Loved ones in hell - take 2.

[Tiberius]

How is that related to whether I would have found dirt by now?

Your argument was that since you had not personally found any dirt in 50 years, there was no dirt to be found. Yet other people have found things in your faith that they consider flaws. However, you discard those claims because you yourself have not found anything that you personally consider to be a flaw.

However, when I point out that people have spent much longer than 50 years as Christians and not found any dirt, you ignore it and decide it doesn't count. And when they find flaws in your faith, you again decide that it doesn't count, although when you find flaws in Christianity, all of a sudden, that's reason enough to consider Christianity flawed.

In other words, you are displaying a massive double standard.

I do not know what you mean. What does that have to do with the resurrection stories?

It's not the resurrection stories, but the very existence of Jesus (without whom, the resurrection stories are meaningless).

The Bible makes two claims regarding the birth of Jesus. It happened during the reign of Herod (as shown by Matthew 2:1). The Bible also claims that Mary and Joseph had to go to Bethlehem because of a census for taxation purposes, and that this happened while Quirinus was governor of Syria (Luke 2:1-2).

In other words, Jesus was born when Herod was the king AND when Quirinus was the governor of Syria.

However, Herod had died nine years earlier! Quirinus was never governor when Herod was King, and yet the Bible says that he was, and that this is when Jesus was born.

It is not arbitrary at all. God does nothing on a whim. God knows what to do and does it.

Yes, it is arbitrary, because God is deciding it for himself, not using some external frame of reference.

I have to refer to the Bible to show that prophecies were fulfilled by Baha'u'llah if Christians ask, because the Bible is what they rely upon.

Funnily enough, just about every other religion stands on its own feet and does't have to resort to cherry-picking from the holy texts of other faiths.

Demonstrate what? Sorry, I lost track.

Dude, it wasn't that far back. If you can't actually go and read over previous posts, then you're extremely lazy.

Demonstrate that the justification of religious beliefs are based on logical fallacies.

Do you mean this?
"Because you are a human with a lower material nature and a higher spiritual nature you can choose to be benevolent or malevolent. God by contrast cannot choose. God is always benevolent since God is benevolent by nature and God is unchanging."

God’s part in it is that He created a world where people will suffer, some much more than others, but other than creating the world the way it is God has no part in our suffering, so God does not do anything to anyone.

No, I meant the part where you said, in response to me talking about someone causing suffering to another, "A murderer might do that to a victim but God does not do it to anyone."

You literally claimed God does not do it to anyone.

 

[Tiberius]

Please show me where I ever said "I don't believe in the Bible at all!" I said I do not believe that the resurrection stories are literally true, that is all I said.

You pick and choose what parts of the Bible you will believe and which parts you will disbelieve, which is exactly what I said in the post you responded to.

 

[Trailblazer]

And yet you seem to know that he can't talk to people who don't have a spiritual nature.

I know that because Baha’u’llah wrote that.

All humans have a higher spiritual nature and a lower material nature….

“In man there are two natures; his spiritual or higher nature and his material or lower nature. In one he approaches God, in the other he lives for the world alone. Signs of both these natures are to be found in men. In his material aspect he expresses untruth, cruelty and injustice; all these are the outcome of his lower nature. The attributes of his Divine nature are shown forth in love, mercy, kindness, truth and justice, one and all being expressions of his higher nature. Every good habit, every noble quality belongs to man’s spiritual nature, whereas all his imperfections and sinful actions are born of his material nature. If a man’s Divine nature dominates his human nature, we have a saint.” Paris Talks, p. 60

THE TWO NATURES IN MAN

However, the spiritual nature of ordinary humans is not the same kind of spiritual nature that Messengers of God have. God has conferred upon the Messengers of God a spiritual nature which is born of the substance of God Himself:

“Unto this subtle, this mysterious and ethereal Being He hath assigned a twofold nature; the physical, pertaining to the world of matter, and the spiritual, which is born of the substance of God Himself. He hath, moreover, conferred upon Him a double station. The first station, which is related to His innermost reality, representeth Him as One Whose voice is the voice of God Himself. To this testifieth the tradition: “Manifold and mysterious is My relationship with God. I am He, Himself, and He is I, Myself, except that I am that I am, and He is that He is.” …. The second station is the human station, exemplified by the following verses: “I am but a man like you.” “Say, praise be to my Lord! Am I more than a man, an apostle?”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 66-67

Do you remember back in post 380 I challenged you to not use the Bible in your arguments to me after you claimed that you did not need to use the Bible?

