith true religion and true science are understood to be in harmony rather than being incompatible with each other. In fact it is considered religious truth carries forward an ever advancing civilization and that without it civilization falls apart as we can see going on in today’s headline news! :eek:
What do you mean with true science, I don't get that?

By the way, according to the last statistics I heard the US reigns supreme for having within it the most deadly acts of violence! That is utterly sickening! Also, acts of violence by white supremacists in the US, according to the FBI, are also on the rise. The US has a long history of racism! I need to be careful here since in the Baha’i Faith we are not supposed to get directly involved in politics since it is so divisive. However, that doesn’t preclude having opinions of what is going on in politics.
Freedom of religion, I guess? Why on Earth should they care what you believe about politics... anyway have heard it before, its the same as JWs. So ill just leave it and wonder why people buy into these nonsense rules that are made for them. :) I think to recall that you mentioned that you were quite interested in politics in an earlier post? So my advice is go nuts with it and enjoy it, don't let some person tell you that you can't, just because they think you shouldn't, Im pretty sure God will forgive you, he is said to be all good after all. :p
 
Last edited:

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Its doesn't have anything especially to do with homosexuality, personally I don't care at all about peoples sexuality, The reason I react to it, is because its an obvious example and you show it quite good in what you are saying here and will try to list them.

1. Make the assumption that God exists, without there being any evidence for it.
2. Based on this assumption people ought to behave in certain ways to fit that of this none proven God.
I do not assume anything. I have evidence to support what I believe.
3. Wrong claims regarding what the bible say. (Sex between unmarried couples and homosexuality is not equally bad. You don't ought to be killed if you do have sex outside married, there are other rules for that.)
I was not referring to what the Bible says. I was referring to what Baha’u’llah wrote. Sex between homosexuals and unmarried heterosexuals is equally unlawful for Baha'is..
4. Unjustified judgement in regards to what is right and wrong, what is needed and not needed. Unless you can demonstrate why people shouldn't have sex with each other, if they enjoy it. There is not valid reason why they shouldn't. It doesn't hurt anyone if some enjoy having lots of sex. Trying to force or put judgement on such behavior when there is no valid reason for it, except one based on an unproven God is not good enough.
Don’t look at me, I am not the one who makes the rules. Those come from God. God can never be proven to exist, but that does not mean God does not exist, ALL it means is that God does not want to be proven to exist. There is a valid reason why people should not have sex whenever they want with whoever they want, it destroys their character. It shows lack of self control and selfishness. Life is about more than having fun.
5. This way of telling others how they ought to behave, how they are wrong, because they doesn't fit with your world view is in general what religions does. And none of these things are justified.
They are justified if God exists and reveals teachings and laws. If there was no religion the world would soon collapse because people are so inherently selfish. The only thing that keeps any order in the world is fear of God. I cannot even imagine what a mess the world would be if everyone was an atheist. Atheists have no reason to think about anyone except themselves because they have nobody to answer to except themselves.

Verily I say: The fear of God hath ever been a sure defence and a safe stronghold for all the peoples of the world. It is the chief cause of the protection of mankind, and the supreme instrument for its preservation. Indeed, there existeth in man a faculty which deterreth him from, and guardeth him against, whatever is unworthy and unseemly, and which is known as his sense of shame. This, however, is confined to but a few; all have not possessed, and do not possess, it.”
Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, pp. 27-28

Religion is, verily, the chief instrument for the establishment of order in the world, and of tranquillity amongst its peoples. The weakening of the pillars of religion hath strengthened the foolish, and emboldened them, and made them more arrogant.” Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 28
So whether we are talking about homosexuality, people wearing certain cloth or having a lot of sex, its really about freedom and passing judgement on others behavior based on no rational reasoning. That is what im against. Those five things I listed you should see more as general things when talking with theists and not especially aimed at you.
Complete freedom to do whatever we want to is not always a good thing.

“Whatsoever passeth beyond the limits of moderation will cease to exert a beneficial influence. Consider for instance such things as liberty, civilization and the like. However much men of understanding may favorably regard them, they will, if carried to excess, exercise a pernicious influence upon men…. Please God, the peoples of the world may be led, as the result of the high endeavors exerted by their rulers and the wise and learned amongst men, to recognize their best interests.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 216

I do not think anyone should pass judgment upon anyone. Only God can judge. Just because religions have certain teachings and laws that does not mean that people should judge other people. That is totally against the Baha’i teachings.
You know that Baha'u'llah was actually born under the name Mírza Husayn 'Alí right? So it doesn't really matter what he liked to call himself, exactly as the example above, because he chooses to call himself Baha'u'llah and it means Glory of God in Arabic, doesn't proof anything whatsoever.
Baha’u’llah did not choose to call Himself Baha’u’llah. He was given that name by the Bab.
So you believe that Glory of God here refer to Baha'u'llah and not God, is that correctly understood?
Yes.

I am not cherry picking verses, I am only saying that certain verses are not necessarily literally true, they might be figurative or symbolic of spiritual truth. Some authoritative Bahai statements about the Bible are as follows. I hope that helps to explain my position. If you want to really understand the Baha’i position, I suggest you read everything on the links below.

From Letters Written on Behalf of the Guardian:

...The Bible is not wholly authentic, and in this respect is not to be compared with the Qur'an, and should be wholly subordinated to the authentic writings of Bahá'u'lláh.
(28 July 1936 to a National Spiritual Assembly)

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)

From letters written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice:

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 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

Here is another long article explaining the various Baha’i positions on the Bible. Given your interest in the Bible, I think you should read the whole article: A Baháí View of the Bible
So if we can't verify any of it and where it came from isn't the most rational position to say "I don't know"? Which is basically what atheists do when they look at these text, we don't know if God exists, and some atheist will go as far as to claim that God doesn't exists. Both of them are valid atheists views.
I consider it a rational approach and I would probably have the same approach if I did not already believe that God exists because of Baha’u’llah. The Baha’i approach to the Bible is also that we don’t know who wrote it, or if it is historically accurate.
It would be the same as me saying to you that the Earth is the centre of the Universe, because I read it in a book. And as evidence for this claim, I give you the very book from where I got the claim. It simply not how one approach something in a critical way.
I can agree with that. As an atheist on my forum once said about the resurrection story, a story is not proof that anything in the story ever took place. There is no outside verification of the bodily resurrection of Jesus other than the stories in the Bible, so it is a faith-based belief. But it is different for the Revelation of Baha’u’llah because there is independent verification outside of the Baha’i Writings. It is modern history so it is a whole new ball game.
The reason God would die, is because if you as a believer think God is real. But the very material which is the only source for God, is not to be trusted, because every single person can look at these texts and throw out whatever they think is wrong as it might not fit their view of what God ought to be, then there is no need to use the scriptures for anything in the first place and in that case you might as well write you own ideas of what God is.
But I do not know why you cannot understand that just because some of the Bible is not true that does not mean none of it is true. I mean it all has spiritual significance but all of it is not historical fact.

I understand what you mean about people twisting and turning and cherry picking and that is why I could not believe in God based only on the Bible. Actually, I never read one verse of the Bible until about six years ago, since I was not raised as a Christian and I had no interest in religion until I became a Baha’i at age 17, end even after that I was not too interested. I always believed that Baha’u’llah was a manifestation of God though.
Which leave us with peoples personal views of what God is to them, which makes it completely pointless to even talk about God in the first place, because he changes constantly depending on whom you are speaking with. That is why he would be dead, does that makes sense?
I guess the only solution would be to decide for yourself what you want to believe in instead of listening to other people. That is exactly what Baha’u’llah has enjoined us to do.

“…. inasmuch as man can never hope to attain unto the knowledge of the All-Glorious, can never quaff from the stream of divine knowledge and wisdom, can never enter the abode of immortality, nor partake of the cup of divine nearness and favour, unless and until he ceases to regard the words and deeds of mortal men as a standard for the true understanding and recognition of God and His Prophets.”
The Kitáb-i-Íqán, pp. 3-4
 
Last edited:

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
So to me its basically what you do when you throw Baha'u'llah into all the scriptures, as you completely disregard what the Messiah meant for the Jews, what his purpose was in regard to their beliefs and history. The Jews weren't interested in Baha'u'llah,
If you could think logically you would realize that it does not matter what the Jews were interested in or who they expected Him to be. They were wrong about Jesus and they were wrong about Muhammad and they were wrong about the Bab and Baha’u’llah. Why should it matter what they believed, beliefs do not create reality.

I do not throw Baha’u’llah into the scriptures, He was simply plainly and clearly the fulfillment of those scriptures, and anyone who really wants to know that would do the necessary research. There is no way around it. He was the Messiah, period. No amount of distorted interpretations and false hopes of Jews can ever change that because it was the Will of God and it was ordained by God. The Jews missed recognizing Jesus because they cannot read and understand their own scriptures. May God have mercy on them for their blindness which is caused by arrogance and the refusal to look at anything differently. Religious tradition dies hard. For crying out loud, I am posting to a Hindu on another forum and it is clear to him that Baha’u’llah was a Manifestation of God. The reason that Jews and Christians cannot see that is because they are blinded by their own beliefs based upon misinterpretation of scriptures. That is the whole ball of wax. I see no reason to discuss it any further as you know my position.

If all you care about is the story the Bible tells about the history of the Jews then so be it. It makes more sense to me that you would want to know the truth about God, but maybe this is just an exercise in mental gymnastics for you, an intellectual endeavor. Myself, I see the world crumbling all around me so I see it differently, knowing that the Revelation of Baha’u’llah is the only way humanity is going to survive and thrive.
That is a good question and one that most religious people have a really hard time explaining. And to me I think it points towards two things, that God doesn't exists, which would explain why there is suffering and the second option is that God is not all good. To me those are the two best explanations and God is perfectly in his right to explain it to us humans if he exists, yet he have chosen not to. So again what does that tell us about God?
The only explanation I can give you is that suffering is for our benefit in the long run because it helps us grow spiritually, but not everyone will see the benefit in this life. I know that sounds rather harsh and it is harsh, which is why I too wonder if God is All-Loving. Nevertheless, I still believe God is beneficent, which is another thing. It is really difficult to maintain faith in that which I cannot see in this world, hoping it will benefit me in the next life, which we know so little about, so if God could have revealed more about the afterlife (next life) it would have made it a lot easier. If I could fault God for anything that would be it.
And in general I prefer getting my information from Universities whenever possible or from people that are considered trustworthy within a given field. So the things listed here are just the ones I can think of, but to me seeking knowledge and trying to understand these things is what I find very interesting.
I understand your thirst for knowledge because I spent over 15 years in college studying various subjects before my religious period started about seven years ago now. During my college years I had no interest in religion and it would not have mattered if I did because I was already spread so thin, since I was also working full time during those years and I had personal issues I was also struggling with. So it is a good thing that I was not interested in religion back then. Now is a better time because I am towards the end of my working life and I am not in college so I have more time to devote myself to studying religion. I do not have time to study anything else though because we have three houses and 10 Persian cats and many other animals we care for, and that takes a lot of time. I love animals more than anything else in the world.

