The Exclusivity of Christianity

[Trailblazer]

Except that you are wrong. The evidence is staring you right in the face - happy "materialist" everywhere. I'm what you call a materialist, and I'm here to tell you that it has provided a solid foundation for what has been a happy life.

There is a lot more to life than material happiness. There is spiritual happiness, which is the only kind of happiness that goes with us after we die and cross over to the spiritual world. I have a lot of wealth and assets and possessions but they bring me little happiness. My happiness is an inner state that is not contingent on that material world. It is the kind of happiness that nobody can take away from me and it is eternal.

 

[Trailblazer]

Baha'u'llah lived in the nineteenth century. And there was insufficient reason to believe the message he presented came from a god by academic standards for evaluating evidence. No other method can generate sound conclusions, just unsupported beliefs (faith).

Academic standards are not the standards used for evaluating a Messenger of God.
Sound conclusions can only be generated by carefully evaluating the evidence that Baha'u'llah told us to look at.

Of course it does. The number of people who will become Baha'i will be...

Oh, so now you can see into the future. I thought only God has foreknowledge.

Do you not understand how advertising and marketing work? It's the same. Sales will be the product of the fraction aware of your product or service times the fraction who want to buy it.

That's true, but nobody is trying to market or sell the Baha'i Faith.

Nor need you. I can list the reasons myself, although my list doesn't look like yours. Few people have seen the message, and many or most who did weren't convinced or attracted to the religion. The same is true for all small religions. And all movements of any kind that don't gain traction.

That's true, but so what?

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, voxpopuli,[2] and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), fickle crowd syndrome, and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea. Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

The converse of this is that if many or most people do not believe it, it cannot be so, and that is fallacious.

The Narrow Way

13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because[a] narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. (Matthew 7:13-14 )

In both cases, the task was to disseminate an important message to as many people as possible.

I fully agree, but I am not going to get the Baha'i administration to realize this so I am a woman alone.

Irrelevant. Furthermore, you just compared them when you found the absence of the Covid message potentially lethal but not the other.

It certainly is not irrelevant that nobody is going to die if they don't get the message.

News that affects people's life and death is not the same as a message from a new Messenger of God. Nobody is going to die if they don't get the message.
There, I fixed it.

Which depend on the efficiency of delivery and the quality of the message.

Whether the message is believed by many people depends upon (1) efficiency of delivery, i.e., how well the message is spread by the Baha'is, and (2) the receptivity of people who receive the message. It has nothing to do with the quality of the message since that will always be a subjective determination.

Disagree. The message is not evidence that the message is from a deity because it is mundane.

What I meant is that the claims in the message are not evidence that it is from a deity because that would be circular reasoning.
There is nothing mundane about a message from God that contains everything we are able to know and understand about God.

Evidence of a deity is something evident to the senses that makes the existence of the deity more likely, which does not include flowery, nonspecific exhortation to follow a god, which anybody can write.

You could not be more wrong. Evidence of a deity is something evident to the mind and heart. It has nothing to do with the physical senses.
Nobody can write like Baha'u'llah, except the Bab. Some people realize that and see that as evidence but some don't.

“A certain Muḥammad Karím, a native of Shíráz, who had been a witness to the rapidity and the manner in which the Báb had penned the verses with which He was inspired, has left the following testimony to posterity, after attaining, during those days, the presence of Bahá’u’lláh, and beholding with his own eyes what he himself had considered to be the only proof of the mission of the Promised One: “I bear witness that the verses revealed by Bahá’u’lláh were superior, in the rapidity with which they were penned, in the ease with which they flowed, in their lucidity, their profundity and sweetness to those which I, myself saw pour from the pen of the Báb when in His presence. Had Bahá’u’lláh no other claim to greatness, this were sufficient, in the eyes of the world and its people, that He produced such verses as have streamed this day from His pen.” God Passes By. pp. 137-138

And it includes the message, which you early said you don't consider evidence.

The claims of Baha'u'llah are in the Writings of Baha'u'llah, how else can we know what He is claiming?
However, a claim cannot be used as evidence to prove the claim is true because that would be circular reasoning.

The message of Baha'u'llah, which is the Writings of Baha'u'llah, is part of the evidence that supports His claims.

Yes, and I contend that the opposite is true - there are no Baha'i who are qualified to look at the evidence and see that it supports and sufficiently justifies the belief. Of course, your standards and theirs are not those of critical analysis, or they would have come to the same conclusions as the others who use them as their standard for belief.

Yes, and I contend that the opposite is true - there are Baha'is who are qualified to look at the evidence and see that it supports and sufficiently justifies the belief. Our standards are those of critical analysis, according to the definition below, and that is how we came to the we came to our conclusions.

What is the meaning of critical analysis?

