Can we change our mind about what we believe?

[muhammad_isa]

It's well implied
1 Timothy 3:16
Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness:

He[a] was manifested in the flesh,
vindicated[b] by the Spirit,[c]
seen by angels,
proclaimed among the nations,
believed on in the world,
taken up in glory.

I said that Jesus was not reported to have said that in the Bible.
Other authors might have held that opinion .. not the same thing.

Exactly, you grew up around Islam.

I was raised by Christian parents in the UK, and discovered Islam in my 20's.

What sects in Judaism believed you go to heaven upon death before the influence of Greek Hellenism?

It is only your assumption that 'the Greeks' were responsible for said beliefs.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's well implied
1 Timothy 3:16
Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness:

He[a] was manifested in the flesh,
vindicated[b] by the Spirit,[c]
seen by angels,
proclaimed among the nations,
believed on in the world,
taken up in glory.

Jesus was God manifest in the flesh but a manifestation of God is not an incarnation of God.

“The Christian equivalent to the Bahá'í concept of Manifestation is the concept of incarnation. The word to incarnate means 'to embody in flesh or 'to assume, or exist in, a bodily (esp. a human) form (Oxford English Dictionary). From a Bahá'í point of view, the important question regarding the subject of incarnation is, what does Jesus incarnate? Bahá'ís can certainly say that Jesus incarnated Gods attributes, in the sense that in Jesus, Gods attributes were perfectly reflected and expressed.[4] The Bahá'í scriptures, however, reject the belief that the ineffable essence of the Divinity was ever perfectly and completely contained in a single human body, because the Bahá'í scriptures emphasize the omnipresence and transcendence of the essence of God…..

One can argue that Bahá'u'lláh is asserting that epistemologically the Manifestations are God, for they are the perfect embodiment of all we can know about God; but ontologically they are not God, for they are not identical with God's essence. Perhaps this is the meaning of the words attributed to Jesus in the gospel of John: 'If you had known me, you would have known my Father also' (John 14:7) and 'he who has seen me has seen the Father (John 14:9).”

Jesus Christ in the Bahá'í Writings

Colossians 2:9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,

That verse is patently absurd. The fullness of God does not 'dwell' in anyone.

 

[joelr]

I said that Jesus was not reported to have said that in the Bible.
Other authors might have held that opinion .. not the same thing.

Well you cannot show Jesus said anything.
But the theology was pretty clear:
John 10:30, Jesus said, “I and the Father are one.”
The Jews who heard Him make that statement knew well that He was claiming to be God, as witnessed by their reaction: “His Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him” (John 10:31). When He asked them why they were attempting to stone Him, they said, “For blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God” (John 10:33).
Jesus made another statement claiming to be God when He said, “Very truly I tell you, . . . before Abraham was born, I am!” (John 8:58). The Jews, upon hearing Him, clearly understood that He was claiming preexistence and, more than that, to be Yahweh, the great “I AM” of Exodus 3:14. On this occasion, too, they tried to stone Him for blasphemy.

I don't buy any of it but if you are going to grant revelations from one person you have to employ special pleading to deny others revelations.

It's clear in Matthew that you cannot enter Heaven without belief in Jesus as the Son of God. That is the mythology.

Again, I don't care, the god is mythic and everything that follows borrowed from Greeks, Persians and original Jewish theology is myth. As well as the Greaco- Roman philosophy used with later theologians about Yahweh.

I was raised by Christian parents in the UK, and discovered Islam in my 20's.

But you were around Muslims right? They exposed you to the religion, that is no different than upbringing.

It is only your assumption that 'the Greeks' were responsible for said beliefs.

First you said some Jewish sects believed that. Which ones?


In history we know of the theology of older nations. In Hellenism it's very clear and very well attested by many sources the theology in Hellenism.
That is not an assumption, there is evidence. The Jewish theology is in scripture and in other writings.

Again, you have no care about what is actually true. No interest in searching what is known in history, what sources we have, how do we know what? You want to make assumptions based on literally nothing solely because it might align with what you want to be true. It's so ad-hoc.

Now if I give some examples of what specialists know about Greek religion (the hub of Christianity where Paul said it began is the hub of Hellenism, Antioch), you will criticize that and make some remark about scholars.
See how you are not actually debating at all, just finding nonsense to say about anything that isn't your beliefs.

You say it's an assumption.
If I start with evidence you will be like "oh those scholars don't count because (some uneducated guess)".

You don't care at all about evidence or truth so I've lost respect for this conversation. Just go have fun with your forced made up reality.

 

[joelr]

Jesus was God manifest in the flesh but a manifestation of God is not an incarnation of God.

Mumbo jumbo. Means nothing.

“The Christian equivalent to the Bahá'í concept of Manifestation is the concept of incarnation. The word to incarnate means 'to embody in flesh or 'to assume, or exist in, a bodily (esp. a human) form (Oxford English Dictionary). From a Bahá'í point of view, the important question regarding the subject of incarnation is, what does Jesus incarnate? Bahá'ís can certainly say that Jesus incarnated Gods attributes, in the sense that in Jesus, Gods attributes were perfectly reflected and expressed.[4] The Bahá'í scriptures, however, reject the belief that the ineffable essence of the Divinity was ever perfectly and completely contained in a single human body, because the Bahá'í scriptures emphasize the omnipresence and transcendence of the essence of God…..

