Evidence

[Trailblazer]

OK, Baha'is accept only Messengers as Manifestations. But the Bible is full of other forms of theophany. You say Holy Spirit is evidence only to the Messengers but the Bible says the Holy Spirit speaks (and is evidence) to all believers... This means message of Baha'i faith contradicts with message of the Bible. God must be a lousy communicator then.

I don't care what the Bible says because I believe it has long since been superseded by the Revelation of Baha'u'llah.

The Holy Spirit does not speak, since it is not a person.
God communicates (not speaks) to the Manifestations through the Holy Spirit.
Then the rays of the Holy Spirit emanate from the Manifestations.

Question.—What is the Holy Spirit?

Answer.—The Holy Spirit is the Bounty of God and the luminous rays which emanate from the Manifestations; for the focus of the rays of the Sun of Reality was Christ, and from this glorious focus, which is the Reality of Christ, the Bounty of God reflected upon the other mirrors which were the reality of the Apostles. The descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles signifies that the glorious divine bounties reflected and appeared in their reality. Moreover, entrance and exit, descent and ascent, are characteristics of bodies and not of spirits—that is to say, sensible realities enter and come forth, but intellectual subtleties and mental realities, such as intelligence, love, knowledge, imagination and thought, do not enter, nor come forth, nor descend, but rather they have direct connection.

Some Answered Questions, p. 108

25: THE HOLY SPIRIT

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Let me guess

1 you wont define evolution

2 you will not quote any of those tests

Done that a million times already.

And not just me, plenty of others also.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well firs you said “Darwinian mechanism” and then you changed to a wider term “evolution”………….my assumption based would be that you are wrongly using her term as if they were synonymous……….because the alternative would be that you are dishonestly changing the words such that you know mean something different form your original claim


But IF I am wrong then I am wrong , and I would apologize for the straw man.

Evolution works by darwinian principles of natural selection.
You may apologize now.

All I am saying is that we don’t have conclusive evidence that shows that organisms evolve mainly through random mutation + natural selection (this is just one of many alternatives proposed in the literature)

Do you dispuspute this point?

Yes.

Natural selection is a very big field which includes all kinds of mechanisms.

 

[PearlSeeker]

I don't care what the Bible says because I believe it has long since been superseded by the Revelation of Baha'u'llah.

The Holy Spirit does not speak, since it is not a person.
God communicates (not speaks) to the Manifestations through the Holy Spirit.
Then the rays of the Holy Spirit emanate from the Manifestations.

But Baháʼu'lláh taught that you can't deny other Manifestations...

So God doesn't communicate through Holy Spirit to all believers?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

But Baháʼu'lláh taught that you can't deny other Manifestations...

So God doesn't communicate through Holy Spirit to all believers?

Christ means "Annointed One". Jesus was he Christ, Annointed of the Holy Spirit, not humanity.

Those that receive Christ, can reflect the Holy Spirit, only to the extent they polish the Mirror of their hearts.

Regards Tony

 

[leroy]

Sorry, but if you go by your original words you were wrong. I was merely explaining why. What makes you think that there is no consensus about variation?



Random variation is not a meaningful phrase this day. What else besides mutations would cause variation? And no, I get tired of restating what has been gone over countless times already.



If you are going to claim "random variation" then the only mechanism for that are mutations. If you claim "variation" then changes can come through gene flow and even the reshuffling of genes during sexual reproduction. But those are not really random since they depend upon existing genes:

Genetic variation - Understanding Evolution

If you just use the word "variation" then you are good.




That is not quite true. They may not be totally random. Some spots on the genome are very well protected from mutations. When a mutation occurs the change itself will be random. If a mutation causes an early death it may seem as if that mutation never occurs since quite often we only see mutations after they have been passed on many times. So it could appear that some changes do not happen when they do. It is a complex topic.

Ok I have no idea if we are in disagreement or not , so let me know if there is any point of disagreement that I should address

 

[leroy]

Let me guess

1 you wont define evolution

2 you will not quote any of those tests

Done that a million times already.

And not just me, plenty of others also.