People often ask me why I do not study the older religions and the reason is rather simple; I do not think they are pertinent to the present age in history and time is short for me and for humanity as a whole, so I do not have time to dink around studying religious history. There are so many people who want to know the truth about God so that is my primary responsibility. In teaching I have learned so much so it is a two-way street, since I am always doing research in order to explain things to other people. I have learned most of what I know about the Baha’i Faith this way, but I have also learned about Christianity and to a lesser extent Judaism and some other religions like Buddhism. I have also ready the primary Baha’i Writings over and over again so I have solidified my knowledge.
I can fully accept that these texts were written for people back then. It doesn't change however that if someone claim that these texts accurately describe a God that we are told is true and that this God is presented as being all good etc. And this belief causes harm to people, that I think its reasonable to demand proof for these claims.

So when someone tell me that God is all good, but at the same time read that he endorse slavery, then I see no issue in demanding an explanation for such statement. As I said before, I do not care what people believe or don't believe. I only care about bad ideas that causes harm to others for what appears to be for no good reason to me, then I will react. I don't care, if you told me that you believed in Big foot, I would probably be curios of how you got to believe it. But your believe in it, doesn't cause harm to anyone. It not about just accepting something, its the result of just accepting something that matter. Does that make sense?
But can’t you understand that there might have been a legitimate reason for God to endorse slavery over 4000 years ago? Why do you think that God should endorse the same things throughout history?
But none of them are effective way to combat crimes right? But if you can plant the idea in people's head that some God is going to punish you forever if you do these things and people believe this to be true, it could encourage a lot of them to maybe not commit crimes because they are scared of being punished. Basically the same as it is today right, people know that if they kill or rob someone that they might end up in jail or be executed etc. So you scare people to prevent them from doing these things, the difference as mention above is, that it would be almost impossible to solve a crime unless you caught the person while they were committing the actual crime. Therefore I think they made all these laws they did, with God as the "judge" to help control people. Therefore some of these laws might have been due to that, while others might have been due to other reasons.
You raise some logical points. So, you are making a legitimate case for God’s Laws in the Old Testament as well as the need for slaves.
But still it doesn't change the fact that God is still considered highly immoral from ours point of view, but is claimed to be good, while apparently unable to solve it in a morally good way back then.
And now you are doing an about face again. It could not be magically solved by God in another way back then because the world was different. The fear of God has always been the greatest deterrent and it always will be but religious and secular laws are also necessary.

What God does revolves around humans and what humans do, the cultures they live in, so God’s teachings and laws are revealed according to the needs of the times. Obviously those laws would not be appropriate for the present age, which is why I think it is utterly ridiculous for Jews to insist that the Torah could ever apply to present day society. The only religion that makes any sense to me is the Baha’i Faith because of the underpinning theology of Progressive Revelation. Can you even imagine if science was static and never changed with the times? Why should religion be any different?
And that is where the problem is as I see it, so to me the most rational explanation is that these law were made by man, because that would explain why they are immoral, because that is what they were capable of at the time, with their current level of technology and understand of the world in which they lived. If an all mighty God was in charge, I would simply expect much better solutions. But obviously this is a lot more complicated as I said, as I only looked at how crime might have been look at. I think its extremely difficult for us to imagine how it must be to live in a society where there is no real effective law enforcement.
I just do not see it that way, why these laws would have to be made by man in order to be moral. You are judging ancient laws from a modern day perspective. Don’t you understand how illogical that is? I consider that completely irrational that you would expect God to make the laws differently than was necessary for humans living in those times, just because God is omnipotent. God tailors what He reveals to human needs. That is how God works. Mankind evolves over time and the world he lives in changes over time. God keeps pace by sending new Messengers with new teachings and laws in every new age to accommodate the needs of those times. You might want to read this book: The Heart of the Gospel

CONTENTS
Publisher's Note
Introduction

I. The Bible as Universal History
II. History as Spiritual Evolution
III. Man's Destiny and Man's Effort
IV. The Overlord of Evolution
V. The Ministers of Evolution
VI. The Power of Christ
VII. The Succession of Revelations
VIII. The Relation of Christ to Moses
IX. The Independence of Christ
X. The Spiritualising of Mankind
XI. The Rejection by the Men of Earth
XII. The Founding of a Christian Community
XIII. The Announcement of the Kingdom of God

Epilogue
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Ok? I mean fair enough its a claim, I don't see any way for me to argue against it, except that I see no evidence for it to be true.
There is no way to prove that we have a soul and that is what guides our mind and body and allows it to function because the soul is a mystery of God no human mind has ever been able to unravel, kind of like God.
So first of all there is no especially reason to believe that society is needed. We just happen to be social animals and prefer to live close together, because it makes things easier for us. I don't really think its a choice we have as you say, when it comes to surviving.

I don’t know what to say about that. It seems odd to say that society is not needed. How could we all function as individuals apart from society? I do not think we could survive that way because we all depend upon each other since we need the services others provide in order to live.
It doesn't however demonstrate why being alive is better than being dead, and in fact some people prefer this due to some medical conditions or whatever. Which might sound very weird, but the assumption that a lot of people make is, that survival of the species is what is important.

Most people you ask that want kids, rarely, at least in my experience give the reason that its to help secure the survival of the human race, rather its selfish reason, because they want it and they enjoy it.

I agree with you on that. People do not have children for survival of the species. They have children because they want to, so it is for selfish reasons. Then some of those people call people like me selfish because we chose NOT TO have children, for moral reasons.
Also its kind of funny how people react to these things, you have most likely experienced this yourself. When one of your friends tells you that they are pregnant and everyone goes "Congratulations" and how good it is. But when someone say that they are going to be married, the reaction is sort of like "Ohh... are you sure, is it the right person?" etc. Which makes no sense at all, one is simply two people making a statement. Whereas bringing a child into the world really requires a lot of energy, commitment and attention and in case the parent split up it can cause massive problems for the child etc. To me it just seems completely backwards. Anyway that was a bit off topic, just an observation.
I observe the same thing. I think people should consider having children more seriously than even who they marry, but I am not sure how many people do. For various reasons, they want children and so they have them.
It depends how you look at it. You going out to have a drink and getting completely wasted causing all sorts of issues, surely isn't good for society. But you going out to have a drink with some friends having a good time, sharing stories and making each other feel good and have fun is. It helps reduce stress, it make money flow around, so what would be the issue about that? Is it needed? No, but is it really needed for anyone to go to the cinema and watch a movie or watch television. Imagine if we got rid of televisions, movies, the internet etc. We could probably solve the climate change issues simply by doing that. People have survived without these things before, so that shouldn't be a problem.
I understand that perspective but I think that we should at least admit it is selfish to want to spend all one’s free time having a good time when other people need help or are suffering. Yes, we could solve all the world’s problems such as climate change if people were less selfish. That does not mean they cannot have any fun in life, but most people live for it, and that is what I object to. It is not only bad for society, it is bad for individuals, because it does not build their character in any way.
So I don't understand you reasoning, lots of things we do is not needed, but what is the point of living, if we remove all the stuff that help us enjoy life? That you don't like going to a bar and drink and have fun with friends is fair enough, it doesn't mean that others shouldn't be allowed. Exactly the same as with people wanting to have sex, if they enjoy having it, homosexuals or not, why should we care, they don't hurt anyone?
It all boils down to this: What is the purpose of life? Is it just to enjoy ourselves? Once a long time ago a Christian I know said that was the purpose of life and I just got sick inside. That is not a teaching of Jesus, no way. Jesus said we should deny self and follow Him. So she has a free ride to heaven and it does not matter if everyone else goes to hell. She even said they are going to hell if they don’t believe in Jesus so she should care and be out sharing her faith. At one point I think she said that is the job for clerics and I think that is such a cop-out and that is not what Jesus ever said. I have zero respect for people like that.

I do not expect you as an atheist to understand that there would have to be any higher purpose because you do not believe in God and what He revealed through Baha’u’llah.
It doesn't matter if its just one thing or whether there is certain things men can't do either. Its about whether there is a rational reason for it. And since it appears, based on what you have told me that there ain't. Then it makes no sense.
Just because we do not know the reason yet does not mean there is no rational reason.
No, Baha'u'llah claims he got his information from God. Its no difference than Paul claiming he had an encounter with Jesus. Do you believe Paul is telling the truth and what reason do we have to trust what he is saying?
In a sense it is not different because both made a claim, but the difference is that there is evidence that supports the claims Baha’u’llah made, whereas there is no evidence to support what Paul claimed.
Ok, that explains it then. I do however think you will have a hard time selling that to the Jews. From the link you referenced:

The Third Temple (Hebrew: בית המקדש השלישי‎, Beit haMikdash haShlishi, literally: The House, the Holy, the Third) would be the third Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, after Solomon's Temple and the rebuilt Second Temple.
I am not trying to sell anything. The Jews can believe whatever they want to, and they will, till the day they die.
I think you misunderstand this and what Jesus meant is that its not of the current Earth. But rather when the time comes as it is said in Revelation, that a new earth will come, when the Jews are free and Jesus with the angels descend from Heaven in all their glory. That is what he is talking about, its a new era for the Jews.

That new Earth is already in the process of being built on Earth. The Baha’is are building it. It is also called the new World Order.

“The world’s equilibrium hath been upset through the vibrating influence of this most great, this new World Order. Mankind’s ordered life hath been revolutionized through the agency of this unique, this wondrous System—the like of which mortal eyes have never witnessed.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 136

Those of us who are Baha’is can see it slowly rising.The old world order is dying and a new world order is rising in its stead.

“Beseech ye the one true God to grant that all men may be graciously assisted to fulfil that which is acceptable in Our sight. Soon will the present-day order be rolled up, and a new one spread out in its stead. Verily, thy Lord speaketh the truth, and is the Knower of things unseen.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 7

“By My Self! The day is approaching when We will have rolled up the world and all that is therein, and spread out a new order in its stead. He, verily, is powerful over all things.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 313
If you read:
Matthew 6 9-13
9 “This, then, is how you should pray:

“‘Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
10 your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.

11 Give us today our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.’


LUKE 9:27
“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.”

Again as mentioned earlier about Jesus being apocalyptic, why would he tell people that they would see the kingdom of God, before they would be dead? The kingdom of God were to come to Earth.

Mark 1 14-15
14 After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. 15 “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!”

Again as above, according to Jesus the kingdom of God is right around the corner. And there are lots of example of this in the bible. You really don't think that Jesus would say something like that in such a way if he were referring to Baha'u'llah some 1700+ years later do you? That really makes little sense. Imagine how confusing and meaningless that would be for the ancient Jews?

