Is this logical?

[Trailblazer]

Why do you do this to yourself? But, for me... I can't wait. I hope Ecco will be there too.

I honestly do not know why I do this to myself, except that when someone asks me for something, I feel obligated to provide it... Sometimes I am sorry later but that’s the breaks and life goes on.

 

[Muffled]

The context of that sarcastic remark is... That Baha'is believe the Bible is from God. And usually, I divide the Bible into two parts, the Hebrew Bible and the NT, because Jews have their own interpretation concerning their Scriptures. But, this is about Christians and Baha'is. The Baha'is interpret the Bible to say something completely different than what Christians believe it to be saying. The "old geezer" part is that Jesus wrote nothing. We are depended on what his followers told us about him. How accurate are they? Next, the early church leaders had to decide which books got into the NT. Did they get it right? Then, through the centuries, "old geezers" have told us all what to believe about the Bible. And now, what do we do with this guy, Baha'u'llah, that says he is the return of Christ? Here we are in the future. Did he fulfill the prophecies?

I believe he did not. The Bahai view of the NT prophecy of the return of Jesus is irrational.

I believe they have many interpretations but in order to exclude Jesus they twist the word of God to their own pleasure.

I believe the books and letters were written after the coming of the Paraclete whose purpose was to bring everything into remembrance. So Jesus did have a hand in the writing and that makes it accurate.

I believe the protestants did.

 

[Muffled]

I fully agree. It has too many negatives and the true God has definite attributes, but as the OP states I did not write that.

The B man could have written it. He is good at convoluted language.

 

[Muffled]

That is true and that is a good point. The prophecies Baha’u’llah made in the past have been fulfilled. Now, we can see that because it is the future. Some of His prophecies have not yet been fulfilled because they refer to the Messianic Age which is only beginning.

I believe I have never seen a prophecy by him.

 

[Muffled]

Self-refuting as one must establish a claim is evidence ergo a claim is not defacto evidence.



No I look at the lack of evidence of those making a specific claim regarding their so-called Messenger.

I will give you what I believe is a good example. In the OJ Simpson trial a glove was presented as evidence. However the glove didn't fit so the evidence was false.

 

[Shad]

I will give you what I believe is a good example. In the OJ Simpson trial a glove was presented as evidence. However the glove didn't fit so the evidence was false.

Wrong. The presentation of the evidence was done incorrectly as OJ had latex gloves on when he tried on the bloody gloves. The latex gloves he used caused friction and resistance to movement thus could not put the blood glove on. That does not mean the bloody glove does not fit OJ's hand without the latex glove on. Poor presentation can make some think the evidence is false but that does not establish evidence is false. The bloody glove is now a normal example of how to avoid a presentation leading to a false conclusion.

 

[ecco]

I will give you what I believe is a good example. In the OJ Simpson trial a glove was presented as evidence. However the glove didn't fit so the evidence was false.

Why do you say the glove was false? I saw parts of the trial, I saw the glove.

In any case, the glove, in and of itself was not evidence. To be evidence to support the prosecution, the prosecution had to prove it was OJ's glove. They failed to do that. Therefore, it became evidence that the prosecution was trying to frame OJ.

The evidence was not false.

 

[ecco]

Do you really think I am going to post everything Baha’u’llah did on his 40 year mission on a forum?

No. I Never asked that. I thought you could post something that he did that convinced you he was who he says he was.

BTW, in English, we do not write "He" for messengers. He is reserved for God. For your folks "he" will have to do.

 

[ecco]

I said prophecies are unreliable as proof that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God...

The Bible prophecies are NOT why I believe in Baha’u’llah. I consider them evidence

How can you "consider them evidence" if "prophecies are unreliable"?

You are so blinded by your beliefs that you don't even realize that you constantly contradict yourself.

 

[Trailblazer]

I believe they have many interpretations but in order to exclude Jesus they twist the word of God to their own pleasure.

I believe the Christians have many interpretations but in order to include Jesus they twist the word of God to their own pleasure.

And where is Jesus? Anyone can say the words "Jesus is coming." The Christians have been saying that for eons, and still no Jesus. I believe it is a hope and nothing else.

 

[Trailblazer]

The B man could have written it. He is good at convoluted language.

No, an atheist on my forum wrote it.

 

[Trailblazer]

I believe I have never seen a prophecy by him.

Baha’u’llah predicted many things that later came to pass. In this book, which can be read online, is a list of 30 specific things Baha’u’llah predicted that later came to pass: The Challenge of Baha'u'llah

 

[Trailblazer]

No. I Never asked that. I thought you could post something that he did that convinced you he was who he says he was.

