Tiberius
Well-Known Member
You do realise that they didn't actually have a word for "blue," right? Brass was referring to the shininess. The Greeks had the same problem.
-
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!
Atheist looking for religious debate. Any religion. Let's see if I can be convinced.
- Thread starter infrabenji
- Start date
You do realise that they didn't actually have a word for "blue," right? Brass was referring to the shininess. The Greeks had the same problem.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
Because you have just said it is not the same while not explaining WHY it is not the same.
So you got something about your faith wrong, and that's after, what did you say, fifty years?
But it's improving this Human's life! How is it any different to correcting a genetic defect that leaves them vulnerable to a disease? I mean, if they are vulnerable to a disease, shouldn't we also claim that's God's decree as well?
People find celebrities attractive.
Yes you did. You used the specific names when I gave no indication that I was referring to those ages.
And it doesn't address my point.
You have people in one age saying that the things needed by people in the next age are going to be DIFFERENT, yet the people in that next age are going to say that what they need is the same as what previous people needed.
On Monday, if I say that what I will need on Tuesday is going to be different to what I needed on Monday, and then on Tuesday I say that what I need is the SAME as what I needed on Monday, I am contradicting myself.
You literally said, "They are false because they are false."
And the source you linked shows they are false by arbitrarily picking an interpretation that allows the writer to conclude they are false.
Ah yes, the Baha'i position. "All religions are true - at least our interpretation of them, and only the parts we say are valid and no the result of the work of man who got it wrong."
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
Prove it.
You know, for someone who complained that I was assuming what your position was, you certainly seem to be more than happy to assume what my position is.
Of course I can tell that science and religion are different.
I was saying that it's special pleading because you just assume that the spiritual stuff is real and try to handwave away the total lack of any valid evidence by saying, "Oh, that's because science can't investigate it, you need to use a different tool."
It's like claiming that there is an invisible elephant in your bedroom, and when you disagree I keep coming up with things to explain why you can't detect it. It doesn't mean the elephant is real.
All you have done is invent something that is unfalsifiable and then decide that since no one can show that it's wrong (because you've covered it in a thick layer of handwavium), then it MUST be real.
But beliefs can result in biases, can they not?
It's easy. Take any testable claim by any religion (that is based on some spiritual aspect), and put it to the test. If it works as described, then it passes peer review.
An example? Here you go.
Matthew 17:20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.
So let's get believers and get them to tell mountains to move from hence to yonder place. If the mountain moves as directed, then I'll become a Christian.
Based on your interpretation of the Bible and other holy books, and is no doubt influenced by your belief that Baha'i is correct.
I never said you did. You want to be a Baha'i, you go right ahead. But if you come in here and start telling people that your beliefs are correct, you shouldn't be surprised when people start disagreeing with you.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
That doesn't work when the evidence is what the guy wrote.
I have a photo of Tom Cruise that has his autograph on it. I claim that the autograph is genuine, but you want confirmation. I say that the autograph proves it is genuine, since Tom wouldn't have signed it if the autograph was not genuine.
Likewise, the claims Mr B wrote that say he was sent by God are invalid if his claims are wrong.
I never said you were trying to get me to believe what you believe.
But, like them, you are trying to show that your reasons for believing are valid reasons.
And you don't seem to see that your explanation as to why Bahais can interpret the Bible better than Christians is basically because you have a particular interpretation that you think is right. Newsflash: So does everyone else!
Pointing out the flaws in your position that I see, purely for the sake of those who are watching the thread.
What in the world is this argument? You think I'm going to say, "Oh noes, I can't talk about Baha'i because then other people will be aware of it and as an atheist that's the last thing I want!"
Seriously, this is one of the most ludicrous arguments you have yet made.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
You completely missed my point.
If I go outside and look up at a sunny blue sky, I can not CHOOSE to ignore the evidence that the sky is blue.
This is not a difficult concept.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
The United Nations committed to maintaining international peace and security, developing friendly relations among nations and promoting social progress, better living standards and human rights is not the same as what Baha'u'llah asked for in His Epistles, for parliaments of the world to send their wisest and best men to an international world conference which should decide all questions between the peoples and establish universal peace which would be the highest court of appeal.
I explained it to you incorrectly and no, I don't know everything about my faith even after 50 years.
Altering a person's intelligence is not the same as correcting a genetic defect that leaves them vulnerable to a disease.
The Baha'i position is that all revealed religions were true as originally revealed, before men messed them up and corrupted them.
