To What Degree Has Scientific Knowledge Pulled Mankind Away From Religion?

[Subduction Zone]

It is not lying unless Baha'u'llah did not fulfill them, and then the author of the book would be the liar. not me or Baha'u'llah.

That is a straw man. I never admitted there were no valid prophesies. I said that prophesies were not the best proof that a Prophet was a Prophet.

I am not going to quote the entire book, but I might quote one or two prophecies.

You have done it twice now and have not been able to substantiate the claims either time. At this point you have essentially proven yourself guilty.

An honest debater does not use that technique, especially after you were asked to show that there was any substance to the claims. And no, it is not a strawman, you were the one that used the dishonest technique. No one force you to do so.

One more time, an honest person, if he could not support his claims, would not use that technique. So far you have no evidence for your beliefs that would convince any rational person.

 

[Trailblazer]

Because what God says is irrelevant to how I would act. I will still attempt to be a good, thoughtful person no matter what some deity claims. I won't do what I consider to be evil just because a deity dictates it.

That’s good. I know a lot of nonbelievers with that philosophy.

Why do you think a deity would dictate you to do evil?

I don't give a fig about what some deity thinks is my purpose. I determine what my purpose is, not a dictator.

Why do you think the deity is a dictator? Is a teacher who provides instruction a dictator?

I really have no need of a deity. I do not need God.

Well great then. I was never interested in God so I would probably be singing the same tune if I had not accidentally bumped into God. Now I am in it for the long haul… Once you know you know. God is not like a burger you can send back….

I disagree. Again, I don't let others, even all-powerful deities, decide what is best for me (by their evaluation). That is my choice, not theirs. I might listen to their recommendations and reasons, but only if there *are* reasons I understand.

You took the words right out of my mouth. I would not *do* what God told me to do if I did not agree with it and understand *why* I am doing it. I am pretty darn lucky that I agree with God. That keeps it rather simple.

And on this, I disagree. The evidence (actually lack thereof) points to non-existence of deities.

We all have different ways of viewing evidence. I only believe in God because of Baha’u’llah, period. It is self-evident *to me* that He spoke for God because there is no other explanation for what He wrote, not to mention what He did in His life.

“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. p. 138

I tried to ignore God for most of my life. I did not like God much but I could never disbelieve in Baha’u’llah. It is if A, then B logic that clinched the deal and kept me from dropping out of the religion. I never had any mushy gushy feelings towards God like most Christians and some other Baha’is. I still don’t.

 

[Trailblazer]

You have done it twice now and have not been able to substantiate the claims either time. At this point you have essentially proven yourself guilty.

An honest debater does not use that technique, especially after you were asked to show that there was any substance to the claims. And no, it is not a strawman, you were the one that used the dishonest technique. No one force you to do so.

One more time, an honest person, if he could not support his claims, would not use that technique. So far you have no evidence for your beliefs that would convince any rational person.

I have no *technique* because I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I just like talking to people and sharing my beliefs. What they do with them is not my business or my responsibility. We are all only accountable to ourselves and God, if we believe in God.

I cannot help it if you do not like the *best evidence* that shows that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God, His words and deeds. I tried to explain that the predictions He made are not the best evidence but I allowed myself to be goaded into talking about them; as usual I let people lead me around by the nose and then I get blamed for it. That’s okay though, it is all in a day’s work…

I anyone is really interested in knowing whether Baha’u’llah’s predictions came true, they can read the book The Challenge of Baha'u'llah. The chapters with the prophecies are as follows:

Chapter 4 BAHA'I PROPHECIES: HISTORICAL EVENTS
Chapter 5 BAHA'I PROPHECIES: SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES
Chapter 6 BAHA'I PROPHECIES: UNFINISHED BUSINESS

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have no *technique* because I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I just like talking to people and sharing my beliefs. What they do with them is not my business or my responsibility. We are all only accountable to ourselves and God, if we believe in God.

I cannot help it if you do not like the *best evidence* that shows that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God, His words and deeds. I tried to explain that the predictions He made are not the best evidence but I allowed myself to be goaded into talking about them; as usual I let people lead me around by the nose and then I get blamed for it. That’s okay though, it is all in a day’s work…

I anyone is really interested in knowing whether Baha’u’llah’s predictions came true, they can read the book The Challenge of Baha'u'llah. The chapters with the prophecies are as follows:

Chapter 4 BAHA'I PROPHECIES: HISTORICAL EVENTS
Chapter 5 BAHA'I PROPHECIES: SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES
Chapter 6 BAHA'I PROPHECIES: UNFINISHED BUSINESS

When you use the same technique twice then no matter how much you deny it you "have a technique". The sort of argument that you posted was dishonest whether you realize it or not.

