Can we change our mind about what we believe?

[joelr]

Revelation 6

12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;
13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.

The Bible does not say they will happen at the same time.
The Bible does not say how long the interval would be between these events.

They go in order, but not at the same time. If they go in order, that cannot happen at the same time.

These three events would take place in order, each one in turn heralding a closer approach of the footsteps of the Messiah, until, shortly after the last of the three, the star-fall, Christ would return and the great day of God's wrath would come.

Rev 6:17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

All of these things happened. These prophecies were fulfilled in the exact order predicted and then Baha'u'llah appeared.

1. The Lisbon earthquake, 1755. 1755 Lisbon earthquake
2. The Dark Day, 1780. New England's Dark Day
3. The Falling Stars, 1833. The Falling of the Stars

Again, there were bigger earthquakes AFTER the dark day and after the falling stars.
There were dark days and falling stars BEFORE that earthquake.

Those events happen all the time. You just cherry-picked 3 so they would be in that order.
I already explained this and you just repeated the confirmation bias claim.

Next, Revelation is not a prophetic work. It's describing current events when written. The lecture makes that clear.
Next, Revelation is apocalyptic literature, which as described in the lecture (I have many other sources as well) is from Persian Zoroastrianism,
So it was a myth in the Persian religion and is still a myth when the Hebrew people borrowed it.

It's fiction.

So if your "god messenger" thinks it's real, he does not know it isn't a future prophecy and he doesn't know it's syncretic mythology.

In fact here is the Persian version as written abut by Dr Boyce:

Revelations





but Zoroaster taught that the blessed must wait for this culmination till Frashegird and the 'future body' (Pahlavi 'tan i pasen'), when the earth will give up the bones of the dead (Y 30.7). This general resurrection will be followed by the Last Judgment, which will divide all the righteous from the wicked, both those who have lived until that time and those who have been judged already. Then Airyaman, Yazata of friendship and healing, together with Atar, Fire, will melt all the metal in the mountains, and this will flow in a glowing river over the earth. All mankind must pass through this river, and, as it is said in a Pahlavi text, 'for him who is righteous it will seem like warm milk, and for him who is wicked, it will seem as if he is walking in the • flesh through molten metal' (GBd XXXIV. r 8-r 9). In this great apocalyptic vision Zoroaster perhaps fused, unconsciously, tales of volcanic eruptions and streams of burning lava with his own experience of Iranian ordeals by molten metal; and according to his stern original teaching, strict justice will prevail then, as at each individual j udgment on earth by a fiery ordeal. So at this last ordeal of all the wicked will suffer a second death, and will perish off the face of the earth. The Daevas and legions of darkness will already have been annihilated in a last great battle with the Yazatas; and the river of metal will flow down into hell, slaying Angra Mainyu and burning up the last vestige of wickedness in the universe.


Ahura Mazda and the six Amesha Spentas will then solemnize a lt, spiritual yasna, offering up the last sacrifice (after which death wW be no more), and making a preparation of the mystical 'white haoma', which will confer immortality on the resurrected bodies of all the blessed, who will partake of it. Thereafter men will beome like the Immortals themselves, of one thought, word and deed, unaging, free from sickness, without corruption, forever joyful in the kingdom of God upon earth. For it is in this familiar and beloved world, restored to its original perfection, that, according to Zoroaster, eternity will be passed in bliss, and not in a remote insubstantial Paradise. So the time of Separation is a renewal of the time of Creation, except that no return is prophesied to the original uniqueness of living things. Mountain and valley will give place once more to level plain; but whereas in the beginning there was one plant, one animal, one man, the rich variety and number that have since issued from these will remain forever. Similarly the many divinities who were brought into being by Ahura Mazda will continue to have their separate existences. There is no prophecy of their re-absorption into the Godhead. As a Pahlavi text puts it, after Frashegird 'Ohrmaid and the Amahraspands and all Yazads and men will be together. .. ; every place will resemble a garden in spring, in which


there are all kinds of trees and flowers ... and it will be entirely the creation of Ohrrnazd' (Pahl.Riv.Dd. XLVIII, 99, lOO, l07).


EDIT, earlier you said you do not use the "it's true because it's says so in my religous text" argument. Well here is YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE of doing just that. You posted Revelation, as if it's true.

Believe whatever you want to believe.

And what I want to believe are things supported by sufficient evidence to warrant belief.
Not things I wish and hope are true.

 

[joelr]

God talking to people is never real since God does not talk.

A claim. In the OT he speaks. So you have to claim their stories are wrong. But a God who is supposedly infinite and creates universes and "does not talk" sounds ridiculous and made up.

God only communicated to Messengers and only through the Holy Spirit.

You haven't proven the "holy spirit" is real. The holy spirit is in the Gospels which you claim is full of incorrect information.

And you have not demonstrated any God or spirit communicated to anyone.

There is evidence that God exists although there is no proof.

What evidence?

Some things will always be valid but others change in each new dispensation. That's just the way it goes.
In each new dispensation the 'way to the Father' is through the Messenger of God who ushers in that new dispensation.
People can still get to the Father through the previous Messengers but that is not what God wants us to do.