Obviously, Jesus was not referring to the Kingdom of God on Earth, or He would not have said “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.” In other verses, Jesus said that the Kingdom of God is within you. That is what He wwas referring to.
Im trying to keep things within context and its fine that Baha'u'llah wants to bring justice to the world, im simply saying that its not based on the bible, he might make that claim, it just doesn't fit within that context, despite what he is claiming.
Baha’u’llah did not claim that it fits in the context of the Bible. He brought a new Revelation from God with a new message, the unity of mankind and world peace, in which justice plays a major role.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
I was not referring to what the Bible says. I was referring to what Baha’u’llah wrote. Sex between homosexuals and unmarried heterosexuals is equally unlawful for Baha'is..
Ok fair enough, thought you meant the bible.

There is a valid reason why people should not have sex whenever they want with whoever they want, it destroys their character. It shows lack of self control and selfishness. Life is about more than having fun.
Only according to you, even God said go fill the Earth or be many in Genesis. How on Earth did he expect people do to that if they weren't suppose to have sex? :)
I really don't see what the issue is with people having sex? how does that show lack of control and selfishness? Two people enjoy being together and having a good time, how can that ever be bad? What do you suggest that they should spend there time on instead, keep in mind its not like people have sex all day for weeks after weeks?`

They are justified if God exists and reveals teachings and laws. If there was no religion the world would soon collapse because people are so inherently selfish. The only thing that keeps any order in the world is fear of God. I cannot even imagine what a mess the world would be if everyone was an atheist. Atheists have no reason to think about anyone except themselves because they have nobody to answer to except themselves.
I knew there was something like that hidden somewhere :)
Even if God exists it can't be anyone other than Gods responsibility to judge those peoples behavior. And what you are basically saying here is that atheists can't be moral, because we don't fear God. I happen to live in one of the most atheists countries in the world (Denmark), so according to what you are claiming things here ought to be a huge mess of selfish people?

9186488-6649215-image-a-37_1548867003467.jpg


(Global Finance Magazine considers war and peace, crime rates and the risk of natural disasters in working out its Safety Index Score for each nation.)

So why is Denmark placed at number 9 of the world's safest countries? Surely we ought to be on the other list right?

The reason for it is that being an atheist vs religion have nothing to do with being moral. If the only reason religious people don't go around killing is because they believe in God, then by all means keep believing. But it have nothing to do with reality. The reason atheists can be moral is because it have something to do with how we as human live. We are social and emotional animals and therefore trust and the well being of fellow human beings are important to us. This altruistic behavior is seen even in infants and believed I linked some videos of this to you earlier as well.

Complete freedom to do whatever we want to is not always a good thing.
As long as it doesn't harm anyone else, whether that is other humans, animals, environment or society, then I don't see what the problem is with complete freedom?

I do not think anyone should pass judgment upon anyone. Only God can judge. Just because religions have certain teachings and laws that does not mean that people should judge other people. That is totally against the Baha’i teachings.
Then what was all that above then about with atheists causing a huge mess in the world? Isn't that to pass judgement on us? Even when the data clearly doesn't support what you are claiming.

Baha’u’llah did not choose to call Himself Baha’u’llah. He was given that name by the Bab.
Well that doesn't make it any better, because I choose to call another person Christ, doesn't mean that they are. Obviously you would have to agree with that? So whatever anyone decided to call him, doesn't change the fact that he weren't born with that name and even if he were it wouldn't proof anything. Lots of names today, even those people are given from birth have religious meanings.

am not cherry picking verses, I am only saying that certain verses are not necessarily literally true, they might be figurative or symbolic of spiritual truth.
I think you misunderstand me. Its not about verses being literally true or not. Its about context. Do we really believe that Jonah were eaten by a big fish? Most people would probably agree that its not to be understood literally, but that it tells a symbolic story. But the point is that all these stories are told in relation to the ancient Jewish culture, so the context of them need to be in relationship to them. Therefore cherry picking things out of the bible and twisting and turning them to mean all sorts of things, is what Im objecting to. For instance when you say that this and that verses is clearly talking about Baha'u'llah, when its obvious that when its read in contexts that it is not.

...The Bible is not wholly authentic, and in this respect is not to be compared with the Qur'an, and should be wholly subordinated to the authentic writings of Bahá'u'lláh.
(28 July 1936 to a National Spiritual Assembly)
This is a claim, I know I have mentioned it before about claim vs evidence, do you agree that this is just a claim? And the same goes for the rest of those you quoted.

I consider it a rational approach and I would probably have the same approach if I did not already believe that God exists because of Baha’u’llah. The Baha’i approach to the Bible is also that we don’t know who wrote it, or if it is historically accurate.
Agree and that is where the difference is, you believe it because of faith, I know you say that you believe you have evidence. But ultimately you don't and I honestly think its because you mix up what is claims and what we would consider evidence.


I can agree with that. As an atheist on my forum once said about the resurrection story, a story is not proof that anything in the story ever took place. There is no outside verification of the bodily resurrection of Jesus other than the stories in the Bible, so it is a faith-based belief. But it is different for the Revelation of Baha’u’llah because there is independent verification outside of the Baha’i Writings. It is modern history so it is a whole new ball game.
No, its exactly the same, whether the person verifying it is dead or alive. Lots of people in the bible testified that Jesus was who he said. It doesn't make it more likely to be true. The same goes for those that backup Baha'u'llah, we still have no way to verify that he is a messenger of God and what he is talking about comes from God. What we can do is test what he is saying when he chooses to draw conclusions based on the bible and to me, I think he is drawing the wrong one, because they don't fit with what we know about the ancient Jews and to me that is evidence towards him not telling the truth.

But I do not know why you cannot understand that just because some of the Bible is not true that does not mean none of it is true. I mean it all has spiritual significance but all of it is not historical fact.
I know and again as I said above, its about contexts. Its not like if you don't believe in Genesis and Adam and Eve, then all of the bible must be wrong. Its more like saying that "I don't believe in Adam and Eve and therefore God didn't really do that, but he definitely did cause the flood." To the ancient Jews both of these stories were probably considered true and to them that is what God did. We might not believe it today, but that doesn't change the fact, that when we talk about God and the texts written about him. That this is what they believed and we have to take that into account. Its sort of like when evolution really started to be difficult for people to deny, that you have religious people going out and say "Amazing how God created evolution in such way" after having denied it to be true for I don't know how long. So suddenly when it becomes to ridiculous or impossible to defend, they just adjust their view and that this was actually what God meant all along and that it is perfectly supported by the bible. I respect Creationist for at least trying to stick to their beliefs and denying evolution. Even though they are obviously wrong and just wont admit it.

If you could think logically you would realize that it does not matter what the Jews were interested in or who they expected Him to be. They were wrong about Jesus and they were wrong about Muhammad and they were wrong about the Bab and Baha’u’llah. Why should it matter what they believed, beliefs do not create reality.
Have you ever considered that Jesus was wrong? That Muhammad was wrong? That Bab and Baha'u'llah was wrong?
Remember at the time when Jesus lived there were lots of people running around calling themselves Messiahs, Jesus weren't even all that popular compared to some of the others. So how do you know that one of those weren't correct and that we actually don't even know who the true Messiah were?

Continue..
 
Last edited:

Nimos

Well-Known Member
People often ask me why I do not study the older religions and the reason is rather simple; I do not think they are pertinent to the present age in history and time is short for me and for humanity as a whole, so I do not have time to dink around studying religious history.
I don't get that, even Baha'u'llah etc. I assumed studied these things as they seem to get a lot of information from them, so if I were you I would do that?

And I strongly recommend you to go to Yale open causes, there are lectures on both the old and new testament, I have watched both of them and they are really good. They are not about faith etc. But an historical accounts.

Introduction to the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible)

About the Course
This course examines the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) as an expression of the religious life and thought of ancient Israel, and a foundational document of Western civilization. A wide range of methodologies, including source criticism and the historical-critical school, tradition criticism, redaction criticism, and literary and canonical approaches are applied to the study and interpretation of the Bible. Special emphasis is placed on the Bible against the backdrop of its historical and cultural setting in the Ancient Near East.

Introduction to the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) | Open Yale Courses

Introduction to the New Testament History and Literature

About the Course
This course provides a historical study of the origins of Christianity by analyzing the literature of the earliest Christian movements in historical context, concentrating on the New Testament. Although theological themes will occupy much of our attention, the course does not attempt a theological appropriation of the New Testament as scripture. Rather, the importance of the New Testament and other early Christian documents as ancient literature and as sources for historical study will be emphasized. A central organizing theme of the course will focus on the differences within early Christianity (-ies).

Introduction to the New Testament History and Literature | Open Yale Courses

They are split up into varies topics so you can just watch them whenever you have time and over a long period if you don't have a lot of time. I really think it could help you get a wider understanding of what the Jews believed and the story of the bible in general.


But can’t you understand that there might have been a legitimate reason for God to endorse slavery over 4000 years ago? Why do you think that God should endorse the same things throughout history?
I think it depends on which perspective we look at God from.

1. If we look at him as the Jewish people's God, then yes I can see how he could endorse it, as the slavery laws didn't apply to them. But only to those God did not like.

2. If God is seen from the perspective of being an all good God for all humans, then no. Because slavery would be considered immoral, because God would take side with a certain group of people over other.



Therefore I think the first option is most likely true, because that is what is supported by the bible. God cared about the Jews and didn't give a rats *** about anyone else according to the OT. Whenever God say something that could be considered good towards foreigners, like you have to give them shelter and treat them well etc. Is ultimately because the Jews most likely, as everyone else, were interested in trading. So it was required to treat these people with respect and care, because it benefited the Jews.



In regards to endorsing the same thing throughout history, I think it changed as cultures and society changed so did religion. New people with new ideas saw the light, like Jesus, Paul etc. Which didn't like how things were done and how the church was corrupt and using its power to suppress people. You have Romans there controlling their country etc. Which is common knowledge that no one like to be occupied and told what to do. So you have a lot of things going on at the time, so I think its natural that these things change over time. But not by God, but by humans.

You raise some logical points. So, you are making a legitimate case for God’s Laws in the Old Testament as well as the need for slaves.
Yes, I don't believe that the Jews would make laws that they didn't think were needed, just like we wouldn't today either. In regards to slavery, I think they looked at this differently, it was probably just how you did things, it was very common that nations beating each other would take slaves. But to avoid confusion, Im not saying that God made the laws, he was the excuse to make sure that people respected them. The laws were made by humans.

