• 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!

Sgt. Pepper

All you need is love.
You have a point. I'm wasting my time trying to get people to stop arguing. Thanks for the observation.

The purpose of a religious debate thread is to debate a religious subject. There is nothing wrong with arguing with others about the topic in a debate thread. If the arguing makes you feel uncomfortable, then perhaps you shouldn't post in this thread or in this forum.

We Never Know

No Slack
She has mixed statements, some of which acknowledghe her views are mere beliefs, and others that are stated dfinitively, as if factual. That is my dispute. If a person states their view that Coke is the best cola that should say it is THE best cola. A person shouldn't make statemenst like "God has blue eyes, blonde hair, and ripped abs, plus doesn't want you to eat pizza with pineapple" in a forum that is debating evidence. Such statements are not evidence-based.

Yet she and other Baha'i have claimed what they believe IS evidence, namely the Texts, what the texts say, what Baha'u'llah claims, etc. Those are not evidence of anything beyond the superficial, and each requires even more evidence equal to the extraordinary claims. There is none, thus we reject the claims by default.

I never said she can't state it, I am saying that if a person is going to make a declaritive statement in debate they are making an assertion that requires evidence. Just stating your belief is irrelevant in debate, for exaple, you might believe putting underwear on your head and dancing naked under a full moon gets you closer to God, but who cares, it's irrelevant what any individual believes when it isn't relevant, nor accompanied with evidence of being true.

I do. I don;t thiunk she does. She seems to have two sides to her posting style, and one side is humble and the other side is blind with passion. Jeckl and Hyde.

"what they believe IS evidence"

And it is "TO THEM". I haven't seen any poster saying or demanding you should accept what is evidence to them or anything else as they do.


I go leaps and bounds
Premium Member
I'm wasting my time trying to get people to stop arguing, I just admitted. It's a form of arguing I just did.

No. What is a waste of time trying to stop people debating in a debate forum. It would be a quick boring debate if everyone agreed. And your bias against one side is noted.


Veteran Member
Then why are you taking what Baha'u'llah claims in his writings as if factual? Isn't it possible he was not bing truthful? Could it be was was a person like you who really believed he was a messenger but he wasn't?
No, I do not believe that is possible, not given what I know about Baha'u'llah and the history of the Baha'i Faith.


Non-debating member when I can help myself
The purpose of a religious debate thread is to debate a religious subject. There is nothing wrong with arguing with others about the topic in a debate thread. If the arguing makes you feel uncomfortable, then perhaps you shouldn't post in this thread or in this forum.
Well, arguing is not productive in my opinion. Just my opinion there. Not trying to prove that. I don't like debate threads, but that is where most of the acton is. Making friends and stuff like that is better in my opinion. I like to find points of agreement. Unfortunately, in an environment like this i often slip up.


Non-debating member when I can help myself
No. What is a waste of time trying to stop people debating in a debate forum. It would be a quick boring debate if everyone agreed. And your bias against one side is noted.
This is the world we live in, a lot of debating, and debate forums. I can't change that.


Veteran Member
No, it is not my guess, it is my belief.
I do not care what the Bible says because it is anthropomorphic, and I believe that the Writings of Baha'u'llah, which are not anthropomorphic, supersede the Bible.
That is a guess and what you believe. And I don't valid argument you can make to back up what you assert here. The Bible itself isn't anthropomorphic, but gods, as depicted in both the Bible and the Baha'i texts, are anthropomorphic. Why? Because gods aren't known to correlate to anything real, but the abrahamic lineage of God is certainly based on social partiarchy. This God has authority because males have traditionally had the authority.

Men who wrote the Bible wrote that God talked to people. What reason do I have to believe that? I have no reason.
Right, no more reason than to believe Baha'u'llah talked to God.

However, even if God did talk to people thousands of years ago that does not mean God is going to talk to people again. This is a new age and we no longer need what people needed back then.
Yeah, we can't know anything for sure in these religious matters. You have to guess. Makes belief questionable, at best.

Anyone can claim that God talks to them ...
This is Baha'u'llah.

...and they are free to believe that if they want to since we all have free will.
I am not calling anyone a liar.
You are calling those who claim God speaks to all people liars. Either they are correct, or you are correct, you both can't be correct. This is the problem with so many conflicting religions, and a severe lack of consistency. If only there was evidence.

The Sum of Awe

Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
You would have to read about a particular messenger, to find out.

What specific things should I read about the particular messenger? I know a lot of Jesus' story to admire and even believe the story was based on a true spiritual teacher, but the claims of his supposed miracles and resurrection are just that, claims. As are Muhammad's supposed miracles and visits with an angel. As are whatever Baha'u'ullah's story has.

If you think it reasonable that the universe exists as a gigantic coincidence, I wouldn't bother looking for any other evidence .. because you have already decided it doesn't exist. ;)
Actually, I very much do believe the universe was intended by some force of reason. I just don't claim there is evidence for it, because there isn't. If there were, there would be no atheists.


"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
The soul (spirit) of man is part of man, it became part of man somewhere during the process of evolution. The soul is a sign of God which is a mystery no mind can ever unravel.