As Brown and Keely discuss, analysing critically is a process of deconstructing what you read, write and listen to in a rational and logical manner (2012). It requires you to move beyond describing and analysing to evaluating, criticising and postulating on what you process.
Critical analysis - University of Wollongong - UOW

I disagree that dialectic adds nothing, and I don't find this activity divisive, although I know many of the faithful take personal offense at being disagreed with. Compare at your posting demeanor and mine. You disagree with me, but I'm not complaining about it or having any kind of an emotional reaction, just correcting errors. I never post anything like what you just did. Regarding divisiveness (division) and "us versus them", that depends on one's reaction to disagreement. Yes, I see a distinction between us, but I don't consider you the enemy or attacking.

The 'us and them" mentality, the claim that atheists are more intelligent than believers, and only they can think critically, is very divisive.
I take no offense at being disagreed with, but I will point out the obvious 'us and them' mentality, the air of superiority that emanates from your communication.

I am having no emotional reaction, I am as cool as a cucumber.

Correcting what you believe are errors. The problem is you cannot prove they are errors so that is only a personal opinion. We all have those but we don't all tout them as fact.

It does not to be outwardly attacking. You see a distinction between us and yourself because you think you are more intelligent. That is divisive.
When people have to put others down it is done only in order to raise themselves up that shows that they are insecure. That's psych 101.

Only by your lax standards, which require belief by faith despite what you call sufficient evidence. Too bad you can't embrace that. Too bad that you can't say that you believe because you choose to. Nobody could argue with that.

All religious belief requires faith since God can never be proven to exist. I must have said this 100 times already.
What is sufficient evidence to believe in a religion and thus in God varies by individual.
Some religious beliefs have more and better evidence than others.
Too bad you can't embrace that.

I do believe because I choose to and you disbelieve because you choose to. We all have free will to choose.
You will argue with that because you like to argue.

You can have that lane all to yourself. But you cross into the world of reason and claim its concepts for yourself. Critical thinkers then feel a need to correct the logical errors and insufficiently evidenced claims.

You can have the atheist lane all to yourself but you cannot have the lane of reason and critical thinking all to yourself because you do not own that lane.

 

[Trailblazer]

And what you call evidence relies on assumptions, so not really evidence that can be used objectively.

What is subjective and objective evidence?

Subjective evidence is evidence that we cannot evaluate. In fact, we have two choices; to accept what somebody says or reject it. ... Objective evidence is evidence that we can examine and evaluate for ourselves.
Objective evidence - definition and meaning - Market ...

We can examine and evaluate the evidence for the Baha'i Faith for ourselves thus it is objective evidence. For example, we can examine and evaluate the evidence for Baha'u'llah for ourselves because there are actual facts surrounding the Person, the Life, and the Mission of Baha'u'llah.

I have read the writings you consider evidence and they are no so impressive that a person who doesn't know the story and claims of Baha'u'llah would conclude they are from a divine source.

Some of us conclude that, some of us don't.

The Narrow Way

13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because[a] narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. (Matthew 7:13-14)

 

[Trailblazer]

You do. Every post is about what you believe. It's all about what you want to believe regardless of the rules that critical thinkers rely on for corect conclusions. You have you own rules, and you come up with your own conclusions. They are not sound conclusions as numerous critical thinkers explain to you. You don;t care about sound conclusions, you care about justifying what you want to believe, as all other theists do.

I do not sit still for false accusations. It is the atheists who come to my threads and make these threads about my beliefs.
Did you read the title of my thread and the OP?
The Exclusivity of Christianity

This thread was not started to talk about my religious beliefs and whether God exists, but as usual it got derailed, and not by me.

You have you own rules, and you come up with your own conclusions.
I do not speak for you the way you speak for me because I consider that disrespectful. I only speak for myself and you don't like what I say don't read my posts or post to me.

My conclusions are sound and they are the product of critical thinking.
Now you will respond and tell me they aren't, as if you can know how I process information.

What is going on in this interchange is very clear and I did not need to get an MA in psychology to understand it because it is psych 101 stuff.
You have to believe that my conclusions are not sound and that they are not the product of critical thinking in order to maintain your position that I am wrong about my religion and you are right.

The difference between me and you is that I don't have to say that you are wrong in order to be confident about my beliefs.
I also don't have to tell you atheism is wrong so I can feel like I am right. In my way of thinking nobody has to be right or wrong.

You have a way of making these threads about you and your belief.

Nothing could be further from the truth. It is you and other atheists who have made this thread about my beliefs but you are so lacking in self-awareness you cannot even see that.

Then it becomes a cycle of you becoming more defensive, saying more non-rational things, and you must be exhausted with how often you move the goalposts. Your use of the words "proof" and "evidence" are incomprehensible. Even when you try to define these words they are so laden with ambiguity they are meaningless.