“Our purpose is to show that should the loved ones of God sanctify their hearts and their ears from the vain sayings that were uttered aforetime, and turn with their inmost souls to Him Who is the Day Spring of His Revelation, and to whatsoever things He hath manifested, such behavior would be regarded as highly meritorious in the sight of God.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 172​

So a guy made claims. End of story. He didn't demonstrate they were true. He didn't even gain supernatural abilities or knowledge in his writings and he's wrong about many things like science, historical knowledge about Christianity.

I see no reason to believe his claims and decent evidence that he's making them up.




http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/GWB/gwb-86.html#pg171

Actually it is the Guardian Shoghi Effendi who said that the previous dispensations are over.

“In conclusion of this theme, I feel, it should be stated that the Revelation identified with Bahá’u’lláh abrogates unconditionally all the Dispensations gone before it, upholds uncompromisingly the eternal verities they enshrine, recognizes firmly and absolutely the Divine origin of their Authors, preserves inviolate the sanctity of their authentic Scriptures, disclaims any intention of lowering the status of their Founders or of abating the spiritual ideals they inculcate, clarifies and correlates their functions, reaffirms their common, their unchangeable and fundamental purpose, reconciles their seemingly divergent claims and doctrines, readily and gratefully recognizes their respective contributions to the gradual unfoldment of one Divine Revelation, unhesitatingly acknowledges itself to be but one link in the chain of continually progressive Revelations, supplements their teachings with such laws and ordinances as conform to the imperative needs, and are dictated by the growing receptivity, of a fast evolving and constantly changing society, and proclaims its readiness and ability to fuse and incorporate the contending sects and factions into which they have fallen into a universal Fellowship, functioning within the framework, and in accordance with the precepts, of a divinely conceived, a world-unifying, a world-redeeming Order.” God Passes By, p. 100

“A Revelation, hailed as the promise and crowning glory of past ages and centuries, as the consummation of all the Dispensations within the Adamic Cycle, inaugurating an era of at least a thousand years’ duration, and a cycle destined to last no less than five thousand centuries, signalizing the end of the Prophetic Era and the beginning of the Era of Fulfillment, unsurpassed alike in the duration of its Author’s ministry and the fecundity and splendor of His mission—such a Revelation was, as already noted, born amidst the darkness of a subterranean dungeon in Tihrán—an abominable pit that had once served as a reservoir of water for one of the public baths of the city.” God Passes By, p. 100

Wow, that's awful, he claims progressive revelations but yet says nothing progressive at all. No philosophy, science, new information above the original Gospels. It's in a lower form of literature, far less parables, metaphors and literary devices.

and all you can do to make a point is say "the book says so". Just as a Mormon, JW, scientologist, Muslim or any religious person quoting their holy book.
It's true because it says so. The worst argument anyone can make is your main argument.




http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/GPB/gpb-7.html

Actually, the more I write the better it gets for me.

Well you can remain delusional, meanwhile you have been exposed as using extremely faulty logic (it's true because it says so), a complete and utter lack of evidence and scripture that is often wrong about many subjects.
Gee what a coincidence, exactly what happens when you debate against all other modern cults.

I have already provided the evidence 100 times over.

It's true because it says so isn't evidence

cherry-picked prophecies (that other people commented on how cherry-picked they are) are just that


Saying "look at the life" of a person doesn't prove they are geting revelations


Giving an arbitrary list of things like "teach people about Jesus" and other mundane tasks that all Christian teachers will do is also not proof of revelations.



That is about it? I don't know if you don't understand logic, rational and empirical evidence or are not allowing yourself to see how poor the evidence is because you want this to be true?

Either don't pay attention to what I am actually saying or you are unable to comprehend it.
I never said it is true "because he said so" so that is a big fat straw man.

View attachment 84189

This will be easy to refute, since you did it IN THIS POST.

And you do it IN EVERY POST.

How do you know the dispensation of Jesus is over?
Well because above you posted the text where you were told in a book.



In EVERY OTHER CASE you present proof by posting Bahai scripture from someone in the religion as if it's fact.



So yes, you do in fact do this and it's almost the ONLY METHOD you use for proof. The others are addressed above and are equally absurd.

 

[joelr]

No, Jesus said that the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which means hating God.

Matthew 12:31-32 “So I tell you, every sin and blasphemy can be forgiven—except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which will never be forgiven. Anyone who speaks against the Son of Man can be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, either in this world or in the world to come.”

In those verses Jesus said it is unforgivable to hate the Holy Spirit (light of God) and one will not be forgiven in this life or in the afterlife.

Except you claim the Gospels have mistakes all over which means they are unreliable. So you cannot source them because you already said they were corrupted.

John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

Baha'u'llah was called the Spirit of truth because He guided us into all truth and He glorified Jesus. He did not speak of Himself, He only spoke what He heard from the Holy Spirit. It was the Holy Spirit speaking through Baha'u'llah that taught us all things, not the man.

Besides that John is a myth and the Jesus story is 100% a Greek savior mythology (meaning Bahai is also fiction)
Bahai tells lies, he lied about the ether, he lied about humans not being evolved from animals, he made other incorrect claims as well.

A ghost is not a person. A ghost would have supernatural powers, if they were real.
A man who knows nothing except current events, current 1800 knowledge about science and religion, had zero knowledge about anything beyond that, who cannot do any supernatural act, prediction, anything, is not the holy ghost.