One can argue that Bahá'u'lláh is asserting that epistemologically the Manifestations are God, for they are the perfect embodiment of all we can know about God; but ontologically they are not God, for they are not identical with God's essence. Perhaps this is the meaning of the words attributed to Jesus in the gospel of John: 'If you had known me, you would have known my Father also' (John 14:7) and 'he who has seen me has seen the Father (John 14:9).”

Jesus Christ in the Bahá'í Writings

Every time you print his words I know more and more he's fake.
Here he steals Maimonides theories, and common Jewish thought. Maimonides totally denied the possibility of God taking any human form. Maimonides said that God is utterly spirit and idea without substance or form. He wrote in the 12th century.

He's also using Anslem who created the ontological argument for god- "

1. It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined)."

and Bahai provided nothing new whatsoever. Anslem, Aquinas and all the theologians are 10x better in every way than this.

That verse is patently absurd. The fullness of God does not 'dwell' in anyone.

There are criticisms against this being absurd from Kant, Aquinas and others, for those who don't just read one scripture. If you want to remain stuck at the low level of Bahai writings that is your choice.
There is also an entire Jewish theological argument that says a god can appear as anything he wants and it's absurd to say what god can and cannot do. An argument you yourself used when it was convienant and argued against when it was convenient .

But you haven't established any god, you haven't established the fullness of any god, the limits of that fullness and what it can and cannot do.
You just , as usual, claim it's absurd with no argument. A formal argument clearly states the claim or position it argues and presents a well-developed chain of evidence leading to a reasonable conclusion supporting the claim. That is not happening.


What is patently absurd is a man claiming revelations, with no reasonable proof in any way.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Well you cannot show Jesus said anything..

I believe that the Gospel writers were sincere.
I don't think that Jesus' words have been faked, and consequently fraudulent.

But the theology was pretty clear:
John 10:30, Jesus said, “I and the Father are one.”

Firstly, Jesus did not speak English.
Secondly, idioms and parables are common in Scripture.

The Jews who heard Him make that statement knew well that He was claiming to be God, as witnessed by their reaction: “His Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him” (John 10:31).

The Jews were against Jesus for a number of reasons.
The claim that he was G-d, was not one of them.
He regularly preached in synagogues.
It is fundamental that a person cannot be G-d .. was then .. is now.

Jesus made another statement claiming to be God when He said, “Very truly I tell you, . . . before Abraham was born, I am!” (John 8:58).

More twisting of words and questionable translation.
Jesus does not literally say "I am G-d" ANYWHERE .. because he is not.
It is a belief that has become popular with a poor understanding of the meaning
of "son of G-d".
There are many "sons of G-d" in the OT .. saints and prophets.

It's clear in Matthew that you cannot enter Heaven without belief in Jesus as the Son of God.

..explained above..

But you were around Muslims right? They exposed you to the religion..

Indeed .. our environment affects us all.

First you said some Jewish sects believed that. Which ones?

Do your homework .. in the time of Jesus, we had Sadducees and Pharisees, for example.
Sadducees did not believe in an afterlife.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well you cannot show Jesus said anything.
But the theology was pretty clear:
John 10:30, Jesus said, “I and the Father are one.”
The Jews who heard Him make that statement knew well that He was claiming to be God, as witnessed by their reaction: “His Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him” (John 10:31). When He asked them why they were attempting to stone Him, they said, “For blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God” (John 10:33).

Jesus was the Son of God, but the Son is not identical to the Father since the Father possesses certain Attributes that the Son does not possess: The Attributes that are unique to God: Unchanging, Impassable, Infinite, Omnipresent, Self-Existent, Self-Sufficient, and Immaterial, nobody except God can have those Attributes.

However, the Father is in the Son because Jesus was like a clear mirror, and God became visible in the mirror. This is why Jesus said, “The Father is in the Son” (John 14:11, John 17:21), meaning that God is visible and manifest in Jesus.

John 14:11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

John 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

“I and my Father are one” (John 10:30) means that whatever pertains to Jesus, all His acts and doings, are identical with the Will of the Father. Jesus and God also share the same Holy Spirit, so in that sense they are one. Jesus also shares some (but not all) the Attributes of God so in that sense they are one.

Jesus was a Servant of God and that is why Jesus said to the Jews:

John 10:25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.

John 10:37-38 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

Jesus clearly differentiated Himself from the Father in the verses above and that alone means that Jesus could not be God.

Jesus made another statement claiming to be God when He said, “Very truly I tell you, . . . before Abraham was born, I am!” (John 8:58). The Jews, upon hearing Him, clearly understood that He was claiming preexistence and, more than that, to be Yahweh, the great “I AM” of Exodus 3:14. On this occasion, too, they tried to stone Him for blasphemy.

Jesus existed before Abraham was born into this world since the soul of Jesus was pre-existent in the spiritual world before Jesus was born into this world, but that does not mean that Jesus was claiming to be God. The souls of all he Prophets existed in the spiritual world before they were born in this world.

The Prophets, unlike us, are pre-existent. The soul of Christ existed in the spiritual world before His birth in this world. We cannot imagine what that world is like, so words are inadequate to picture His state of being.

(Shoghi Effendi: High Endeavors, Page: 71)

It's clear in Matthew that you cannot enter Heaven without belief in Jesus as the Son of God. That is the mythology.

Maybe that was true for the Dispensation of Jesus, which is represented by the New Testament, but that doesn't mean it was true before Jesus came or after the Dispensation of Jesus. What do you think happened to everyone who died before Jesus came?