I am anything but defensive. I respond with my own thoughts and beliefs but that is not defensive. Defending one's beliefs is not being defensive in a psychological way.

There is nothing ambiguous about the definitions of proof and evidence. They have specific meanings which are easy to understand.

You have your script and sometimes you break from it in subtle ways.

All of us have our own scripts in case you have not noticed.

 

[Trailblazer]

But they aren't. Baha'i are already believers, and as our forum Baha'i show us there is no objective and critical analysis done.

No such thing has been shown.

Atheists are THE target audience for theists in debate. If you can convince atheists that your claims are true then you HAVE truth.

That statement was totally illogical because whether I have the truth or not is not contingent upon whether I can convince atheists.

Atheists don't bring these assumptions, and our standards are very high. Atheists skilled at critical thought

Baha'is don't make assumptions, and our standards are very high. Baha'is are skilled at critical thought and that is how we recognized Baha'u'llah.

are THE qualified group you want to assess your claims and beliefs. Guess what, you have it. But you don't like our results.

Baha'is on this forum, most of whom have been Baha'is for 40 or 50 years, are the group that is qualified to assess the claims of Baha'u'llah as well as the supporting evidence.
If you don't like our results that is not our problem.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There is a lot more to life than material happiness. There is spiritual happiness

All happiness is a spiritual experience.

I have a lot of wealth and assets and possessions but they bring me little happiness.

Is that what you mean by material - monetary? Money prevents certain types of unhappiness and facilitates finding happiness.

My happiness is an inner state that is not contingent on that material world.

I'll bet it is. If your world changed, you happiness might as well. Doesn't death of human or animal loved one bring you unhappiness? That's a material change. How about if wildfires were seen in your neighborhood? Would your inner state remain the same?

Academic standards are not the standards used for evaluating a Messenger of God.

They are in academia. They're the standard for evaluating any evidence or argument.

Sound conclusions can only be generated by carefully evaluating the evidence that Baha'u'llah told us to look at.

And by applying the principles of valid reasoning to it. You won't get a sound conclusion if you very from that sharply proscribed path.

Oh, so now you can see into the future. I thought only God has foreknowledge.

That would be incorrect. Man has much foreknowledge as well. The odds are very good for Peking duck the Saturday evening. I called and reserved a duck and a table for four. Oh, and the sun will swell in about five billion years. In between (hopefully not sooner), I'll die, and the world will go on without me.

nobody is trying to market or sell the Baha'i Faith.

That could be why it isn't doing as well as Christianity, which is heavily marketed.

That's true, but so what?

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

No such argument was made as something being true because of the number of people agreeing. What I wrote was, "I can list the reasons [why the Baha'i faith is small after over a century] myself, although my list doesn't look like yours. Few people have seen the message, and many or most who did weren't convinced or attracted to the religion. The same is true for all small religions. And all movements of any kind that don't gain traction."

Regarding your question so what, it answers why this method of message dissemination didn't work. Few people see the message, and fewer are convinced of its authenticity.

It certainly is not irrelevant that nobody is going to die if they don't get the message.

It's irrelevant to whether using messengers is a good idea.

News that affects people's life and death is not the same as a message from a new Messenger of God.

No, but that doesn't mean that the means by which they were spread cannot be compared. You just compared themself and found them different.

Whether the message is believed by many people depends upon (1) efficiency of delivery, i.e., how well the message is spread by the Baha'is, and (2) the receptivity of people who receive the message. It has nothing to do with the quality of the message since that will always be a subjective determination.

So what if it's a subjective determination? If people (subjectively) like it, they'll embrace it. If it fails to resonate (subjectively), they walk away.

What I meant is that the claims in the message are not evidence that it is from a deity because that would be circular reasoning.

Yes, I know, and I rebutted that. The message can be evidence for a superhuman prescience or not. There is no circularity there.

There is nothing mundane about a message from God that contains everything we are able to know and understand about God.

I'll bet that you couldn't pass a quiz distinguishing passages from the prophet that you didn't recognize from AI, and maybe not from a Hallmark card or a Chinese fortune cookie.

Evidence of a deity is something evident to the mind and heart.

Forget the heart. It doesn't evaluate evidence. And the evidence you cite doesn't support your conclusion.

The message of Baha'u'llah, which is the Writings of Baha'u'llah, is part of the evidence that supports His claims.

It might if it didn't look so mundane. You would have come up with a passage too fine too prescient for a man to have written by now if you had one.

Yes, and I contend that the opposite is true - there are Baha'is who are qualified to look at the evidence and see that it supports and sufficiently justifies the belief. Our standards are those of critical analysis, according to the definition below, and that is how we came to the we came to our conclusions.

