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

[CG Didymus]

Maidens come in every one's dreams, males or females. Who else but Allah sends these dreams? No, he did not know till 1853 that he will be chosen as a 'manifestation'. He did not ever see Allah or speak directly with him. After his selection as a 'manifestation', he was of one mind with Allah (or whoever sent the Maiden), so no further need for communication. He encountered only one, the Maiden, and no Jibreel (as far as I know).

Well, other religions do have other Gods and evil beings. I'm sure some Christians would say that Satan dressed himself up to look like a maiden to deceive Mirza. But, if Baha'u'llah isn't who he thinks he is... Who is he? Is he just another person who wrote some things and started a religious movement? Like Baha'is feel that way about the person you mention, Mīrzā Ghulām Aḥmad.

For me, unless they get a majority of people to believe in the Baha'i Faith, it will never be all that important. If they do get a majority, then I'm worried about them putting their laws, supposedly the laws of God, into place and then having to enforce them. Right now their leaders make decisions about how to grow the religion... without much success. If in control of a city, a state, a nation and the world? I don't see how they could run things. It seems like it would become just one big bureaucratic mess.

 

[Trailblazer]

I've quoted that verse in Acts several times. I went through Revelation with Adrian and some others. So it's the same thing you complain about. Is it really worth putting verses out there that you know are going to be ignored?

You've said you don't care what the Bible says didn't you? If so, then you're not the right Baha'i to have a Bible discussion with. Tony said a few things that I thought he should give some verses to me to back up what he said. But, he blew me off.

Since the verse in Acts is at the very beginning, I get the feeling you've never really read Acts. And Revelation? I'd be very surprised if you've read it. Have you read what Abdul Baha' has said in SAQ? I think he comments on at least two chapters. But really... you know we're not going to agree, and I doubt you have the time, you get yourself involved in so many threads, so do you really want to get into it?

I have read Acts 1 and Acts 2 many times and I have read parts of Revelation, but you are right that we won't agree as to what those mean so why bother discussing it?

 

[Trailblazer]

For me, unless they get a majority of people to believe in the Baha'i Faith, it will never be all that important. If they do get a majority, then I'm worried about them putting their laws, supposedly the laws of God, into place and then having to enforce them.

Why would you worry about something that is not going to happen until you are dead and gone from this world, if it ever happens at all? I live in the moment and never think of the future unless I have to. I also see no point in thinking about what happened in the past as you well know.

 

[CG Didymus]

I believe that if people made up gods them the laws are also made up, but the Laws revealed by the Prophets/Messengers came from God.

No Baha'is are going to gte stoned to death for not following Baha'i laws. The personal laws such as prayer and fasting are between a believer and God but other laws that affect other people like murder or adultery have penalties. Those Laws are in The Kitáb-i-Aqdas but they are not being enforced now since we don't live in a Baha'i world.

Yeah, like we doubt the accuracy and authenticity of the Bible. When did they get written down? How long were they an oral tradition? And like you say, that was so long ago who knows?

So even with the Bible laws and stories, I could easily believe that spiritual leaders made up a history, and a beginning, and a flood, and made a God that chose them to be his special people (and because they are still around, maybe they are)... But they needed laws anyway. So in writing the story, they had God write in stone the Ten Commandments and to later give a bunch of other laws to Moses. I don't see how a real God was really ever needed to do that. But, of course, in the story it was this all powerful God that had done so many miraculous things, and punished and sent his wrath against their enemies and other evil people that worshipped other false gods.

So great story for the Hebrew people. And I'm sure many of them believe it all really happened, but, since all ancient people had similar history and creation stories and Gods, I think it was probably made up. Then how it evolves into Christianity, Islam and the Baha'i Faith, that is a miracle. Judaism, Christianity and maybe even Islam has some people that takes the Bible fairly literally. The Baha'is, I think, are the first ones that officially breaks from that and says that lots of stories aren't literal.

As you know, that creates another problem for me, because the Bible is kind of foundational. And if it's only allegorical, then, to me, it's nothing but the myths of an ancient people. Anyway, I'm heading out. Catch you later.

 

[Trailblazer]

I thought you said that you didn't know about him or God until after you came across the baha'i religion, which after doing your own investigation, then you became a believer.