You have now failed this claim. Your religion can not stand on its own feet.

Your logic is very poor if you think that my quoting a couple of Bible verses is “using” the Bible. I am not “using” the Bible, just like some verses from the Bible. I could easily have made the same point without those verses. I just chose to quote them because they are understood by Christians and other people. The Baha’i Writings have a very similar passage but nobody except Baha’is would understand what it means.

“The Book of God is wide open, and His Word is summoning mankind unto Him. No more than a mere handful, however, hath been found willing to cleave to His Cause, or to become the instruments for its promotion. These few have been endued with the Divine Elixir that can, alone, transmute into purest gold the dross of the world, and have been empowered to administer the infallible remedy for all the ills that afflict the children of men. No man can obtain everlasting life, unless he embraceth the truth of this inestimable, this wondrous, and sublime Revelation.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 183

So I will refrain from quoting the Bible to you but instead will quite from the Baha’i Writings and you will see just how well my religion can stand on its own two feet.

You seem to like just redefining things however you want in order to support your point of the moment.

I am not trying to support anything, I am just explaining it, and sometimes that requires that I shift gears.

Why would religions be consistent? They are all different because they were revealed to different people in different ages and those people all had different needs.

And that's exactly what we'd expect if they were all wrong.

Why would you expect that if they are all wrong? Why would you expect God to reveal a new religion that was the same as the former religions? Why would God have to reveal a new religion if it was the same as the previous religions? Think.

God is the All-Knowing Physician and God sends Messengers with the remedies that mankind needs in the age in which they are sent. We no longer need the message that was revealed to Jesus 2000 years ago so Baha’u’llah came with a new message, and 1000 years from now humanity will need another new message which will be different from what Baha'u'llah brought. As the world and humans evolve and change over the course of time, humanity requires a new message from God to suit the times.

“The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and center your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 213

“No man, however acute his perception, can ever hope to reach the heights which the wisdom and understanding of the Divine Physician have attained. Little wonder, then, if the treatment prescribed by the physician in this day should not be found to be identical with that which he prescribed before. How could it be otherwise when the ills affecting the sufferer necessitate at every stage of his sickness a special remedy?” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 80

A couple of days ago, in a post to another atheist I compared science with religion, so maybe this will help you to understand how religion evolves.

In every age God reveals a new message through a Messenger in accordance with the needs of humans in that age. But the new message does not dispel the older messages from God; it simply extends and modifies them. The revelations from God that have already been tested remain solid.

Just as science evolves over time and needs updating, religion also evolves and needs updating.
What differs between science and religion is that scientists encourage updating and accept the updates whereas religious believers do not believe there are any updates so they reject all the updates, clinging tenaciously to their own religions. As such, these old religions live kind of a time warp, refusing to acknowledge that time has marched on and God has spoken again.

What do you think would happen if science did what religion does? All scientific progress would be halted and the peoples of the world would suffer. That is exactly what is going on right now with religion. Spiritual progress has been halted because people are clinging to the religions of the past, believing that their messages still apply to today's world.

 

[Tiberius]

I know that because Baha’u’llah wrote that.

All humans have a higher spiritual nature and a lower material nature….

“In man there are two natures; his spiritual or higher nature and his material or lower nature. In one he approaches God, in the other he lives for the world alone. Signs of both these natures are to be found in men. In his material aspect he expresses untruth, cruelty and injustice; all these are the outcome of his lower nature. The attributes of his Divine nature are shown forth in love, mercy, kindness, truth and justice, one and all being expressions of his higher nature. Every good habit, every noble quality belongs to man’s spiritual nature, whereas all his imperfections and sinful actions are born of his material nature. If a man’s Divine nature dominates his human nature, we have a saint.” Paris Talks, p. 60

THE TWO NATURES IN MAN

However, the spiritual nature of ordinary humans is not the same kind of spiritual nature that Messengers of God have. God has conferred upon the Messengers of God a spiritual nature which is born of the substance of God Himself:

