Is atheism a religion?

[Shad]

No, I never claimed that. Perhaps you misconstrued what I meant by what I said?

You used it as comparative evidence by use of "difference"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, I never claimed that. Perhaps you misconstrued what I meant by what I said?
I do not have time to look back through my posts because I have too many posts to answer and other things I have to do.

It seems to me like you did:

Now let me point out the differences:

• Baha’u’llah was a real Messenger of God, Koresh was a fake. How do we know that? There is no evidence that indicates that he ever got a message from God. There is a lot of evidence that indicates that Baha’u’llah got messages from God.

• Baha’u’llah has a following of 7 million all over the world which is increasing every year, there are only a handful of people who still follow Koresh in the U.S.

... but if you want to argue that you didn't say this to help try to establish how Baha'u'llah's claims were true and Koresh's were false, you're welcome to do that.

 

[ecco]

My RED in all the following...

Let’s start from scratch.
“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106

​

That entire quote was written by Baha’u’llah. I added the bold and italics, and the reason I did that was to emphasize what Baha’u’llah considered the testimony that establishes His truth. Note what it says right after the bolded italics: This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. His refers to God’s mercy. Because of God’s mercy, God sent Baha’u’llah who testified of God through Baha’u’llah' Self, Baha’u’llah's Revelation and Baha’u’llah's words.

I understand how confusing this can be, because “He” sometimes refers to Baha’u’llah and other times “He” refers to God.

So I substituted the He with who it refers to in order to make the meaning of this quote clearer to you.

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing Baha’u’llah’s truth is Baha’u’llah’s own Self. Next to this testimony is Baha’u’llah’s Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other Baha’u’llah hath established the words God hath revealed as proof of God’s reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of God’s tender mercy unto men. God hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could God, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder God’s Cause in their hearts. God will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will God task a soul beyond its power. God, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106​

If your claim of authorship and your "translation/transposition' is to be accepted then we have...

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing My truth is My own Self. Next to this testimony is My Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other I hath established the words God hath revealed as proof of God’s reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of God’s tender mercy unto men. God hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could God, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder God’s Cause in their hearts. God will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will God task a soul beyond its power. God, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.”

​

So it starts with “Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing My truth is My own Self. Next to this testimony is My Revelation.

In other words - My testimony establishes My truth. I am a Messenger because I say I am a Messenger. My testimony.

If memory serves, many posts ago, in this thread, I commented that Bahaullah is a Messenger because Bahaullah says he is a messenger and you believe Bahaullah is a messenger because Bahaullah says he is a Messenger. You have just proven me correct. Right there: The first and foremost testimony establishing My truth is My own Self.

It's really sad that you do not understand what you yourself write.

 

[ecco]

Yes, these are the actual Writings of Baha’u’llah. What you need to understand is that sometimes Baha’u’llah speaks as a Servant of God, sometimes He speaks as a Messenger of God, and sometime He speaks as the Voice of God – ...

He is God, just not God incarnated in the flesh, but rather a Manifestation of God (which is normally how Baha’is refer to the Messengers of God such as Baha’u’llah).

You are right. All of these Hidden Words are God speaking through Baha’u’llah. God was the Voice, and Baha’u’llah was the Writer.

No, Baha’u’llah did not consider Himself to be a Creator. God is the only Creator. Baha’u’llah was a Messenger, but He was more than a Messenger. He was a Manifestation of God. He was also a Servant of God.

HE...
speaks as a Servant of God
speaks as a Messenger of God
speaks as the Voice of God


HE...
is God
is a Manifestation of God
is a Messenger
is more than a Messenger
is a Servant of God

As Zero Mostel proclaimed...
Something for everyone, a comedy tonight

The following quote explains what He was.

“Were any of the all-embracing Manifestations of God to declare: “I am God,” He, verily, speaketh the truth, and no doubt attacheth thereto. For it hath been repeatedly demonstrated that through their Revelation, their attributes and names, the Revelation of God, His names and His attributes, are made manifest in the world....... And were any of them to voice the utterance, “I am the Messenger of God,” He, also, speaketh the truth, the indubitable truth.......... Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 54-55​

Here again, you have to problem of "tenses". You say the above is the actual writing of Baha’u’llah.