Wow Nostradamus's habilities to predict the future are child play compared to mine

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Wow Nostradamus's habilities to predict the future are child play compared to mine

You knew you would get that reply, because we have been down this road a bazillion times.
You invite such replies.

"predicting" such replies is on par with "predicting" that the waiter will bring me a cocktail after ordering one.

 

[leroy]

You knew you would get that reply, because we have been down this road a bazillion times.
You invite such replies.

"predicting" such replies is on par with "predicting" that the waiter will bring me a cocktail after ordering one.

Yea isn't it sad ?

I asked you support your claims and define your terms

And I was able to predict that you wouldn't

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yea isn't it sad ?

I asked you support your claims and define your terms

And I was able to predict that you wouldn't

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wow Nostradamus's habilities to predict the future are child play compared to mine

Wow!! It is almost everyone has seen through your facade. If you want answers you need to change your behavior.

 

[muhammad_isa]

As I recall many of the big industrialists had money, and used their money to make more money..

..oh yeah?
How do you think the British Empire came to be?
It all started as overseas commerce, which was based on the relatively new banking sector.

Welcome to consumerism, and better living. You seem to have a sort of gripe against good living and modernity..

..better living for who?

Your claim is baseless, and ignores the good that banking does. That is bias, and a reason to reject your claim as incomeplete.

It is not baseless.
Obviously, we all see what we want to see.

Yet loans are investments, you can't have it both ways. Banks and individuals loan money to make profit..

Investment is when a person buys stocks & shares, and the value can go down as well as up.
Lending money on interest is purely profiting from the fact you have money to lend.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Why would it matter what Aristotle thought? And if you are going to claim only one gene then you would need to check all of the surrounding areas. If it is widely prevalent that would harm your case.

That is exactly the point. It is widespread among yadavas who are the cowherds. This gene is not widespread in the West.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Investment is when a person buys stocks & shares, and the value can go down as well as up.
Lending money on interest is purely profiting from the fact you have money to lend.

Investment for a profit is purely profiting from the fact that you have money to invest.
Yes, the stocks can go down (to zero in the worst case).

A loan isn't different. A credit run will be done to maximize the certainty of the person being able to pay it back. But that too can go wrong. Worst case, the credit evaporates and nothing will be paid back or not in full anyway.

Before one invests in something, a similar study to a credit run will be done also to maximize the certainty of earning the money of investment back + a surplus.

Nobody will be investing if they didn't think it will yield a profit. Meaning, money back + a substantial surplus

So, no.. it's not that different from a loan.

 

[leroy]

Wow!! It is almost everyone has seen through your facade. If you want answers you need to change your behavior.

Yes,,,,,,,,,,,,this terrible person Leroy is asking people to support their claims……………what kind of dishonest behavior is that

 

[F1fan]

Too much to reply to.

@F1fan , I do not view homosexuals as lesser people. And I hope you don't either. I do not think Baha'is view homosexuals as lesser people either, but maybe @Trailblazer could tell you better than me, since I am not a Baha'i. All I'm saying is that at one point in history it was considered to be better straight than gay for a variety of reasons. That doesn't mean Baha'is actively try to stop talking to gay people. It seems like a lot of Baha'is are tolerant of homosexuals. But I don't know. Instead of grouping people into categories like homosexual or Baha'i maybe we should understand that each scenario is different.

Fortunatly there are scular laws protecting gays and their rights in most Western nations. The problem is not that Baha'i and other theists believe that gays are lesser, it's that they think their God sees gays as lesser, and to my mind this is worse. There is always a chance to change the mind of a person, but you can't change their God's mind if they believe God is abssolute. What believers will do to please their God can not be predicted. Look at Islamic terrorists doing their version of God's will That is what theists can do if they believe they have absolute knowledge via God. We can't trust theists who believe they have absolute knowledge, and refuse to consider they could be it error.