If you believed in him before verifying that he was a messenger of God, then it's confirmation bias that made you believe that he was a true messenger of God.

No, I did not believe in Baha'u'llah before I did my investigation and determined that He was a Messenger of God.
Why would I believe in Him before determining that?

When I said "How could I show that now? All we have are first hand accounts. I already believed in Baha'u'llah long before I ever read about it" what I meant is that I believed in Baha'u'llah long before I ever read about those first hand accounts of Him uttering verses and and writing Tablets with great rapidity.

My initial belief was based upon 'other evidence' but then when I read about the manner in which Baha'u'llah rapidly revealed verses on all manner of subjects that was just like "icing on the cake" as I said to Tiberius.

Furthermore, and I did not mention this to @Tiberius, Baha'u'llah had no formal schooling, so where was all His knowledge coming from? Well, Baha'is believe this knowledge came from God, but we do not expect other people to believe that.

“O KING! I was but a man like others, asleep upon My couch, when lo, the breezes of the All-Glorious were wafted over Me, and taught Me the knowledge of all that hath been. This thing is not from Me, but from One Who is Almighty and All-Knowing. And He bade Me lift up My voice between earth and heaven, and for this there befell Me what hath caused the tears of every man of understanding to flow.The learning current amongst men I studied not; their schools I entered not. Ask of the city wherein I dwelt, that thou mayest be well assured that I am not of them who speak falsely. This is but a leaf which the winds of the will of thy Lord, the Almighty, the All-Praised, have stirred.”” Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 57

 

[Trailblazer]

Judaism, Christianity and maybe even Islam has some people that takes the Bible fairly literally. The Baha'is, I think, are the first ones that officially breaks from that and says that lots of stories aren't literal.

No, I do not think that the Baha'is are the only believers who don't take the Bible stories literally:

"In previous centuries, almost all Christians believed in miracles as described in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). These included creation, the story of Adam and Eve, a talking serpent, the great flood of Noah, the drying up of the Red/Reed sea, a prophet riding on a talking ***, the sun stopping in the sky, etc. From the Christian Scriptures (New Testament), they believed in the virgin birth, the Christmas star, angels appearing to the shepherds, Jesus healing the sick, etc. Many, perhaps most, liberal Christians now believe that these stories are not to be interpreted literally as real events. Their faith has not been damaged by losing faith in the reality of these events. A growing number of liberals are now taking the final step by interpreting the stories of Jesus' resurrection and his appearances to his followers and to Paul as other than real events. Retired bishop John Shelby Spong commented:

"I do admit that for Christians to enter this subject honestly is to invite great anxiety. It is to walk the razor's edge, to run the risk of cutting the final cord still binding many to the faith of their mothers and fathers. But the price for refusing to enter this consideration is for me even higher. The inability to question reveals that one has no confidence that one's belief system will survive such an inquiry. That is a tacit recognition that on unconscious levels, one's faith has already died. If one seeks to protect God from truth or new insights, then God has surely already died." 3"

What many liberal theologians believe about Jesus' death

As you know, that creates another problem for me, because the Bible is kind of foundational. And if it's only allegorical, then, to me, it's nothing but the myths of an ancient people. Anyway, I'm heading out. Catch you later.

The Bible does not have to be either-or. Some of the Bible might be literally true and some of it allegorical. I don't know if there is a way to determine that now but I don't think it really matters that much because the past is gone and the Bible is now history. Look around and see what is going on in the present-day world! That is what really matters and what we should be concerned with, according to Baha'u'llah. That makes perfect sense to me and is one reason I am a Baha'i and NOT a member of an older religion.

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

 

[paarsurrey]

Maidens come in every one's dreams, males or females. Who else but Allah sends these dreams? No, he did not know till 1853 that he will be chosen as a 'manifestation'. He did not ever see Allah or speak directly with him. After his selection as a 'manifestation', he was of one mind with Allah (or whoever sent the Maiden), so no further need for communication. He encountered only one, the Maiden, and no Jibreel (as far as I know).

I have read "Kitab-e-Iqan" of Bahaullah his most famous book, I understand. It was written in 1862, almost the time he took a covenant from the Bahais, never becoming a part of this covenant himself.