Would you say, in this instance, he is writing as a Servant of God, as a Messenger of God or as the Voice of God?

 

[Trailblazer]

It seems to me like you did:
Trailblazer said:
Now let me point out the differences:
· Baha’u’llah was a real Messenger of God, Koresh was a fake. How do we know that? There is no evidence that indicates that he ever got a message from God. There is a lot of evidence that indicates that Baha’u’llah got messages from God.

· Baha’u’llah has a following of 7 million all over the world which is increasing every year, there are only a handful of people who still follow Koresh in the U.S.

... but if you want to argue that you didn't say this to help try to establish how Baha'u'llah's claims were true and Koresh's were false, you're welcome to do that.

9-10ths_Penguin said:
Hang on - a few posts back, you claimed that the fact there are very few followers of David Koresh is evidence that he wasn't actually a messenger of God... didn't you?

I was not trying to establish how Baha'u'llah's claims were true and Koresh's were false. Note that in post #616 you are citing I said that I was pointing out differences between Koresh and Baha’u’llah. I never said anything about evidence.

The salient point is not the number of followers, it is the fact that cults die out and real religions grow over time.

Regarding the evidence, I made it perfectly clear to ecco what that evidence is in Post #621.

ecco said: What evidence do you have regarding how Balulla got his messages from God?

Trailblazer said: The way we determine if Baha’u’llah was the Voice of God as He claimed to be is to look at the evidence Baha’u’llah told us to look at:

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106​

 

[Trailblazer]

If your claim of authorship and your "translation/transposition' is to be accepted then we have...

I substituted the *His* with who it refers to (Baha’u’llah) in order to make the meaning of this quote clearer to you. That does not mean you can take the liberty of substituting *His* with *My* because that changes the meaning. *His* refers to Baha’u’llah and all the other Manifestations of God, not just Baha’u’llah.

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing My truth is My own Self. Next to this testimony is My Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other I hath established the words God hath revealed as proof of God’s reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of God’s tender mercy unto men. God hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could God, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder God’s Cause in their hearts. God will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will God task a soul beyond its power. God, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.”
So it starts with “Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing My truth is My own Self. Next to this testimony is My Revelation.

No, it starts with... “Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self.”

You cannot take the Original Writings of Baha’u’llah and substitute words at will because it changes the meaning. You cannot substitute His with My because that changes the meaning.

In other words - My testimony establishes My truth. I am a Messenger because I say I am a Messenger. My testimony.

No, it is not His testimony that establishes His Truth... He did not say that. He said the first and foremost testimony that establishes His truth is His own self.

His own Self means His character, which is the first and foremost testimony that establishes His truth.

testimony
(tɛstɪmoʊni )
Word forms: testimonies
1. variable noun
In a court of law, someone's testimony is a formal statement that they make about what they saw someone do or what they know of a situation, after having promised to tell the truth.
His testimony was an important element of the prosecution's case.
2. uncountable noun [also a N, usu N to n]
If you say that one thing is testimony to another, you mean that it shows clearly that the second thing has a particular quality.
Testimony definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

If memory serves, many posts ago, in this thread, I commented that Baha’u’llah is a Messenger because Baha’u’llah says he is a messenger and you believe Baha’u’llah is a messenger because Baha’u’llah says he is a Messenger. You have just proven me correct. Right there: The first and foremost testimony establishing My truth is My own Self.

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self.” He was talking about the Manifestations of God and how their truth is established.

His own Self means His character, which is the first and foremost testimony (evidence) that indicates that a Manifestation of God is a Manifestation of God.

In that quote, Baha’u’llah is not saying or even implying that He is a Manifestation of God.

Baha’u’llah never said “I am a Messenger because I said I was a Messenger.” That is just your distorted interpolation.

It's really sad that you do not understand what you yourself write.

It is really sad that do not understand that one word (testimony) can have two very different meanings depending upon the context, and as such you misinterpreted that quote.
Now would be a good time to admit it. We all make mistakes.