“This is the Day when the loved ones of God should keep their eyes directed towards His Manifestation, and fasten them upon whatsoever that Manifestation may be pleased to reveal. Certain traditions of bygone ages rest on no foundations whatever, while the notions entertained by past generations, and which they have recorded in their books, have, for the most part, been influenced by the desires of a corrupt inclination. Thou dost witness how most of the commentaries and interpretations of the words of God, now current amongst men, are devoid of truth.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 171
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
That wasn't too hard, was it?
But you have told me that you were confident that if your faith was mistaken, you'd have become aware of it by now, haven't you?
No it's not, but it's still improving the life of the person, isn't it? And didn't you say that scientific advancements should be used to improve Human life on Earth?
Unfortunately, without the original versions of those religions, there's no way to verify that claim.
How interesting, once again a religion makes a claim that is completely unfalsifiable.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I can explain it but I cannot prove it. That's not my job.
I never said that was YOUR position. I was talking about atheists in general.
The issue at hand here is that atheists believe that only material or physical things are real and that spiritual things are imaginary, but that is just their personal opinion, because there is no reason to think that things affecting the human spirit or soul are not real, and if they have an effect they have to be real, even if we cannot see them and prove they exist.
I never said that. I believe spiritual stuff is real but for obvious reasons science cannot prove that because that is the domain of religion, not science. There is no scientific evidence of God or an afterlife and science can never prove that a Messenger got messages from God. Those are religious beliefs and people either believe them or they don't.
Everyone has biases and believers have no more biases than atheists so your non-beliefs can also result in biases. In fact, you are clearly biased against my beliefs.
Those verses are obviously allegorical, and were never intended to be interpreted literally. Jesus used lots of metaphors to make His points.
I said my belief in a spiritual reality is not only based upon what Baha'u'llah wrote, it is based upon what is in the Bible and ALL the other holy books. The spiritual reality has nothing to do with my interpretation of the Bible or whether the Baha'i Faith is correct. The spiritual reality existed long before Baha'u'llah ever walked the earth.
I do not come here telling people that my beliefs are correct, I say I believe them. Why would I believe them if I thought they were incorrect? Do I look surprised that people disagree with me? No, I would be surprised if they agreed with me. I don't care if they agree with me because I am not trying to convince anyone of anything.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Obviously the claims Baha'u'llah wrote that say he was sent by God are invalid if his claims are wrong but the claims are not part of the evidence.
I am really getting tired of this. I told you numerous times that the evidence is not what Baha'u'llah claimed.
Below is what Baha’u’llah wrote about the 'evidence' that establishes the truth of His claims. Baha’u’llah enjoined us to look at His own Self (His character), His Revelation (His mission and works, which can be seen in Baha'i history), and His words (His Writings).
“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106
If I try to show you that is because you keep telling me they are invalid reasons. What am I supposed to say?
Newsflash. There is a logical reason WHY we think we are correct. Here is the reason:
“Know assuredly that just as thou firmly believest that the Word of God, exalted be His glory, endureth for ever, thou must, likewise, believe with undoubting faith that its meaning can never be exhausted. They who are its appointed interpreters, they whose hearts are the repositories of its secrets, are, however, the only ones who can comprehend its manifold wisdom. Whoso, while reading the Sacred Scriptures, is tempted to choose therefrom whatever may suit him with which to challenge the authority of the Representative of God among men, is, indeed, as one dead, though to outward seeming he may walk and converse with his neighbors, and share with them their food and their drink.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 175-176
Since I believe that Baha’u’llah was the Representative of God among men and He appointed interpreters through His Covenant, it any of them interpreted the Bible, their interpretation is the bottom line for the Baha'is.
I guess I was right in what I suspected then. You really think that you are doing other people on this forum a favor by pointing out flaws in the Baha'i Faith. That is what I meant in the paragraph I asked you to reread below.
Obviously that completely flew over your head. I suggest you read it again and this time try to understand what I meant.
If you really think that you are doing other people on this forum a favor by exposing the Baha'i Faith think again. It is people like you who have engendered interest in the Baha'i Faith and caused it to grow. All you succeed in doing is to provide free advertising. Go right ahead but bear in mind that adding fuel to the fire only makes it burn brighter. The disbeliever's work has always been the cause of guiding men to a discovery of the truth.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I did not miss your point at all. I knew exactly what you meant. You expect the evidence to be as clear as a sunny blue sky. But it isn't and it never will be because that is not how God wants it to be. If it was that easy everyone would be a believer, even people who are unworthy of being a believer.
The passage below explains what the Messengers of God (the Manifestations of Divine justice) appear on earth as ordinary men. The reason is because if they revealed their power and glory nobody would question them as we are supposed to do.