It was what Baha'u'llah wrote that convinced me.

But one thing He did that was very significant to me was that after the Martyrdom of the Bab, He rehabilitated the Babi community and got it back on track.

BTW, in English, we do not write "He" for messengers. He is reserved for God. For your folks "he" will have to do.

We write He for Manifestations of God because we believe that Their Will is identical with the Will of God.

 

[Trailblazer]

How can you "consider them evidence" if "prophecies are unreliable"?

I said they are unreliable as proof... I did not say they are completely unreliable.

They are evidence to me because I already believe in Baha'u'llah, so they just confirm my beliefs, but if I did not know the history of the Baha'i Faith I would not know how they were fulfilled so they would not be evidence.

Also, most prophecies can be wiggled out of by saying they mean something else. One needs to look at all the prophecies in their context, but most importantly, they need to know the history around the time of the 19th century and they need to know what Baha'u'llah did in order to know how they were fulfilled. If you are ever curious about prophecies I have many posted in my forum because I have had an ongoing dialogue with a Christian there for over five years and we discussed prophecies when he first showed up.

 

[Tiberius]

Is this logical? Why or why not?

God not communicating directly to everyone is an observation, something known. However, it does not follow that, since it is observable that God does not communicate directly to everyone, that this means that if God existed God would not communicate directly to everyone.

(Note: I did not write this.)

Since the existence of God is an unknown, I'd suggest rephrasing this anchoring it with what is known - the existence of people.

Then we get the statement that there are people who believe God communicates to them, and other people who do not believe that God communicates to them.

This statement can not be used to make any determination on what God would or would not do if he actually existed. It does not shed any light onto the issue of the existence of God.

 

[Trailblazer]

Since the existence of God is an unknown, I'd suggest rephrasing this anchoring it with what is known - the existence of people.

Then we get the statement that there are people who believe God communicates to them, and other people who do not believe that God communicates to them.

This statement can not be used to make any determination on what God would or would not do if he actually existed. It does not shed any light onto the issue of the existence of God.

It depends upon which 'people' you are talking about...
Ordinary people saying that God communicated to them have little merit, but those who claim to be Messengers of God and have evidence to back that claim might mean something, at least to some of us who believe in them.

 

[Tiberius]

It depends upon which 'people' you are talking about...
Ordinary people saying that God communicated to them have little merit, but those who claim to be Messengers of God and have evidence to back that claim might mean something, at least to some of us who believe in them.

And, pray tell, what evidence could there be that a person is a Messenger of God and not an ordinary person who thinks God communicated with them?

 

[Trailblazer]

And, pray tell, what evidence could there be that a person is a Messenger of God and not an ordinary person who thinks God communicated with them?

There is no proof that God communicated with the Messenger of God, only evidence that indicates that. Nobody can ever prove that they got communication from God; He and God are the only Ones who can know that for certain.

However, there is evidence that backs up the claim of a Messenger to be a Messenger of God.

That evidence is everything that surrounds His Life and Revelation, including His early life; His character; the history of His life; what He did during His mission on earth; the scriptures that He wrote (or scriptures written on His behalf); prophecies that He fulfilled by His coming; predictions He made that have come to pass; the religion that was established as the result of His Revelation, what His followers all over the world have done and are doing now.

 

[Tiberius]

There is no proof that God communicated with the Messenger of God, only evidence that indicates that. Nobody can ever prove that they got communication from God; He and God are the only Ones who can know that for certain.

However, there is evidence that backs up the claim of a Messenger to be a Messenger of God.

That evidence is everything that surrounds His Life and Revelation, including His early life; His character; the history of His life; what He did during His mission on earth; the scriptures that He wrote (or scriptures written on His behalf); prophecies that He fulfilled by His coming; predictions He made that have come to pass; the religion that was established as the result of His Revelation, what His followers all over the world have done and are doing now.

So you are saying, that the story of God is evidence supporting those who claim to be messengers of God?

Is the Harry Potter series likewise evidence supporting the claim that I am a messenger from Hogwarts?

 

[Trailblazer]

So you are saying, that the story of God is evidence supporting those who claim to be messengers of God?

No, I said : That evidence is everything that surrounds His Life and Revelation, including His early life; His character; the history of His life; what He did during His mission on earth; the scriptures that He wrote (or scriptures written on His behalf); prophecies that He fulfilled by His coming; predictions He made that have come to pass; the religion that was established as the result of His Revelation, what His followers all over the world have done and are doing now.

What else would you expect to find for evidence, a little hat on His head saying "I am a Messenger of God?"