• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
How high do you think that it is? What are the odds of a firs time marriage ending in divorcer?
And as I said, there is no good reason not to have sex before marriage.[/QUOTE]
6. Almost 50 percent of all marriages in the United States will end in divorce or separation. 7. Researchers estimate that 41 percent of all first marriages end in divorce.

Divorce Statistics and Facts | What Affects Divorce Rates in the ...
Wilkinson & Finkbeiner, LLP · https://www.wf-lawyers.com › ...


That says nothing about why those marriages ended in divorce. It does not logically follow that most marriages end in divorce because couples did not have sex before marriage, since most couples do have sex before marriage.

According to the analysis, by age 44, 99% of respondents had had sex, and 95% had done so before marriage. Even among those who abstained from sex until age 20 or older, 81% had had premarital sex by age 44. "This is reality-check research.Dec 19, 2006
Premarital Sex Is Nearly Universal Among Americans, And ...
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
You do not seem to realize that you contradicted yourself again. But at any rate those messengers all look to be terribly flawed. Why can't God do any better?
The Messengers look terribly flawed only to you and to the very small percentage of people in the world who do not believe in one of them. Why do you suppose that is?
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
And as I said, there is no good reason not to have sex before marriage.
What is the divorce rate for virgins?

For all three cohorts, women who married as virgins had the lowest divorce rates by far. Eleven percent of virgin marriages (on the part of the woman, at least) in the 1980s dissolved within five years. This number fell to 8 percent in the 1990s, then fell again to 6 percent in the 2000s.Jul 8, 2016

PREMARITAL SEX AND DIVORCE - @theU


Do virgins have longer marriages?

Survey respondents who tied the knot as virgins had the lowest divorce rates, but beyond that, the relationship between sexual biography and marital stability was less clear. Having multiple partners generally doesn't increase the odds of divorce any more than having just a few does. Oct 22, 2018

Does Sexual History Affect Marital Happiness?


Why do virgins have better marriages?

They have never been interested in sex without commitment, and once married, they may be more committed to their spouses, and therefore happier,” Andrew Cherlin, a sociologist at Johns Hopkins University, told The Atlantic.Oct 23, 2018

Why virgins may have happier marriages - New York Post
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
Evidence:

Jim is a person and he tells us that he ate a ham and swiss sandwich with mayo for lunch. It's gone, we didn't see him eat it. We want evidence. So he opens his fridge and shows us that he has a package of ham that was a pound, so we weigh it and it is only 3/4 of a opund now. He shows us a package of swiss cheese and it has been opened and some is missing. He shows us a loaf of bread that is half full. He shows us a plate in the kitchen sink that has bread crumbs and a bit of mayo, which suggests a sandwich. And since the kitchen is clean this suggests the plate was placed recently. This is all physical evidence that is verified, and it suggests that Jim did likely eat a ham sandwich. Since ham sandwiches are known to exist, and people eat them for lunch, it is plausible and reasonable that Jim did eat a ham sandwich as he claims, but we can't be certain. All this is circumstantial, and does lead us to a likely conclusion.

But we want to know, not just make a conclusion. So Jim agrees and we go to a hospital and his stomach is pumped. Results show that indeed Jim did eat a ham sandwich within 90 minutes. Now it is a fact that Jim ate a ham sandwich for lunch.

Now let's compare this scenario with what the Baha'i messenger scenario hapvens to be:

Baha'u'llah was a person and he wrote a series of documents where he claimed to be a messenger from God. He writes that God does not communicate with most people, only messengers. He says that since he is a messenger that he is telling the truth. There are dictates in the texts that people are to follow. OK, we want evidence. Since Baha'u'llah is dead we have to rely on believers, so they say the evidence is Baha'u'llah himself. Well, he was a guy, that's all that means. There's 8 billion people on the planet, being a person is not extraordinary. Believers say that he was a messenger. Well how do we confirm that? What is the evidence that he was an authentic messenger and not just a creative guy? Well let's look at the texts. The texts are written is an unusual Elizabethan form that was out of sytle in the 19th century, so that is odd. The content makes many references to God, but there is no evidence that any such God exists. The texts are not very clear, and often include unnecessary language. If the intent was clarity of a message it should be as clear as possible. Since Gods are not known to exist we can't verify that any of the content is actually from any God. We can't interview Baha'u'llah. We can't ask a God any questions. So what evidence is there that any of this is true, or even likley true?

Have other humans claimed to have spoken with God? Yes. Are they authentic? Unknown. Is it possible for a mortal to speak with Gods, assuming they exist? I don't see why not. But this is such an extraordinary claim that we would require some indication that their experience was genuine, and that means something they can show us that there is no other alternative other than some divine knowledge. Do we see any indication of this in the Baha'i texts? It doesn't appear to be the case. So we are left with a guy who claimed to speak to God, has texts of these interactions that do not indicate any special knowledge. Is there any reason to just take his word for such a fantastic cliam? It's a lot less plausible than a ham sandwich. The bottom line is we can't conform that he actually ever communicated with a God, and no God is known to exist. He evn said we can't communicate directly with a God, so that isn't even possible.