@F1fan , (second post), good points there. Maybe it's a combination of man (person), woman (person), God and state. lol. I don't know! I really don't know much about marriage honestly. How did we get here? We got on this topic to begin with during this point in the thread because I said it wasn't a big deal that Baha'is don't honor gay marriage. The same is true for Mormons but Mitt Romney advocated for the bill the Respect of Marriage Act. According to my LDS friend you cannot even be gay and Mormon at the same time.

That is a good sign that Romney can think for himself and see the utility of extending rights to citizens despite what his religion says.

I don't know. All of this is confusing. I'm trying to understand something that doesn't make sense to me. I don't think gay people shouldn't be allowed to have the exact same rights as straight people and enter in same-sex unions and marriages with each other. I think civil unions are between person, person and state and marriage is between person, person, God and state. But most people, even atheists, tend to get married and not just have a civil union.

Well remember that church services are just ceremonial. No one has to have a church service to get maried. Usually by the time there is a church service the couple has already filed the paperwork with the county and are already legally married. There are more churches doing srvices for gay people these days. Back in the 60's it weas illegal for mixed race couples to marry in many states. It look the Loving case rules by the Supreme Court to forse states to allow and recognize mixed race uniions as legal. Same sex unions is just another issue of civil rights that is constitutional. Conservatives don't like it, as they seem positioned to make them illegal if they get their chance. Their primary motive is a religious prohibition, and there is no social benefit to make gay marriage illegal. The USA needs to be very carefukl about allowing too much religious influence in social matters and freedom.

 

[F1fan]

..oh yeah?
How do you think the British Empire came to be?
It all started as overseas commerce, which was based on the relatively new banking sector.

And?

..better living for who?

The average citizen. Are you not familiar with the American Dream scenario that came out of the post WW2 era? Again, I have no idea where you are going with all this except you have some religious attitude that doesn't like banking and social progress. Your bad habit of vagueness means you leave us trying to guess what is up with you.

It is not baseless.
Obviously, we all see what we want to see.

Thanks for the confession. Too bad you don't go into detail about what is on your mind.

Investment is when a person buys stocks & shares, and the value can go down as well as up.
Lending money on interest is purely profiting from the fact you have money to lend.

Well thanks for clarifying something we already know. Given you don't offer any explanation of why this is bad suggests you don't see it as bad either. As you admit even Jews, Christians, and your fellow Muslims have no problem borrowing money your attitude seems to be a fringe thing that is your problem. If you don't like it, then don't do it. But you won't get far in claiming God says its bad when so many disagree with you as they disregard it.

Where's your God in enforcing the rules you think are true? Absent?

 

[F1fan]

Yes,,,,,,,,,,,,this terrible person Leroy is asking people to support their claims……………what kind of dishonest behavior is that

You ask questions that experts in science have already answered, or are in the process of answering with facts and data. You propose fringe, religious ideas that are not based in fact or science. Others are answering honestly, and it is you who is being disingenuous with asking the same thing over and over after it has been answered. Your behavior is close to being trolling to my mind.

If you were genuine all you have to do is read what experts report about evolution. That is the best explanation we have about the process of biology and reproduction over time. If you have problem with what science reports then that is your problem. Trying to accuse others as dishonest for not being complicit with your dissatisfaction with science is ironic, and bad manners.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Nobody will be investing if they didn't think it will yield a profit..

That's not true.
Why would you not want to invest in a relative's business?
One of the problems with the modern financial system, is that it has put most of the wealth in the hands of a few.
Furthermore, it is not sustainable.

So, no.. it's not that different from a loan.

Stocks and shares are different from a usurious loan.
If the banks go bust, who pays?
The bankers? No chance!
It is often guaranteed by the govt.
..and that is public money.

Cuts in public spending are a result of bank collapse.
It is always the poor that suffers in such a system. ALWAYS.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Where's your God in enforcing the rules you think are true? Absent?

Oh dear.
Why is it that people always want to leave it to another, to sort out the mess that we make?

Most of us agree that the world is heading for climate disaster,
..but as yet, we haven't been able to do much about it.

It will only get worse by ignoring the underlying reason for instability in the world.
Congratulations .. you prefer to support the status quo over truth.
You are in the majority.
..but for how long?

We shall see.