I believe that all the previous religious dispensations have been abrogated by the Revelation of Baha'u'llah and that the divine ordering of the affairs of the world for the present age is through the Revelation of Baha'u'llah. As such we are living in the Dispensation of Baha'u'llah.

Dispensation

1. the divine ordering of the affairs of the world.
2. an appointment, arrangement, or favor, as by God.
3. a divinely appointed order or age:

e.g. the old Mosaic, or Jewish, dispensation; the new gospel, or Christian, dispensation.

Definition of dispensation | Dictionary.com

 

[Trailblazer]

Mumbo jumbo. Means nothing.

It means exactly what it says.

Every time you print his words I know more and more he's fake.

You do not KNOW, you BELIEVE.
No matter, because what you believe has no bearing whatsoever on what is actually true.

Here he steals Maimonides theories, and common Jewish thought. Maimonides totally denied the possibility of God taking any human form. Maimonides said that God is utterly spirit and idea without substance or form. He wrote in the 12th century.

Baha'u'llah did not steal anything. he received HIS OWN Revelation from God.
He did not need anything from the Bible, since He received a NEW Revelation from God.

I do not need the Bible because I have the Baha'i Writings. I am not going to waste my time reading or talking about the Bible when I haven't even read all of the Baha'i Writings.

If you and others want to keep talking about the Bible that is your business, and then you wonder why you get nowhere.

But you haven't established any god, you haven't established the fullness of any god, the limits of that fullness and what it can and cannot do.
You just , as usual, claim it's absurd with no argument.

Nobody can ever ESTABLISH that God exists. That is why I do not claim it, I say I believe it.

A formal argument clearly states the claim or position it argues and presents a well-developed chain of evidence leading to a reasonable conclusion supporting the claim. That is not happening.

And it never will happen, because a logical argument can never be used o conclude that God exists.

What is patently absurd is a man claiming revelations, with no reasonable proof in any way.

There is plenty of evidence but there is no proof.
How could there be proof that a man received a revelation from God, when there is no way to prove that God exists?

If you cannot answer my question but instead deflect, I will assume you do not want to have a discussion, all you want to do is carry on saying the same things over and over again and getting nowhere.

 

[CG Didymus]

It's well implied
1 Timothy 3:16
Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness:

He[a] was manifested in the flesh,
vindicated[b] by the Spirit,[c]
seen by angels,
proclaimed among the nations,
believed on in the world,
taken up in glory.

Jesus was transfigured into some kind of light being. But Baha'is can't ever have Jesus be anything more than a manifestation of God, a "perfectly" polished mirror that reflects God.

But what do they do with Krishna? Baha'u'llah doesn't even mention him, yet he's made into one of the many manifestations of God. But for those that believe in Krishna, they believe he is God and/or an incarnation of Vishnu. Baha'is are then left with trying to explain why those beliefs came into being. Their easy answer is that the people got it wrong. They misinterpret some verses and took some too literally.

But now back to manifestations being "perfectly" polished mirrors? Jesus? I guess. Baha'u'llah? Sure, for Baha'is. But I thought Muhammad took part in battles. And Moses killed an Egyptian. Abraham was not so perfectly polished in his actions. But then again, was the story about him ever real. And, for that matter, was he even a real, historical person.

Too many things where the whole Baha'i explanation can completely fall apart. It's great that they have joined a religion that is striving to unite all people, but now they are stuck believing all sorts of claims and beliefs of the religion also. And, it is obvious, they believe it to be absolutely true.

 

[Trailblazer]

Jesus was transfigured into some kind of light being. But Baha'is can't ever have Jesus be anything more than a manifestation of God, a "perfectly" polished mirror that reflects God.

Nobody knows is Jesus was transfigured into some kind of light being, but even if he was that does not preclude Him being a manifestation of God as well. Just because some Baha'is describe Jesus as a "perfectly" polished mirror that reflects God that does not mean that Jesus was not more than that.

But what do they do with Krishna? Baha'u'llah doesn't even mention him, yet he's made into one of the many manifestations of God. But for those that believe in Krishna, they believe he is God and/or an incarnation of Vishnu.

There is very little regarding Krishna. While the Baha'i Writings are extensive and cover many subjects, it is unfortunate that there were very few questions about Hinduism (a bit more was said about Buddha and Buddhism but still brief comments mostly by 'Abdu'l-Baha) and early Baha'is did not have a lot more interest in the Dharmic religions during the ministries of Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha.

Baha'u'llah does mention the "Hindu Prophets" briefly in answer to a series of questions from a Zoroastrian who originally came from India:

First: “The Prophets of Mahábád, together with Zoroaster, were twenty-eight in number. Each one of them sought to exalt, rather than abrogate, the faith and religion of the others. Each one that appeared bore witness to the truth and veracity of the former law and religion and breathed no word about abolishing them. Each declared: ’We are the bearers of a Revelation from God, which We deliver unto His servants.’ Some of the Hindu Prophets, however, have declared: ’We are God Himself, and it is incumbent upon the entire creation to bear allegiance unto Us. Whensoever conflict and dissension appear amongst men, We arise to quench it.’ Each one that appeared announced: ’I am the same One that appeared in the beginning.’ The latter Prophets such as David, Abraham, Moses and Jesus confirmed the truth of the Prophets gone before them, but said: ’Such was the law in the past, but in this day the law is that which I proclaim.’ The Arabian Prophet, however, hath said: ’Through My appearance every law hath proven to be unsound and no law holdeth but Mine.’ Which of these creeds is acceptable and which of these leaders is to be preferred?” 17

It should first be noted that in one sense the stations of the Prophets of God differ one from another. For instance, consider Moses. He brought forth a Book and established ordinances, whilst a number of the Prophets and Messengers who arose after Him were charged with the promulgation of His laws, insofar as they remained consonant with the needs of the age. The books and chronicles annexed to the Torah bear eloquent testimony to this truth....