“That the Manifestations of Divine justice, the Day Springs of heavenly grace, have when they appeared amongst men always been destitute of all earthly dominion and shorn of the means of worldly ascendancy, should be attributed to this same principle of separation and distinction which animateth the Divine Purpose. Were the Eternal Essence to manifest all that is latent within Him, were He to shine in the plentitude of His glory, none would be found to question His power or repudiate His truth. Nay, all created things would be so dazzled and thunderstruck by the evidences of His light as to be reduced to utter nothingness. How, then, can the godly be differentiated under such circumstances from the froward?” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 71-72
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Does that mean you now understand the difference?
That does not mean I have read all the Baha'i Writings that have ever been written and I understand them perfectly.
I am opting out if this discussion because that was just my opinion and does not represent the Baha'i position. The Baha'i Faith takes no position on matters of science.
All religions have scriptures. The original versions are the scriptures of those religions that were written by men who claimed to know what the Messenger said or taught. They were not written by the Messenger so they are not authentic like the Writings of Baha'u'llah but that is the best we have for the older religions.
WonderingWorrier
Active Member
Are you listening Tiberius?
Look at the next verse after the one I'm talking about:
The Day that the sky will be like molten brass, Quran 70:9
And the mountains will be like wool. Quran 70:10
The verses are referring to the three levels.
Level 1 - Level 2 - Level 3
Valley - Hill - Mountain
Brass - Silver - Gold
Cattle - Goats - Sheep
Sea - River - Stream.
Straw - Dust - Stubble
Corn - Oil - Wine
Spear - Sword - Bow
Pomegranate - Fig - apple
Moon - Star - Sun
The mountain is as wool. Because the mountain is sheep.
Perhaps the mountains should be moved into the sea.
Because of what the mountains have done.
Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done. Matthew 21:21
But maybe putting the mountains into the sea is a bit harsh.
Maybe it would be better if the mountains were turned into dust.
Do you understand what I am saying?
If not, then look carefully at the word block of levels that I have showed.
Should I explain some more about why it says the mountains could be moved into the sea?
And explain why I think it would be better if the mountains were turned into dust?
When you understand clearly then I would like to hear your honest opinion about if and where the mountains should be moved.
Jacob Samuelson
Active Member
I think the person who posted this has bailed on the conversation maybe even RF, which is understandable. Of course a request such as his would end up a back and forth.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Citation required for the claim that's what atheists think.
Also, it didn't seem to stop you when I was talking about religious people in general and you seemed to take it personally.
Given that there is absolutely zero evidence that can be verified, I don't see why I should accept that there is anything spiritual in nature.
No, I am not biased against your beliefs. I am biased against any claim that is made yet has absolutely no evidence to back it up.
And of course, we come up with the excuses to explain it away.
There is no spiritual reality.
But you have come straight out and told people that their interpretations of the Bible are wrong.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
And yet you immediately turn to words written by Mr B.
I honestly don't understand how you don't see the conflict there.
A nice VALID reason why your claims are correct would be nice.
I fail to see the logic in basing your conclusion on a premise that can not be verified.
So you subscribe to the point of view that any publicity is good publicity, I take it?
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
And why would God not want it to be that clear, since he obviously puts so much importance on it?
It seems far more likely to me that the reason it is unclear is because it's all untrue, and it's confusing because of the huge amount of double-talk required to explain away all the inconsistancies.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
It means I now believe I understand what you mean when you said they were similar but not the same.
I think a lot of our conflict stems from a lack of clear communication.
Do you think there's a chance that you could read some writing you have not yet read, and that you could conclude from that writing that your beliefs are wrong? (Say, if something that it says contradicts something you currently believe.)
So the official Baha'i position is that such modification would be okay?
So you are claiming that we have lost the opriginal versions of those religions, and moreso, that there never were original versions?
And why didn't God think to get his earlier messengers to write anything down?
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
Yeah, your arguments based on wordplay are entirely unconvincing. I'm not going to respond to an argument when you haven't even shown it's a valid argument.
David Weaver
Member
Why do so many people have this concept wrong. Atheists (concerning the group as a whole, there are obvious exceptions) do not claim to believe in nothing. They just don't believe in a God. Look up the origination of the word atheist...it translates without God
firedragon
Veteran Member
You know Tiberius, a question like "why did god not do this instead of that" is something you need to ask God right? I mean logically.
Let me ask you a question.
Why did God not opt to make sure the Christians get the exact correct version of the epistles of John to all Christians from day one? Can you think of an answer, and prove the answer with some external textual evidence where God told you "this is the reason I did that"?