“Unto this subtle, this mysterious and ethereal Being He hath assigned a twofold nature; the physical, pertaining to the world of matter, and the spiritual, which is born of the substance of God Himself. He hath, moreover, conferred upon Him a double station. The first station, which is related to His innermost reality, representeth Him as One Whose voice is the voice of God Himself. To this testifieth the tradition: “Manifold and mysterious is My relationship with God. I am He, Himself, and He is I, Myself, except that I am that I am, and He is that He is.” …. The second station is the human station, exemplified by the following verses: “I am but a man like you.” “Say, praise be to my Lord! Am I more than a man, an apostle?”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 66-67

Sounds circular. You know it's true because Baha'u'llah wrote it, and since Baha'u'llah wrote it, you conclude it's true.

Your logic is very poor if you think that my quoting a couple of Bible verses is “using” the Bible. I am not “using” the Bible, just like some verses from the Bible. I could easily have made the same point without those verses. I just chose to quote them because they are understood by Christians and other people. The Baha’i Writings have a very similar passage but nobody except Baha’is would understand what it means.

“The Book of God is wide open, and His Word is summoning mankind unto Him. No more than a mere handful, however, hath been found willing to cleave to His Cause, or to become the instruments for its promotion. These few have been endued with the Divine Elixir that can, alone, transmute into purest gold the dross of the world, and have been empowered to administer the infallible remedy for all the ills that afflict the children of men. No man can obtain everlasting life, unless he embraceth the truth of this inestimable, this wondrous, and sublime Revelation.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 183

So I will refrain from quoting the Bible to you but instead will quite from the Baha’i Writings and you will see just how well my religion can stand on its own two feet.

Excuses, excuses.

I am not trying to support anything, I am just explaining it, and sometimes that requires that I shift gears.

It seems very incosistent.

Why would you expect that if they are all wrong? Why would you expect God to reveal a new religion that was the same as the former religions? Why would God have to reveal a new religion if it was the same as the previous religions? Think.

God is the All-Knowing Physician and God sends Messengers with the remedies that mankind needs in the age in which they are sent. We no longer need the message that was revealed to Jesus 2000 years ago so Baha’u’llah came with a new message, and 1000 years from now humanity will need another new message which will be different from what Baha'u'llah brought. As the world and humans evolve and change over the course of time, humanity requires a new message from God to suit the times.

“The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and center your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 213

“No man, however acute his perception, can ever hope to reach the heights which the wisdom and understanding of the Divine Physician have attained. Little wonder, then, if the treatment prescribed by the physician in this day should not be found to be identical with that which he prescribed before. How could it be otherwise when the ills affecting the sufferer necessitate at every stage of his sickness a special remedy?” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 80

A couple of days ago, in a post to another atheist I compared science with religion, so maybe this will help you to understand how religion evolves.

In every age God reveals a new message through a Messenger in accordance with the needs of humans in that age. But the new message does not dispel the older messages from God; it simply extends and modifies them. The revelations from God that have already been tested remain solid.

Just as science evolves over time and needs updating, religion also evolves and needs updating.
What differs between science and religion is that scientists encourage updating and accept the updates whereas religious believers do not believe there are any updates so they reject all the updates, clinging tenaciously to their own religions. As such, these old religions live kind of a time warp, refusing to acknowledge that time has marched on and God has spoken again.

What do you think would happen if science did what religion does? All scientific progress would be halted and the peoples of the world would suffer. That is exactly what is going on right now with religion. Spiritual progress has been halted because people are clinging to the religions of the past, believing that their messages still apply to today's world.

You don't get it: They are all wrong, and there is no God. That's my position. I have never seen anything which is contradictory to that position.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[Trailblazer]

Your argument was that since you had not personally found any dirt in 50 years, there was no dirt to be found. Yet other people have found things in your faith that they consider flaws. However, you discard those claims because you yourself have not found anything that you personally consider to be a flaw.

However, when I point out that people have spent much longer than 50 years as Christians and not found any dirt, you ignore it and decide it doesn't count. And when they find flaws in your faith, you again decide that it doesn't count, although when you find flaws in Christianity, all of a sudden, that's reason enough to consider Christianity flawed.

In other words, you are displaying a massive double standard.