 

[Trailblazer]

HE...
speaks as a Servant of God
speaks as a Messenger of God
speaks as the Voice of God

HE...
is God
is a Manifestation of God
is a Messenger
is more than a Messenger
is a Servant of God

As Zero Mostel proclaimed...
Something for everyone, a comedy tonight

Actually it is not really funny, it is quite serious... Wanna know why? Because if the early Christians had understood that the same exact titles applied to Jesus, it would have saved the world a whole lot of fighting and killing, all over the nature of Jesus... Who was Jesus?

Imagine, if Christians had known from the beginning that Jesus was not God, but rather a Manifestation of God, a Messenger and Servant who spoke with the Voice of God. Now people can go back and read the Bible and understand what it means when Jesus speaks.

Here again, you have to problem of "tenses". You say the above is the actual writing of Baha’u’llah.

Would you say, in this instance, he is writing as a Servant of God, as a Messenger of God or as the Voice of God?

It is notable that we have the same problem of tenses in the Bible because this is now Manifestations of God speak, they jump around. So Jesus sometimes speaks as a humble Servant, sometimes as a Messenger and sometimes as God.

I would say Baha’u’llah was speaking as a Messenger in this quote because He has a message to impart.

When Baha’u’llah is speaking as a Servant He will say so. He is referring to Himself in these quotes:

“Incline your ears to the counsels which this Servant giveth you for the sake of God. He, verily, asketh no recompense from you and is resigned to what God hath ordained for Him, and is entirely submissive to God’s Will.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 127​

“Who can ever believe that this Servant of God hath at any time cherished in His heart a desire for any earthly honor or benefit? The Cause associated with His Name is far above the transitory things of this world. Behold Him, an exile, a victim of tyranny, in this Most Great Prison. His enemies have assailed Him on every side, and will continue to do so till the end of His life. Whatever, therefore, He saith unto you is wholly for the sake of God....”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 85​

 

[ecco]

Regarding the evidence, I made it perfectly clear to ecco what that evidence is in Post #621.

No. You made some assertions which I rejected on logical grounds.

 

[ecco]

I substituted the *His* with who it refers to (Baha’u’llah) in order to make the meaning of this quote clearer to you. That does not mean you can take the liberty of substituting *His* with *My* because that changes the meaning. *His* refers to Baha’u’llah and all the other Manifestations of God, not just Baha’u’llah.

I understand that you are frustrated. I even understand why you are frustrated. It can't be comfortable having someone point out serious flaws in your belief system.

No, it starts with... “Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self.”

You cannot take the Original Writings of Baha’u’llah and substitute words at will because it changes the meaning. You cannot substitute His with My because that changes the meaning.

I'm not changing anything. You substituted words for the purpose of clarification. You just stopped short of seeing the truth.
RE:

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self.”​

Who ostensibly wrote it? Baha’u’llah
Who was B writing about? Baha’u’llah

Therefore "his" is "my".

Therefore...
“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing My truth is My own Self.”

No, it is not His testimony that establishes His Truth... He did not say that. He said the first and foremost testimony that establishes His truth is His own self.

His own Self means His character, which is the first and foremost testimony that establishes His truth.

How do we know about Baha’u’llah's character? We look to Baha’u’llah's writings.

In other words - again - Baha’u’llah says he is God's messenger. How do we know Baha’u’llah is God's messenger? We know because Baha’u’llah says he is God's messenger.

 

[ecco]

Actually it is not really funny, it is quite serious... Wanna know why? Because if the early Christians had understood that the same exact titles applied to Jesus, it would have saved the world a whole lot of fighting and killing, all over the nature of Jesus... Who was Jesus?

Whoa! Let's not get off on a completely subject. We are discussing whether or not Baha’u’llah was anything more than a man with a plan.

 

[Trailblazer]

No. You made some assertions which I rejected on logical grounds.

What were those logical grounds?

 

[Trailblazer]

I understand that you are frustrated. I even understand why you are frustrated. It can't be comfortable having someone point out serious flaws in your belief system.

There are no flaws.