 

[Trailblazer]

When you use the same technique twice then no matter how much you deny it you "have a technique". The sort of argument that you posted was dishonest whether you realize it or not.

I do not allow people to speak for me and call me dishonest. That is rude whether you realize it or not.

I have no technique because I have no task to accomplish. I just respond to posts according to what others ask or say.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do not allow people to speak for me and call me dishonest. That is rude whether you realize it or not.

I have no technique because I have no task to accomplish. I just respond to posts according to what others ask or say.

You used the same technique twice, no matter how many times that you deny it. The first time may have been an innocent mistake. Why did you repeat it when it was explained to be wrong? If you did not understand why it was wrong you should have asked. That would have been acceptable. You did not do that. I can't take your protest seriously when you won't acknowledge your errors.

 

[Trailblazer]

You used the same technique twice, no matter how many times that you deny it. The first time may have been an innocent mistake. Why did you repeat it when it was explained to be wrong? If you did not understand why it was wrong you should have asked. That would have been acceptable. You did not do that. I can't take your protest seriously when you won't acknowledge your errors.

I am asking now.....What do you think I did that was wrong? What do you mean by technique? I cannot defend myself when I have no idea what you think I did wrong.

In a court of law the accuser is responsible to explain what the accused did wrong. Otherwise, it is just empty words.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am asking now.....What do you think I did that was wrong? What do you mean by technique? I cannot defend myself when I have no idea what you think I did wrong.

In a court of law the accuser is responsible to explain what the accused did wrong. Otherwise, it is just empty words.

Then you reacted to quickly. You used a Gish Gallop, you clearly do not know what a Gish Gallop is, you should have asked about that concept. A Gish Gallop is when someone posts a long list of claims to support a claim, that long list is usually mostly false or even all false. That appears to be the case with your list of so called prophesies. You were even given a very good post that described what you could have used to help you to judge whether these prophecies were valid or not:


To What Degree Has Scientific Knowledge Pulled Mankind Away From Religion?

Instead you simply reposted the list. That was clearly not proper. The claim that you had made was challenged that puts the burden of proof upon you, instead you posted that foolish list again. Your error was obvious. Do you understand it now?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Why do you think a deity would dictate you to do evil?

I think his point was that he does what he does because he considers his choices moral. If an alleged deity happens to agree with him, fine.If not, that would probably be something he considered immoral and wouldn't do it. The point is, that he is one who decides for himself what is right or wrong, not others speaking for a deity.

That's my position as well. None of my ethical values come from a book even if many can be found in books. Where I happen to agree with Jesus, it's not because Jesus said it. I came to a similar conclusion by a different route.

Why do you think the deity is a dictator? Is a teacher who provides instruction a dictator?

If the instructions are commands issued under threat of punishment for disobedience, then yes, that's a dictator. If the instruction is offered for consideration in a take-it-or-leave-it manner, then no. When discussing gods that issue commands, we are talking about dictators.

I would not *do* what God told me to do if I did not agree with it and understand *why* I am doing it.

Then you are one of us.

That's Polymath's point, I believe. We should each be the measure of what is right or wrong. We have no reason to base our moral decisions on what a deity is said to have recommended. We would have a reason to obey commands the rejection of which would result in punishment, but we have no reason to believe that the commands said to come from a deity actually do, which makes them empty threats from ancient voices who did not share our values or worldview. Why would we care today what they are commanding us regarding extramarital sex, for example? Why would we care what adherents have been convinced is sin?

Why should we oppose same sex marriage because some ancient voice calls homosexuality a sin? That's a violation of a central tenet of rational ethics: The Golden Rule. That might constitute an example of what Polymath considered evil coming from a(n alleged) deity.

I cannot help it if you do not like the *best evidence* that shows that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God, His words and deeds.

That is correct. You have no control over how others assess your argument. You can only make your best argument accompanied by your best evidence and leave it at that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I tried to explain that the predictions He made are not the best evidence but I allowed myself to be goaded into talking about them

You broached the topic of prophecy as evidence of a deity. You gave a mixed message there, saying that it wasn't proof - just evidence - after offering it as evidence that Baha'u'llah was a messenger of a real god with a valuable message for us. You seemed to sense that it would not convince skeptics. Perhaps in the future, you won't offer prophecy as evidence of a god.

Let's assume that you have a 5 year old son, and get a message over the telephone that it is your son, now 34 years old, calling you from the future. What would he need to say to you to convince you that it wasn't a prank call?

That's what happened in a 1998 movie starring Dennis Quaid called Frequency.