And now you are doing an about face again. It could not be magically solved by God in another way back then because the world was different.
Im not doing a turn around. The point is that IF God existed and all the things said about him is true, then we would not have laws as we see them in the bible. Because God would not care about those things, when he could easily fix or guide the Jews to solve it better. Remember that some of the laws are completely wrong in the sense of reality. and that one of the laws is that witches should be killed. We know and God would know that there is no such thing as witches, what we know is that it was very common in ancient cultures to believe in all these things, like witch doctors, shamans etc. That we can see from all over the world. But people in most cultures have also turned against these people, whenever they couldn't deliver what people expected of them. So going from some that could help you, they were turned into demons etc. Which ought to be killed, remember people have been burned and killed, because others thought they were these things. So it fits well into the history, however as we know today, this is all superstition and why we don't go around yelling that varies people are these things and ought to be burned. And God being what he is claimed to be, would surely know this as well. And therefore would never have made a law like that, because it wouldn't make any sense.

I just do not see it that way, why these laws would have to be made by man in order to be moral. You are judging ancient laws from a modern day perspective. Don’t you understand how illogical that is?
It was the best they could do with the knowledge they had. Remember cultures all around the world, have sacrificed humans to Gods, because they thought it would help. Even God wanted Abraham to sacrifice his child. But we can look back at what they did with the knowledge we have today, just as people in 1000 years will look at us and point out where we were immoral. But to us what we are doing today, is largely what we are capable of with the knowledge we have. And its no difference for the ancient cultures. They also tried their best, but that doesn't mean that we can't look at them and say that some of the things they did were highly immoral.

I don’t know what to say about that. It seems odd to say that society is not needed. How could we all function as individuals apart from society? I do not think we could survive that way because we all depend upon each other since we need the services others provide in order to live.
I probably explained it a bit to bad. My point is that we don't really have a choice in this matter. Just like animals live in certain ways, so do we.

Continue..
 
Last edited:

Nimos

Well-Known Member
I understand that perspective but I think that we should at least admit it is selfish to want to spend all one’s free time having a good time when other people need help or are suffering.
I think you are over doing this :) People don't go party 24/7 without doing anything else, that is not what im talking about. But people might go out once a week to have a good time with their friends. Then on sunday go hand out food to the homeless or whatever. Its not like people having fun is something they ought to do constantly and none stop. To me its about happiness and part of this comes from having fun, but it can come from helping others as well. How one achieve it is less important for the individual. I think I mentioned this earlier as well. That achieving happiness is the goal or ought to be the goal for all humans, regardless of how one does it, when seen from a personal point of view. Which means that the rest of us might disagree with how someone does it, like Hitler for instance, but from his perspective aiming towards happiness is a good goal for him. That he then doesn't care who he kills or steps on along the way. That is the rest of humanities concern and therefore we don't allow him to try to achieve this, because it harms other peoples chance of achieving it. Does that make sense?

So for most "normal" people we can achieve happiness without hurting other people or even through helping others. Which is what we as humans ought to thrive towards as a race. To make it possible for all humans to live good and happy lives, without it causing or obstructing others chance of doing the same. That is why we ought to reduce inequality, make sure that crime is as low as possible, that people have food to eat, access to good healthcare etc. Because ultimately this play a huge part in achieving happiness for everyone, regardless of sexuality, race, religion etc.

It all boils down to this: What is the purpose of life? Is it just to enjoy ourselves? Once a long time ago a Christian I know said that was the purpose of life and I just got sick inside. That is not a teaching of Jesus, no way. Jesus said we should deny self and follow Him.
Yes and I say that Jesus was wrong :)
No one, and you will realize this if you go on a search to try to figure out what people believe the meaning of live is. And the way you do this, is make a list of X number of people that you respect from all over, so not only from Bahai faith and even some that are dead. And listen very careful to what they say. I promise you that all you will ever hear from any of them are guesses and opinions. At some point when you have examined enough views, you will realize that none of them have any clue. Some as you also mentioned will say its to serve God or follow Jesus. But if you approach this from a way where you demand proof for what they are saying, you will ultimately reach the conclusion that I did above. That its about happiness, because that is the only logical aim to thrive for, since no one can answer the question. So at least aiming towards just living a happy life will make sense.

I did this some time ago my self and thought Stephen Hawking were considered one of the brightest people living in our age, clearly he would have something interesting to say about it, so watched a documentary about him (Can't remember what it was called) and finally in the end he started to share his views and it was just guesses and opinions like everyone else. It can be a bit emotional, when you really figure out that, here we are all these humans running around Earth doing whatever. And none of us, know what the hell we are doing here or what the purpose is.


That is not a teaching of Jesus, no way. Jesus said we should deny self and follow Him. So she has a free ride to heaven and it does not matter if everyone else goes to hell. She even said they are going to hell if they don’t believe in Jesus so she should care and be out sharing her faith. At one point I think she said that is the job for clerics and I think that is such a cop-out and that is not what Jesus ever said. I have zero respect for people like that.
It obviously depend what she meant by enjoying life. But you have early Christians, you might have heard of it, as it was quite popular at the time. But where people were encourage to not have children, which to us seems weird, because then the human race would die out. But if you look at it from their perspective it makes really good sense. Given birth back in the days could result in you dying and in fact a lot of people did. So to them since they knew, that if they lived according to bibles teaching they would come to heaven, so there were no need to have children and taking the risk. Because they could live in heaven, with no suffering etc. So going through all this here on Earth made little sense, so for them it was a perfect solution. So you have lots of people believing all kinds of things and have done so throughout history. And this person you spoke with as I mentioned above, is just guessing, she have no clue what the meaning of life is and neither does anyone else, so you are in your good right to reject what she is claiming.
 
Last edited:
Freedom of religion, I guess? Why on Earth should they care what you believe about politics... anyway have heard it before, its the same as JWs. So ill just leave it and wonder why people buy into these nonsense rules that are made for them. :) I think to recall that you mentioned that you were quite interested in politics in an earlier post? So my advice is go nuts with it and enjoy it, don't let some person tell you that you can't, just because they think you shouldn't, Im pretty sure God will forgive you, he is said to be all good after all.
In regard to the prohibition in the Baha’i Faith not getting directly involved in politics I didn’t clarify that simply means not to belong to any one political party since competing political parties are considered too divisive. So in the US I would register as an independent rather than a Democrat or Republican. Therefore, there is no rule in the Baha’i Faith against my discussing political issues such as should the government outlaw citizens owning military style guns designed to be used in war for killing as many people as possible in the shortest possible time.
There is no such thing as religious truth. And its not specifically against religion. I can only speak for my self, but I would react the same way to pretty much any remotely amazing claim, if it shared the same effect on people lives as religion does and when it comes to believing.

I don't know if you read the others post to trailblazer? But for instance if you claimed that big foot is real and you wanted others to believe that as well. Then I would demand evidence for it and if you can't provide them, then I will continue to see your statement as a claim. Its really that simple.
Are you using physical evidence of big foot as some kind of metaphor or comparison to the requirement for physical evidence that religious or spiritual truth requires the same kind of evidence of its existence? For example, Baha’u’llah wrote “Glory not in he who loves his country but in he who loves his kind.” In other words as a spiritual or religious principle the welfare of human beings regardless of country is a vital universal need the world must adopt. Seeds of such a principle of unity, on a more limited scale, were expressed in the New Testament of the Bible in the parable of “The Good Samaritan” voiced by Jesus. Jews at that period of time had a very negative attitude towards Samaritans in general yet Jesus extolled one who came to the aid of a victim of robbery along the roadside by coming to their aid. Thus Baha’u’llah applies that same principle when it comes to the entire planet. In short, religious or spiritual principles are not bound in any way by the physicality of existence. However, by virtue of the absence of spiritual values the physical life of mankind and much of the planet could potentially come to an end. :eek:

Wouldn’t you say whenever corruption is found among powerful people in government or industry it is due to the lack of moral integrity? I don’t know about Denmark but in the US a lot of journalists are exposing corruption going on in the US. From a religious perspective, corruption often results from the lack of spiritual verities by succumbing to material greed or self worship! As Baha’u’llah put it “The greatest prison is the prison of self.” :eek:

Sorry but all quotes are from memory but I could research where they are located if you are interested. :)
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
In regard to the prohibition in the Baha’i Faith not getting directly involved in politics I didn’t clarify that simply means not to belong to any one political party since competing political parties are considered too divisive. So in the US I would register as an independent rather than a Democrat or Republican. Therefore, there is no rule in the Baha’i Faith against my discussing political issues such as should the government outlaw citizens owning military style guns designed to be used in war for killing as many people as possible in the shortest possible time.
So are you allowed to vote? or are you just not allowed to really express how you feel about political parties or is it just that you can't say that you directly support a certain party?

Are you using physical evidence of big foot as some kind of metaphor or comparison to the requirement for physical evidence that religious or spiritual truth requires the same kind of evidence of its existence?
No my point is that we have to work with a reasonable definition of truth. So we have two different ones:

  • that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
    noun: the truth
    "tell me the truth"
    synonymer: the fact of the matter, what actually/really happened, the case, so; Mere


  • a fact or belief that is accepted as true.
And my point is that what you are claiming doesn't fit any of them. There is no such thing as spiritual truth as its not based on fact in accordance to reality (1. definition) there are no common belief that spiritual truth exists as we don't even have a definition of it. Therefore it also fails definition two.

So my example with Big foot falls in the same category as spiritual truth as there is no common acceptance of that belief. Therefore if someone makes a claim that Big foot exists its not a "Big foot-ian" truth, it is just a claim.

What we would put as a belief that is accepted as true, is that the feeling of love exists for example as we can't directly measure it. But we all know that people express how they feel for each other and that we refer to it as being true. Does the difference make sense?

So despite what Baha'u'llah have written, whatever it might be in regards to God and him being a messenger, is not spiritual truth. Its a misleading word with no meaning. Because his claim is not based on facts and what he is saying is not based on reality, meaning what we can't test or observe it, as that would be God or the supernatural. Also a huge majority of people clearly do not share his beliefs and therefore we have no accepted truth in regards to what he is claiming.

Wouldn’t you say whenever corruption is found among powerful people in government or industry it is due to the lack of moral integrity?
I think its a lot more complicated than that. I think the system in which we live can force people to behave or put aside morality. I think certain people might have a tendency for power and get a "kick" out of it. But whether this is something they are born with or whether they are taught it, being raised in a world where the system of how you do things encourage such behavior, I don't know.

I think its much more important to look at society and our economic system used in the world. Because the moment you add value to stuff and prevent certain people from getting access to decent life enhancing resources, them feeling removed or alienated from society or are being suppressed, you will have issues. On top of that you have to add family issues... so there are so many factors involved in how a person end up behaving and how they end up in life. My initial position is that all people are born pretty much equal in regards to these things, again there might be deviations psychologically. But for the majority I think experiences made through life is what end up shaping people into how they behave. Therefore if you want to reduce all the stuff that you mention as being wrong, you have to change societies and the economic system, to make sure that resources are more equally distributed and so societies give people the opportunities to get as many good experiences through life as possible. So it doesn't matter what Baha'u'llah or anyone else say, even if it might sound good. The only way to make changes is to change how the system works.
 