The Spirit of God does not exist on earth as part of humans. God, who is Spirit and not flesh, always remains in His own high place in the spiritual world (heaven), seated upon His Throne of Glory. That is how I understand the Baha'i Writings.

If, as I believe, God is unreachable, remaining in His own high place, how then can God also be omnipresent?
I believe that God, who is Spirit, is out of reach, but God's knowledge and power is universally present.
I like this definition of omnipresence:

In Western theism, omnipresence is roughly described as the ability to be "present everywhere at the same time", referring to an unbounded or universal presence. Omnipresence means minimally that there is no place to which God's knowledge and power do not extend.

Omnipresence - Wikipedia
And this is a perfect example of what @It Aint Necessarily So called a "just-so excuse." It is a narrative that has exactly one thing going for it -- that it explains what you want explained. Unfortunately, what it lacks is a single reason, outside your need to reduce your level of cognitive dissonance, to give it any credence whatever.

You know, the most intelligent people in the world can make similar mistakes. When Einstein had finally completed his equations describing General Relativity, he realized -- much to his dismay -- that those equations meant that the universe was not stable and unchanging. And he, like everyone of his era, could simply not conceive of a universe that was unstable. Therefore, he introduced into his equations something he called a "cosmological constant." Later, when Hubble demonstrated that not only was the universe expanding, it is increasing its rate of expansion over time. Einstein, on learning of this, called his cosmological constant "my greatest blunder."


Veteran Member
I reject the reason why I exist is to know God. That's trite and too simple. Instead, I try practicing my own divinity by being resourceful and being generous whenever it is appropriate to be so. Knowing the Messengers may be how one person understands the Abraham, and in return, the Baha'i God, but rather I intend on trying to exemplify divine attributes and characteristics while I'm alive so I and my loved ones can have the best life possible during my short time I am here. Life is too precious to constantly be reciting prayers and quoting scripture and we should learn and love to live life instead by enacting own our divinity, especially the generosity between oneself and others.

That may not be the reason why you exist, but that is the reason why I exist, and know that God exists, too.
Knowing and worshiping God is really only for ourselves but if we stop there and think we have 'made it' I think that is selfish.

Baha'u'llah also wrote that the purpose of this life is to try to reflect divine attributes and characteristics, in order to improve our characters and the lives of other people. I fully agree that life is too precious to constantly be reciting prayers and quoting scripture, and that is why I do not spend a lot of time praying and reading scriptures or attending Baha'i meetings where they engage in those activities. I'd rather be posting on the forum and exchanging ideas and beliefs from which I and others might benefit.

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.

2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
And of course, Baha'u'llah says it was Ishmael...
According to the text of Genesis, Isaac was the one to be sacrificed. This statement has caused much confusion because it was impossible for Isaac to be Abraham’s only son. There was just one child who could have been the only, and that would have been Ishmael in the years before Isaac was born...

Muhammad, as quoted in the Qur’an, strongly hinted that Ishmael was the sacrificial son, and implied that the incident took place before the birth of Isaac, during the period of time when Ishmael truly was “the only son.” Baha’u’llah later confirmed Muhammad’s hint by directly identifying Ishmael as the one who was to be offered up:

That which thou hast heard concerning Abraham, the Friend of the All-Merciful, is the truth, and no doubt is there about it. The Voice of God commanded Him to offer up Ishmael as a sacrifice, so that His steadfastness in the Faith of God and His detachment from all else but Him may be demonstrated unto men. – Baha’u’llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah, pp. 75-76.

The corrections given by Muhammad and Baha’u’llah to the account in Genesis make it clear that, for whatever reason, the version of the sacrifice given in Genesis is not perfect.
To me, this is the Baha'i Faith making a Bible story fit their beliefs. As if the story was real and not just a myth and legend.


Veteran Member
I don't know. Trying to prove that Baha'u'llah had a divine mind? There is the problem that this would a rule 8 violation, wouldn't it? Wasn't what Tony started in this thread considered a rule 8 violation?
I do not plan to try to prove that Baha'u'llah had a divine mind because that cannot ever be proven, but I will use the post he sent me to start a thread if I ever have time.
No, it would not be a Rule 8 since the thread was requested by @Alien826.

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
God is omnipotent because my religion says so.

God can't do that because my religion says so.

Those two claims do not contradict each other because my religion says so.
But what we are forgetting is that if God could speak, he wouldn't need his manifestations to speak for him. Then what's he supposed to do with them if not his mouthpiece to ordinary humans?


Veteran Member
Another person that loves arguing. I argue sometimes, but why do so many people love arguing?
I do not love arguing Duane, I do not even like it. I only do it as a duty.
When they took this thread down yesterday I was so relieved, but then they brought it back up. :(

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Can you see that you are missing the completely and blaringly obvious here? There are (at least) 3 possible reasons for that, the first 2 you might concur with, but you ignore the third:

1. He can't,
2. He doesn't want to,
3. There is no God.
And when the Bible says he did, he really didn't. The people made that up... not God, of course, but that God spoke.