The Hindus claim that whosoever partaketh of meat, for whatever reason or under whatever circumstances, shall never catch a glimpse of Paradise. The followers of Muhammad, Jesus and Moses maintain that a similar fate awaiteth those who fail to bear allegiance to their religions. Which belief is favoured by God, glorified be His mention?"

Regarding their statement that "our faith and religion is superior to every other", by this is meant such Prophets as have appeared before them. Viewed from one perspective these holy Souls are one: the first among them is the same as the last, and the last is the same as the first. All have proceeded from God, unto Him have they summoned all men, and unto Him have they returned. This theme hath been set forth in the Book of Certitude, which is indeed the cynosure of all books, and which streamed from the Pen of Glory in the early years of this Most Great Revelation. Blessed is he that hath beheld it and pondered its contents for the love of God, the Lord of creation.

Concerning the remark attributed to the Hindus that whosoever partaketh of meat shall never catch a glimpse of Paradise, this runneth counter to their other assertion that all the Prophets are true. For if their truth be established, then it is absurd to claim that their followers will not ascend unto Paradise. One fain would ask what they intend by Paradise and what they have grasped thereof. In this day whosoever attaineth the good pleasure of the one true God, magnified be His glory, shall be remembered and accounted among the inmates of the all-highest Heaven and the most exalted Paradise, and shall partake of its benefits in all the worlds of God. By Him Who is the Desire of all men! The pen is powerless to portray this station or to expound this theme. How great the blessedness of him who hath attained unto the good-pleasure of God, and woe betide the heedless! Once the validity of a divinely appointed Prophet hath been established, to none is given the right to ask why or wherefore. Rather is it incumbent upon all to accept and obey whatsoever He saith. This is that which God hath decreed in all His Books, Scriptures and Tablets.

A further question that he hath asked: "The Hindus assert that God fashioned the Intellect in the form of a man named Brahma, Who came into this world and was the cause of its progress and development, and that all Hindus are His descendants. The followers of Zoroaster say: 'God, through the agency of the Primal Intellect, created a man whose name is Mahabad and who is our ancestor.' They believe the modes of creation to be six in number. Two were mentioned above; the others are creation from water, earth, fire, and from bears and monkeys. The Hindus and Zoroastrians both say that they are begotten of the Intellect, and thus do not admit others into their folds. Are these assertions true or not? That wise Master is requested to indicate that which he deemeth appropriate."

The entire creation hath been called into being through the Will of God, magnified be His glory, and peerless Adam hath been fashioned through the agency of His all-compelling Word, a Word which is the source, the wellspring, the repository, and the dawning-place of the intellect. From it all creation hath proceeded, and it is the channel of God's primal grace. None can grasp the reality of the origin of creation save God, exalted be His glory, Whose knowledge embraceth all things both before and after they come into being. Creation hath neither beginning nor end, and none hath ever unravelled its mystery. Its knowledge hath ever been, and shall remain, hidden and preserved with those Who are the Repositories of divine knowledge. -Baha'u'llah, "Responses to questions of Mánikchí Sáhib from a Tablet to Mírzá Abu’l-Fadl," in The Tabernacle of Unity

https://www.reddit.com/r/bahai/comments/ks54hm

Baha'is are then left with trying to explain why those beliefs came into being. Their easy answer is that the people got it wrong. They misinterpret some verses and took some too literally.

It is not hard to explain why those beliefs came into being. First, there were never any original scriptures written by any of the Prophets/manifestations of God, not until the Bab and Baha'u'llah, so we cannot really know what they taught. Second, people got it wrong. They misinterpret some verses and took some too literally.

Too many things where the whole Baha'i explanation can completely fall apart.

The Baha'i explanations fall apart only if viewed from your viewpoint. That is the only viewpoint from which you can view it, but I cannot see where you have ever tried to look at it from the Baha'i viewpoint. I don't understand how that can ever be fruitful, but if you have decided that the Baha'i Faith is not true it doesn't matter.

It's great that they have joined a religion that is striving to unite all people, but now they are stuck believing all sorts of claims and beliefs of the religion also. And, it is obvious, they believe it to be absolutely true.

We're happy because we know it is absolutely true.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Can we change our mind about what we believe?

I say, sure. Why not?

 

[joelr]

Jesus was the Son of God, but the Son is not identical to the Father since the Father possesses certain Attributes that the Son does not possess: The Attributes that are unique to God: Unchanging, Impassable, Infinite, Omnipresent, Self-Existent, Self-Sufficient, and Immaterial, nobody except God can have those Attributes.

Prove it. Sounds completely made up. Evidence please.

In the Bible Yahweh does a lot of changing.

However, the Father is in the Son because Jesus was like a clear mirror, and God became visible in the mirror. This is why Jesus said, “The Father is in the Son” (John 14:11, John 17:21), meaning that God is visible and manifest in Jesus.