John 16:12-14 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

I have posted the evidence numerous times. I posted it years ago on this thread:

A man claiming to be the holy ghost without evidence is not telling the truth.

The claims of Baha’u’llah and the evidence that supports the claims of Baha’u’llah are in this post:

Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah

Yes let's look at this.


"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."

Exactly. It's true because it says so. Perfect example.
"His self" is just ridiculous. HE can't write well, he doesn't know anything anyone else doesn't, he lived a good life? Same, many people also have done that.

"His own Self is who He was, His character (His qualities). That can be determined by reading about Him on books such as the following: The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4"

I could go through this one by one but needless to say there is NOTHING in here that demonstrates a person is getting revelations. NOTHING.

His Revelation is what He accomplished (His Mission on earth/ the history of His Cause)
That can be determined by reading about His mission on books such as the following:

His writings are not great. But some are actually wrong. Nothing there is evidence of revelations.

The words He hath revealed is what He wrote an be found in books that are posted online: The Works of Bahá'u'lláh

Flowery, run-on praise God, blah blah. Not evidence of anything except he liked to write.

The fact that Baha'u'llah fulfilled all the Bible prophecies is like icing on the cake
Right, like the prophecy from a fictional Persian myth, where you pieced together 4 events. Despite those events happen basically every decade or less and you just picked out 4 in the order you needed.

Or the prophecy about the Mt Carmel gardens on a hill which in the Bible actually meant the entire world world transform into a peaceful garden and they counted it as fulfilled because they bought land on a hill and built a garden. They actually did this and counted it.

This is a total work.

The fact that Baha'u'llah predicted many events that later came to pass is also icing on the cake. That proves to me that He could see into the future, so He had prophetic powers

Like where he predicted a war when the political climate was such that everyone was predicting a war? So he could see into the future?
Excellent, please show me where he predicted, quantum mechanics, relativity, penacillin, the expanding universe, billions of galaxies, big bang, wave/partcle duality, black holes, 4 fundamental forces, or anything he could have helped humanity with?


https://www.religiousforums.com/thr...wers-of-bahaullah.238253/page-20#post-6877342

God never did any of that. Men wrote stories about God and it is anthropomorphism. The stories convey spiritual lessons, but they are not literally true.

Yet you quote scripture as if it's true when it suits you. When Bahai says it isn't true, you claim it's corrupted.
What exactly is your evidence???? I know!!!!!

IT's TRUE BECAUSE THE BOOK SAYS SO.

The Writings of Baha'u'llah are definitely from God.

You believe they are from God. Like Mormons believe the Mormon Bible is from God. And every religion and cult believe what they are taught. Yet none have evidence. Same here.

I have plenty of other reasons to believe that the Baha'i Faith is true, but if all I had were the Writings of Baha'u'llah that would be enough.

Writings being enough don't make them true. Being fooled by writings don't make them true.
I just wanted to know is there was any evidence to support such a claim, there is not.

If you have "other" reasons maybe one of them is a better line of evidence.

Another straw man. You really have a problem understanding what I am saying. I never said it is true because my book says it is true.

Why do you fail at using fallacy claims so hard?
So let's see, was it a strawman? Were you making that claim? Let's see. You said.

"
God did not mess up the Bible, humans did that.

“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.”

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 171"


So you are literally saying humans messed up the Bible because it says so in Gleanings...... p. 171. You are EXACTLY doing that.
Claiming I'm making a strawman and denial of use of the "it's true because..." fallacy are both lies or you are mistaken.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? You constantly make assumptions about what I say.
Baha'u'llah did NOT say that. I am the one who said that because it is true. Humans to put the Bible together and humans are fallible so they made mistakes.

You are falling apart here.

1) above is the actual quote from Bahai where he says the Bible is corrupt and now you are denying it and using this to attack my reading comprehension, which is also dishonest.
Right here in your answer - "
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.”

So which is it, you made this up or it's in your book. If it's in your book you believe it because your book says so and you are telling a lie about my reading comprehension, my use of a strawman, and that I make up assumptions.


2) Even if Bahai didn't say that and it was only you, then why would you use ANY scripture like Revelation or any prophecy in the Bible when it could have been corrupted by people? Which means you cherry-pick scripture even though you think it's corrupt.


And you don't think this is getting worse?

The OT does not say an All-Powerful God could do x, so God would or should do x. That is coming from atheists, constantly.

No the OT says a God DID DO X. I'm going by claims of things he DID DO.

 

[joelr]

When I said "Just because they believe them that does not mean they need them" I was referring to the miracles, exorcisms, magic powers and so on. Christians 'believe' they need them but that does not mean they really need them.

That is not the same as Muhammad or Baha'u'llah receiving revelations from God. The entire religions of Islam and Baha'i are based upon those revelations so of course we need them in order to have a religion at all.

Yes and that is why I said it. I don't know why you contested it in the first place and used it to call out my logic. A big mistake.

You said: And Sai Baba, after Bahai, has millions of people swear he levitated, healed, created food and many other miracles.

I said: So what?

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so." Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

What I said was not misdirection, it was the appropriate response. So what if millions of people swear that Asi Baba levitated, healed, created food and many other miracles? That does not mean it is true. That is the fallacy of ad populum.