Last edited:

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Only according to you, even God said go fill the Earth or be many in Genesis. How on Earth did he expect people do to that if they weren't suppose to have sex?
C:\Users\Home\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.png

I really don't see what the issue is with people having sex? how does that show lack of control and selfishness? Two people enjoy being together and having a good time, how can that ever be bad?
You cannot use the Genesis argument anymore because we do not need to be fruitful and multiply anymore. We are now faced with overpopulation and not enough resources to feed everyone, so if anything people should not have any more sex than they have to in order to have a couple of children, unless they use birth control, and in underdeveloped countries if they have no birth control, they should not be having sex and bringing many children into the world that they cannot even care for. Then they expect other people to donate and help these children they created. This of course is owing to lack of education but also lack of restraint.

I did not say people should not have sex. I said that having sex whenever they want with whoever they want shows lack of self control and selfishness. Sex was designed by God to be between a man and a woman who is his wife. Within this context, there is nothing wrong with sex. I admit I have a particular bias because I used to think more about sex than I should and I wasted many years obsessing over sex, when I would have it and how I would have it. I had no religious inclinations during those years. Only after I decided sex was not important did I start to think about God. I do not think that was a coincidence. Maybe some people can have both, but I am not one of them. In my case, sex came in between me and God.

I certainly do not expect everyone to follow what Baha’u’llah wrote, because not many people are Baha’is, but I do think that if they call themselves a Baha’i they should adhere to His teachings. I doubt that many Baha’is interpret what Baha’u’llah wrote the way I do. I interpret it literally because there is no reason to think it was intended to be symbolic, since it is plain and clear language with no symbolism.

Here is what Baha’u’llah says about the worldly things, which would include anything physical such as sex, but not only sex, as it could apply to anything in the material world we are attached to.

“Whatsoever deterreth you, in this Day, from loving God is nothing but the world.Flee it, that ye may be numbered with the blest. Should a man wish to adorn himself with the ornaments of the earth, to wear its apparels, or partake of the benefits it can bestow, no harm can befall him, if he alloweth nothing whatever to intervene between him and God, for God hath ordained every good thing, whether created in the heavens or in the earth, for such of His servants as truly believe in Him. Eat ye, O people, of the good things which God hath allowed you, and deprive not yourselves from His wondrous bounties. Render thanks and praise unto Him, and be of them that are truly thankful.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 276

So in the last part of the passage, Baha’u’llah is saying that we should not deprive ourselves of His wondrous bounties, what we are allowed to have, which means that within the confines of Baha’i law we can have sex, as long as it does not intervene between us and God. I cannot see how it would not intervene so I am done with it. I cannot be thinking about God and physical pleasure at the same time; to me that is contradictory, especially given everything Baha’u’llah wrote about self and passion.

Another point is that there is a difference between what is allowed and what is enjoined. Baha’u’llah allows us to have sex but He does not enjoin us to have it. Baha’u’llah enjoins us to do many other things, so I consider that is what I should be doing.
Even if God exists it can't be anyone other than Gods responsibility to judge those peoples behavior. And what you are basically saying here is that atheists can't be moral, because we don't fear God.
I know I am not to be judging anyone’s behavior. Only God can judge anyone. I can have an opinion though.

No, that is not what I said or meant. I said that atheists have no reason to think about anyone except themselves because they have nobody to answer to except themselves. But that does not mean that atheists are selfish.
The reason for it is that being an atheist vs religion have nothing to do with being moral. If the only reason religious people don't go around killing is because they believe in God, then by all means keep believing.
I am not implying that atheists are immoral. Atheists or believers can be either moral or immoral. Hopefully, fear of God would cause believers to be moral, but that is not a guarantee.
As long as it doesn't harm anyone else, whether that is other humans, animals, environment or society, then I don't see what the problem is with complete freedom?
Complete freedom does cause harm to society and to the individual. You can certainly see what harm it has caused to the environment. There have to be laws to prevent people from actions that are bad for themselves and others and the environment. As long as there are laws we do not have complete freedom to do as we please. Without laws we would have anarchy.
Then what was all that above then about with atheists causing a huge mess in the world? Isn't that to pass judgement on us? Even when the data clearly doesn't support what you are claiming.
I said “I cannot even imagine what a mess the world would be if everyone was an atheist.” I did not say that atheists caused the huge mess in the world. I meant in this sense:

“The first word which the Abhá Pen hath revealed and inscribed on the first leaf of Paradise is this: “Verily I say: The fear of God hath ever been a sure defence and a safe stronghold for all the peoples of the world. It is the chief cause of the protection of mankind, and the supreme instrument for its preservation. Indeed, there existeth in man a faculty which deterreth him from, and guardeth him against, whatever is unworthy and unseemly, and which is known as his sense of shame. This, however, is confined to but a few; all have not possessed, and do not possess, it.” Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 27
But the point is that all these stories are told in relation to the ancient Jewish culture, so the context of them need to be in relationship to them.
I agree that the stories such as Jonah and the whale are told in relation to the ancient Jewish culture. I do not say that any Bible stories are about Baha’u’llah. I only say that the prophecies in the OT that refer to the Messiah are referring to Baha’u’llah, because he was the Messiah. These are prophecies that referred to the future, so they were not talking about the Jewish culture of 4000 years ago.
This is a claim, I know I have mentioned it before about claim vs evidence, do you agree that this is just a claim? And the same goes for the rest of those you quoted.
No, it is not just a claim; it is supported by evidence because everyone knows that the Bible is not wholly authentic in the sense that we know who the authors were. There is no proof that the OT was written by Moses, and no way to ever verify that, and we know that Jesus did not write anything in the NT. We do not even know who all the authors of the Bible were. This is not comparable to the Qur’an that was dictated by Muhammad to scribes whose identity was known and it certainly is not comparable to the Writings of Baha’u’llah which have been fully authenticated to be written by Him.
Agree and that is where the difference is, you believe it because of faith, I know you say that you believe you have evidence. But ultimately you don't and I honestly think its because you mix up what is claims and what we would consider evidence.
There is evidence that indicates that Baha’u’llah was who He claimed to be. Of course there is no proof because nobody can prove anyone ever got communication from God.
No, its exactly the same, whether the person verifying it is dead or alive. Lots of people in the bible testified that Jesus was who he said. It doesn't make it more likely to be true. The same goes for those that backup Baha'u'llah, we still have no way to verify that he is a messenger of God and what he is talking about comes from God.
However, we know a lot more about Baha’u’llah than we can ever know about Jesus. Real people saw and knew Baha’u’llah and it is recent history. Nobody questions who Baha’u’llah was and what He did is chronicled in history by people who lived in the 18th century. No, as I said, we cannot verify that he was a Messenger of God; that is impossible.

There is nothing that Baha’u’llah wrote that does not fit with the ancient Jews, as if you could ever even prove any of the OT was written by anyone who had anything to do with any God. You can’t prove that so why would it matter if what Baha’u’llah wrote FIT with the OT?
To the ancient Jews both of these stories were probably considered true and to them that is what God did. We might not believe it today, but that doesn't change the fact, that when we talk about God and the texts written about him.
Why does it matter what the ancient Jews believed? These events depicted in the OT either happened or they didn’t. Unless they can be proven to have happened, they are just stories people wrote, not facts.
That this is what they believed and we have to take that into account. Its sort of like when evolution really started to be difficult for people to deny, that you have religious people going out and say "Amazing how God created evolution in such way" after having denied it to be true for I don't know how long. I respect Creationist for at least trying to stick to their beliefs and denying evolution. Even though they are obviously wrong and just wont admit it.
Why would people believe in evolution before it was proven to be a scientific fact? Of course if God exists, God is responsible for evolution, since God is responsible for everything in existence. So you respect Creationists for denying scientific facts in favor of beliefs? That is a strange thing for an atheist to say.
Have you ever considered that Jesus was wrong? That Muhammad was wrong? That Bab and Baha'u'llah was wrong?
No, I have not considered that because there is too much evidence of Jesus and Muhammad and the Bab and Baha’u’llah. Anyone can call themselves a Messiah but they would need some evidence to back that up. The Bible, the Qur’an, and the Revelation of Baha’u’llah, including what he did on His Mission and His Writings are evidence.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I don't get that, even Baha'u'llah etc. I assumed studied these things as they seem to get a lot of information from them, so if I were you I would do that?
Baha’u’llah did not need to study anything as He had innate knowledge, but if He studied anything it was the Qur’an because He was raised as a Muslim. I do not know if He studied the Bible. I hardly have any time to read about the Baha’i Faith, let alone older religions. I have read the basic Writings of the Baha’i Faith but there is still a lot I have not read. Sure, if I spent less time posting on forums I would have more time, but I consider communicating with people more important than enriching my own knowledge base. I am close to retiring and after that I will have more time.

Besides posting on forums I have three houses we own to maintain. I hire help to take care of the houses and the yard on our property but it is still a lot of work finding the right people and arranging for repairs and maintenance. Then we also have 10 Persian cats and some require special care because they are older and they require a lot of grooming. Then we have a lot of outdoor wild animals that we feed and water. The list goes on, and that is in addition to my day job. I also have my own forum, so I have to answer posts there and keep an eye on things. I have been forced to cut back posting on RF because I just do not have the time. I have neglected so much and now I have to catch up. I do not know if I will ever catch up and it is pretty frightening.
And I strongly recommend you to go to Yale open causes, there are lectures on both the old and new testament, I have watched both of them and they are really good. They are not about faith etc. But an historical accounts.
Thanks for all that information on the Yale open courses. I imagine there is a cost for those but I could not find that on the links you provided. Several years ago, I purchased some comprehensive courses on the Old Testament and New Testament and some other Christian subjects from Great Courses which are on DVDs, but I never even had time to look at them.
Introduction to the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible)

About the Course
This course examines the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) as an expression of the religious life and thought of ancient Israel, and a foundational document of Western civilization. A wide range of methodologies, including source criticism and the historical-critical school, tradition criticism, redaction criticism, and literary and canonical approaches are applied to the study and interpretation of the Bible. Special emphasis is placed on the Bible against the backdrop of its historical and cultural setting in the Ancient Near East.

Introduction to the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) | Open Yale Courses

Introduction to the New Testament History and Literature

About the Course
This course provides a historical study of the origins of Christianity by analyzing the literature of the earliest Christian movements in historical context, concentrating on the New Testament. Although theological themes will occupy much of our attention, the course does not attempt a theological appropriation of the New Testament as scripture. Rather, the importance of the New Testament and other early Christian documents as ancient literature and as sources for historical study will be emphasized. A central organizing theme of the course will focus on the differences within early Christianity (-ies).