When an entity with knowledge of the future wants to make a convincing prediction, it'll be at least as good as the one made in the movie Frequency, set in 1969, where Dennis Quaid's character’s son contacts Quaid from 1998 via ham radio.To convince his father of that fact, the son “predicts” the outcome of game five of what is for the father the as-yet unfinished 1969 World Series:

• "Well, game five was the big one. It turned in the bottom of the 6th. We were down 3-0. Cleon Jones gets hit on the foot - left a scuffmark on the ball. Clendenon comes up. The count goes to 2 and 2. High fastball. He nailed it. Weis slammed a solo shot in the 7th to tie. Jones and Swoboda scored in the 8th. We won, Pop."

Then the father watched the game live and that is what happened.

That’s high quality prophecy. It's specific, detailed, gives dates and places, and predicts something that could not have been guessed.

Low quality prophecy is vague or unclear predictions, trivial predictions such as it will be cold next winter, that earthquakes or wars will come, or that members of a religious cult will be disesteemed by the general public. This is what we get from the religions.

Did you look at the Mathematical Bible Prophecy link I posted? Did you find it convincing? It was basically claiming that Ezekiel and Leviticus together predicted 1948 as the year for the restoration of Israel. Here are the two scriptures:

• "Then God said to Ezekiel, 'Now lie on your left side for 390 days to show Israel will be punished for 390 years by captivity and doom. Each day you lie there represents a year of punishment ahead for Israel. Afterwards, turn over and lay on your right side for 40 days, to signify the years of Judah's punishment. Each day will represent one year . . .’ ”(Ezekiel 4:4-6)

• "And after all this, if you do not obey Me, then I (God) will punish you seven times more for your sins."- (Leviticus 26:18)”

Do you see where that is a prediction that Israel would return to the world in 1948? Me, neither. That's typical low quality biblical "prophecy." It actually predicts nothing since nobody got the year 1948 out of it until after 1948.

With all due respect, you haven't provided anything better from Baha'u'llah. You offered, "O banks of the Rhine! We have seen you covered with gore" and called it "pretty specific to WWI and WWII," but it's no better than the Old Testament example given above. Did anybody use those words for anything except after the fact to claim that they predicted two specific wars? If there was a third world war, could we amend our position and say that Baha'u'llah predicted them all?

So how can you use these insights to your advantage, knowing that these prophecies have little or no persuasive power with people outside of your faith?

I would suggest not trying to both claim that you have answers, but that you aren't trying to promote them and don't care what people believe. If the latter were the case, you wouldn't mention your beliefs unless asked about them.

The prophecies are counterproductive. They reveal the opposite of what you think and hope they reveal. They show me that this is yet another religion that hopes to establish the legitimacy of its god claim with words that can only be believed by somebody with the will to believe, which is different from a willingness to believe. The critical thinker is willing to be convinced, but has no desire to believe what cannot be argued convincingly by his own standards of reason applied to evidence, which may not be the same as your own.

It would also be helpful to listen to what your audience tells you, and even if you don't accept it, acknowledge it and let it be reflected in your presentation. On another thread, I read where you thought that your words were being rejected because we felt threatened or were uninterested, and that was written after you were told that we were interested, asked you for your best evidence, reviewed it, and found it unconvincing. Obviously, you didn't believe that.

Even if you were correct, if you don't at any point acknowledge that your audience believes what it is telling you, you've lost them.

I hope this helps you have a more satisfying experience interacting with unbelievers, an activity that you say that you enjoy.

 

[Polymath257]

I think his point was that he does what he does because he considers his choices moral. If an alleged deity happens to agree with him, fine.If not, that would probably be something he considered immoral and wouldn't do it. The point is, that he is one who decides for himself what is right or wrong, not others speaking for a deity.

That's my position as well. None of my ethical values come from a book even if many can be found in books. Where I happen to agree with Jesus, it's not because Jesus said it. I came to a similar conclusion by a different route.



If the instructions are commands issued under threat of punishment for disobedience, then yes, that's a dictator. If the instruction is offered for consideration in a take-it-or-leave-it manner, then no. When discussing gods that issue commands, we are talking about dictators.



Then you are one of us.

That's Polymath's point, I believe. We should each be the measure of what is right or wrong. We have no reason to base our moral decisions on what a deity is said to have recommended. We would have a reason to obey commands the rejection of which would result in punishment, but we have no reason to believe that the commands said to come from a deity actually do, which makes them empty threats from ancient voices who did not share our values or worldview. Why would we care today what they are commanding us regarding extramarital sex, for example? Why would we care what adherents have been convinced is sin?

Why should we oppose same sex marriage because some ancient voice calls homosexuality a sin? That's a violation of a central tenet of rational ethics: The Golden Rule. That might constitute an example of what Polymath considered evil coming from a(n alleged) deity.



That is correct. You have no control over how others assess your argument. You can only make your best argument accompanied by your best evidence and leave it at that.

Well said, and you represented my position quite well. Thank you.