No, what I was responding to (not your made up version above, more dishonesty) was this:
"Nevertheless, there are many accounts left to posterity by His disciples, describing the circumstances in which He either healed incurables or raised the dead." post 187

So I posted accounts by Sai Baba. post 195 To demonstrate the exact point at the end of your comment - "That does not mean it is true. That is the fallacy of ad populum."

However this is now very suspicious because I explained this in my response. You ignored that, made up a new conversation above/

Your response came in post 213. NEVER in this conversation did you say "so what". You deliberately changed the context of the conversation in order to AGAIN try to paint this as an ad-populum fallacy by me. Again.
This is a complete lie, and not the first on these replies.

Resorting to dishonesty shows you are done here.

It might get worse for you but it gets better for me.

Twisting what I say just to say it back isn't a reply, it's a childrens tactic. I guess if you call posting lies "better" then yeah, much better.

My beliefs prove themselves to anyone who is rational or logical.

it's true because a books says isn't logical
making up evidence (his life, his words), isn't evidence, it's fantasy

you haven't demonstrated one rational or logical belief yet. You made the claim you have, because that seems all you can do is make claims.

I do not believe in supernatural claims without evidence.

Again, reversing my statement is a childs response. What one with evidence does is present evidence and explain why it's rational.
Now that you have clearly lost, I'm seeing lies, reversed statements, still no evidence, but the bad behavior is coming out .

 

[muhammad_isa]

Possible futures are meaningless if they are just made up from wishful thinking..

"if" .. I do not see anything "wishful" about the prospect of living forever..
I mean, some people think that "bad things" can only happen to others, which
is obviously false.

The question is, is it because the concept has any probability or are you just attached to something you read..

Well, believers are not in a minority, so you must be above average intelligence to
"know" it is improbable.

 

[joelr]

"if" .. I do not see anything "wishful" about the prospect of living forever..

The prospect of living forever is completely, 100% wishful if there is no evidence for it?
And we know consciousness changes as the brain declines. So even if vitalism were true our consciousness is using physical senses specific to hominid apes, evolutionary neurology, meaning we have chemical responses to food, mates, territory, we have instincts based on lower brain function. There is no evidence of anything else and if a soul was real we have no understanding of what it's like. So living forever is still a complete unknown. But it looks to be fiction. Again, it was created at a time when people were wrong about everything. They thought a deity took clay and put a soul in it. They didn't know we were made from billions of cells, had all these systems and chemical reactions and evolved from single celled and even simpler life.
So it made sense once.

Now it's wishful.

I mean, some people think that "bad things" can only happen to others, which
is obviously false.

True.

Well, believers are not in a minority, so you must be above average intelligence to
"know" it is improbable.

Neil DeGrass Tyson did a short lecture on this:
Among elite scientists religious belief is down at 7%

Among PhD philosophers it's at less than 1%





That says a lot. Couple other points however. Christianity is 1/3 of all religious believers. Islam is a bit less, around 1/4.
That means by your logic (minority/majority beliefs), 75% of all religious believers do not believe in Islam.
So your jab can also be directed at yourself because you are in a minority.


But at the end of the day, belief, even if popular, does not make something true. There was a time where the world was largely Christian. Does that make it more true?

Things with evidence, and follow logic and so on are most likely true.

 

[PureX]

Religion is not theism, and theism is not religion. And Tyson is not an expert in either of them. Neither are his colleagues.

Also, we should be clear that by "life after death" what people actually mean is continued integrated consciousness after biological death. Once we understand this, the whole "no evidence" argument vanishes because we don't know how or where to look for any evidence of this kind. And this does not logically imply that there isn't any.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The prospect of living forever is completely, 100% wishful if there is no evidence for it?

There cannot be empirical evidence of anything that is non-physical,
so your statement says very little.
It is like saying "I have not died before, and until I do.."

Neil DeGrass Tyson did a short lecture on this:
Among elite scientists religious belief is down at 7%

Among PhD philosophers it's at less than 1%

More money than sense?
There could be many reasons .. statistics need to be analysed with care.
Without a doubt, one cannot conclude much about a possible future "universe",
by empirical means.

One cannot show that this observed universe is all that is.
..but you don't care about that .. you are happy to dismiss Bible/Quran as fiction,
and argue reality=universe

 

[Muffled]

Your belief is welcome. But I would not agree that there is an elephant in my cupboard. That is for all to see clearly. There is a male rabbit though.
I have an impression that male rabbits have a larger ear than the female rabbits. That could be true, because they are in-charge of the security.

I believe that is not crystal clear but I will accept the testimony on the basis of the long ears which some rabbits have. The thing here is that I am not going to ignore the testimony simply because it isn't crystal clear.

 

[Muffled]

Well, what evidence would you expect to see?
I mean, do you remember being dead?

I remember in a previous life being shot in the back and lying face down in water but I don't remember dying. I just assume that was the result. I remember being in Heaven without a physical body.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..I remember being in Heaven without a physical body.

How do you know that it was not just a dream?

 

[Whateverist]

Can we change our mind about what we believe?