Are we convinced this guy is truthful? We can't check his mental health, so mental illness is a possibility, and reason for doubt. Could a creative person write the texts without contact with a God? Yes. Is there a basis to conclude he is authentic? No.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
He says that since he is a messenger that he is telling the truth.
No, Baha'u'llah never said that He was telling the truth. He told us to determine for ourselves if He was telling the truth.

“Bahá’u’lláh asked no one to accept His statements and His tokens blindly. On the contrary, He put in the very forefront of His teachings emphatic warnings against blind acceptance of authority, and urged all to open their eyes and ears, and use their own judgement, independently and fearlessly, in order to ascertain the truth. He enjoined the fullest investigation and never concealed Himself, offering, as the supreme proofs of His Prophethood, His words and works and their effects in transforming the lives and characters of men.”
Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, p. 8
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
And as I said, there is no good reason not to have sex before marriage.
6. Almost 50 percent of all marriages in the United States will end in divorce or separation. 7. Researchers estimate that 41 percent of all first marriages end in divorce.

Divorce Statistics and Facts | What Affects Divorce Rates in the ...
Wilkinson & Finkbeiner, LLP · https://www.wf-lawyers.com › ...


That says nothing about why those marriages ended in divorce. It does not logically follow that most marriages end in divorce because couples did not have sex before marriage, since most couples do have sex before marriage.

According to the analysis, by age 44, 99% of respondents had had sex, and 95% had done so before marriage. Even among those who abstained from sex until age 20 or older, 81% had had premarital sex by age 44. "This is reality-check research.Dec 19, 2006
Premarital Sex Is Nearly Universal Among Americans, And ...[/QUOTE]
Okay. so your own statistics seem to show that there is nothing wrong with premarital sex. I think that even your 41% divorce rate for first time marriages is a bit high. People that get divorced often do so multiple times. It appears that you used the source that Google provides. That is often from a source that paid to be in that position. And it was by a lawyers group besides. I would rather trust psychologists as in this one that said that it peaked at about 40% for first time marriages and is now about 30% and dropping:

The Myth of the High Rate of Divorce
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
No, Baha'u'llah never said that He was telling the truth. He told us to determine for ourselves if He was telling the truth.

“Bahá’u’lláh asked no one to accept His statements and His tokens blindly. On the contrary, He put in the very forefront of His teachings emphatic warnings against blind acceptance of authority, and urged all to open their eyes and ears, and use their own judgement, independently and fearlessly, in order to ascertain the truth. He enjoined the fullest investigation and never concealed Himself, offering, as the supreme proofs of His Prophethood, His words and works and their effects in transforming the lives and characters of men.”
Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, p. 8
And a good conman knows how to say "Don't trust me, go check for yourselves" knowing full well that most people do not check.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
No, Baha'u'llah never said that He was telling the truth. He told us to determine for ourselves if He was telling the truth.

“Bahá’u’lláh asked no one to accept His statements and His tokens blindly. On the contrary, He put in the very forefront of His teachings emphatic warnings against blind acceptance of authority, and urged all to open their eyes and ears, and use their own judgement, independently and fearlessly, in order to ascertain the truth. He enjoined the fullest investigation and never concealed Himself, offering, as the supreme proofs of His Prophethood, His words and works and their effects in transforming the lives and characters of men.”
Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, p. 8
Then why are you Baha'i giving critical thinkers so much pushback when we use our reasoning skills and determining he isn't genuine? As we point out, the evidence is inadequate.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The Messengers look terribly flawed only to you and to the very small percentage of people in the world who do not believe in one of them. Why do you suppose that is?
Far from it. To most. The Baha'i are still a very very small religion. Not that many have been convinced
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
And a good conman knows how to say "Don't trust me, go check for yourselves" knowing full well that most people do not check.
With all due respect, I know all about con-men since I have dealt with so many on dating sites. They never say to "go and check" since they know what I would find, nothing. At first, I did not go and check but when I did I found out they were con-men. Now I always go and check. I have myriads of information on my latest boyfriend who is even sending me photos and references in the mail!
 
Last edited:

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Then why are you Baha'i giving critical thinkers so much pushback when we use our reasoning skills and determining he isn't genuine? As we point out, the evidence is inadequate.
I do not see any Baha'is giving you push-back, except perhaps for failing to do a thorough investigation. When you say that the Writings of Baha'u'llah are the evidence that is not a thorough investigation.
 

John53

I go leaps and bounds
Premium Member
It's My Birthday!
Far from it. To most. The Baha'i are still a very very small religion. Not that many have been convinced

It's amazing to me how many times the "God must be true because so many believe in God" claim has been put forward as evidence. They seem to forget that these people don't believe in their God. If there were only 1 God to believe in it might be valid evidence as it stands your place of birth is the most likely reason you believe in a particular God.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Far from it. To most. The Baha'i are still a very very small religion. Not that many have been convinced
You are moving the goalposts. We are not talking about the Baha'i Faith, we are talking about all the religions collectively and the fact that most believers believe in God because of one of the Messengers, holy men, prophets, or whatever you want to call them.