Introduction to the New Testament History and Literature | Open Yale Courses

They are split up into varies topics so you can just watch them whenever you have time and over a long period if you don't have a lot of time. I really think it could help you get a wider understanding of what the Jews believed and the story of the bible in general.

I think it depends on which perspective we look at God from.

1. If we look at him as the Jewish people's God, then yes I can see how he could endorse it, as the slavery laws didn't apply to them. But only to those God did not like.

2. If God is seen from the perspective of being an all good God for all humans, then no. Because slavery would be considered immoral, because God would take side with a certain group of people over other.

Therefore I think the first option is most likely true, because that is what is supported by the bible. God cared about the Jews and didn't give a rats *** about anyone else according to the OT. Whenever God say something that could be considered good towards foreigners, like you have to give them shelter and treat them well etc. Is ultimately because the Jews most likely, as everyone else, were interested in trading. So it was required to treat these people with respect and care, because it benefited the Jews.
Well, thanks for sharing that information about the OT. So God cared only about the Jews? If that was true it seems more like it was written by men than inspired by a God. Of course the Old Testament is not the only scripture that ever existed because God revealed Himself to other people before and after that and even during that period of time, so I do not think it is fair to judge God based upon the Old Testament. That is a very narrow view.

Of course it is possible that slavery was allowed because it was needed at a certain point in history and then along came Moses who freed the slaves. That was God’s doing, since God sent Moses.
So you have a lot of things going on at the time, so I think its natural that these things change over time. But not by God, but by humans.
I agree that the changes were made by humans but I think they were instigated by revelations that came from God over time.
Yes, I don't believe that the Jews would make laws that they didn't think were needed, just like we wouldn't today either. In regards to slavery, I think they looked at this differently, it was probably just how you did things, it was very common that nations beating each other would take slaves. But to avoid confusion, Im not saying that God made the laws, he was the excuse to make sure that people respected them. The laws were made by humans.
I cannot really say I know who made those laws, whether they had divine inspiration behind them or not. It would really depend upon who wrote the Old Testament and what their source material was. Of course, Jews would say it was God through Moses and the other prophets.
Im not doing a turn around. The point is that IF God existed and all the things said about him is true, then we would not have laws as we see them in the bible. Because God would not care about those things, when he could easily fix or guide the Jews to solve it better.
How do you know what God would care about? How do you know God could have guided them to solve it better?
Remember that some of the laws are completely wrong in the sense of reality. and that one of the laws is that witches should be killed. We know and God would know that there is no such thing as witches, what we know is that it was very common in ancient cultures to believe in all these things, like witch doctors, shamans etc.
So it seems to me that is how it came to be written in the Old Testament; it was written by men, not by God. That is one reason why I consider it a waste of my time read and try to understand the Old Testament. Reading and understanding the New Testament would be a better use of my time. Do you ever even wonder why there are so few Jews in the world compared to Christians? After over 4000 years, there are only 14 million Jews in the world and there are 7 million Baha’is after only about 150 years. I do not run across Jews as much as Christians so it makes more sense for me to try to understand what Christians believe.
So it fits well into the history, however as we know today, this is all superstition and why we don't go around yelling that varies people are these things and ought to be burned. And God being what he is claimed to be, would surely know this as well. And therefore would never have made a law like that, because it wouldn't make any sense.
I agree, and I do not think God made these laws.
It was the best they could do with the knowledge they had. Remember cultures all around the world, have sacrificed humans to Gods, because they thought it would help. Even God wanted Abraham to sacrifice his child. But we can look back at what they did with the knowledge we have today, just as people in 1000 years will look at us and point out where we were immoral. But to us what we are doing today, is largely what we are capable of with the knowledge we have. And its no difference for the ancient cultures. They also tried their best, but that doesn't mean that we can't look at them and say that some of the things they did were highly immoral.
I agree and what you described is congruent with the Baha’i theology of progressive revelation. As humans evolved, God sent new Messengers with new messages that were suited to the times they lived in. In the future more will be revealed and people will look back and wonder why we had the laws we have today. Some laws though, such as what is in the Ten Commandments, are eternal even if the stipulations on the laws change over time. Only the Sabbath day is no longer valid but the other laws are still valid.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I think you are over doing this
C:\Users\Home\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.png
People don't go party 24/7 without doing anything else, that is not what im talking about. But people might go out once a week to have a good time with their friends. Then on sunday go hand out food to the homeless or whatever. Its not like people having fun is something they ought to do constantly and none stop. To me its about happiness and part of this comes from having fun, but it can come from helping others as well.
Okay I understand that and I agree, people can have fun and enjoy themselves and also help others. Sometimes they can even do those simultaneously. I admit I am a little extreme in my views but that is because I am a Baha’i and I take it very seriously, probably more seriously than other Baha’is. I do not expect people who are not Baha’is to have my perspective, but this is where I am coming from. Why do you think that Baha’u’llah would have written this if He did not mean it?

“Wert thou to consider this world, and realize how fleeting are the things that pertain unto it, thou wouldst choose to tread no path except the path of service to the Cause of thy Lord. None would have the power to deter thee from celebrating His praise, though all men should arise to oppose thee.

Go thou straight on and persevere in His service. Say: O people! The Day, promised unto you in all the Scriptures, is now come. Fear ye God, and withhold not yourselves from recognizing the One Who is the Object of your creation. Hasten ye unto Him. Better is this for you than the world and all that is therein. Would that ye could perceive it!”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 314

How one achieve it is less important for the individual. I think I mentioned this earlier as well. That achieving happiness is the goal or ought to be the goal for all humans, regardless of how one does it, when seen from a personal point of view.
True, when seen from a personal point of view, achieving “personal” happiness is the goal of humans, but I consider it selfish to only think of oneself. Jesus taught to love your neighbor as yourself but Baha’u’llah taught to prefer your neighbor to yourself. Owing to the spiritual evolution of humanity the expectations God puts on humans are greater in this new age.
So for most "normal" people we can achieve happiness without hurting other people or even through helping others. Which is what we as humans ought to thrive towards as a race. To make it possible for all humans to live good and happy lives, without it causing or obstructing others chance of doing the same. That is why we ought to reduce inequality, make sure that crime is as low as possible, that people have food to eat, access to good healthcare etc. Because ultimately this play a huge part in achieving happiness for everyone, regardless of sexuality, race, religion etc.
Happiness for everyone should be the goal and that is the Baha’i teaching; the oneness of mankind implies that everyone matters and everyone should have their basic needs met so they can achieve happiness and fulfill their purpose in life.

Let me share with you what the new race of men will look like in the future, according to Baha’i beliefs.

“In this age humanity has strayed far from the path of truth, and the call of Bahá’u’lláh to recognize Him as the viceregent of God on earth has fallen on deaf ears. But a careful study of His writings leads us to believe that His Revelation, being the culmination of past Revelations and one which has ushered in the Day of God Himself, will exert such a potent influence upon mankind as a whole that eventually all the peoples of the world will recognize His station of their own free will and embrace His cause of their own volition. And this in turn will bring about, in the distant future, the appearance of a new race of men whose noble character and spiritual virtues we, in this age, are unable to visualize.” (Adib Taherzadeh, The Revelation of Bahá’u’lláh v 3, p. 3)

“With the establishment of the Most Great Peace and the spiritualization of the peoples of the world, man will become a noble being adorned with divine virtues and perfections. This is one of the fruits of the Revelation of Bahá’u’lláh, promised by Him. The nobility of man and his spiritual development will lead him in the future to such a position that no individual could enjoy eating his food or resting at home while knowing that there was one person somewhere in the world without food or shelter. It is Bahá’u’lláh’s mission to create such a new race of men.” (Adib Taherzadeh, The Revelation of Bahá’u’lláh v 3, p. 126)

But if you approach this from a way where you demand proof for what they are saying, you will ultimately reach the conclusion that I did above. That its about happiness, because that is the only logical aim to thrive for, since no one can answer the question. So at least aiming towards just living a happy life will make sense.
It would only make sense if this is the only life we have and there is no afterlife, but if there is an afterlife it ceases to make as much sense as you think it does. If there is an afterlife, this life is preparation for that life, and we are here primarily to acquire spiritual virtues (good character) rather than to just be happy, because our character is all we will take with us to the spiritual world. That does not mean we cannot also enjoy this life, but it is a matter of priorities. There has to be a balance and everyone is an individual so they have to find their own balance. What works for one person won’t work for everyone becaue all our capacities and our life circumstances differ.
It can be a bit emotional, when you really figure out that, here we are all these humans running around Earth doing whatever. And none of us, know what the hell we are doing here or what the purpose is.
If there is a God that created humans, don’t you think that God would know what our purpose of life is? If that has been revealed, would you want to know? From a Baha’i perspective, the purpose of life is to become our true self.

“From the foregoing passages and allusions it hath been made indubitably clear that in the kingdoms of earth and heaven there must needs be manifested a Being, an Essence Who shall act as a Manifestation and Vehicle for the transmission of the grace of the Divinity Itself, the Sovereign Lord of all. Through the Teachings of this Day Star of Truth every man will advance and develop until he attaineth the station at which he can manifest all the potential forces with which his inmost true self hath been endowed. It is for this very purpose that in every age and dispensation the Prophets of God and His chosen Ones have appeared amongst men, and have evinced such power as is born of God and such might as only the Eternal can reveal.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 67-68


This is connected to knowing the Truth about God and why we are put on Earth, to know and worship God and prepare our souls for the spiritual world.

“The Prophets and Messengers of God have been sent down for the sole purpose of guiding mankind to the straight Path of Truth. The purpose underlying Their revelation hath been to educate all men, that they may, at the hour of death, ascend, in the utmost purity and sanctity and with absolute detachment, to the throne of the Most High.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 156-157


The desire to embark upon such a journey has to come from within the self, it cannot be forced. We all have free will so it has to be a conscious choice. But first we have to know that this choice is available to us.
It obviously depend what she meant by enjoying life.
She meant eat, drink and be merry, what I used to think atheist lived for before I stated posting on forums about six years ago. Now I know that is not what atheists live for, but it is what many believers live for. There really is no excuse for this because their scriptures do not teach this way of living. I’d expect to see atheists living this way since they have no God to answer to, but most atheists I know do not live this way. They care about social and political issues and the environment and other species as well as humans.
And this person you spoke with as I mentioned above, is just guessing, she have no clue what the meaning of life is and neither does anyone else, so you are in your good right to reject what she is claiming.
If she knows what is in the New Testament she should know the purpose of life is not to eat drink and be merry. There are several Christians on this forum who know that is not our purpose. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that is why we were created. However, some Christians just think they have a free ride to heaven and they don’t care if others go to hell, as long as they have an enjoyable life. This I consider selfish. There is nothing more to say. They cherry pick out of the Bible what they want to believe and it is all about personal salvation. Thank God all Christians are not like this. I consider many Christians even more spiritual than Baha’is I know, and I can learn from them. They love God and they walk the walk rather than just talking the talk. Jesus hated hypocrites. I struggle not to judge this person I mentioned because I know that is wrong, but I cannot help how I feel, only how I behave.
 