@PureX said that one CAN change their mind, but they won't because they don't want to deny their current understanding of 'what is'. #523

I disagree. One CAN change their mind, and they sometimes do, if they get new information that causes them to change their mind. However, if they don't change their mind, it is because they truly believe that what they believe is true according to their current understanding. It is not that they won’t change their mind, as if they are stubbornly refusing to change their mind, it is that they have no reason to change their mind.

Why should anyone deny that what they believe is true?

Conversely, why should anyone accept any belief as true if they don’t believe it is true?

Why should atheists accept that God exists when they see no evidence for God’s existence?

I do not think that atheists are stubbornly refusing to believe in God. I take them at their word when they say that they see no evidence for God. It is not that they won’t believe in God, it is that they can’t believe in God because they see no evidence for God. The same holds true for me. It is not that I won’t disbelieve in God, it is that I can’t disbelieve in God because I see evidence for God.

I came across this thread you started recently on a busy (by my retired standards) day so I didn't post then. But I think I agree with you there is no reason anyone should ever change their minds - leastwise not as an act of will as though they were flipping a light switch. If given a reason based on premises one agrees with it might happen but then reason isn't always enough. Truth we recognize as embodied beings is less amenable to logical argumentation. It's based on lived experience, not something recognized as an inescapable conclusion.

I recently finished reading the book that has obsessed me for the last year, The Matter with Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions, and the Unmaking of the World by Iain McGilchrist, and your thread made me think of this citation of Plato's thought from the introduction about the nature of truth, at least of the philosophic variety which I assume includes matters theological:

Philosophy may at times aspire to be, but cannot ever be, coercive: it cannot compel to a point of view. It can only allow an insight to dawn. Sometimes this can happen quite suddenly: I hope that will be the experience of at least a few of my readers. Plato described the process as a spark that crosses the gap: ‘suddenly a light, as it were, is kindled in one soul by a flame that leaps to it from another’.9 The truth is not arrived at ultimately by argument alone ..

 

[Trailblazer]

Again, there were bigger earthquakes AFTER the dark day and after the falling stars.
There were dark days and falling stars BEFORE that earthquake.

Those events happen all the time. You just cherry-picked 3 so they would be in that order.

It does not matter if there were bigger earthquakes AFTER the dark day and after the falling stars.
These have to happen in order, as it says in Revelation 6.

12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;
13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.

These events have to happen in order. Was there a dark day and falling stars AFTER those earthquakes?

 

[Trailblazer]

A claim. In the OT he speaks. So you have to claim their stories are wrong. But a God who is supposedly infinite and creates universes and "does not talk" sounds ridiculous and made up.

I do not claim their stories are wrong, I believe they are wrong.
A God who is supposedly infinite and creates universes and "talks" sounds ridiculous and made up.

You haven't proven the "holy spirit" is real. The holy spirit is in the Gospels which you claim is full of incorrect information.

And you have not demonstrated any God or spirit communicated to anyone.

Nobody can prove that the Holy Spirit is real.
Nobody can demonstrate that any God or spirit communicated to anyone.

What evidence?

Messengers of God are the evidence for God.

So a guy made claims. End of story. He didn't demonstrate they were true.

Nobody can demonstrate that His claims were true, except to themselves.

I see no reason to believe his claims and decent evidence that he's making them up.

Then don't believe them. You should not believe them with no reason.

Wow, that's awful, he claims progressive revelations but yet says nothing progressive at all.

I guess you don't know what progressive revelation means according to Baha'i beliefs.

Progressive revelation is a core teaching in the Bahá'í Faith that suggests that religious truth is revealed by God progressively and cyclically over time through a series of divine Messengers, and that the teachings are tailored to suit the needs of the time and place of their appearance.[1][2] Thus, the Bahá'í teachings recognize the divine origin of several world religions as different stages in the history of one religion, while believing that the revelation of Bahá'u'lláh is the most recent (though not the last—that there will never be a last), and therefore the most relevant to modern society.[1]

This teaching is an interaction of simpler teachings and their implications. The basic concept relates closely to Bahá'í views on God's essential unity, and the nature of prophets, termed Manifestations of God. It also ties into Bahá'í views of the purpose and nature of religion, laws, belief, culture and history. Hence revelation is seen as both progressive and continuous, and therefore never ceases.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_revelation_Baha'i

Well you can remain delusional, meanwhile you have been exposed as using extremely faulty logic (it's true because it says so), a complete and utter lack of evidence and scripture that is often wrong about many subjects.

That is only from your perspective, which not all people share. From my perspective your logic and reason are faulty and you are blind to seeing what is as big as the brad side of a barn.

It's true because it says so isn't evidence

How many times are you going to repeat that straw man?
I NEVER said it is true because it says so. That is patently absurd. It is true because it is true. No amount of evidence makes it true since evidence doesn't MAKE anything true. Evidence is just what people WANT in order to believe it is true. I have ample evidence and none of my evidence is "it says so."

I don't know if you don't understand logic, rational and empirical evidence or are not allowing yourself to see how poor the evidence is because you want this to be true?

No, I don't want it to be true but I cannot deny the evidence.
The evidence is EXACTLY what one would expect to see if a man was a Messenger of God, and the evidence is excellent. You are just too biased and blind to see it.

This will be easy to refute, since you did it IN THIS POST.