I'm not changing anything. You substituted words for the purpose of clarification. You just stopped short of seeing the truth.
RE:

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self.”​

Who ostensibly wrote it? Baha’u’llah
Who was B writing about? Baha’u’llah

Therefore "his" is "my".

Therefore...
“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing My truth is My own Self.”

How do we know about Baha’u’llah's character? We look to Baha’u’llah's writings.

In other words - again - Baha’u’llah says he is God's messenger. How do we know Baha’u’llah is God's messenger? We know because Baha’u’llah says he is God's messenger.

No, it is not His testimony that establishes His Truth... He did not say that.
He said that the testimony that establishes His truth is His own self.

testimony
(tɛstɪmoʊni )
Word forms: testimonies
1. variable noun
In a court of law, someone's testimony is a formal statement that they make about what they saw someone do or what they know of a situation, after having promised to tell the truth.
His testimony was an important element of the prosecution's case.
2. uncountable noun [also a N, usu N to n]
If you say that one thing is testimony to another, you mean that it shows clearly that the second thing has a particular quality.
Testimony definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

His own Self means His character, which is the best testimony that established His truth.

His character was the testimony of His truth

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self.” He was talking about the Manifestations of God and how their truth is established.

His own Self means His character, which is the best testimony (evidence) that indicates that a Manifestation of God is a Manifestation of God.

In that quote, Baha’u’llah is not saying or even implying that He is a Manifestation of God.

Baha’u’llah never said “I am a Messenger because I said I was a Messenger.”

How do we know about Baha’u’llah's character? We look to Baha’u’llah's writings.

No, that is not how you know Baha’u’llah's character. You know by reading what historical accounts say about Him.

In other words - again - Baha’u’llah says he is God's messenger. How do we know Baha’u’llah is God's messenger? We know because Baha’u’llah says he is God's messenger.

No, that is not how we know. We know because of the evidence that indicates that He is a Messenger of God.
The evidence that indicates that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger from God is as follows:

• What He was like as a person (His character)
• What He did during His mission on earth;
• The history of His Cause, from the time He appeared moving forward;
• The scriptures that He wrote;
• What others have written about Him;
• The Bible prophecies that He fulfilled by His coming;
• The prophecies of other religions that He fulfilled by His coming;
• The predictions He made that have come to pass;
• The religion that He established (followers), what they have done and are doing now.

 

[Trailblazer]

Whoa! Let's not get off on a completely subject. We are discussing whether or not Baha’u’llah was anything more than a man with a plan.

Okay, let's stick to the subject at hand.

 

[ecco]

In a court of law, someone's testimony is a formal statement that they make about what they saw someone do or what they know of a situation, after having promised to tell the truth.

In a court of law, half of the testimonies given are incorrect. They are either mis-recollections, mis-identifications or outright lies.

 

[ecco]

ecco said: ↑​

In other words - again - Baha’u’llah says he is God's messenger. How do we know Baha’u’llah is God's messenger? We know because Baha’u’llah says he is God's messenger.

No, that is not how we know. We know because of the evidence that indicates that He is a Messenger of God.
The evidence that indicates that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger from God is as follows:

Trailblazer
ecco

• What He was like as a person (His character) How do we know what he was like as a person? We read what he wrote about himself.
• What He did during His mission on earth; What did he do? How do we know what he did?
• The history of His Cause, from the time He appeared moving forward; What is the history of his cause? How do we know the history of his cause?
• The scriptures that He wrote; Lots of people write self-serving scriptures: David Koresh did.
• What others have written about Him; What others? His followers? People with an agenda?
• The Bible prophecies that He fulfilled by His coming; Name one specific Bible prophecy he fulfilled.
• The prophecies of other religions that He fulfilled by His coming; Name one specific prophecy he fulfilled.
• The predictions He made that have come to pass; I've already shown that the predictions that you posted were not nearly specific enough to be considered anything more than musings like those of Nostradamus.
• The religion that He established (followers), what they have done and are doing now. Joseph Smith has far more followers. David Koresh has followers.

 

[Trailblazer]

In a court of law, half of the testimonies given are incorrect. They are either mis-recollections, mis-identifications or outright lies.