 

[Sapiens]

I gave you options and you picked one. Gotta love you atheists. It is the believers that are difficult to talk to because they believe God exists and they all have different conceptions about God (gods)...

It sure is a lot easier to be an atheist... wish I could be one.

If God does not exist then these people are just extraordinary humans.
If God exists, then these people are either (a) extraordinary humans or (b) Messengers of God.​

The only way to know if it is a or b is to check em' out.

You are an atheist with respect to thousands of gods, all you need do now is extend that construct one god further.

I do not allow people to speak for me and call me dishonest. That is rude whether you realize it or not.

I have no technique because I have no task to accomplish. I just respond to posts according to what others ask or say.

It may be rude, I don't know, that is a personal appraisal, but I do know that it is true. If that hurts your feelings ... too bad, try relieving the cause and not just the symptom.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then you reacted to quickly. You used a Gish Gallop, you clearly do not know what a Gish Gallop is, you should have asked about that concept. A Gish Gallop is when someone posts a long list of claims to support a claim, that long list is usually mostly false or even all false. That appears to be the case with your list of so called prophesies.

Gish Gallop is a technique, named after the creationist Duane Gish who employed it, whereby someone argues a cause by hurling as many different half-truths and no-truths into a very short space of time so that their opponent cannot hope to combat each point in real time. Sep 11, 2012
Gish Gallop

I was not using that list to support a claim. It was just a list of prophecies. You cannot call that a Gish Gallop when you do not even know if the prophecies were fulfilled or not. That list was not half-truths or no-truths.

I cannot post an entire book on this forum. The only way you can know if those prophecies were fulfilled would be to read the book that explains *in detail* how all 30 prophecies were fulfilled. I told you if you wanted to know how the prophecies were fulfilled you would have to read the book that explains that.

You were even given a very good post that described what you could have used to help you to judge whether these prophecies were valid or not:
To What Degree Has Scientific Knowledge Pulled Mankind Away From Religion?
Instead you simply reposted the list. That was clearly not proper.

Sorry I missed that in your post, but I have found it now...

It Aint Necessarily So said: Here is what I believe is a good working definition of what can be called high quality prophecy:

1. High quality prophecy needs to be specific, detailed and unambiguous. Optimally, the time and place are specified.

Baha’u’llah saw the banks of the Rhine in Germany covered with gore and He said swords of retribution were drawn against Germany (WWI) and He said that Germany would have another turn (WWII). That is pretty specific and unambiguous. Both time and place are specified.​

2. also needs to prophecy something unexpected, unlikely or unique - something that was not self-fulfilling and could not have been contrived or easily guessed.

Germany was in conspicuous glory in 1870 when Bahaullah wrote the Tablet so the fall of Germany in WWI and WWII were unexpected, unlikely. It could not have been easily guessed and it certainly was not contrived.
​

3. High quality prophecy must be accurate and unaccompanied by failed prophecies.

It sure was accurate unless you can deny that WWI and WWII happened.
​

4. The prophecies must be verified that they came before the event predicted, and that they were fulfilled completely.

This Tablet was written in 1870. WWI and WWII happened after 1870, didn’t they? It was fulfilled completely unless WWI and WWII were never completed and no blood was shed on the banks of the Rhine.
​

Tablet to Kaiser Wilhelm I

O KING of Berlin! Give ear unto the Voice calling from this manifest Temple: Verily, there is none other God but Me, the Everlasting, the Peerless, the Ancient of Days. Take heed lest pride debar thee from recognizing the Dayspring of Divine Revelation, lest earthly desires shut thee out, as by a veil, from the Lord of the Throne above and of the earth below. Thus counselleth thee the Pen of the Most High. He, verily, is the Most Gracious, the All-Bountiful. Do thou remember the one whose power transcended thy power (Napoleon III), and whose station excelled thy station. Where is he? Whither are gone the things he possessed? Take warning, and be not of them that are fast asleep. He it was who cast the Tablet of God behind him, when We made known unto him what the hosts of tyranny had caused Us to suffer. Wherefore, disgrace assailed him from all sides, and he went down to dust in great loss. Think deeply, O King, concerning him, and concerning them who, like unto thee, have conquered cities and ruled over men. The All-Merciful brought them down from their palaces to their graves. Be warned, be of them who reflect… O banks of the Rhine! We have seen you covered with gore, inasmuch as the swords of retribution were drawn against you; and you shall have another turn. And We hear the lamentations of Berlin, though she be today in conspicuous glory.
From: Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p, 39

The claim that you had made was challenged that puts the burden of proof upon you, instead you posted that foolish list again. Your error was obvious. Do you understand it now?

The mistake I made was to post the list. I had already posted the link to the book that had the list in it and the book explains how all those prophecies were fulfilled. It is not my responsibility to do your research for you. If you want to know if the prophecies were fulfilled you can read the book.