And you do it IN EVERY POST.

I never did it in ANY post.
I never said it is true "because he said so" so that is a big fat straw man.

How do you know the dispensation of Jesus is over?
Well because above you posted the text where you were told in a book.

How else could I know if not from a book, from a guy down at the corner store?

In EVERY OTHER CASE you present proof by posting Bahai scripture from someone in the religion as if it's fact.

As if counts for nothing. If it sounds like I think it is a fact that is totally irrelevant. I never said it was a fact, I have always said it is a belief.

So yes, you do in fact do this and it's almost the ONLY METHOD you use for proof. The others are addressed above and are equally absurd.

I don't use any method for proof since I have told you time and again there is no proof, only evidence.

Obviously you don't listen to what I say. You either don't listen or you don't understand.
You just take what I say and run it through your own filter, twist it and make straw men.
Posting to you is like posting to a brick wall.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I remember in a previous life being shot in the back and lying face down in water but I don't remember dying. I just assume that was the result. I remember being in Heaven without a physical body.

Honestly, the possibility of reincarnation intrigues me, as do the stories I've read about it. I've researched reincarnation stories online and found several of these stories to be quite compelling, such as the case of Ryan Hammons. In addition to his story, there are many other cases of children remembering specific details about individuals they'd never met or a dead language they could speak, and the child's parents having no idea where their child learned it. I've also read professional studies that were conducted on young children who recalled memories from a past life, such as "Life Before Life: Children's Memories of Previous Lives" by Jim B. Tucker, M.D., and I found this book and his others "Before: Children's Memories of Previous Lives" and "Return to Life: Extraordinary Cases of Children Who Remember Past Lives to be compelling evidence. Of course, I can't say with absolute certainty that reincarnation occurs because I don't have any memories of a previous life, but I've read many personal accounts, read several books, and watched documentaries that, in my opinion, provided compelling evidence that reincarnation is possible. I like to think that it is. Lastly, for reference, I'm including some articles I've read.

Dr. Ian Stevenson’s Reincarnation Research

9 Amazing Reincarnation Stories From Children

Tales Told by Children Remembering Their Past Lives

Psychology Today: When Children Remember Past Lives

Reincarnation Stories: Children Who Remember Their Past Lives

Chilling Reincarnation Stories: Meet 6 People Who Lived Before

'Return To Life': How some children have memories of reincarnation

University of Virginia: Children Who Report Memories of Previous Lives

5 Mysterious Cases of Children Who Claimed to Remember Their Past Lives

Little boy’s eerie reincarnation story freaks out mom in viral TikTok: ‘This is scary’

 

[YoursTrue]

It is absurd that you would enter this as evidence. Anecdotal tales, some are just so bias? One "miracle" is he predicted ocean travel would become safer and safer? Really? This was a time of industrial revolution, machines and tech were expanding rapidly.

Let me show you how ridiculous this is.
If today I wrote down, "space travel is going to get safer and safer" and over the next 200 years it happened, would that be a miracle? No.
We know technology is improving.
Ali Baba had millions of people swear to his many miracles in the late 1800s early 1900s. Levitation, healing, whatever. As did all cult leaders and religious figures.
Famous Miracles in the Bahá'í Faith

So you admit he read Islamic and Christian scriptures but then claim he got knowledge from God? What is your evidence? We already have a reason for him to have this knowledge so adding God onto it isn't needed. That isn't proof, it's a claim. Also made by Mormons, JW, Islam, Hindu, and should not be believed without reasonable evidence.




You haven't demonstrated any God or that the universe was created? This is another base claim with no evidence. When you believe claim after claim you probably don't care about what is actually true.


Oh, I understand. So God just "choose" to leave behind only knowledge that humans already knew, nothing new. That's convenient. So another explanation here is that this is just written by a man and no God is involved.


No. The other option is that this man wrote some books and claimed a God was sending him messages, but it's not true. It has nothing to do with a God existing or not. I don't know where you got into this black and white thinking?




God has not. In the OT Yahweh shows up many many times, Satan shows up, does supernatural things, Jesus does many miracles, Yahweh even fights a sea monster. Among many other things. Faith is a bad path to truth, you can take faith in any position regardless of its truth. Faith is used when there is no evidence

I still haven't seen any evidence you speak of?



Strawman. No critical thinker here has ever said they know everything. In fact all they usually ask for is basic reasonable evidence.
This can be easily turned around and said religious thinkers are so bias in their belief that they cannot be open-minded to logic, rational thought and an empirical methodology to understand true things.


What truth? You can never show any truth? The science he predicted was wrong. The prophecies are as vague as every other religion. The work has no evidence, it's just a man writing about God. That is not evidence. We are arguing against the lack of evidence you have and the level of unwarranted belief.
Maybe if you had questioned it rationally you would have had similar questions?






What evidence?




That is a claim. The new Jesus in Au., he has a following. Mormons have a messenger and a new Bible, it isn't about recognizing a messenger of God. It's about demonstrating you actually are a messenger of God.
HE did not. Science, wrong, philosophy, none, anything new that a human would not know, nothing. Beyond that it's just wishful thinking.
I don't want to live by wishful thinking.




You quote Matthwew but you ignore the part that says all new messengers are fake. Cherry Pick.