Double standard: a rule or principle which is unfairly applied in different ways to different people or groups.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=what+is+a+double+standard

This has nothing to do with any double standard. Of course many people will find flaws in my religion and I am going to discard those opinions unless they can be substantiated. Since thus far they cannot be, I discard them.

If I find flaws in Christianity, that's reason enough for me to consider Christianity flawed.
If a Christian finds flaws in Baha’i, that’s reason enough for a Christian to consider Baha’i flawed

If people have spent over 50 years in Christianity and don’t see the flaws that does not mean I don’t see the flaws in Christianity. Moreover, Christians have a right to not find any flaws in Christianity just as I have a right to not find any flaws in the Baha’i Faith.

It's not the resurrection stories, but the very existence of Jesus (without whom, the resurrection stories are meaningless).

The Bible makes two claims regarding the birth of Jesus. It happened during the reign of Herod (as shown by Matthew 2:1). The Bible also claims that Mary and Joseph had to go to Bethlehem because of a census for taxation purposes, and that this happened while Quirinus was governor of Syria (Luke 2:1-2).

In other words, Jesus was born when Herod was the king AND when Quirinus was the governor of Syria.

However, Herod had died nine years earlier! Quirinus was never governor when Herod was King, and yet the Bible says that he was, and that this is when Jesus was born.

So are you saying that these inconsistencies in the Bible are reason enough for you to believe that Jesus never existed?

Yes, it is arbitrary, because God is deciding it for himself, not using some external frame of reference. [/quote]
Why would an all-knowing God need an “external” frame of reference? Think.

Funnily enough, just about every other religion stands on its own feet and does't have to resort to cherry-picking from the holy texts of other faiths.

Do you understand why other religions do not refer to religions other than their own? Because they do not believe that are true! They believe they have the only true religion, so why would they refer to any ‘other’ religion. By contrast, Baha’is believe that all the religions are from the one true God, even though they have been mucked up my men over the course of time.

Baha’is do not cherry pick from the holy texts of other faiths. The only reason we refer to them is because (as I told you before), Baha’u’llah was the fulfillment of the prophecies of the previous religions. Since none of the previous religions have a Messenger who claims to be the Messiah or the return of Christ, why would they refer to prophecies from other religions?

Dude, it wasn't that far back. If you can't actually go and read over previous posts, then you're extremely lazy.

Do you have ANY idea how many posts I get in a day? When I woke up today I counted 28 and all those came in while I was sleeping. I answer all the posts posted to me and you call me lazy? Never mind my questions, I will try to remember not to ask again, but rather I will just pass by what I can’t answer.

All this time we have been posting back and forth and you think I am a dude? You are not very observant.

No, I meant the part where you said, in response to me talking about someone causing suffering to another, "A murderer might do that to a victim but God does not do it to anyone."

You literally claimed God does not do it to anyone.

That’s right, God does not literally cause humans to suffer the way a murderer does.

 

[Trailblazer]

You pick and choose what parts of the Bible you will believe and which parts you will disbelieve, which is exactly what I said in the post you responded to.

So what? Why am I not allowed to believe in only parts of the Bible? The Bible is not my book because I am not a Christian.

 

[Tiberius]

Double standard: a rule or principle which is unfairly applied in different ways to different people or groups.
what is a double standard - Google Search

This has nothing to do with any double standard. Of course many people will find flaws in my religion and I am going to discard those opinions unless they can be substantiated. Since thus far they cannot be, I discard them.

If I find flaws in Christianity, that's reason enough for me to consider Christianity flawed.
If a Christian finds flaws in Baha’i, that’s reason enough for a Christian to consider Baha’i flawed

If people have spent over 50 years in Christianity and don’t see the flaws that does not mean I don’t see the flaws in Christianity. Moreover, Christians have a right to not find any flaws in Christianity just as I have a right to not find any flaws in the Baha’i Faith.

That's from your point of view.

From my point of view, I have person A telling me they have found no flaws in Baha'i and I have person B telling me they have found no flaws in Christianity. And if Person A says that person B is wrong, then I gotta figure it goes both ways and Person B can claim Person A is wrong with just as much validity.

So are you saying that these inconsistencies in the Bible are reason enough for you to believe that Jesus never existed?