So are you allowed to vote? or are you just not allowed to really express how you feel about political parties or is it just that you can't say that you directly support a certain party?
By registering as an Independent Baha’is are registering to vote in the general election, just not in the primary elections for the Democratic and Republican Parties. So of course! We have a social responsibility to vote! I think in a similar way we can’t have membership in a Christian Church because that would be dishonest. The reason that would be dishonest is because we don’t believe in such things as the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ after the Crucifixion or of followers after Christ is expected to return. In short, there are many church doctrines we simply don’t believe is true.

However, we can and do affiliate, and may attend, church services or services of any religion as it is a fundamental principle of the Baha’i Faith to associate with people of all religions in a spirit of friendliness and unity. In fact Baha’is founded the “Interfaith Council” where people of different religions come together in a spirit of friendliness and unity to learn about the diversity and also similarities of their beliefs. You can compare it to the Ecumenical movement to unite Christians except it endeavors to unite people of all religions. Such endeavors are commensurate with the Baha’i principle of the oneness of God, the oneness of religion, and the oneness of mankind.

my point is that we have to work with a reasonable definition of truth.
I would say what a reasonable definition of truth is depends on what it is in reference to and how that is connected to individual and social phenomena.

If truth is in reference to simple physical observable occurrences such as an object falling off a cliff I would say that is an easy definition of a truth or fact. If a truth or fact is in reference to an individual murdering someone or soldiers killing in war that involves many other truths or facts leading up to such occurrences. In other words, truths and facts are not isolated phenomena and in that sense are not easily defined.

I would say human life is a double edged sword because it consists of positive qualities of aspirations toward truth and positive fulfillments both for individuals and society but also opposite qualities of displaying falsehoods or telling lies, selfishness, injustice, and now the committing of acts of destructiveness with the potential of annihilating humankind altogether along with countless other life forms on earth.

Lastly, I would observe that historically speaking the major religions of the world have addressed both the positive and negative aspects of human behavior and that with each occurrence of new ones they were resisted mightily but eventually prevailed until demonstrably there was a need for new ones and the very same process repeated itself.
a fact or belief that is accepted as true.
I would say what is accepted as true fits the definition of traditional beliefs or notions which may or not be true.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
Baha’u’llah allows us to have sex but He does not enjoin us to have it. Baha’u’llah enjoins us to do many other things, so I consider that is what I should be doing.
That is very decent of him to be sure :)

I said that atheists have no reason to think about anyone except themselves because they have nobody to answer to except themselves. But that does not mean that atheists are selfish.
But atheists have kids right? they have friends and love ones, correct? Are there no reason for us to think about them and wanting them to have it good? What you say makes no sense at all....Why do you think so many atheists openly speak against religion? I have already told you several times that I don't care about what people believe, but than im against bad ideas that hurt other people. If I had no reason to think about anyone but my self, then why would I even care to debate it? Some of the stuff you write in these replies are part of the reasons I do it.

Just think about the sentence I quoted from you above? "Baha’u’llah allows us to have sex" I don't know how old you are? (Not meant in a disrespectful way) But simply writing and accepting that what Baha'u'llah allows and doesn't allow as if it completely normal, is very surprising to me. Exactly the same when I hear people of other religious view, accept their rules and guidelines put on them as if this is perfectly logic and reasonable. To me this clearly illustrate the problem with religions in general and how it remove and suppress peoples ability to think rational and logically. Because if someone is capable of accepting these things, they will also accept things when it comes to raising children, like JWs shunning or not accepting blood, encourage people to not use condoms etc. My guess is that you do not approve of any of these things? but see absolutely no problem with the statement you made above as being the exact same thing?

I am not implying that atheists are immoral. Atheists or believers can be either moral or immoral. Hopefully, fear of God would cause believers to be moral, but that is not a guarantee.
Again it makes no sense, if you claim that atheists have no reason to think about anyone other than themselves and in the same sentence say that it doesn't mean that they are selfish, but also that they are not necessarily immoral, just as people that believe in God might not. Then there is no difference between the two groups and therefore a believe in God is irrelevante for your argument. The alternative is that atheists logically can not be moral, because they have no reason to think about anyone other than themselves, because they are selfish and do not believe in God, and what pretty much all atheists do, is to go around and pretend that they care about others, but deep down we are all selfish people. It might not be what you mean, but that is what you write, due to the many contradictions and wrong assumptions you make.

So which of them is it? Because what you wrote cant all be true at the same time.

Complete freedom does cause harm to society and to the individual. You can certainly see what harm it has caused to the environment. There have to be laws to prevent people from actions that are bad for themselves and others and the environment. As long as there are laws we do not have complete freedom to do as we please. Without laws we would have anarchy.
But this have nothing to do with complete freedom, lots of this is driven based on economics and making profit. Some of it is due to not knowing better, meaning for instance plastic in the oceans and everywhere else. If you go back just 25 years, you would have problems even finding a person, that would see plastic as being an issue, because the majority of people had no clue of it even being an issue. Therefore everyone used and wrapped everything in it. Then you have corruption and stupidity as well. So it have nothing to do with freedom, remember that I talked about freedom under certain conditions "That it doesn't harm anything else, that is both humans, animals and environment" and that there is no harm in that.

I said “I cannot even imagine what a mess the world would be if everyone was an atheist.” I did not say that atheists caused the huge mess in the world. I meant in this sense:

“The first word which the Abhá Pen hath revealed and inscribed on the first leaf of Paradise is this: “Verily I say: The fear of God hath ever been a sure defence and a safe stronghold for all the peoples of the world. It is the chief cause of the protection of mankind, and the supreme instrument for its preservation.
And I say that this is obviously wrong, because human suffering, at least in the last many decades is what gets people of most nations to rise and protest against what is going on around the world, whenever they see injustice. This is from most individuals point of view, as I see it. Then you have the whole game of economics on top, which seems to be the main reason for wars. To please peoples desire for justice and to help those in need and bring democracy is just a good excuse to get the people behind it. But I think most people know, that when it comes down to it, it almost purely about national influence and resources. Fear of God doesn't prevent any of this.

I only say that the prophecies in the OT that refer to the Messiah are referring to Baha’u’llah, because he was the Messiah. These are prophecies that referred to the future, so they were not talking about the Jewish culture of 4000 years ago.
And what Im trying to tell you, is that this is wrong. When you take the context of the bible and history into account. The Jews expected the Messiah to come save them from the Romans and the others which they didn't like. Not in like 1700+ years, but sooner than later. Therefore the prophecies are not talking about Baha'u'llah. That is something you impose on them, which is completely out of context, because there is nothing to backup what you are saying and referring to Baha'u'llah is not a valid source as we can't validate him either. Therefore we have to take into account what the Jews meant by the stories they wrote in accordance to history. You simply ignore all that and therefore you can reach a wrong conclusion.

No, it is not just a claim; it is supported by evidence because everyone knows that the Bible is not wholly authentic in the sense that we know who the authors were. There is no proof that the OT was written by Moses, and no way to ever verify that, and we know that Jesus did not write anything in the NT. We do not even know who all the authors of the Bible were. This is not comparable to the Qur’an that was dictated by Muhammad to scribes whose identity was known and it certainly is not comparable to the Writings of Baha’u’llah which have been fully authenticated to be written by Him.
It doesn't matter if we know who wrote it or not, if we can not validate those people that did it. Muhammad dictated the Quran? and so what, that doesn't proof that he is telling the truth or that he is what he claims to be. The same goes with Baha'u'llah, do you see the reason for that?

How do you verify that Muhammed flew to heaven on a winged horse or what it was? or that he spoke with an angel?
There is no way for you to do that, therefore it doesn't matter if we know he dictated the Quran or not, because its his claims that are up for debate.

However, we know a lot more about Baha’u’llah than we can ever know about Jesus. Real people saw and knew Baha’u’llah and it is recent history. Nobody questions who Baha’u’llah was and what He did is chronicled in history by people who lived in the 18th century. No, as I said, we cannot verify that he was a Messenger of God; that is impossible.
Of course they didn't question him if they believed he was telling the truth, exactly like you are not. But from an objective point of view of having to validate the truth of his claims. Would you see yourself as a good source for such investigation? Just as those back in the days that followed him wouldn't be either. Because they are already convince that he is what he is claiming and therefore doesn't approach his claims in a skeptical or critical way, which makes almost everything they say useless, when having to approach this from an objective point of view.

Why does it matter what the ancient Jews believed? These events depicted in the OT either happened or they didn’t. Unless they can be proven to have happened, they are just stories people wrote, not facts.
If the OT is about the God you believe in and you don't trust any of it, then you have no clue what God you believe in is. Even if you say that Baha'u'llah have talk about it, because he refer to the God of the bible. But we have no way to validate what Baha'u'llah is saying as being true or false and no way to go to the OT either to learn about the God he is talking about, because that clearly doesn't matter. So what you are left with is a fragmented idea of a God, based on what Baha'u'llah said, which is based on a God that is most likely completely wrong as we have no source for him or what he have done. Did he even created the world? Where are the source for that? We know nothing about him, therefore it makes him useless and irrelevant, as everything you might say about God is purely just you guessing and there is no way to argue against that and therefore it is not relevante either. Does that make sense? If I told you that I believed in God and whenever you asked me anything, I just made up things. Such view of God is not interested for you either, because what is it based on.

Why would people believe in evolution before it was proven to be a scientific fact? Of course if God exists, God is responsible for evolution, since God is responsible for everything in existence. So you respect Creationists for denying scientific facts in favor of beliefs? That is a strange thing for an atheist to say.
People shouldn't believe in evolution until its proven, in fact they shouldn't believe in anything with absolutely certainty unless proven. But that was not my point with what I wrote either. The point were that some religions oppose these discoveries, whenever they go against their beliefs, until it reaches a point where the evidence are so severe that they can no long deny them and instead of accepting that it means that their scriptures are wrong, they just spin them to mean something else and that they actual do support what they used to oppose.

That is what I mean with having at least a little bit of respect for the creationist, despite them being wrong. At least they are honest and doesn't try to pull this stunt all the time.

Continue..
 