From your perspective I made an error but that is because you had certain *expectations* about what I was required to do, prove something to you. I have no burden to prove anything to you and that is not what I was trying to do. I told you that before:

Subduction Zone said: The burden of proof is always upon the person or group making an affirmative statement. Otherwise your unsupported claim that they are a messenger of God is just as reasonable as the claims of those that claim he was a messenger of Satan. Frankly without evidence I would not believe either.

Trailblazer said: The burden of proof is on me if I am trying to prove something. However, if I am just sharing my beliefs, I have no *burden* to prove they are true. Aside from that fact, nobody can prove religious truth to anyone else as each person has to look at the evidence for themselves and determine if it is worthy of belief, if they are interested in knowing.

 

[Trailblazer]

I think his point was that he does what he does because he considers his choices moral. If an alleged deity happens to agree with him, fine.If not, that would probably be something he considered immoral and wouldn't do it. The point is, that he is one who decides for himself what is right or wrong, not others speaking for a deity.

That's my position as well. None of my ethical values come from a book even if many can be found in books. Where I happen to agree with Jesus, it's not because Jesus said it. I came to a similar conclusion by a different route.

I base all my decisions on logic, not emotion. If the deity is All-knowing and All-wise then the deity would have to know more about what is moral than any human. If we claim to know more about morality than the deity we are saying we are more than omniscient, which is logically impossible. Do you see the problem? I understand that if you do not believe in what the deity revealed to the Messenger, then that puts you in another category than me. I am talking hypothetically.

By what route did you come to your ethical values? I’ll bet they came from Judeo-Christian society. They certainly did not drop down from the sky.

If the instructions are commands issued under threat of punishment for disobedience, then yes, that's a dictator. If the instruction is offered for consideration in a take-it-or-leave-it manner, then no. When discussing gods that issue commands, we are talking about dictators.

I do like your succinct manner of communication. So do you consider it punishment if we incur consequences from our actions?

“He who shall accept and believe, shall receive his reward; and he who shall turn away, shall receive none other than his own punishment.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 339

According to what I believe, God will not punish nonbelievers, but will reward believers. That punishment exists in this world since nonbelievers suffer by virtue of not knowing what God’s will is for them, even though they do not realize it. The major repercussions are felt after we die. Nonbelievers will regret not having believed in God and what they lost as a result. Other than that, Baha’u’llah wrote nothing specific about the eternal destination of nonbelievers so it is a mystery, although all souls can advance by the prayers of others and the mercy of God.

I think that is just that believers are rewarded if you consider all we have to go through in this life. I like talking to you but you have no idea what I have had to endure talking to other nonbelievers and Christians daily on forums for four years. If I did not believe in God I could be off sunning myself on a beach somewhere as I am financially very well off.

Then you are one of us.

That's Polymath's point, I believe. We should each be the measure of what is right or wrong. We have no reason to base our moral decisions on what a deity is said to have recommended. We would have a reason to obey commands the rejection of which would result in punishment, but we have no reason to believe that the commands said to come from a deity actually do, which makes them empty threats from ancient voices who did not share our values or worldview. Why would we care today what they are commanding us regarding extramarital sex, for example? Why would we care what adherents have been convinced is sin?

Why should we oppose same sex marriage because some ancient voice calls homosexuality a sin? That's a violation of a central tenet of rational ethics: The Golden Rule. That might constitute an example of what Polymath considered evil coming from a(n alleged) deity.

I like being one of you, but since I believe in an omniscient God I have to concede to the fact that God knows more than I do, logically speaking. You and Polymath have no such obligation.

I do not believe in the ancient laws of the Old Testament because Baha’u’llah wrote a *new* Book of Laws. Since I believe that Baha’u’llah is God’s Mouthpiece and Representative, I believe whatever He wrote if the Will of God. It makes no logical sense to be that I would make up my own ethics if there is a God who revealed a set of ethics. That does not mean I do not take issue with some Laws but I believe they exist for a good reason because God knows more than I do. If everyone just makes up their own morality can’t you see how that could be problematic? Moreover, just because society accepts something as moral does not mean it is moral or even beneficial and it might be detrimental.

That is correct. You have no control over how others assess your argument. You can only make your best argument accompanied by your best evidence and leave it at that.

What I was trying to say is that I have no argument because I am not trying to prove anything. I have evidence that supports what I believe but I am not trying to convince anyone else because it is my belief that the faith of no man can be conditioned by anyone else except himself. That means I do not want to convince anyone else because then they would believe in what I believe, not what they believe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Gish Gallop is a technique, named after the creationist Duane Gish who employed it, whereby someone argues a cause by hurling as many different half-truths and no-truths into a very short space of time so that their opponent cannot hope to combat each point in real time. Sep 11, 2012
Gish Gallop

I was not using that list to support a claim. It was just a list of prophecies. You cannot call that a Gish Gallop when you do not even know if the prophecies were fulfilled or not. That list was not half-truths or no-truths.