Aside from the fact that all new religions are small in the first centuries, there are reasons why the Baha'i Faith is still small relative to the other religions.

Below are the seven reasons why more people have not recognized Baha’u’llah, yet. The primary reasons are #1 and #4.

1. Many people have never heard of the Baha’i Faith, so they do not know there is something to look for. It is the responsibility of the Baha’is to get the message out, so if that is not happening, the Baha’is are to blame. However, once the message has been delivered the Baha’is are not to blame if people reject the message.

2. But even after people know about the Baha’i Faith, most people are not even willing to look the evidence in order to determine if it is true or not.

3. Even if they are willing to look at the evidence, there is a lot of prejudice before even getting out the door to look at the evidence.

4. 84% of people in the world already have a religion and they are happy with their religion so they have no interest in a “new religion.”

5. The rest of the world’s population is agnostics or atheists or believers who are prejudiced against all religion.

6. Agnostics or atheists and atheists and believers who have no religion either do not believe that God communicates via Messengers or they find fault with the Messenger, Baha’u’llah.

7. Baha’u’llah brought new teachings and laws that are very different from the older religions so many people are suspicious of those teachings and/or don’t like the laws because some laws require them to give things up that they like doing.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
With all due respect, I know all about con-men since I have dealt with so many on dating sites. They never say to "go and check" since they know what I would find. At first, I did not go and check but when I did I found out they were con-men. Now I always go and check. I have myriads of information on my latest boyfriend who is even sending me photos and references in the mail!
You are familiar with only some of them. And I have my doubts about your claim. A con artist does this so well that their targets rarely see it. You did not see it with your leader.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
You are moving the goalposts. We are not talking about the Baha'i Faith, we are talking about all the religions collectively and the fact that most believers believe in God because of one of the Messengers, holy men, prophets, or whatever you want to call them.

Aside from the fact that all new religions are small in the first centuries, there are reasons why the Baha'i Faith is still small relative to the other religions.

Below are the seven reasons why more people have not recognized Baha’u’llah, yet. The primary reasons are #1 and #4.

1. Many people have never heard of the Baha’i Faith, so they do not know there is something to look for. It is the responsibility of the Baha’is to get the message out, so if that is not happening, the Baha’is are to blame. However, once the message has been delivered the Baha’is are not to blame if people reject the message.

2. But even after people know about the Baha’i Faith, most people are not even willing to look the evidence in order to determine if it is true or not.

3. Even if they are willing to look at the evidence, there is a lot of prejudice before even getting out the door to look at the evidence.

4. 84% of people in the world already have a religion and they are happy with their religion so they have no interest in a “new religion.”

5. The rest of the world’s population is agnostics or atheists or believers who are prejudiced against all religion.

6. Agnostics or atheists and atheists and believers who have no religion either do not believe that God communicates via Messengers or they find fault with the Messenger, Baha’u’llah.

7. Baha’u’llah brought new teachings and laws that are very different from the older religions so many people are suspicious of those teachings and/or don’t like the laws because some laws require them to give things up that they like doing.
No, this thread is about the Baha'i faith. If you want to include others then go ahead, but you are going to have to remake a lot of your arguments.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
I was impressed when it happened, but over time I realized that it was something I could not explain and therefore could not be evidence for anything.
All we need is two examples, fundy/evangelical Christians and Baha'is. They both "know" they are right and believe they have the proof and evidence to back it up. But the Gods they believe in are two different things. That trinitarian God of the Christians can sure be made to sound like it's real. And, like some of have experienced, becomes very real... if believed in. Baha'is, I'm sure, probably experience the same type of thing... that mystical feeling of God in their hearts.

So, both Christians and Baha'is, by believing, become even more assured what they have is real. But the problem is, they both deny what the other is feeling as being real. Christians are positive that the Baha'i prophet is not the return of Christ. And the Baha'is are sure that Jesus is not God. Oh, and Satan is not real also. But we've experienced similar things too. And what's important is... that it was necessary to believe in assumptions... that our religion was real.
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Unverifiable claims just barely qualifies as bad evidence and doesn't come even close to providing anything akin to proof. Yes, I have read many if not most of the unverifiable claims and they remain just that, claims that cannot be verified.

So you see the recorded Word as bad Evidence. I personally get different proofs from that evidence than you do.

I would offer the proof that I look for in the evidence, is not the claim. I personally look what it offeres in virtues.

Regards Tony
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I might need an Australian section or something that starts simpler. I don't even know how to pronounce Baha'i or Baha'u'llah. And I've stumbled on the first paragraph of the page as I've never searched the depths of the oceans....

Whoso hath searched the depths of the oceans that lie hid within these exalted words, and fathomed their import, can be said to have discovered a glimmer of the unspeakable glory with which this mighty, this sublime, and most holy Revelation hath been endowed.”

— Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh

What is in the evidence, how to read it and the proofs it contains, is another OP altogether.

All the best, Regards Tony
 
Top