John 14:11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

John 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

“I and my Father are one” (John 10:30) means that whatever pertains to Jesus, all His acts and doings, are identical with the Will of the Father. Jesus and God also share the same Holy Spirit, so in that sense they are one. Jesus also shares some (but not all) the Attributes of God so in that sense they are one.

Also Yahweh is a Near Eastern deity and Jesus a Hellenistic savior demigod. Whom exist only in myth.
It's nice you want to define boundaries for fictional beings but I don't see the point?

Jesus was a Servant of God and that is why Jesus said to the Jews:

John 10:25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.

John 10:37-38 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

Jesus clearly differentiated Himself from the Father in the verses above and that alone means that Jesus could not be God.

Jesus was the son of God. All Hellenistic savior myths had a supreme God who had a demigod son or daughter, born of a mortal and provided salvation to followers.
As in, not real, stories made up by religious Greek people.

Jesus existed before Abraham was born into this world since the soul of Jesus was pre-existent in the spiritual world before Jesus was born into this world, but that does not mean that Jesus was claiming to be God. The souls of all he Prophets existed in the spiritual world before they were born in this world.

Abraham, like all mythic characters are named after their function. Abraham means - "father of a multitude" in Hebrew.
Because it's 'a story.
There is no evidence he was real.

Paul mentions Jesus was a pre-existant being and Philo writes of an arc-angel who was God's firstborn, the Logos, and several other labels that are similar to Jesus. It's believed Paul may have thought Jesus was this angel. They also have similar names.

We know this is religious folk tales, so what?

The Prophets, unlike us, are pre-existent. The soul of Christ existed in the spiritual world before His birth in this world. We cannot imagine what that world is like, so words are inadequate to picture His state of being.

Prove there are prophets. Prove souls exist. Prove any spiritual realm. Provide any reasonable evidence please.

Maybe that was true for the Dispensation of Jesus, which is represented by the New Testament, but that doesn't mean it was true before Jesus came or after the Dispensation of Jesus. What do you think happened to everyone who died before Jesus came?

Christians have apologetics to deal with that, they all get saved. I'm sure you can find it.
There is nothing that says it's temporary, Jesus was setting up a ministry forever until his return.

I see that you have this big mess because Bahai said some things that don't work with the NT. I really don't care. You haven't demonstrated even in the slightest ay of it is real so specifics is pointless, it would be like debating where do people go in Lord of the Rings or Norse Mythology after death.
BTW, "progressive revelation" was being written about by theologian Charles Hodge in 1850 and was not an invention of BAhai. He just used other peoples writings.

I believe that all the previous religious dispensations have been abrogated by the Revelation of Baha'u'llah and that the divine ordering of the affairs of the world for the present age is through the Revelation of Baha'u'llah. As such we are living in the Dispensation of Baha'u'llah.

Dispensation

1. the divine ordering of the affairs of the world.
2. an appointment, arrangement, or favor, as by God.
3. a divinely appointed order or age:

e.g. the old Mosaic, or Jewish, dispensation; the new gospel, or Christian, dispensation.

Definition of dispensation | Dictionary.com

Yeah I know what it is. Muslims also believe they are living in the dispensation of Muhammad. Mormons are in the dispensation of Joseph Smith and their Bible. None will hear anything else. You are the same except with Bahai.
At least they have scripture that claims evidence happened, It's great that you can believe something on zero evidence and just call it truth (not really) but living in a fantasy myth world isn't my business.
Do you have evidence of any single thing you say is real? I've seen nothing so far.

It is interesting to see people learn their beliefs come from Greek Hellenism and use confirmation bias to still somehow keep them real.

Skeptics and rational thinkers, always look for evidence before accepting a belief.

 

[joelr]

It means exactly what it says.

Which is nonsense without evidence.

You do not KNOW, you BELIEVE.
No matter, because what you believe has no bearing whatsoever on what is actually true.

No but as science and our modern world has shown, beliefs that have evidence are likely true and beliefs based on claims, speculation and no evidence are usually false. Like all religious beliefs and claims.

But Bahai is worse, he goes negative. His prophecies are actually wrong. All of his writings contain only reproduced concepts and theology, not one new thing. Unlike other prophets who at least claim some supernatural things happened, Bahai doesn't.
Based on his bad prophecies, redundant writing, zero knowledge of things only a prophet could know (like new science or numbers or actual future discoveries in detail), it is not true.

My beliefs are based on evidence. Bad evidence.

Now even with no evidence, just a claim. He's already negative. Like Joseph Smith or Jesus in AU who leads a ministry. Those claims are not taken serious by you or by many people. We know people make up revelations and we know those claims should not be trusted.
And he doesn't have evidence, so right away the claims should not be taken serious.

Then take in to account all the failures it's impossible he is telling the truth.

Baha'u'llah did not steal anything. he received HIS OWN Revelation from God.
He did not need anything from the Bible, since He received a NEW Revelation from God.

Wow, funny, God showed up centuries later and the revelations given are all of the exact information people already have.
Progressive revelations is from a christian theologian. God didn't want to tell him any new science, he even told him incorrect science, what to make him look bad? OR because he isn't telling the truth?

The world of medicine, science, philosophy was expanding and he added zero to that. God didn't even give him one single number we could not yet compute but would add to his story. In a world where billions of people already have massive confirmation bias and will NEVER en-mass migrate to a new religion without incredible evidence.
So God wants this division.