I have very large doubts that a person named Jesus existed who was anything like the character depicted in the Bible.

Why would an all-knowing God need an “external” frame of reference? Think.

In order for it to be objective.

Do you understand why other religions do not refer to religions other than their own? Because they do not believe that are true! They believe they have the only true religion, so why would they refer to any ‘other’ religion. By contrast, Baha’is believe that all the religions are from the one true God, even though they have been mucked up my men over the course of time.

Baha’is do not cherry pick from the holy texts of other faiths. The only reason we refer to them is because (as I told you before), Baha’u’llah was the fulfillment of the prophecies of the previous religions. Since none of the previous religions have a Messenger who claims to be the Messiah or the return of Christ, why would they refer to prophecies from other religions?

"We don't pick and choose from other religions," say people from the religion that believes that are bits that are real in other religions. *Rolls eyes*

Do you have ANY idea how many posts I get in a day? When I woke up today I counted 28 and all those came in while I was sleeping. I answer all the posts posted to me and you call me lazy? Never mind my questions, I will try to remember not to ask again, but rather I will just pass by what I can’t answer.

All it requires is that you click the little arrow thing next to the person's name in the quoted text.

All this time we have been posting back and forth and you think I am a dude? You are not very observant.

Well, I don't recall you mentioning it in our discussions, and I don't generally check out people's profile pages when I just come here for the debate. But I do apologize, and I won't misgender you again, m'lady.

That’s right, God does not literally cause humans to suffer the way a murderer does.

And again you move the goalposts. You've gone from "God doesn't cause suffering," to "God doesn't cause that type of suffering."

 

[Tiberius]

So what? Why am I not allowed to believe in only parts of the Bible? The Bible is not my book because I am not a Christian.

So you go from claiming you don't do it to saying, "Yeah, and so what if I do?"

 

[Trailblazer]

Sounds circular. You know it's true because Baha'u'llah wrote it, and since Baha'u'llah wrote it, you conclude it's true.

I know it is true because Baha’u’llah wrote it, because I believe that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God. That is not circular because I did not believe it “just because He wrote it.” I believe it because I concluded that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God AFTER I looked at all the evidence that demonstrated that to me.

You don't get it: They are all wrong, and there is no God. That's my position. I have never seen anything which is contradictory to that position.

Okay, you have free will so you are free to “believe” that if you choose to. However I’d be careful not to state that as an assertion because if you do you are committing the fallacy of argument from ignorance since you cannot prove they are all wrong or that there is no God.

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

 

[Trailblazer]

That's from your point of view.

From my point of view, I have person A telling me they have found no flaws in Baha'i and I have person B telling me they have found no flaws in Christianity. And if Person A says that person B is wrong, then I gotta figure it goes both ways and Person B can claim Person A is wrong with just as much validity.

Person A and Person B can both claim that the other Person has flaws in their religion and that is exactly what they do, but so what? That does not prove that either one of the religions has flaws or that they do not have flaws.

I have very large doubts that a person named Jesus existed who was anything like the character depicted in the Bible.

I also have my doubts about that.

In order for it to be objective.

God does not have to be objective because God is not a human. God is always right because God is infallible.

"We don't pick and choose from other religions," say people from the religion that believes that are bits that are real in other religions. *Rolls eyes*

I guess what I said about why Baha’is refer to other religions flew right over your head, or else you chose not to acknowledge it.

All it requires is that you click the little arrow thing next to the person's name in the quoted text.

I know what it requires but sometimes I just do not have time.

Well, I don't recall you mentioning it in our discussions, and I don't generally check out people's profile pages when I just come here for the debate. But I do apologize, and I won't misgender you again, m'lady.

No problem, it happens. I just wanted to set the record straight. I do look at people’s profile pages if I am posting to them regularly. And I am not just here to "win" debates, I am here to share information and learn from others.

And again you move the goalposts. You've gone from "God doesn't cause suffering," to "God doesn't cause that type of suffering."

What goalposts? The only thing I ever said that God does that causes suffering is the way He created the world. By virtue of this world being a material world there will be suffering because it is the material world that causes most suffering. Some suffering is caused by human free will choices, humans choosing to be cruel to other humans, but that kind of suffering is preventable. By contrast, there are certain things which man is forced and compelled to endure.

