Will Mankind Survive?

[JJ50]

Many people are good, and decent. Of course there are bad people in this world, many of whom are religious extremists, who interpret the Bible, especially the crazy book of Revelation, to suit their sick beliefs.

 

[Spartan]

Many people are good, and decent. Of course there are bad people in this world, many of whom are religious extremists, who interpret the Bible, especially the crazy book of Revelation, to suit their sick beliefs.

You bad-mouthing gay Christians who, apart from the homosexual issue, believe the Bible? Tsk tsk...

 

[Nimos]

Sorry, but the Bible and the Book of Revelation demolishes the idea that man is inherently "good" and can solve his own problems. Just look at the liberals and California for evidence of that, LOL.

Excluding people born with psychological issues that causes them to behave in ways that is causing harm to others. Only a minority of people would behave in ways that hurt others on purpose I think.

You fill people with bad ideas and hate or raise them in an environment that encourage it, they will act accordingly. I do not buy the idea that people are born evil and whenever I ask some religious person, whether they think a baby can be born evil, the most common answer is no. Yet they have no explanation for when someone turns evil or what exactly causes it. But yet that doesn't prevent them from keep claiming that people are bad and evil. But if that is the case and its apparently not a result of a persons environment (which include parents, society, friends etc.) and experiences that person have had through their life then there is no basis to say that a baby can't be born evil, as I see it.

Try to read this story about the Somalia pirates, which is not really spoken of anymore:

Ever since a civil war brought down Somalia's last functional government in 1991, the country's 3,330 km (2,000 miles) of coastline — the longest in continental Africa — has been pillaged by foreign vessels. A United Nations report in 2006 said that, in the absence of the country's at one time serviceable coastguard, Somali waters have become the site of an international "free for all," with fishing fleets from around the world illegally plundering Somali stocks and freezing out the country's own rudimentarily-equipped fishermen. According to another U.N. report, an estimated $300 million worth of seafood is stolen from the country's coastline each year. "In any context," says Gustavo Carvalho, a London-based researcher with Global Witness, an environmental NGO, "that is a staggering sum."

In the face of this, impoverished Somalis living by the sea have been forced over the years to defend their own fishing expeditions out of ports such as Eyl, Kismayo and Harardhere — all now considered to be pirate dens. Somali fishermen, whose industry was always small-scale, lacked the advanced boats and technologies of their interloping competitors, and also complained of being shot at by foreign fishermen with water cannons and firearms. "The first pirate gangs emerged in the '90s to protect against foreign trawlers," says Peter Lehr, lecturer in terrorism studies at Scotland's University of St. Andrews and editor of Violence at Sea: Piracy in the Age of Global Terrorism. The names of existing pirate fleets, such as the National Volunteer Coastguard of Somalia or Somali Marines, are testament to the pirates' initial motivations.

Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com

Funny enough this is not really something that is taken into consideration when we talk about the problems of pirates. What do people expect, if they have no way to feed themselves they will do stuff like this. Yet our solution is to send warships down there to protect our ships while pointing out how wicked these pirates are.

Issues around the world is rarely explained by someone being evil, but rather because people are forced to do certain things to survive.

Shell having fun as well and people wonder why they get angry once in a while.

 

[Spartan]

I do not buy the idea that people are born evil and whenever I ask some religious person, whether they think a baby can be born evil, the most common answer is no.

Being born "evil" is sort of a strawman. In reality, babies are born with a strong inclination to sin. And I don't know of a single person on earth who hasn't sinned, so the Bible appears to be spot on in that respect.

Yet they have no explanation for when someone turns evil or what exactly causes it. But yet that doesn't prevent them from keep claiming that people are bad and evil.

I don't know why you say Christians have no explanation for when someone turns evil, etc. Christians do have an explanation for that. Men have a predisposition to sin, and though sin might well not result in violence and evil in most people, there is a devil and there are demons who influence individuals to take it to the next level. That's the explanation.

 

[Spartan]

Many people are good, and decent. Of course there are bad people in this world, many of whom are religious extremists, who interpret the Bible, especially the crazy book of Revelation, to suit their sick beliefs.

Get a new dog to trot around the arena, jj. That one there has fleas and the mange.

 

[Nimos]

Being born "evil" is sort of a strawman. In reality, babies are born with a strong inclination to sin. And I don't know of a single person on earth who hasn't sinned, so the Bible appears to be spot on in that respect.

Why would that be a strawman? If religious people uses it as an explanation of why things are as they are in the world, that is a valid question to ask. To sin is not equal being evil, it is correct that lying or deceiving seems to be one of the first ways of "communication" however, I do not not think one can compare it to that of an adult. And also sinning is only relevant to people that are religious, there is nothing to suggest that it even exists, so one should be careful, I think, mixing that into human behavior.

It is not evidence for the bible that everyone have sinned, it would like saying that its evidence for the bible that people have to eat and that its spot on in that regard.

I don't know why you say Christians have no explanation for when someone turns evil, etc. Christians do have an explanation for that. Men have a predisposition to sin, and though sin might well not result in violence and evil in most people, there is a devil and there are demons who influence individuals to take it to the next level. That's the explanation.