Last edited:

Nimos

Well-Known Member
The Bible, the Qur’an, and the Revelation of Baha’u’llah, including what he did on His Mission and His Writings are evidence.
Neither the Bible or the Quran is evidence for any such thing, they are evidence that these people believed these things to be true. Again you seem to mix up evidence and claims and Im sorry for having to keep mentioning it. But its very obvious that you are not really sure how to distinguish them apart, when it comes to your religion.

Baha’u’llah did not need to study anything as He had innate knowledge
how do you know that? Do you know why I ask? Wouldn't you agree that this is purely a claim?

Thanks for all that information on the Yale open courses. I imagine there is a cost for those but I could not find that on the links you provided.
They are free, you just have to select the course in the top row and you will get a list of lectures.

Well, thanks for sharing that information about the OT. So God cared only about the Jews? If that was true it seems more like it was written by men than inspired by a God. Of course the Old Testament is not the only scripture that ever existed because God revealed Himself to other people before and after that and even during that period of time, so I do not think it is fair to judge God based upon the Old Testament. That is a very narrow view.

Of course it is possible that slavery was allowed because it was needed at a certain point in history and then along came Moses who freed the slaves. That was God’s doing, since God sent Moses.
I think its might be because, and still not really sure, I understood you correct, so please correct me, if im wrong. But that your view of God is that there is only one, and even the notion that when other cultures talk about their Gods, like Zeus, Odin or if its just some tribal God, that this is either all the same God or that they are just made up, based on absolutely nothing. So if the OT doesn't give you the information about God you want, you just throw them away and take them from somewhere else. It really seems to me, like that is how you approach God and have never spoken to anyone, which have such a loose concept of God before. He seems to be everything when needed and nothing when he doesn't fit what you think he ought to be. Its really strange and have to admit, that Im pretty close to just giving up trying to figure it out, because I really have no clue how to explain the God you believe in. If someone were to ask me what God Bahais believe in, I would be completely clueless, and probably just say a bit of everything and nothing. To me it seems more like you think Baha'u'llah is some sort of God and it him and his teachings that you are interested in and God is just some vague whatever floating around somewhere and whether he is one or the other thing, doesn't really matter at all, as long as he is just good.

I might be a bit judgmental or simply not understanding what you are saying. But to me Bahai faith appears to be more and more a fundamentalist cult than what I would call a religion. There seems to be no scriptures to follow except those of Baha'u'llah, which just claims to know better, because that's the way it is. The God seem to not follow any logic at all and members that are so dedicated, that nothing that Baha'u'llah say can ever be wrong, even though its completely impossible to figure out what God he is suppose to follow as it doesn't fit any of the known ones. But are just nice words, with references to older scriptures from other religions that followers don't even consider close to being true, which leave God as a completely useless concept. Again sorry if that might sound upsetting, but that is really how I start to perceive what you are writing in these replies. And as you mentioned yourself, that you might be a bit extreme even within Bahai faith, so maybe this is not how the rest are, I don't know. But as an outsider reading this, I really find it slightly disturbing to see the effect of blind faith.

I cannot really say I know who made those laws, whether they had divine inspiration behind them or not. It would really depend upon who wrote the Old Testament and what their source material was. Of course, Jews would say it was God through Moses and the other prophets.
But based on the explanation I gave, when taking the time in which they lived, history etc into account. That even if im not completely right in my assumption, that it is reasonable to assume that these laws were made by man to control their society and that no God was involved at all. And how it give a plausible explanation of why the laws are as they are and why there are errors in them? and that it might even give a better explanation of this, compared to, if an all good and perfect God had made them? Because it would be weird why a God would make mistakes in regards to things that exists or not, if he created all?

Continue..
 
Last edited:

Nimos

Well-Known Member
How do you know what God would care about? How do you know God could have guided them to solve it better?
I don't know what God cares about, that is why we use source material to figure it out. I have been talking about that for a while now and why it is important to include the history and what the ancient Jews/Christians believed in and the source for that is the Bible/Torah. So what we can do is look at what they wrote and try to figure out what God cared about and didn't. That is why I have such a hard time figuring out how you define your God, because you constantly claim that we can't trust the Bible, because it was written by people. And that is why im trying to explain to you, that you can't just throw out certain verses that you don't agree with, without presenting a good case for why it should be so.

For instance some of the verse in the bible have been removed, because they were found to have been added later or doesn't fit the older manuscripts. That is how people working in the field with these texts does it. They find evidence for why certain texts might not have been in the original bibles and therefore should be removed. They don't just go through it and say "I don't think this describe my view of God, so lets remove that verse". So there is a huge difference here. So when I tell you that you can't just throw out verses in the middle of a story, because you don't agree, its not a valid way to do it. Because everyone would be able to do that and the Bible would be completely useless then. So when Baha'u'llah or those of Bahai faith claim that the prophecies are talking about him, I tell you that you are wrong, because you read and grab these texts out of context, with no regard to the ancient Jews and what they believed and the time period in which they lived. But you are so convinced that Baha'u'llah is who he claim to be, that it apparently doesn't matter. But Im pretty sure that if you actually read the bible for yourself, that you would see that im not trying to fill you with nonsense, but that God in the OT do only care about the Jews. That Jesus is talking about salvation for the Jews coming soon and not in the future with Baha'u'llah.

The reason God could have guided them better, is based on the claims about what God is. And my claim is that almost any modern day person living today, would be able to guide them better. You applying Bahai teaching as a guide would be better than Gods. So how am I to believe that a God, that is all powerful and good can be beaten by a human when it comes to morality and guidance for other people.

So it seems to me that is how it came to be written in the Old Testament; it was written by men, not by God. That is one reason why I consider it a waste of my time read and try to understand the Old Testament.
And again, what God do you believe in? What you write makes no sense when it comes to God, unless one of the option I mentioned above is true?

I agree, and I do not think God made these laws.
Completely agree as you know. But then again im an atheists. But do you think an all powerful and good god, would allow his chosen people to write such immoral laws? and treat other humans as they do? and if so how can you maintain the claim that God is all good?

True, when seen from a personal point of view, achieving “personal” happiness is the goal of humans, but I consider it selfish to only think of oneself. Jesus taught to love your neighbor as yourself but Baha’u’llah taught to prefer your neighbor to yourself. Owing to the spiritual evolution of humanity the expectations God puts on humans are greater in this new age.
But you are not thinking about yourself. If you thrive towards happiness and one of the things that makes you happy is to help others. Then it is not selfish, even if you do it to improve your own happiness, we don't decide what makes us happy and what doesn't anyway.

You mention that you like cats, so you taking care of them most likely makes you happy. Based on your logic you are doing something selfish because it brings you joy. And im saying that it doesn't matter, it makes you happy and that it is good, because it benefits you and at the same time the cats, therefore there is nothing wrong with you doing and thriving towards this happiness. But not everyone want or can have cats, or they might be allergic to them whatever. But they might like them so much, that they donate money to animal shelters or whatever and that might make them feel better and it helps the cats. To assume that something is wrong with that, makes little sense to me.

Where I would agree with you, is if a person sexual abuse a child, because it benefit them, then that is wrong and that is why we punish people like that. Because them trying to achieve happiness that hurts other is not acceptable. There is a huge difference here.

It would only make sense if this is the only life we have and there is no afterlife, but if there is an afterlife it ceases to make as much sense as you think it does. If there is an afterlife, this life is preparation for that life, and we are here primarily to acquire spiritual virtues (good character) rather than to just be happy, because our character is all we will take with us to the spiritual world. That does not mean we cannot also enjoy this life, but it is a matter of priorities. There has to be a balance and everyone is an individual so they have to find their own balance. What works for one person won’t work for everyone becaue all our capacities and our life circumstances differ.
Thriving towards happiness, to me at least make sense regardless of there being an afterlife or not. The only difference is that if a God exists and its goal is for humans to worship him or he will throw you in hell. Then one have to decide whether its worth living an eternity with such a monster or spend an eternity in hell, which is probably equally bad.

But all this is based on the claim that an afterlife actually do exists, which there is absolutely no evidence for. And even reading the old texts about what an afterlife might be, makes no sense at all. So the question becomes, do you want to spend your whole life worrying about something for which there is no evidence whatsoever or do you want to live you life as happy as possible and get the most out of it? To me it is the last option, because through examining all these claims people have made throughout history, there are nothing to suggest that any of it is true. And even if you should choose one of them, there is 1 in 300000 or how many religions and religious views there is that you get it right, at the same time God is apparently not interested in telling us which of these are correct or not either. Which, if he exists, again makes him a monster and ill rather spend an eternity in hell or simply being dead than spending time with something like that. But obviously that is a choice each of us have to make.


If there is a God that created humans, don’t you think that God would know what our purpose of life is? If that has been revealed, would you want to know? From a Baha’i perspective, the purpose of life is to become our true self.
Yes God would know, but he have decided to not share this information with us in any good way, instead he have given different information to everyone, so no one have any clue, which again makes him incompetent or a monster for making people run around like headless chickens trying to figure it out and killing each other over what is true or not, when the fact is that no one knows. So to be honest, I personally don't give a rats *** what Gods possible purpose with our lives is, if he want me to know, im right here and he is welcome to come and explain it, if not, so be it.

There really is no excuse for this because their scriptures do not teach this way of living. I’d expect to see atheists living this way since they have no God to answer to, but most atheists I know do not live this way. They care about social and political issues and the environment and other species as well as humans.

I think the reason people does this, is because they don't know what else to do. Religion causes confusion, what are you allowed to do and what can't you do. Did you do the right thing? will God approve? I think most atheists, ask themselves if what they are about to do, is going to harm or cause trouble for other people, animals etc. and if not then they see no issue doing it. Its very simply and understandable way to approach life. Obviously this is generalizing atheists as you will have some that do harm to others for whatever reason. To me, I would guess that is the biggest difference between atheists and religious people, all the nonsense rules etc. are filtered away. :)

However, some Christians just think they have a free ride to heaven and they don’t care if others go to hell, as long as they have an enjoyable life. This I consider selfish. There is nothing more to say. They cherry pick out of the Bible what they want to believe and it is all about personal salvation. Thank God all Christians are not like this. I consider many Christians even more spiritual than Baha’is I know, and I can learn from them. They love God and they walk the walk rather than just talking the talk. Jesus hated hypocrites. I struggle not to judge this person I mentioned because I know that is wrong, but I cannot help how I feel, only how I behave.
Well it actually were like this historically, you might remember that people used to be able to buy salvation for money. Which obviously seems very in line with God :) But none the less people believed it. You have examples of kings and emperors that would get baptized on their deathbed to get rid of all the sins they had committed during their rule and they would get to heaven as well. So apparently there are lots of ways to "trick" your way into heaven, following the rules given in the Bible.
You have to remember that it is with Jesus the concept of being judged for eternity comes into play and that God can read your thoughts and that you sin through these as well, if I remember correctly. So the NT is not any better than the OT, both are pretty much equally bad in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Top