OR.......it's simply not real. Yes, that is the correct choice.


He also clearly used Maimonides theories, Aquinas, and many other. He didn't say anything new.

I do not need the Bible because I have the Baha'i Writings. I am not going to waste my time reading or talking about the Bible when I haven't even read all of the Baha'i Writings.

That's odd because you just made 2 long posts about John and the Bible, right above?

And exactly why I skipped answering them because no matter what apologetics I pulled, you would just say this. Ha.

If you and others want to keep talking about the Bible that is your business, and then you wonder why you get nowhere.

That's even weirder because you just made a huge post about John above? Huh. It's like you are so all over the place you cannot even remember that you just wrote an essay on Jesus in John? Bizarre.

Nobody can ever ESTABLISH that God exists. That is why I do not claim it, I say I believe it.

That was regarding specific claims about God. Which instead of providing evidence you just stated the obvious. You cannot prove God, yes, but you cannot prove anything about God. Yet you write about god like you know it all?

And it never will happen, because a logical argument can never be used o conclude that God exists.

Probably because no theistic God exists. You don't have to prove a God exists. You make claims that God interacts with people.
Demonstrate that claim with reasonable evidence.

There is plenty of evidence but there is no proof.

There is plenty of bad evidence.

Is the Mormon Bible good evidence that Mormonism is true?
No? Well there you go, neither is a man who claims to be a messenger.

How could there be proof that a man received a revelation from God, when there is no way to prove that God exists?

Couple things come to mind:
1) not giving complete incorrect prophecies

2) God can tell a man in 1850 a few basic things about the world that were not known, a number we haven't yet calculated, the location of a lost scroll, light is particles and waves, the universe is expanding, with telescopes we will see a 13.5 billion year old universe, when big stars die they form black holes, a great depression is coming unless you fix banking problems, Genesis was written after Mesopotamian stories (not yet known) and so on.

If you cannot answer my question but instead deflect, I will assume you do not want to have a discussion, all you want to do is carry on saying the same things over and over again and getting nowhere.

When you just copy what I say to you it's a huge loss for you.
I can answer to your questions, you are deflecting. Notice you cannot tell me where I deflected. Go ahead, where did I deflect?
Notice I answer all these ridiculous questions (how could God provide proof?). Every question I have an explanation for, most are just the same questions. Most are you continuing to make belief claims without evidence.
Your religion not only has no evidence, it has evidence confirming it's fake, many lines of evidence.

All I do is explain them over and over. You seem to enjoy having Bahai raked through the coals and exposed as I will continue to do that because you say the same thing over and over.

Copying my words will not help and comes off as a desperate last attempt. It's also literally "I know you are but what am I".
I'd rather not take a win that way for obvious reasons.

 

[joelr]

Jesus was transfigured into some kind of light being. But Baha'is can't ever have Jesus be anything more than a manifestation of God, a "perfectly" polished mirror that reflects God.

But what do they do with Krishna? Baha'u'llah doesn't even mention him, yet he's made into one of the many manifestations of God. But for those that believe in Krishna, they believe he is God and/or an incarnation of Vishnu. Baha'is are then left with trying to explain why those beliefs came into being. Their easy answer is that the people got it wrong. They misinterpret some verses and took some too literally.

But now back to manifestations being "perfectly" polished mirrors? Jesus? I guess. Baha'u'llah? Sure, for Baha'is. But I thought Muhammad took part in battles. And Moses killed an Egyptian. Abraham was not so perfectly polished in his actions. But then again, was the story about him ever real. And, for that matter, was he even a real, historical person.

Too many things where the whole Baha'i explanation can completely fall apart. It's great that they have joined a religion that is striving to unite all people, but now they are stuck believing all sorts of claims and beliefs of the religion also. And, it is obvious, they believe it to be absolutely true.

Well it's a mess of claims and zero evidence, it's a hoax, 100%.
The Muslim radicals are using the interpretation that Muhammad was violent. That is the majority interpretation actually. Krishna is an incarnation of Vishnu in one Hinduism, he's of Brahman in Adviata Vedanta.

Anything that does not fit they seem to just claim the scripture was wrong. Between that and Bahai having literally no evidence and getting prophecies dead wrong if they cannot see it's a con than it's really like any fundamentalist, move on and don't get stuck at that level.

Abraham has no evidence, was probably written in when Genesis was made in 600 BC. In Hebrew his name means "father of a multitude" which is very common in myths for a character to be named after their function.

Hebrew scholars are convinced Moses was also a literary creation.

I mean, if the Christian God were real, grant that, then he goes to give updates, not to the Pope or the Christian nations who devote everything to him, but to the Arabs, writing a very angry scripture creating huge anger against Christians? Like he didn't say, get along, invite them for discussion. HE would have known it would result in wars and much suffering because of how devoted Christians are, and Muslims.
THEN, does it again, knowing Islam is very protective and gets very angry at heretics (per his word), knowing it would create more separation (he knows the future), gives Bahai no evidence or powers, he gets thrown in jail and nothing has changed.

One God has 3 sects who would go to war if it came to it, none of them have real evidence, powers, miracle workings in real time.
It would have to be the most sadistic evil being doing all this, playing a huge joke on humans. If it were real it would more likely be aliens having a laugh.

Or, is it the same as the 10,000 other claims of revelations, made up?

 

[muhammad_isa]

One God has 3 sects who would go to war if it came to it..