I cannot post an entire book on this forum. The only way you can know if those prophecies were fulfilled would be to read the book that explains *in detail* how all 30 prophecies were fulfilled. I told you if you wanted to know how the prophecies were fulfilled you would have to read the book that explains that.

You were using it to support a claim. You were trying to support your claim that the Bahai belief is valid Also if you need to read a book that means that those are failed prophecies.

The proper way to bring them up is one at a time and show that they are valid. So far it looks more like Nostradamus type prophecies than any other. Events are interpreted back to meet them. That means they failed.

Sorry I missed that in your post, but I have found it now...

It Aint Necessarily So said: Here is what I believe is a good working definition of what can be called high quality prophecy:

1. High quality prophecy needs to be specific, detailed and unambiguous. Optimally, the time and place are specified.

Baha’u’llah saw the banks of the Rhine in Germany covered with gore and He said swords of retribution were drawn against Germany (WWI) and He said that Germany would have another turn (WWII). That is pretty specific and unambiguous. Both time and place are specified.​

2. also needs to prophecy something unexpected, unlikely or unique - something that was not self-fulfilling and could not have been contrived or easily guessed.

Germany was in conspicuous glory in 1870 when Bahaullah wrote the Tablet so the fall of Germany in WWI and WWII were unexpected, unlikely. It could not have been easily guessed and it certainly was not contrived.
​

3. High quality prophecy must be accurate and unaccompanied by failed prophecies.

It sure was accurate unless you can deny that WWI and WWII happened.
​

4. The prophecies must be verified that they came before the event predicted, and that they were fulfilled completely.

This Tablet was written in 1870. WWI and WWII happened after 1870, didn’t they? It was fulfilled completely unless WWI and WWII were never completed and no blood was shed on the banks of the Rhine.
​

Tablet to Kaiser Wilhelm I

O KING of Berlin! Give ear unto the Voice calling from this manifest Temple: Verily, there is none other God but Me, the Everlasting, the Peerless, the Ancient of Days. Take heed lest pride debar thee from recognizing the Dayspring of Divine Revelation, lest earthly desires shut thee out, as by a veil, from the Lord of the Throne above and of the earth below. Thus counselleth thee the Pen of the Most High. He, verily, is the Most Gracious, the All-Bountiful. Do thou remember the one whose power transcended thy power (Napoleon III), and whose station excelled thy station. Where is he? Whither are gone the things he possessed? Take warning, and be not of them that are fast asleep. He it was who cast the Tablet of God behind him, when We made known unto him what the hosts of tyranny had caused Us to suffer. Wherefore, disgrace assailed him from all sides, and he went down to dust in great loss. Think deeply, O King, concerning him, and concerning them who, like unto thee, have conquered cities and ruled over men. The All-Merciful brought them down from their palaces to their graves. Be warned, be of them who reflect… O banks of the Rhine! We have seen you covered with gore, inasmuch as the swords of retribution were drawn against you; and you shall have another turn. And We hear the lamentations of Berlin, though she be today in conspicuous glory.
From: Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p, 39

The mistake I made was to post the list. I had already posted the link to the book that had the list in it and the book explains how all those prophecies were fulfilled. It is not my responsibility to do your research for you. If you want to know if the prophecies were fulfilled you can read the book.

Whoa whoa whoa! You really have that bass ackwards. It is your duty to support your claims. Until you do they are failed claims. The Kaiser prophesy fails because it is too general and anyone could see that war does not work well for the aggressor.

From your perspective I made an error but that is because you had certain *expectations* about what I was required to do, prove something to you. I have no burden to prove anything to you and that is not what I was trying to do. I told you that before:

Yes, I expected a rational response. And yes, if you make a claim the burden of proof is upon you. Otherwise your claims will be at best ignored.

Subduction Zone said: The burden of proof is always upon the person or group making an affirmative statement. Otherwise your unsupported claim that they are a messenger of God is just as reasonable as the claims of those that claim he was a messenger of Satan. Frankly without evidence I would not believe either.

Trailblazer said: The burden of proof is on me if I am trying to prove something. However, if I am just sharing my beliefs, I have no *burden* to prove they are true. Aside from that fact, nobody can prove religious truth to anyone else as each person has to look at the evidence for themselves and determine if it is worthy of belief, if they are interested in knowing.

"Sharing your beliefs" is making a claim. All you have done is to confirm an irrational belief.