No, the believers' rules for reasoning are not those of critical thinkers, else they would have come to the same conclusion they did. It's like having driving directions but not arriving where everybody else did. They know that you didn't follow the directions correctly, and telling them that you did falls on deaf ears because of the outcome. This is the same. If you didn't come to the proper conclusion, you made a wrong turn somewhere in your thinking.

The 'us and them" mentality, the claim that atheists are more intelligent than believers, and only they can think critically, is very divisive.

I haven't seen that claim from unbelievers. That's your take on being told the proper rules of reasoning. You ought to welcome the help, which is intended to bring us together by helping you to learn these rules, which are offered constructively. If you perceive it otherwise, that a choice.

The problem is you cannot prove they are errors so that is only a personal opinion.

Yes, I can and have shown that they are errors, and you should be careful with that "It's only a personal opinion" stuff. It isn't always understood as you would like:

Know it all
Is This the Best-Ever Era for Learning?
The testimony of the NT writers

You see a distinction between us and yourself because you think you are more intelligent. That is divisive.
When people have to put others down it is done only in order to raise themselves up that shows that they are insecure. That's psych 101.

If you think I'm insecure, then you need to go look at your Psych 101 text again. It's insecurity that makes people feel like they are being attacked and now insulted when there is no such intent.

 

[F1fan]

There is a lot more to life than material happiness. There is spiritual happiness, which is the only kind of happiness that goes with us after we die and cross over to the spiritual world.

This is the sort of wishful thinking that gives me reason for doubt. If you were so happy in this life why need to believe that you will have immortality and happiness there too? This strikes me as a sort of greed that indicates a mind that isn't satisfied with how things truly are.

I have a lot of wealth and assets and possessions but they bring me little happiness. My happiness is an inner state that is not contingent on that material world. It is the kind of happiness that nobody can take away and it is eternal.

A ham sandwich claim. I would give you the benefit of the doubt here if it were for not the many threads you have started about your personal life and looking desperately for a husband. I took little intersst in those threads but I was curious at times to see how far a member would reveal personal details about their own life situation, and open it up to a group of strangers. What you revealed about your life did not strike me as a happy person at peace and in balance. At times you like to present a proud, defiant face to the crowd in debates as if to show us all how awesome Baha'i is for you, but you aren't consistent in your theatrics. There are certainly troubled waters that your religion can't solve.

 

[F1fan]

What is subjective and objective evidence?

Subjective evidence is evidence that we cannot evaluate. In fact, we have two choices; to accept what somebody says or reject it. ... Objective evidence is evidence that we can examine and evaluate for ourselves.
Objective evidence - definition and meaning - Market ...

We can examine and evaluate the evidence for the Baha'i Faith for ourselves thus it is objective evidence.

If you read my post I was rferring to the person's approach to examining evidence in an objective manner as opposed to subjective, not the evidence. There are facts about baha'u'llah that are not disputable. It's a fact he claimed to be a messenger for God. I have read some of the texts he wrote and found nothing particularly impressive about them. I actually found the wording so strange that it was more a product of a disturbed human mind than a wise human mind. If I was going to write essays about what a God tells me directly I would craft it in very staid and clear sentences. I would use my understanding of how to write to write paragraphs that start with a claim and then explain how the claim is true, and doing so in a way that ordinary people can actually do. What Baha'u'llah is so abstract that no wonder it doesn't appeal to ordinary or disciplined minds.

No objective thinker can read these texts and conclude there is no way a human mind could conjure it. I have seen no special knowledge that indicates a supernatural cause or clarvoyance. He even gets certain things in the Bible wrong, like referring to Adam and Noah as actual people. And the anti-gay attitude is a huge red flag.

There have been many discussions with various Baha'i about these issues and none explain how Baha'i reason through facts objectively. Inevitably all conclusions by Baha'i are made because they use faith and assume a God exists, and the messenger is the path to this God.

For example, we can examine and evaluate the evidence for Baha'u'llah for ourselves because there are actual facts surrounding the Person, the Life, and the Mission of Baha'u'llah.

Some of us conclude that, some of us don't.

The Narrow Way

13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because[a] narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. (Matthew 7:13-14)

And what does this tell you that has to be from a God? This is all metaphorical and has no direct cause and effect details. Leads to destruction? What does that mean?

Therapists in the 21st c entury will give their patients examples of right action versus self-desctructive action. These text are so vague a person would already have to be pretty mature and wise to figure it out for themselves. No wonder only a few get it.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Forget the heart. It doesn't evaluate evidence..

Without "the heart", there would be no point in evaluating anything.
We all have a conscience, and have a choice whether to take notice of it or not.