What do you mean by "if it came to it" ?
What is war all about .. power and wealth/land .. no?

Religion doesn't come into it .. other than people's behaviour.

 

[joelr]

What do you mean by "if it came to it" ?

Jihad - from Reliance of the Traveller (Shaji'ite Islamic Law), means to "war against non- Muslims ... to establish the religion (of Islam)." Also understood as "just war" or "holy war." No other definition of 'jihad'' has ever existed at any point in history in any authoritative Is lamic Law.

If something set humanity back to the dark ages, our first conflict would be religious. The majority of Islam takes a violent interpretation on Muhammad, the minority does a re-interpretation and change the passages to mean only at that time. The majority says Muhammad was a conqueror and are influenced by his actions. As Armind mentions, a reform is a bad idea, critical thinking is more productive. If you want to know what I am talking about watch the video with Armin Nahavbi.

What is war all about .. power and wealth/land .. no?

Older wars are about uniting under one ruler and religion. We have a war right now which has religious issues wrapped up in land.

Religion doesn't come into it .. other than people's behaviour.

This has nothing to do with my point and you know it.

The Christians in Europe were fully dedicated as much as humans can be. If they had a deity (it's fake so they didn't, but grant it for now) it should not go to another people, create a new religion, never appear to them and tell them what is up, just leave it at that, like "eh, hey Arabs, form a new religion, don't call it Christianity, it's very different, and just tell the Christians and Jews what is up. That should be fine right?"

I ask you again, how would you feel if some new religion in Asia was claiming to be the new version of Islam, given by Gabrielle to another man and in their book God was really mad already at disbelievers and was saying you would be getting a painful doom, straight to eternal hell. And they would say "well god told us to tell you so you should listen". You might ask "how would I know", they would say "an angel came to our prophet".
You ask for miracles and he said "oh yeah, he split the moon, you missed it, everyone else did too but it's in the book".
Imagine, right out of the gate god is already dictating hateful messages about your non-belief and how it's a horrible doom. With no proof.
You believe that happened.
Somehow Paul who was like 20 years after Jesus, claims Jesus resurrected and came to him and gave the basics. You deny all that, say he was wrong yet your Gabrielle messages were all on point. It's so obviously made up by people.

 

[YOM]

Absolutely.

Very well said.

The point of view of islam, is that every one, in his deep interior, believe in God. Its part of its inner nature. So the word disbeliever in the quran is Kafir, wich have a meaning of hiding. The disbiliever have a veil that hide its reconciliation with his inner nature, wuch forbid him to recognise god. Some Parents, society, sins, addictions, ...all are factors that get you away from listening to your inner voice and thinking of the real purpose of your life and after death. The solution is very simple: take a moment where you are calm and alone, like at night, and ask the creator of this universe (witch is not a person, and are not like anithing you might think of), and ask him sincerly, SINCERLY, for guidance. And repreat this with the heart and mindset of someone who is sinking and asking for help. If you are sincere, he will manifest to you and guide you, as he is close to its creation and knows whats in the hearts.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The majority says Muhammad was a conqueror and are influenced by his actions..

If the majority are ignorant, whose fault would that be?
I'm sure the poor would love to give their children a good education..

..but..

A study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research at United Nations University reported that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000. The three richest people in the world possess more financial assets than the lowest 48 nations combined..
Economic_inequality - Wikipedia

The global financial system that is propped up internationally is to blame.
Enmity cannot cease as the situation is only getting worse.

I ask you again, how would you feel if some new religion in Asia was claiming to be the new version of Islam..

..much the same as anybody else .. I would evaluate it, according to scholars of all stripes.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I will continue to believe that a righteous person will be rewarded for their sacrifice

That's an interesting choice of words. Upright behavior is a sacrifice? And it should be rewarded by a god in an afterlife?

Living a life of integrity and compassion is its own reward twice over. It feels good, and people are prone to reciprocate.

I am appalled at what many people in the world do for power and wealth. A study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research at United Nations University reported that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000. The three richest people in the world possess more financial assets than the lowest 48 nations combined..

How do those three people compare to the Catholic and Mormon churches?

What you are in effect saying, is that you would rather assume that there is nothing other than this worldly life, and you have no interest in its possibility.

The skeptic need not assume that there is no afterlife. He has no reason to believe that consciousness survives death, generally is at peace with that possibility, and spends little or no time thinking about or hoping for an afterlife, but hey, if we do survive death, see you then!

I have no guarantee of what will happen to me after death...but I have hope! Hope that I will be forgiven (by G-d .. by others)

I also have no guarantees, but I don't live under the dark cloud that the Abrahamist does.

"To the philosophy of atheism belongs the credit of robbing death of its horror and its terror. It brought about the abolition of Hell." - Joseph Lewis

You just cherry-pick the verses that suit your agenda.

You've made the claim. If you're implying some level of deception or fallacy in his choices, you'll also need to make the case. Do you know what is being requested and how to do that? You're implying that some omitted context reveals that the citation doesn't mean what it appears to mean when read without the context supplied. You'll need to provide both the citation and the relevant omitted context to make that case. For example, somebody reports to you that the Bible says "There is no God," but important context has been removed which, when restored, shows that the words actually meant the opposite: "The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”

Can you do that in this case?

I believe that the Gospel writers were sincere. I don't think that Jesus' words have been faked, and consequently fraudulent.