 

[Trailblazer]

You broached the topic of prophecy as evidence of a deity. You gave a mixed message there, saying that it wasn't proof - just evidence - after offering it as evidence that Baha'u'llah was a messenger of a real god with a valuable message for us. You seemed to sense that it would not convince skeptics. Perhaps in the future, you won't offer prophecy as evidence of a god.

I posted a list of what I consider evidence that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God.

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

The prophecies He made that have come to pass was simply *one item* on the list. Someone then jumped on that and asked me what He prophesied and I posted the link to the book The Challenge of Baha'u'llah because in this book is a list of 30 things that Baha’u’llah predicted that actually came to pass. I sensed it would not convince skeptics because I have presented the prophecies He made on other forums and it never made one iota of difference, even though I have evidence that the predictions were accurate. Moreover, I said that prophecies are not the best proof that someone was a Messenger of God.

Let's assume that you have a 5 year old son, and get a message over the telephone that it is your son, now 34 years old, calling you from the future. What would he need to say to you to convince you that it wasn't a prank call?

That's what happened in a 1998 movie starring Dennis Quaid called Frequency.

When an entity with knowledge of the future wants to make a convincing prediction, it'll be at least as good as the one made in the movie Frequency, set in 1969, where Dennis Quaid's character’s son contacts Quaid from 1998 via ham radio.To convince his father of that fact, the son “predicts” the outcome of game five of what is for the father the as-yet unfinished 1969 World Series:

• "Well, game five was the big one. It turned in the bottom of the 6th. We were down 3-0. Cleon Jones gets hit on the foot - left a scuffmark on the ball. Clendenon comes up. The count goes to 2 and 2. High fastball. He nailed it. Weis slammed a solo shot in the 7th to tie. Jones and Swoboda scored in the 8th. We won, Pop."

Then the father watched the game live and that is what happened.

That’s high quality prophecy. It's specific, detailed, gives dates and places, and predicts something that could not have been guessed.

Low quality prophecy is vague or unclear predictions, trivial predictions such as it will be cold next winter, that earthquakes or wars will come, or that members of a religious cult will be disesteemed by the general public. This is what we get from the religions.

Did you look at the Mathematical Bible Prophecy link I posted? Did you find it convincing? It was basically claiming that Ezekiel and Leviticus together predicted 1948 as the year for the restoration of Israel. Here are the two scriptures:

• "Then God said to Ezekiel, 'Now lie on your left side for 390 days to show Israel will be punished for 390 years by captivity and doom. Each day you lie there represents a year of punishment ahead for Israel. Afterwards, turn over and lay on your right side for 40 days, to signify the years of Judah's punishment. Each day will represent one year . . .’ ”(Ezekiel 4:4-6)

• "And after all this, if you do not obey Me, then I (God) will punish you seven times more for your sins."- (Leviticus 26:18)”

Do you see where that is a prediction that Israel would return to the world in 1948? Me, neither. That's typical low quality biblical "prophecy." It actually predicts nothing since nobody got the year 1948 out of it until after 1948.

With all due respect, you haven't provided anything better from Baha'u'llah. You offered, "O banks of the Rhine! We have seen you covered with gore" and called it "pretty specific to WWI and WWII," but it's no better than the Old Testament example given above. Did anybody use those words for anything except after the fact to claim that they predicted two specific wars? If there was a third world war, could we amend our position and say that Baha'u'llah predicted them all?

I am sorry but I do not understand why any of what you said is relevant. He either foresaw that there would be blood on the banks of the Rhine or not. I suggest you read what I just posted to Subduction Zone.

“Be warned, be of them who reflect… O banks of the Rhine! We have seen you covered with gore, inasmuch as the swords of retribution were drawn against you; and you shall have another turn. And We hear the lamentations of Berlin, though she be today in conspicuous glory.” Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p, 39

Keep in mind that He wrote that in 1870 long before anyone could have known about WWI or WWII. It was a warning of what would happen if they did not heed His call, in no way intended to be a prophecy. In 1869, Baha’u’llah also warned Napoleon III that He would fall from power and barely one year later he was defeated in battle. The French agent in Akka who had translated Baha'u'llah's Tablet to Napoleon III into French and had sent it to the Emperor, noticing the swift descent of doom upon the throne of that monarch, accepted the Faith of Baha'u'llah.

Please keep in mind that we have Baha’u’llah’s original writings and there is no way these Tablets could have been tampered with.

(Continued on next post)

 

[Trailblazer]

So how can you use these insights to your advantage, knowing that these prophecies have little or no persuasive power with people outside of your faith?