The evaluation comes after that .. no scientific evaluation can give a person faith in God.
It can only untangle which path to follow in that faith [ or material path].

 

[Trailblazer]

Without "the heart", there would be no point in evaluating anything.
We all have a conscience, and have a choice whether to take notice of it or not.

The evaluation comes after that .. no scientific evaluation can give a person faith in God.
It can only untangle which path to follow in that faith [ or material path].

Glad you're back.

 

[Trailblazer]

All happiness is a spiritual experience.

I disagree.

Is that what you mean by material - monetary? Money prevents certain types of unhappiness and facilitates finding happiness.

Money prevents certain types of unhappiness but money does not always facilitate finding happiness. If it did, all wealthy people would be happy.

I'll bet it is. If your world changed, you happiness might as well. Doesn't death of human or animal loved one bring you unhappiness? That's a material change. How about if wildfires were seen in your neighborhood? Would your inner state remain the same?

Death of human or animal loved one brings me unhappiness because I love those humans and animals. Love is spiritual, not material, so those deaths affect by spiritual happiness.

And by applying the principles of valid reasoning to it.

Which I have done.

That would be incorrect. Man has much foreknowledge as well. The odds are very good for Peking duck the Saturday evening. I called and reserved a duck and a table for four. Oh, and the sun will swell in about five billion years. In between (hopefully not sooner), I'll die, and the world will go on without me.

You can know some things about the future, but not absolutely. The restaurant could be closed due to a fire so there go your plans.
We all know we will die someday, that is a given.

That could be why it isn't doing as well as Christianity, which is heavily marketed.

Christianity is a larger religion because it has been around a lot longer than the Baha'i Faith, 2000 years vs. 160 years.
However, the Baha'i Faith has been growing a lot faster than Christianity.

The growth rates of the Abrahamic religions from 1910-2010 were as follows: Judaism .11%, Christianity 1.32%, Islam 1.97%, and Baha’i Faith 3.54%.

From 2000-2010 Islam became the fastest growing religion (1.86 %) and the Baha’i Faith was the second fastest growing religion (1.72%). Christianity is trailing behind at 1.31%.

Statistics from: Growth of religion - Wikipedia

The growth rates of the Baha’i Faith were higher than Islam from 1910 to 2010 because it includes the “formative age” of the Baha’i Faith (1921-1944)FOURTH PERIOD: THE INCEPTION OF THE FORMATIVE AGE OF THE BAHÁ’Í FAITH 1921–1944

Growth of the Baha’i Faith has slowed down since 2000 because the new goal is consolidation and community building, so the emphasis is not spreading the Faith all over the world as it was before in the 20th century.

Regarding your question so what, it answers why this method of message dissemination didn't work. Few people see the message, and fewer are convinced of its authenticity.

Again I say so what? That has no bearing upon whether the message is true or not, which is the only thing that matters.

It's irrelevant to whether using messengers is a good idea.

It had to be a good idea since it was God's idea.

No, but that doesn't mean that the means by which they were spread cannot be compared. You just compared themself and found them different.

The means can be compared, but the same means cannot be used to spread a religion as are used to spread news of a worldwide pandemic.

So what if it's a subjective determination? If people (subjectively) like it, they'll embrace it. If it fails to resonate (subjectively), they walk away.

If it fails to resonate (subjectively), they should walk away.

Forget the heart. It doesn't evaluate evidence. And the evidence you cite doesn't support your conclusion.

I said mind and heart.

It might if it didn't look so mundane. You would have come up with a passage too fine too prescient for a man to have written by now if you had one.

It does not look mundane to me. All of the Writings of Baha'u'llah are too fine and prescient for an ordinary man to have written them.

No, the believers' rules for reasoning are not those of critical thinkers, else they would have come to the same conclusion they did.

No, the atheists' critical thinking are not the same as the rules of reasoning of Baha'is, else they would have come to the same conclusion they did.

I haven't seen that claim from unbelievers. That's your take on being told the proper rules of reasoning. You ought to welcome the help, which is intended to bring us together by helping you to learn these rules, which are offered constructively. If you perceive it otherwise, that a choice.

Yes, I can and have shown that they are errors, and you should be careful with that "It's only a personal opinion" stuff. It isn't always understood as you would like:

That is mostly what the posts of unbelievers on this thread are -- us and them. We are critical thinkers and you aren't, over and over and over and over again.

If you think I'm insecure, then you need to go look at your Psych 101 text again. It's insecurity that makes people feel like they are being attacked and now insulted when there is no such intent.

I am not offended nor do I feel attacked but I am going to point out what you are doing constantly, pumping yourself up and knocking down believers.
It does not matter if you are aware of that or if it is your intent, you are doing it whenever you say you are a critical thinker and believers don't think critically, and you state that as a matter of fact when it is only a personal opinion.