“Some things are subject to the free will of man, such as justice, equity, tyranny and injustice, in other words, good and evil actions; it is evident and clear that these actions are, for the most part, left to the will of man. But there are certain things to which man is forced and compelled, such as sleep, death, sickness, decline of power, injuries and misfortunes; these are not subject to the will of man, and he is not responsible for them, for he is compelled to endure them. But in the choice of good and bad actions he is free, and he commits them according to his own will.” Some Answered Questions, p. 248

And WHY is man forced to endure them? Because God set it up that way by creating a material world. Now do you understand what I meant about God causing suffering?

 

[Trailblazer]

So you go from claiming you don't do it to saying, "Yeah, and so what if I do?"

When did I say that I believe in all parts of the Bible?

 

[Tiberius]

I know it is true because Baha’u’llah wrote it, because I believe that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God. That is not circular because I did not believe it “just because He wrote it.” I believe it because I concluded that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God AFTER I looked at all the evidence that demonstrated that to me.

So you believe it is true because B wrote it, and since B wrote it, you know it is true.

Okay, you have free will so you are free to “believe” that if you choose to. However I’d be careful not to state that as an assertion because if you do you are committing the fallacy of argument from ignorance since you cannot prove they are all wrong or that there is no God.

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

No need to tell me, I can't say I know for a fact that there is no God, not in the same way that I know for a fact I just watched the movie Hoodwinked with my girlfriend. (You should check it out, by the way. Look past the clunky animation and you'll find a movie that's really well written and well acted.) But I'll never claim to know for a fact that God isn't real. The most I'll say is that I see no need for God, no evidence for God and all the arguments supporting God are utterly unconvincing to me.

 

[Tiberius]

Person A and Person B can both claim that the other Person has flaws in their religion and that is exactly what they do, but so what? That does not prove that either one of the religions has flaws or that they do not have flaws.

Then I'm sure you'll understand why your claims that Bahai has no dirt are unconvincing to me.

I also have my doubts about that.

Yet you believe he returned.

So you think that a person who probably didn't exist... came back?

God does not have to be objective because God is not a human. God is always right because God is infallible.

How do you know? Because you heard it from God? Because you heard it from a guy who heard it from God?

I guess what I said about why Baha’is refer to other religions flew right over your head, or else you chose not to acknowledge it.

It's rather arrogant to assume that someone has either ignored you or doesn't understand just because they disagree with you.

What goalposts? The only thing I ever said that God does that causes suffering is the way He created the world. By virtue of this world being a material world there will be suffering because it is the material world that causes most suffering. Some suffering is caused by human free will choices, humans choosing to be cruel to other humans, but that kind of suffering is preventable. By contrast, there are certain things which man is forced and compelled to endure.

“Some things are subject to the free will of man, such as justice, equity, tyranny and injustice, in other words, good and evil actions; it is evident and clear that these actions are, for the most part, left to the will of man. But there are certain things to which man is forced and compelled, such as sleep, death, sickness, decline of power, injuries and misfortunes; these are not subject to the will of man, and he is not responsible for them, for he is compelled to endure them. But in the choice of good and bad actions he is free, and he commits them according to his own will.” Some Answered Questions, p. 248

And WHY is man forced to endure them? Because God set it up that way by creating a material world. Now do you understand what I meant about God causing suffering?

Still makes God a bit of a jerk if he intentionally set up a system that he knew would result in suffering when he could have avoided it.

 

[Tiberius]

When did I say that I believe in all parts of the Bible?

In post 479 you pretty much said the only bits you don't accept were the resurrection stories. You haven't been clear at all what parts of the Bible you believe and which parts you dismiss. Can you blame me for not getting it right? Or is it that you accept the parts that support your particular religious faith, but you dismiss the parts that don't fit with you faith?

 

[Trailblazer]

So you believe it is true because B wrote it, and since B wrote it, you know it is true.

Yes, and that is because I believe that Baha’u’llah was a true Messenger of God.

No need to tell me, I can't say I know for a fact that there is no God, not in the same way that I know for a fact I just watched the movie Hoodwinked with my girlfriend. (You should check it out, by the way. Look past the clunky animation and you'll find a movie that's really well written and well acted.) But I'll never claim to know for a fact that God isn't real. The most I'll say is that I see no need for God, no evidence for God and all the arguments supporting God are utterly unconvincing to me.