So, in Iqan period or pre-Iqan period Mírzá Ḥusayn-ʻAlí Núrí, I understand, had not taken up the new name Bahaullah publicly, nor did he have any direct Converse with Allah that he made public, nor he publicly claimed to be a messenger/prophet of Allah. Right?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Well, I haven't seen her in my dreams, but there's been a couple of maidens that come pretty close. But I'm not sure God sent them to me.

So Mirza Husayn-‘Ali didn't know he was the chosen one until this mysterious spirit lady appeared to him? So did he ever see or speak to God directly? Or, was it an angel or something? 'Cause if not, how did he know these spirit being talking to him were from God?

I agree with one.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

She was sent by Bahaollah's Allah. And this is how Bahaollah described her:

"Turning My face, I beheld a Maiden — the embodiment of the remembrance of the name of My Lord — suspended in the air before Me. So rejoiced was she in her very soul that her countenance shone with the ornament of the good-pleasure of God, and her cheeks glowed with the brightness of the All-Merciful."
Síyáh-Chál - Wikipedia

Did Bahaullah taken this name at that time, please?
I understand he had not. Right?

Regards

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I have read "Kitab-e-Iqan" of Bahaullah his most famous book, I understand. It was written in 1862, almost the time he took a covenant from the Bahais, never becoming a part of this covenant himself.

So, in Iqan period or pre-Iqan period Mírzá Ḥusayn-ʻAlí Núrí, I understand, had not taken up the new name Bahaullah publicly, nor did he have any direct Converse with Allah that he made public, nor he publicly claimed to be a messenger/prophet of Allah. Right?

Regards

Sure you can have your own ideas on this topic.

I have no idea what point your are aiming at, because as a Messenger, Baha'u'llah is the First to submit to the Will of God and that God Does as God so Chooses. As such the timing of Revelation and a public declaration of that Message is as God has ordained and as given in the Bible Revelation Chapter 11.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

have read "Kitab-e-Iqan" of Bahaullah his most famous book

This is one of the works of Baha'u'llah, Revelation that consists of many works totalling over 100 volumes.

It is an excellent explanation of the Messengers from God and why they are Accepted and rejected in each age. It is a must read, IMHO.

Everyone will get out of it what their heart is looking for.

Regards Tony

 

[Tiberius]

I do not think you read what was posted, we do not see it the same anyway.

Sorry, as I see this world is the Illusion. It is a chimera, like a vapor in the desert. How can anything about it be objective, to me, in my current frame of reference, it is all relative to our current understanding of it.

But as I offered, this is way above my pay grade.

Regards Tony

And I'm perfectly happy to agree that if your worldview is correct, so are your conclusions.

But that's a very big IF there, and there's no support for it.

 

[Tiberius]

Not sure about that. It seems that the more closely science looks at the material world, at the subatomic level anyway, the more uncertain and indefinite the view becomes. The Uncertainty Principle would be just one example of this phenomenon in action.

I imagine almost all Quantum Theorists would have a lot of trouble with your assertion that "The nature of reality is objective fact".

Of course, the trouble with that is that if we say the real world could be ultimately subjective in nature and not objective, then the claim that it's subjective could itself be subjective, and thus it may not be subjective for everyone.

In any case, I don't think that things like the Uncertainty principle mean that the world can not be objective in nature.

 

[Tiberius]

You say they are flawed claims based on nothing more than wordplay.

But the wordplay is the claim.

I have shown you that the stories, signs, miracles, and prophecies in the bible are true in their own way.

Tell me, can you explain exactly why you think they are flawed claims?



Remember I showed you and explained this verse about moving the mountains into the sea.

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


There is also part of the verse about the fig tree:

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



It was the mighty wind that withered the Fig tree:

Yea, behold, being planted, shall it prosper? shall it not utterly wither, when the east wind toucheth it? it shall wither in the furrows where it grew. Ezekiel 17:10



Wordplay is a very simple way of putting it.

Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. John 8:43

The words of the bible are spoken in levels.
The keywords of the twelve gates.

The wordplay is the claim? Then you've got nothing.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

And I'm perfectly happy to agree that if your worldview is correct, so are your conclusions.