It sounds like from that answer that you agree that "you cannot show Jesus said anything." All you have is faith.

What is war all about .. power and wealth/land .. no? Religion doesn't come into it .. other than people's behaviour.

"Religion doesn't come into it .. other than people's behaviour"? Well, yes, that's how abstractions like a religious ideology manifest - through people's behavior. That's how two religions brought war to the Middle East - through people's behavior. Hamas attacked and Israel retaliated. Those religions couldn't have done it without people.

 

[CG Didymus]

That's even weirder because you just made a huge post about John above? Huh. It's like you are so all over the place you cannot even remember that you just wrote an essay on Jesus in John? Bizarre.

The Baha'i Faith depends greatly on the Bible to support their claims. They use Daniel to "proof" that their guys, the Bab and Baha'u'llah were predicted. They use the "spirit of truth", "comforter" and the "prince of this world" as prophecies that told of Baha'u'llah. Then, my favorites, but not becomes they are real or prove anything, the Baha'i claim that the "two witnesses" were Muhammad and Ali, and that the "three Woes" were Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah.

Copying my words will not help and comes off as a desperate last attempt. It's also literally "I know you are but what am I".

Yes, what are we? Back in grade school? I don't answer TB directly, but I know, or believe, not claim, that she'll read this. She smarter and better than that. She doesn't have to resort to copying someone's words and flipping it back at them. Time to get deeper into the questions.

Abraham has no evidence, was probably written in when Genesis was made in 600 BC. In Hebrew his name means "father of a multitude" which is very common in myths for a character to be named after their function.

Deeper into these questions would be nice. Baha'is claim Abraham, Noah, Adam and Moses were all manifestations of God. But were they even real? If the stories weren't written until centuries later, where did the writer's get their information? I think it's much more likely that the stories were made up. Made up to tell a story about a people and their God.

And, from what some Baha'is have said, they don't necessarily believe the stories are real either. Yet they believe the characters in those stories were real? Including the main character, "El", "Yahweh" and the various other names their God went by.

In my opinion, or belief, again not a claim, the Baha'is are doing exactly what you've been saying about what people and cultures have always done... borrow religious ideas from other people and cultures and make them their own.

The Baha'i Faith borrows mostly from Islam, then Christianity and Judaism. But leaves out things that they don't want or need. Then Baha'is give a token mention to Zoroastrianism, Buddhism and Hinduism. What does they really use out of those religions? I don't know of anything. But what do they really use out of Christianity?

So, in a way, the Baha'i Faith doesn't need any of those previous religions. Because they don't really believe in what those religions teach. All they need them for is to say that the Baha'i version of God was the same God in all those religions. And then to say that this same God sent divine messengers to different people at different times. And that somehow, these messages were all consistent in some way? But, because they weren't, the Baha'is say the followers and religious leaders in each religion changed the "original" teachings.

I see this as a clever way to pretend that Baha'is believe in all those older religions, in their original form, but then to be able to deny their validity in how they actually are by what they teach and believe today. And, because each got corrupted, it makes it necessary for their God to have had to send yet another messenger to straighten out the false teachings that crept into the original message.

Anyway, by the time Baha'is are done. All religions are one. They all came from the same God. All the messengers were from that God and equal. But the newest and latest messenger has the best and most important teachings. And any "true" believer in God would be able to see and know that "truth". It is so clear to them that all the previous religions have lost their way. And this new messenger has a message that fits the times and is designed to unite the whole world in peace and harmony. All we have to do is believe in him and follow and obey all his rules and teachings.

Yes, I can see why some people like it and believe it. But will it work? Can it work? And are their claims true? All the Baha'i Faith asks is for people to investigate for themselves. Trouble is, when some of us do, we find things that, to us, aren't true. Then what? We ask the Baha'is and get answers that don't adequately answer the question. We press harder. And we are called "scoffers" and "hecklers" by some of the Baha'is.

A few people here (you and Firedragon are a couple of them) have a lot of knowledge about religions and how they got started. How many of them, if not all, used myth to invent or build a story that became the foundation of their beliefs. This is the type of information that you have brought into these threads. Is it true? Can we research this stuff on our own to verify it? Yes. Intro level religious and cultural anthropology classes in college touch on these things. If anyone cared, they could go deeper.

But... does a true believer, a Baha'i or a fundy Christian, want to go deeper? And that's the problem... There is a chance they will learn something that they don't want to know... that maybe everything they believed, took for granted and assumed to be true was not true.

Why do it then? When the easier and safer thing to do is deflect, ignore, discredit the person giving the information and do a religious form of the "rope-a-dope" and keep dodging the questions.

It's a no-win for them. They know they can't prove you wrong. And to research it on their own is going to be a long and tedious journey that takes them to a place they don't want to go. Much easier to say, "Yeah, I know you are, but what am I?"

 

[muhammad_isa]

"Religion doesn't come into it .. other than people's behaviour"? Well, yes, that's how abstractions like a religious ideology manifest - through people's behavior. That's how two religions brought war to the Middle East - through people's behavior. Hamas attacked and Israel retaliated. Those religions couldn't have done it without people.

Mmm .. and as an EU spokesman famously said "It did not happen in a vacuum."

I would say that it basically started on the downfall of the Ottoman Empire.
Empires rise and fall, so nothing surprising there.

..but that led in turn to the British Mandate. The British supported Jewish immigration
into Palestine, and then withdrew.

etc. etc.