It isn't. A God would be able to demonstrate he is a God, as the OT, NT and Mormon Bible know.






What I am doing is thinking for myself. Not following any crowd.

So my question to you is: what do you wish or desire from a religion? That is rhetorically speaking, but if you were to want a religion, which I see you don't but if you were.

 

[Trailblazer]

Except you claim the Gospels have mistakes all over which means they are unreliable. So you cannot source them because you already said they were corrupted.

I did not say the Gospels were corrupted, I said that the religions of the past got corrupted.

“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, p. 171

A ghost is not a person. A ghost would have supernatural powers, if they were real.
A man who knows nothing except current events, current 1800 knowledge about science and religion, had zero knowledge about anything beyond that, who cannot do any supernatural act, prediction, anything, is not the holy ghost.

Baha'u'llah could and did do miracles. How many times do I have to repeat myself? Talking to you is like talking to a stone wall.

I never said that Baha'u'llah was the holy ghost. I said He brought the Holy Spirit, which is the Bounty of God.

A man claiming to be the holy ghost without evidence is not telling the truth.

John 16:12-14 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

The Spirit of truth is not the holy ghost. That is only a false Christian belief.

Baha'u'llah never claimed to be the holy ghost, NEVER. He claimed to be the Spirit of Truth and the return of the Spirit of God, who was Jesus.

“O kings of Christendom! Heard ye not the saying of Jesus, the Spirit of God, “I go away, and come again unto you”? Wherefore, then, did ye fail, when He did come again unto you in the clouds of heaven, to draw nigh unto Him, that ye might behold His face, and be of them that attained His Presence? In another passage He saith: “When He, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 246

“We, in truth, have sent Him Whom We aided with the Holy Spirit (Jesus Christ) that He may announce unto you this Light that hath shone forth from the horizon of the will of your Lord, the Most Exalted, the All-Glorious, and Whose signs have been revealed in the West. Set your faces towards Him (Bahá’u’lláh) on this Day which God hath exalted above all other days, and whereon the All-Merciful hath shed the splendour of His effulgent glory upon all who are in heaven and all who are on earth.” Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 18

“The Word which the Son concealed is made manifest. It hath been sent down in the form of the human temple in this day. Blessed be the Lord Who is the Father! He, verily, is come unto the nations in His most great majesty.” Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 84-85

“This is, truly, that which the Spirit of God (Jesus Christ) hath announced, when He came with truth unto you, He with Whom the Jewish doctors disputed, till at last they perpetrated what hath made the Holy Spirit to lament, and the tears of them that have near access to God to flow….”
Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 19

“WE, verily, have come for your sakes, and have borne the misfortunes of the world for your salvation. Flee ye the One Who hath sacrificed His life that ye may be quickened? Fear God, O followers of the Spirit (Jesus), and walk not in the footsteps of every divine that hath gone far astray… Open the doors of your hearts. He Who is the Spirit (Jesus) verily, standeth before them.” Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p, 92

Yes let's look at this.

"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."

Exactly. It's true because it says so. Perfect example.

His own Self is not it says so. His Revelation is not it says so.

IT's TRUE BECAUSE THE BOOK SAYS SO.

No, it is true because it is true.

Writings being enough don't make them true. Being fooled by writings don't make them true.
I just wanted to know is there was any evidence to support such a claim, there is not.

If you have "other" reasons maybe one of them is a better line of evidence.

I did not say it MAKES them true. I said "I have plenty of other reasons to believe that the Baha'i Faith is true, but if all I had were the Writings of Baha'u'llah that would be enough," meaning it would be enough for me to believe in Baha'u'llah.

One of the other reasons I believe has nothing to do with the evidence. Everything is not about evidence.

Why do you fail at using fallacy claims so hard?
So let's see, was it a strawman? Were you making that claim? Let's see. You said.
"God did not mess up the Bible, humans did that."

“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.”

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 171"

So you are literally saying humans messed up the Bible because it says so in Gleanings...... p. 171. You are EXACTLY doing that.
Claiming I'm making a strawman and denial of use of the "it's true because..." fallacy are both lies or you are mistaken.

I never said it is true because my book says it is true.
I believe it is true because my book says it is true.

I believe it is true, but I am not claiming it is true because I cannot prove a belief is true.

I am not saying humans messed up the Bible because it says so in Gleanings.
I am saying I believe that "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” because it says so in Gleanings.

(Continued on next post)

 

[Trailblazer]

You are falling apart here.

1) above is the actual quote from Bahai where he says the Bible is corrupt and now you are denying it and using this to attack my reading comprehension, which is also dishonest.

Read the quote again. The quote does not say that the Bible is corrupt. It says that the commentaries and interpretations of the words of God in the religious traditions of old are devoid of truth.

“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, p. 171​

Baha'u'llah referred to the Bible as God's holy Book, His most great testimony amongst His creatures

“How could God, when once the Day-star of the beauty of Jesus had disappeared from the sight of His people, and ascended unto the fourth heaven, cause His holy Book, His most great testimony amongst His creatures, to disappear also?” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, p. 89​

Baha'u'llah chastised the Muslims, calling them foolish, because they claimed that the Gospel had been corrupted.