 

[Trailblazer]

This is the sort of wishful thinking that gives me reason for doubt. If you were so happy in this life why need to believe that you will have immortality and happiness there too? This strikes me as a sort of greed that indicates a mind that isn't satisfied with how things truly are.

Whether or not I am happy in this life has nothing to do with what I believe about the afterlife. A person can be very satisfied with the way things are in this life yet still believe there is an afterlife.

A ham sandwich claim. I would give you the benefit of the doubt here if it were for not the many threads you have started about your personal life and looking desperately for a husband. I took little intersst in those threads but I was curious at times to see how far a member would reveal personal details about their own life situation, and open it up to a group of strangers.

My happiness is an inner state that is not contingent on what happens in my life. It is the kind of happiness that nobody can take away and it is unrelated to whether I have a husband or not. I was looking for a husband but not anymore. I finally realized it does not matter if I ever get married again and I am not even looking for a husband. I have left it in the hands of God.

As for revealing personal details on this forum, I do not consider them strangers and many of them are friends. I trust the people here and I am not ashamed of my situation or my life. Most people can imagine what it must feel like to be widowed after 37 years of marriage even though they have not experienced it.

What you revealed about your life did not strike me as a happy person at peace and in balance. At times you like to present a proud, defiant face to the crowd in debates as if to show us all how awesome Baha'i is for you, but you aren't consistent in your theatrics. There are certainly troubled waters that your religion can't solve.

Would you be happy if you were married for 37 years and suddenly lost a spouse under suspicious circumstances? My counselor has told me I have dome remarkably well under the circumstances and other people who know about my situation cannot even understand how I have coped given all my responsibilities and the fact that I am all alone, with no family to help me.

I am anything but proud or defiant, which shows that you really don't know me at all. I think what you are doing is called projection.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

money does not always facilitate finding happiness. If it did, all wealthy people would be happy.

Facilitate means make more likely. Money multiplies options. But it takes wisdom to know how to use the money, wisdom is knowing what brings lasting contentment.

Death of human or animal loved one brings me unhappiness because I love those humans and animals. Love is spiritual, not material, so those deaths affect by spiritual happiness.

Your material world changed, and with it, your inner world. That was the point.

You can know some things about the future, but not absolutely.

Then we are in agreement now. Originally, you, "thought only God has foreknowledge."

Christianity is a larger religion because it has been around a lot longer than the Baha'i Faith, 2000 years vs. 160 years.

If that were the reason, Judaism, which is older, would be larger than Christianity.

Again I say so what? That has no bearing upon whether the message is true or not, which is the only thing that matters.

I wasn't discussing whether the message was true, but rather, whether using messengers was an efficient method for a god to use to get its word out. My comment had been, "Regarding your question so what, it answers why this method of message dissemination didn't work. Few people see the message, and fewer are convinced of its authenticity."

It had to be a good idea since it was God's idea.

This is you deviating from critical thinking. Don't take it personally. Learn if you can. Learn how and why.

The means can be compared, but the same means cannot be used to spread a religion as are used to spread news of a worldwide pandemic.

Sure they can. The news of the pandemic was spread by print and broadcast media as well as by word of mouth.

It does not look mundane to me. All of the Writings of Baha'u'llah are too fine and prescient for an ordinary man to have written them.

Then your power of discernment is low here. You can't distinguish between what any man could have written and what no man could have written.

That is mostly what the posts of unbelievers on this thread are -- us and them. We are critical thinkers and you aren't, over and over and over and over again.

That doesn't make it adversarial to me like it does to you. You could stand down, but you prefer to engage. So do I. But I don't feel like we are at war. You would be able to discern that in my posting style if I did. It might contain pokes at you, or snark. It doesn't.

I am not offended nor do I feel attacked but I am going to point out what you are doing constantly, pumping yourself up and knocking down believers.
It does not matter if you are aware of that or if it is your intent, you are doing it whenever you say you are a critical thinker and believers don't think critically, and you state that as a matter of fact when it is only a personal opinion.

Sorry that you feel that way, but that interpretation is your choice. So you think I'm pumping myself up to point out to you where I find you wrong? I don't need to pump myself up. I need to exercise my mind. I'm amazed that you see me that way. And disappointed. It doesn't have to be this way. Or maybe it does.

My happiness is an inner state that is not contingent on what happens in my life.

Then you are the only human being for whom that is true.

 

[Trailblazer]

If you read my post I was rferring to the person's approach to examining evidence in an objective manner as opposed to subjective, not the evidence. There are facts about baha'u'llah that are not disputable. It's a fact he claimed to be a messenger for God.

Evidence can be looked at objectively but the final determination as to what it means is subjective.