AGAIN, I am not trying to gain advantage or persuade anyone. Why can’t people accept what I say? As I recall one of you asked me for a prophecy from that list of 30 prophecies in the book, and I said that one was my favorite. I did not say it was the most specific prophecy of the 30. I just said it was my favorite. Please bear in mind that I never even read any of the prophecies Baha’u’llah made before I became a Baha’i. I became a Baha’i based solely upon Baha’u’llah’s teachings. I did not even know anything about the history or about His life back then, but I know a lot more now.

I would suggest not trying to both claim that you have answers, but that you aren't trying to promote them and don't care what people believe. If the latter were the case, you wouldn't mention your beliefs unless asked about them.

I have been down this same road on other forums and frankly I am tired of it. I am an honest person, I do not lie. If you want to know why I mention my beliefs just ask me. Don’t assume I am trying to convince people just because that would be the only reason you might mention beliefs if you were me. That is called projection.

I am not saying I would not like it is someone* chose* to believe in God or in my religion, but that is not the same as me trying to convince them to do so. Everyone has to decide what to believe on their own. God created everyone with the *capacity* to recognize the His Messenger so I am not responsible to convince people of who He was. My only responsibility is to *proclaim* that Baha’u’llah has come and answer any questions people might have. However, people are responsible to do their own in-depth research. Gone are the days of the Christian clergy spoon-deeding religion to the masses. Everyone is on their own to independently investigate the claims of Messenger.

The prophecies are counterproductive. They reveal the opposite of what you think and hope they reveal. They show me that this is yet another religion that hopes to establish the legitimacy of its god claim with words that can only be believed by somebody with the will to believe, which is different from a willingness to believe. The critical thinker is willing to be convinced, but has no desire to believe what cannot be argued convincingly by his own standards of reason applied to evidence, which may not be the same as your own.

I hope you realize that Baha’u’llah never ever offered the prophecies He made as proof of who He was. Other people came along later and wrote books, maybe in an effort to convince people. Here is what Baha’u’llah wrote regarding how to know if He was really a Messenger of God, which corresponds to the first four items on that list above:

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

I already posted that here but apparently it fell on deaf ears.

It would also be helpful to listen to what your audience tells you, and even if you don't accept it, acknowledge it and let it be reflected in your presentation. On another thread, I read where you thought that your words were being rejected because we felt threatened or were uninterested, and that was written after you were told that we were interested, asked you for your best evidence, reviewed it, and found it unconvincing. Obviously, you didn't believe that.

I said: “I do not understand why people do not accept people who believe differently than they do. I have to conclude that they either feel threatened or they just are not interested in what other people believe, but I am fascinated by the differences…”
I did not say I thought *my words* were being rejected because people on this forum felt threatened or were uninterested. I was talking about people in general who do not accept other people who believe differently than they do. I was not referring to anyone on this forum, only to people in general. The key to understanding what I meant was in the previous paragraph. I said: “I just love this forum because of all the different people with different beliefs and non-beliefs… It is like a beautiful garden full of flowers of different colors and varieties. The problem is I cannot get anything else done anymore.”

I meant I cannot get any chores done anymore.

Even if you were correct, if you don't at any point acknowledge that your audience believes what it is telling you, you've lost them.

I believe everything everyone tells me and I take what they say at face value rather than thinking *I know* what they are thinking. If I do not understand what someone says I ask for clarification.

I hope this helps you have a more satisfying experience interacting with unbelievers, an activity that you say that you enjoy.

And there you have it. Why can’t I simply enjoy talking to nonbelievers without having some kind of ulterior motive like trying to convince them of what I believe? Sure, I think it is a good idea to believe in God and Baha’u’llah; after all I am a believer and a Baha’i. But I do not think anyone should *just believe* in God unless they really have a good reason and I do not think anyone is going to hell for not believing. So if I have a purpose on this forum it is simply to answer any questions people might have. I also share what I believe if it is related to a thread because I get excited about it. After all, this is a religious forum and that is what we do, discuss things related to God and religion.

Thanks for your input as it is clearly stated and helpful. I hope what I said in this post clarified my position and some misconceptions I think you and others might have.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh my! The "blood on the banks of the Rhine" was a poetic verse. It refers to fighting in Germany in general. There does not appear to be any "Battle of the Rhine" in WWI.

 

[Enoch07]

Other than the fact that science has increasingly provided competing interests with which people further divide their time, thus cutting into time and attention for religious considerations and pursuits, have the findings of science themselves pulled mankind away from religion?

.

I would say only marginally. If science is enough to pull anyone away from their religion, that person was not very serious about their religion to begin with.

 

[Trailblazer]

Oh my! The "blood on the banks of the Rhine" was a poetic verse. It refers to fighting in Germany in general. There does not appear to be any "Battle of the Rhine" in WWI.

No, Baha'u'llah was not referring to a "Battle of the Rhine." The point is that the banks of the Rhine would be covered in gore in both WWI and WWII.