But that's a very big IF there, and there's no support for it.

That is where Faith builds upon what we can know.

That is a large discussion.

Regards Tony

 

[WonderingWorrier]

The wordplay is the claim? Then you've got nothing.

The stories, signs, miracles, and prophecies of the bible are true (according to what you called wordplay).

That is the claim I have been showing you.

Why do you think that is nothing?

 

[Trailblazer]

Irrelevant. I'm not talking about how we perceive the real world, I'm talking about the real world itself. This is not the first time I've had to clarify this to you.

True, the real world is what it is, but we have to perceive the real world. How we perceive the real world is subjective. This is not the first time I've had to clarify this to you.

Circumstantial at best.

And that's being generous.

It is still part of the evidence.

How about the original shorthand that was written? Signed and dated preferably.

It was not shorthand, it was longhand, and it was reviewed by Bahaulah and stampted with His original seal. I assume it was signed and dated, @Truthseeker9 or @ Tony Bristow-Stagg would be more familiar with that than I am.

I've mentioned about how people are very willing to accept any claims that support what they already believe without casting a critical eye over them, haven't I?

That might be true but that is not relevant to what you are responding to as I explained in this post:
#1985 Trailblazer, Today at 3:27 PM

 

[Trailblazer]

And again, I am not talking about people's perceptions of the real world, I am talking about the real world itself.

Sure, you can have one person who says, "Mr B was just a man," and another person who says, "Mr B was a messenger from God," but at the end of the day, one of them is right and one of them is wrong because Mr B was either objectively just a guy, or he was objectively a messenger from God.

That is absolutely correct. We are talking past each other again. By real world I thought you were referring to the material world and all that is therein. What you are calling the real world I call would reality so I think you are referring to reality. In reality, Baha'u'llah was either just a man or Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God.

I have been saying that for years, it is either a or b. Baha'u'llah was either (a) a man who made false claims (a false prophet) or He was (b) a man who was a Messenger of God who made true claims.

And if you're the person saying he was a messenger from God, you have to support that position, since it is far more common for a person to be just a regular person.

No, I am not the one who is obligated to support that position; Baha'u'llah is obligated to support it since He is the one who made the claim. I am just a person like you. The difference is that I have chosen to believe His claims and you have thus far chosen not to believe them.

 

[Trailblazer]

No, you're making assumptions. You need to PROvE it.

No, I do not need to prove what everyone knows just because you enjoy playing games.

And people could well say the same thing about Mister Potter after 2000 years.

But they wouldn't say that because it would be documented in books that Potter was a fictional character so it could be researched and known.

I know, I've seen you do it many times regarding interpretations of Bible passages you don't agree with.

And I will continue to do so.

Yes you did.

You said, "Fictional stories can be written about God... But that does not mean that God is not real."

That's essentially, "Just because people write fiction about God, it doesn't mean God isn't real." Add to that your claim, "God is not known to be fictional or real," and you've got the argument, "You can't prove God is fake, so that means he could be real."

I said "Just because people write fiction about God, it doesn't mean God isn't real."
I never said "You can't prove God is fake, so that means he could be real."

I am not saying that the REASON to believe that God is real is because God cannot proven to be fake. I am saying what I have always said, that I believe God is real because of the evidence that *indicates* that God is real.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Actually I saw a very good documentary on this the other day and green energy is not green, it is big business. Leo Smith might just be one of those brave enough to call it for what it is.

Correct, as you say another topic. India energy consumption is the lowest but we have to think of the future of the poor among our 1390 million people. If energy is not available, where from we provide jobs and livelihood to them and how do we provision them? Even agriculture requires energy. Do you want them to return to stone age and keep themselves alive by gathering (you will have problems with hunting too)? Would you like to do that yourself? And why do you hate business? Life cannot go without business. Even to barter things is business.

Per Capita energy consumption by countries/regions:

India 0.4, Africa 0.5, Indonesia 0.6, Venezuela 0.9, Brazil 1.0, Mexico 1.0, Argentina 1.2, China 1.4, Iran 2.1, Japan 2.2, Europe 2.5, S-Korea 2.6, Russia 3.0, Australia 3.2, United States 4.4, Canada 5.0.
World energy supply and consumption - Wikipedia