I guess you still do not understand.

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self.”

SEE BELOW. Definition 1. does not apply to the quote. Definition 2. applies.

Baha'u'llah said that the testimony that establishes His truth is His own self.
Baha'u'llah's own self is His character. His character was the testimony of His truth.

It is not Baha'u'llah's personal testimony that establishes His Truth... He does not testify to His truth as in a court of law. His character testifies of His truth.

testimony
(tɛstɪmoʊni )
Word forms: testimonies
1. variable noun
In a court of law, someone's testimony is a formal statement that they make about what they saw someone do or what they know of a situation, after having promised to tell the truth.
His testimony was an important element of the prosecution's case.
2. uncountable noun [also a N, usu N to n]
If you say that one thing is testimony to another, you mean that it shows clearly that the second thing has a particular quality.
Testimony definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

 

[ecco]

In a court of law, half of the testimonies given are incorrect. They are either mis-recollections, mis-identifications or outright lies.

I guess you still do not understand.

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self.”

SEE BELOW. Definition 1. does not apply to the quote. Definition 2. applies.

Baha'u'llah said that the testimony that establishes His truth is His own self.
Baha'u'llah's own self is His character.

His character was the testimony of His truth.

So if you are on a jury, you believe all the testimony of both sides because they are saying it?

Of course, you don't. But when it comes to Baha'u'llah saying that "the testimony that establishes His truth is His own self" you nod your head up and down and believe. Which is odd especially since you have admitted that it is you who decides who "His" is referring to God or Baha'u'llah.


It still comes down to "He said it, I believe it, end of story". Which is no different than Christians saying "God said it, I believe it, end of story".

All followers believe what is said is truth. The problem is that they can't all be right - most of them (all of them) are wrong. There is nothing that distinguishes your religion from any other. There is nothing that distinguishes your beliefs from anyone else's.

 

[Audie]

. The problem is that they can't all be right - most of them (all of them) are wrong. There is nothing that distinguishes your religion from any other. There is nothing that distinguishes your beliefs from anyone else's.

 

[Trailblazer]

You used it as comparative evidence by use of "difference"

True, I was comparing and pointing out the differences, but I was not using the number of followers as evidence indicating who was or wasn’t a Messenger of God. Here is what transpired:

Trailblazer said: How many people believe something does not equate to evidence. That is that the fallacy of ad populum.

9-10ths_Penguin said: Hang on - a few posts back, you claimed that the fact there are very few followers of David Koresh is evidence that he wasn't actually a messenger of God... didn't you?

Trailblazer said: I was not trying to establish how Baha'u'llah's claims were true and Koresh's were false. Note that in post #616 you are citing I said that I was pointing out differences between Koresh and Baha’u’llah. I never said anything about evidence.

The salient point is not the number of followers, it is the fact that cults die out and real religions grow over time.

Regarding the evidence, I made it perfectly clear to ecco what that evidence is in Post #621.

 

[Trailblazer]

So if you are on a jury, you believe all the testimony of both sides because they are saying it?

Of course, you don't. But when it comes to Baha'u'llah saying that "the testimony that establishes His truth is His own self" you nod your head up and down and believe. Which is odd especially since you have admitted that it is you who decides who "His" is referring to God or Baha'u'llah.

It still comes down to "He said it, I believe it, end of story". Which is no different than Christians saying "God said it, I believe it, end of story".

That is true. I have to pick one side or another, because logically speaking the claim cannot be BOTH true and false.

The caveat is that I do not *just believe it because Baha’u’llah said it.* I believe it because of the *evidence* that *indicates that He was a Manifestation of God (Messenger). It all doubles back to the evidence. Sorry to say but Christians do not have the same kind of *verifiable evidence* that Baha’is have. No other religion does.

All followers believe what is said is truth. The problem is that they can't all be right - most of them (all of them) are wrong. There is nothing that distinguishes your religion from any other. There is nothing that distinguishes your beliefs from anyone else's.

See my next post, and you will see that there is a boatload of *evidence* for the Baha’i Faith that distinguishes it from any other religion. The evidence is what distinguishes it.