Okey-dokey.

I'll never claim to know for a fact that God is real. The most I'll say is that I see a need for God, evidence for God and one of the arguments supporting God is utterly convincing to me.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then I'm sure you'll understand why your claims that Bahai has no dirt are unconvincing to me.

I understand why you think that but it is unfair to say there is dirt until you have FOUND the dirt for yourself. I mean I am not going to say you have a dirty house unless I came to your house and saw it was dirty.

Yet you believe he returned.

I know Christ returned because of the evidence, but not Jesus in the same body; in a different person with a new name and a new message.

So you think that a person who probably didn't exist... came back?

I never said that Jesus probably did not exist. I know that Jesus existed because Baha'u'llah validated Him.

How do you know? Because you heard it from God? Because you heard it from a guy who heard it from God?

Because I heard it from a Messenger of God who was a Representative of God. God does not speak to anyone except His Messengers.

It's rather arrogant to assume that someone has either ignored you or doesn't understand just because they disagree with you.

I did not assume that. I just wondered why you did not have a retort.

Still makes God a bit of a jerk if he intentionally set up a system that he knew would result in suffering when he could have avoided it.

I am not going to argue with that because I don't like it anymore than you do.

 

[Trailblazer]

In post 479 you pretty much said the only bits you don't accept were the resurrection stories. You haven't been clear at all what parts of the Bible you believe and which parts you dismiss. Can you blame me for not getting it right? Or is it that you accept the parts that support your particular religious faith, but you dismiss the parts that don't fit with you faith?

I do not blame you for anything. I know I said that I do not believe in the resurrection stories are true but I was nit clear as to what I actually believe is true. To be honest, I never gave the Bible any serious thought until I started posting to Christians on forums about eight years ago, and I had never even read one Bible verse until then. I got interested in knowing what is in the Bible only because I was debating with Christians so I had to know.

I never read the Bible cover to cover, and that is another reason why I don't really have an opinion as to what I consider true or false. I do not believe that Jesus rose from the grave because I consider it absurd and unnecessary to the mission of Jesus, and my religion teaches that the stories were only symbolic, symbolizing the Cause of Christ coming back to life after three days, not the body.

“Therefore, we say that the meaning of Christ’s resurrection is as follows: the disciples were troubled and agitated after the martyrdom of Christ. The Reality of Christ, which signifies His teachings, His bounties, His perfections and His spiritual power, was hidden and concealed for two or three days after His martyrdom, and was not resplendent and manifest. No, rather it was lost, for the believers were few in number and were troubled and agitated. The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body; and when after three days the disciples became assured and steadfast, and began to serve the Cause of Christ, and resolved to spread the divine teachings, putting His counsels into practice, and arising to serve Him, the Reality of Christ became resplendent and His bounty appeared; His religion found life; His teachings and His admonitions became evident and visible. In other words, the Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body until the life and the bounty of the Holy Spirit surrounded it.

Such is the meaning of the resurrection of Christ, and this was a true resurrection. But as the clergy have neither understood the meaning of the Gospels nor comprehended the symbols, therefore, it has been said that religion is in contradiction to science, and science in opposition to religion, as, for example, this subject of the ascension of Christ with an elemental body to the visible heaven is contrary to the science of mathematics. But when the truth of this subject becomes clear, and the symbol is explained, science in no way contradicts it; but, on the contrary, science and the intelligence affirm it. Some Answered Questions, pp. 103-105