I have read some of the texts he wrote and found nothing particularly impressive about them. I actually found the wording so strange that it was more a product of a disturbed human mind than a wise human mind.

I can understand why a person might conclude that if that person did not know that the Source was God.

If I was going to write essays about what a God tells me directly I would craft it in very staid and clear sentences. I would use my understanding of how to write to write paragraphs that start with a claim and then explain how the claim is true, and doing so in a way that ordinary people can actually do. What Baha'u'llah is so abstract that no wonder it doesn't appeal to ordinary or disciplined minds.

The Writings of Baha'u'llah were not intended to appeal to ordinary people, they are appealing to people who already have a high level of spiritual understanding.

If you really want to understand what the Baha'i Faith is about, you do not start by reading the Writings of Baha'u'llah, but rather you read the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha or Shoghi Effendi, who were appointed as interepretrs of the the Writings of Baha'u'llah.

No objective thinker can read these texts and conclude there is no way a human mind could conjure it.

Again, the Writings of Baha'u'llah were not written for objective thinkers, thye are written for people who already have a high level of spiritual understanding.

I have seen no special knowledge that indicates a supernatural cause or clarvoyance. He even gets certain things in the Bible wrong, like referring to Adam and Noah as actual people.

And you won't ever see it the way you are approaching it. No, Baha'u'llah did not get anything wrong since Adam and Noah were real people.

There have been many discussions with various Baha'i about these issues and none explain how Baha'i reason through facts objectively. Inevitably all conclusions by Baha'i are made because they use faith and assume a God exists, and the messenger is the path to this God.

All Baha'is approach the evidence differently, and you don't know how they reason through the facts, only they know that.
Baha'is do not assume that God exists, although most Baha'is came from another religion so they already believed that God exists before they became Baha'is.

And what does this tell you that has to be from a God? This is all metaphorical and has no direct cause and effect details. Leads to destruction? What does that mean?

That verses do not tell us that they had to come from God.
One has to understand the context in order to understand what 'leads to destruction' means.

13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because[a] narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. (Matthew 7:13-14)

The narrow gate is the gate that leads to eternal life and the wide gate is the gate that leads to destruction, which lack of eternal life.
Eternal life is nearness to God and lack of eternal life is distance from God. Few people find the narrow gate because it is hard to find and even more difficult to get through. It is much easier to get through the wide gate and follow the wide road which most people follow. That is why there are so few Baha'is.

Therapists in the 21st c entury will give their patients examples of right action versus self-desctructive action. These text are so vague a person would already have to be pretty mature and wise to figure it out for themselves. No wonder only a few get it.

You got that right. You have to have spiritual proclivities to understand what scriptures mean. I was not raised in any religion or reading the Bible so I had to work at it to come to an understanding of scriptures.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Whether or not I am happy in this life has nothing to do with what I believe about the afterlife. A person can be very satisfied with the way things are in this life yet still believe there is an afterlife.

My happiness is an inner state that is not contingent on what happens in my life. It is the kind of happiness that nobody can take away and it is unrelated to whether I have a husband or not. I was looking for a husband but not anymore. I finally realized it does not matter if I ever get married again and I am not even looking for a husband. I have left it in the hands of God.

As for revealing personal details on this forum, I do not consider them strangers and many of them are friends. I trust the people here and I am not ashamed of my situation or my life. Most people can imagine what it must feel like to be widowed after 37 years of marriage even though they have not experienced it.

Would you be happy if you were married for 37 years and suddenly lost a spouse under suspicious circumstances? My counselor has told me I have dome remarkably well under the circumstances and other people who know about my situation cannot even understand how I have coped given all my responsibilities and the fact that I am all alone, with no family to help me.

I am anything but proud or defiant, which shows that you really don't know me at all. I think what you are doing is called projection.

Once more, I wish I lived closer to you so I could try to connect you with your late husband and hopefully bring you some peace and comfort when you need it the most. I could help you around your house and with the care of your cats. We've been talking for a while, which has given me the chance to sense how you're feeling at times, which makes me concerned for your emotional well-being. You know that you can talk to me anytime in our messages.

 

[Trailblazer]

Once more, I wish I lived closer to you so I could try to connect you with your late husband and hopefully bring you some peace and comfort when you need it the most. I could help you around your house and with the care of your cats. We've been talking for a while, which has given me the opportunity to sense how you are feeling at times, which makes me concerned for your emotional well-being. You know that you can talk to me anytime in our private message.

I also wished you lived closer to me, primarily for the reasons you stated. I am getting by okay but I still feel a need to connect to my late husband and I think I will figure out a way as soon as the time is right. Meanwhile, I know that I can talk to you any time in our private message and I really appreciate that.

 

[F1fan]

Evidence can be looked at objectively but the final determination as to what it means is subjective.