“Our purpose in relating these things is to warn you that were they to maintain that those verses wherein the signs referred to in the Gospel are mentioned have been perverted, were they to reject them, and cling instead to other verses and traditions, you should know that their words were utter falsehood and sheer calumny. Yea “corruption” of the text, in the sense We have referred to, hath been actually effected in particular instances. A few of these We have mentioned, that it may become manifest to every discerning observer that unto a few untutored holy Men hath been given the mastery of human learning, so that the malevolent opposer may cease to contend that a certain verse doth indicate “corruption” of the text, and insinuate that We, through lack of knowledge, have made mention of such things. Moreover, most of the verses that indicate “corruption” of the text have been revealed with reference to the Jewish people, were ye to explore the isles of Qur’ánic Revelation.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, pp. 88-89​

“We have also heard a number of the foolish of the earth assert that the genuine text of the heavenly Gospel doth not exist amongst the Christians, that it hath ascended unto heaven. How grievously they have erred! How oblivious of the fact that such a statement imputeth the gravest injustice and tyranny to a gracious and loving Providence! How could God, when once the Day-star of the beauty of Jesus had disappeared from the sight of His people, and ascended unto the fourth heaven, cause His holy Book, His most great testimony amongst His creatures, to disappear also? What would be left to that people to cling to from the setting of the day-star of Jesus until the rise of the sun of the Muḥammadan Dispensation? What law could be their stay and guide? How could such people be made the victims of the avenging wrath of God, the omnipotent Avenger? How could they be afflicted with the scourge of chastisement by the heavenly King? Above all, how could the flow of the grace of the All-Bountiful be stayed? How could the ocean of His tender mercies be stilled? We take refuge with God, from that which His creatures have fancied about Him! Exalted is He above their comprehension!” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, pp. 89-90​

Right here in your answer - "
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.”

So which is it, you made this up or it's in your book. If it's in your book you believe it because your book says so and you are telling a lie about my reading comprehension, my use of a strawman, and that I make up assumptions.

I believe it because I believe that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God, so I believe everything He wrote.

2) Even if Bahai didn't say that and it was only you, then why would you use ANY scripture like Revelation or any prophecy in the Bible when it could have been corrupted by people? Which means you cherry-pick scripture even though you think it's corrupt.

I do not think the Bible is corrupt. Please note what Baha'u'llah said in the above quote:

“Our purpose in relating these things is to warn you that were they to maintain that those verses wherein the signs referred to in the Gospel are mentioned have been perverted, were they to reject them, and cling instead to other verses and traditions, you should know that their words were utter falsehood and sheer calumny. Yea “corruption” of the text, in the sense We have referred to, hath been actually effected in particular instances. A few of these We have mentioned."

And you don't think this is getting worse?

No, it is getting better every day.

No the OT says a God DID DO X. I'm going by claims of things he DID DO.

So now you believe what it says in the OT? I don't believe any of those claims are literally true since I have no reason to believe that.

 

[Trailblazer]

Your response came in post 213. NEVER in this conversation did you say "so what". You deliberately changed the context of the conversation in order to AGAIN try to paint this as an ad-populum fallacy by me. Again.
This is a complete lie, and not the first on these replies.

Resorting to dishonesty shows you are done here.

I just reply to what I see posted, as I understand it. I do not lie. You are now skating on thin ice calling me a liar. It doesn't matter to me though since I know I do not lie, and I don't care what people think of me. People who know me know I do not lie.

Twisting what I say just to say it back isn't a reply, it's a childrens tactic. I guess if you call posting lies "better" then yeah, much better.

You said: I told you, it gets worse the more you engage.
I said: It might get worse for you but it gets better for me.

You have NO IDEA what I meant by better or why I think it is getting better. I did not say that because I think I am winning an argument as I have no need to win any arguments. Only egomaniacs have to win arguments on forums.

it's true because a books says isn't logical
making up evidence (his life, his words), isn't evidence, it's fantasy

I said: My beliefs prove themselves to anyone who is rational or logical.
I did not say: it's true because a book says so.

I believe it is true because Baha'u'llah said so but first I had to believe that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God.

you haven't demonstrated one rational or logical belief yet. You made the claim you have, because that seems all you can do is make claims.

That is only your personal opinion, we all have those.
I make no claims, I only hold beliefs. Baha'u'llah is the one who made the claims and I believe His claims.

Again, reversing my statement is a childs response. What one with evidence does is present evidence and explain why it's rational.

You said: I'm just pointing out belief in supernatural claims without evidence isn't rational.
I said: I do not believe in supernatural claims without evidence.

My response was an adult response. You just didn't like my response since you think you are right and I am wrong, so you are acting like a child.
Mommy, mommy, I wanted chocolate ice cream, not vanilla!

Now that you have clearly lost, I'm seeing lies, reversed statements, still no evidence, but the bad behavior is coming out .

Lost what? I am not in a debate with you. I could not care less about winning.
I am just responding to posts and when I finally get bored or tired of the insults I won't respond anymore.

The only bad behavior is your behavior. Calling me a liar and dishonest is clearly bad behavior. Everyone can see that but you.

 

[Trailblazer]

.. I do not see anything "wishful" about the prospect of living forever..

especially if a person does not wish to live forever.