23: THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST

```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Perhaps the following citations will help you better understand the official position Baha'is take regarding the Bible.

The Bahá'í viewpoint proposed by this essay has been established as follows: The Bible is a reliable source of Divine guidance and salvation, and rightly regarded as a sacred and holy book. However, as a collection of the writings of independent and human authors, it is not necessarily historically accurate. Nor can the words of its writers, although inspired, be strictly defined as 'The Word of God' in the way the original words of Moses and Jesus could have been. Instead there is an area of continuing interest for Bahá'í scholars, possibly involving the creation of new categories for defining authoritative religious literature.

A Baháí View of the Bible
(Rosebery, Australia: Association for Baha'i Studies Australia, 1996)

In studying the Bible Bahá'ís must bear two principles in mind. The first is that many passages in Sacred Scriptures are intended to be taken metaphorically, not literally, and some of the paradoxes and apparent contradictions which appear are intended to indicate this. The second is the fact that the text of the early Scriptures, such as the Bible, is not wholly authentic.
(28 May 1984 to an individual believer)

The Bahá'ís believe what is in the Bible to be true in substance. This does not mean that every word recorded in that Book is to be taken literally and treated as the authentic saying of a Prophet....

The Bahá'ís believe that God's Revelation is under His care and protection and that the essence, or essential elements, of what His Manifestations intended to convey has been recorded and preserved in Their Holy Books. However, as the sayings of the ancient Prophets were written down some time later, we cannot categorically state, as we do in the case of the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, that the words and phrases attributed to Them are Their exact words
(9 August 1984 to an individual believer)

The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments
(From letters written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice)

 

[Meow Mix]

Hi. I deleted my last post regarding this subject because the details were too raw and personal, and while I appreciated the responses, they digressed from the questions.

So, simply, my questions are 1.) If a friend or family member dies and you know they weren't saved, do you still love them and cherish the memories, or do you try to bury it and let go? After all, once in heaven you'll forget anyway. Also, how do you deal with the thought of them suffering in eternal torment even though you know that they deserve it?

I hope I’m not skirting any rules or anything; but it’s alarming to me that a fellow human being believes that anybody deserves to suffer infinitely.

That’s all I’ll say. That’s alarming.

 

[Tiberius]

Yes, and that is because I believe that Baha’u’llah was a true Messenger of God.

But that position is logically flawed.

Let's say I have an autograph of George Clooney on a napkin. It says, "I, George Clooney, autographed this napkin. You can be sure that this autograph is a genuine George Clooney autograph because I, George Clooney, confirm that it is genuine."

Now, I can say, "That proves it. George Clooney wrote this, because George Clooney claims it was him, and who would know better than George Clooney?"

And you would say, "But anyone could write that, it doesn't prove George wrote it."

And I would say, "But it's got George's autograph on it. If George didn't write it, why would it have his autograph?"

And you'd say, "How do you know that's George's actual autograph?"

And I'd say, "Because it's got an assurance of authenticity written by George himself."

And you would say, "But anyone could have written that assurance, it doesn't prove George wrote it."

And I would say, "But it's got George's autograph on it. If George didn't write it, why would it have his autograph?"

And we'd go around in that little circle forever. And the whole thing could have been written by anyone.

Okey-dokey.

I'll never claim to know for a fact that God is real. The most I'll say is that I see a need for God, evidence for God and one of the arguments supporting God is utterly convincing to me.

I'm curious why you wouldn't claim to know for a fact that God is real if one of the arguments is utterly convincing to you.

I mean, there's an argument that 9.999... is equal to exactly 1 that is utterly convincing to me, and I'll happily claim to know for a fact that 9.999... is exactly equal to 1.

 

[Tiberius]

I understand why you think that but it is unfair to say there is dirt until you have FOUND the dirt for yourself. I mean I am not going to say you have a dirty house unless I came to your house and saw it was dirty.

By this logic, no one could claim anything unless they've seen it for themselves, yet we don't actually do that.

I know Christ returned because of the evidence, but not Jesus in the same body; in a different person with a new name and a new message.

Lots of people can and have made the same exact claim about lots of different people that you discount. I don't see what's different between them and you.

I never said that Jesus probably did not exist. I know that Jesus existed because Baha'u'llah validated Him.

So when I said, "I have very large doubts that a person named Jesus existed who was anything like the character depicted in the Bible," and you replied, "I also have my doubts about that," what exactly was it that you were having doubts about?

Because I heard it from a Messenger of God who was a Representative of God. God does not speak to anyone except His Messengers.

Because... reasons.

I did not assume that. I just wondered why you did not have a retort.

What's to retort? I understood what you were saying, I just disagree with what you were saying. You're the one who's so incapable of conceiving that you might be mistaken that you assume I must be either incapable of understanding it or just choosing to ignore it.

I am not going to argue with that because I don't like it anymore than you do.

Yet you believe that's real.