This isn't what I mean. To examine something objectively means to avoid peronal bias. Bias can assume personal desires and assumptions. For example someone who already believes a God exists and wants to find justification to believe it will not be objective in reading certain texts, like Baha'u'llah's. This is a problem theists have hanging over their heads. Can they be truly unbiased and objective?

I can understand why a person might conclude that if that person did not know that the Source was God.

But you yourself admit you don't know if the source is God. Who can honestly KNOW that any text is from a God given what we have available to us today?

The Writings of Baha'u'llah were not intended to appeal to ordinary people, they are appealing to people who already have a high level of spiritual understanding.

First, where in the text does it say this? Second, then no wonder Baha'ism isn't working. The planet is covered in ordinary people. Third, this sounds like self-service to assert that it only appeals to who "already have a high level of spiritual understanding". Frankly this kind of boasting (and tough luck to all ordinary losers, right?) doesn't sound very much like "spiritual understanding".

If you really want to understand what the Baha'i Faith is about, you do not start by reading the Writings of Baha'u'llah, but rather you read the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha or Shoghi Effendi, who were appointed as interepretrs of the the Writings of Baha'u'llah.

Why weren't the orginal texts sufficient? You need more texts from people who aren't messengers? This sounds as unreliable as the Gossip Game. And anyway, do you think I have a "high level of spiritual understanding" who can make sense of these extra texts? Or am I ordinary and just a lost soul who will never get it? Either way, you are suggesting I read it. But how is it not a trap? I get it and I'm suddenly a convert, or it isn't convincing and I'm a lost ordinary soul. As Ella stated, why not just explain why these extra texts are so crucial and filled with truth?

Again, the Writings of Baha'u'llah were not written for objective thinkers, thye are written for people who already have a high level of spiritual understanding.

No you said it wasn't written for ordinary people. Why wouldn't truth be understanable by well educated, critical thinkers?

And you won't ever see it the way you are approaching it. No, Baha'u'llah did not get anything wrong since Adam and Noah were real people.

So in your way of thinking critical analysis isn't effective to discern what is true in your religion even though it is highly reliable in all other ways?

Any chance this is just your bias and frustration at work, insisting the very process pointing out problems in your religion should not be used?

All Baha'is approach the evidence differently, and you don't know how they reason through the facts, only they know that.

Looks like they assume it is correct without any rational thought or skepticism.

Baha'is do not assume that God exists, although most Baha'is came from another religion so they already believed that God exists before they became Baha'is.

Any theist will naturally assume a god exists. You admit to not knowing a God exists, so that is synonmous with assuming it does. You often refer to God as if it is real phenomenon, and refer to characteristics it supposedly has. That all indicates assumption. I know you claim to have evidence, but it isn't sufficient given the nature of the claim.

That verses do not tell us that they had to come from God.
One has to understand the context in order to understand what 'leads to destruction' means.

13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because[a] narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. (Matthew 7:13-14)

The narrow gate is the gate that leads to eternal life and the wide gate is the gate that leads to destruction, which lack of eternal life.
Eternal life is nearness to God and lack of eternal life is distance from God. Few people find the narrow gate because it is hard to find and even more difficult to get through. It is much easier to get through the wide gate and follow the wide road which most people follow. That is why there are so few Baha'is.

Then how do Baha'i expect to unify the planet?

You got that right. You have to have spiritual proclivities to understand what scriptures mean. I was not raised in any religion or reading the Bible so I had to work at it to come to an understanding of scriptures.

More "you have to be special to understand religious text", yet no explanation that it is true. Critical thinking is the most reliable tool we have, and you reject that process in favor of some vague spiritual whatever. How is that not faith, and just personal whim? Where is the examples of this approach being true and reliable? Your appeal is laughable and absurd.

 

[PearlSeeker]

If we already had all the answers, we wouldn't need faith. We'd have knowledge, instead. But we don't have all the answers. Especially the answers to the questions that really matter to us. So we have to invent the answers that we hope to be so, and then trust in them enough to act on them....

... or we remain agnostic about it (until we discover more). I think this is more reasonable than taking a wild guess.

 

[Trailblazer]

... or we remain agnostic about it (until we discover more). I think this is more reasonable than taking a wild guess.

I just happen to be a believer but I consider agnosticism a respectable position.

 

[CG Didymus]

Of course it does. The number of people who will become Baha'i will be the fraction who see the message multiplied by the fraction believing it. Do you not understand how advertising and marketing work? It's the same. Sales will be the product of the fraction aware of your product or service times the fraction who want to buy it.

Baha'is... Christians... any of these religions that seek to make converts also has the problem of some the converts getting "buyers" remorse. Some of them dropout and some stay but don't participate much.