Well that doesn't explain anything, because there is nothing in what you are writing that would exclude satan from influencing a baby inside the womb or one second after the baby is born, right? So a baby can in principal be evil.

 

[Spartan]

Why would that be a strawman? If religious people uses it as an explanation of why things are as they are in the world, that is a valid question to ask. To sin is not equal being evil, it is correct that lying or deceiving seems to be one of the first ways of "communication" however, I do not not think one can compare it to that of an adult. And also sinning is only relevant to people that are religious, there is nothing to suggest that it even exists, so one should be careful, I think, mixing that into human behavior.

Sin, as defined in the Bible, incorporates lying, theft, a failure to love, deceitfulness, idolatry, unbelief, etc. You know someone who hasn't done any of that?

As for evil, I stand by what I wrote in my prior post to you.

 

[Trailblazer]

This is very difficult, because you do not really care about these older religions or their scriptures and what they believed.

I will say this one more time. It does not matter one iota what people believed because that in no way comports with reality. Just because they have interpreted scriptures a certain way does not mean they have interpreted them correctly. The fact that Jews and Christians do not interpret their scriptures the same way tells you that – logically speaking – there is more than one way the SAME scriptures can be interpreted. As such, there is NO REASON to think that the Baha’i interpretation is incorrect.

Moreover, there was never any authorized interpreter of any of the Jewish or Christian scriptures so what reason do you have to think that they were interpreted correctly? I am not saying that the Baha’is have interpreted the older scriptures because we haven’t, but if the Baha’i Faith is true then that means that certain ways that Jews and Christians have interpreted their scriptures (and particularly their prophecies) have to be incorrect.

So what it all boils down to is whether Baha’u’llah was who He claimed to be or not. If He was, whatever he said was the very truth because He was a Manifestation of God and as such He had the knowledge of God. If He was not who He claimed to be, then anything goes and you or anyone can believe anything they want to about the Torah and the Bible because any interpretation would be just as good as any other.

There is nothing in the bible to support your view, absolutely nothing. It is an interpretation, which is purely based on what you personally want to be true.

There is nothing in the bible to support your view, absolutely nothing. It is an interpretation, which is purely based on what you personally think is true.

Since you haven't read the Bible, it would make little sense to ask for you to find anything in it, that would support what you are claiming, that what Jesus is talking about here is the acceptance of new religions, but if you know someone who can or could supply you with a case for it, that is fine as well?

I have read a lot of the Bible, the parts that I refer to and the parts that are pertinent to what I believe about Baha’u’llah. The rest of the Bible I have no need for because it is ancient history and does not apply to this new age.

So I will present my case based on what is in the bible.

If this was about accepting new religions, why on Earth would all the examples used here, revolve around the Sabbath which again is part of the law? Why do you think that this is a dialog between the Pharisees and Jesus, and not just some random jew on the street, who would be well aware of how one ought to follow the Sabbath?

I am not claiming that Jesus was talking about new religions in those verses. Those verses can have more than one meaning and I was using those verses to apply to new religions because it fits perfectly with what I am trying to convey. Baha’u’llah wrote that verses can have many meanings, and they can all be correct, just different. On the other hand, it is possible that a verse or verses can be misinterpreted, and if it is intended to mean something specific, someone can be wrong in their interpretation of that verse. For example, Christians believe that the verses about the Comforter refer to the Holy Spirit that was sent at Pentecost, but Baha’is believe they refer to Baha’u’llah. Obviously both of us cannot be right because our interpretations contradict each other.

Everything points towards this being about the law of the Sabbath and that Jesus is clearly not in agreement with them. Again Jesus do not think they follow the law and is why it is pretty much always them that are the ones opposing Jesus, whenever they think he does/teach something wrong. If this was about a accepting new religions, could it have been written anymore cryptic and illogical than it is? So there is no reason to believe that what Jesus is talking about here is anything else, unless you can explain and show why that should be the case?

Again, I am NOT saying this was about people accepting new religions, obviously, because there was not even a new religion to accept back when it was written. I am sorry if that is what you thought I was saying and I hope I have cleared that up now.

So reaching the conclusion that you do, simply requires more than you just stating that the Christians and Jews for the last 2000+ years misinterpret their scriptures. I really think you are being unfair and maybe even a bit arrogant towards them.

AGAIN, if Baha’u’llah was who He claimed to be, then the Jews and Christians have indeed misinterpreted their scriptures. I hope you can understand why. This is not a matter of being arrogant or unfair. It is a matter of ascertaining the Truth. Baha’u’llah was the Messiah and the return of Christ or He was not. I think everyone who is interested needs to do the necessary research and come to that conclusion by themselves. Don’t you think it matters if He was actually the Messiah and the Promised One of all the religions of the past?

“Baha'u'llah, the Prophet founder of the Baha'i Faith, claims to be the Promised One whose coming was explicitly foretold, not only in the Old and the New Testaments.... but also in the prophecies of the Hindu, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Islamic and other religions.

If Baha'u'llah truly is the Promised One then His appearance is one of the greatest events of human history. Are Baha'u'llah's claim true? How can we know for certain? Just take a look at some of the proofs and prophecies... and then decide for yourself.”
Prophecy Fulfilled Webpage

People have studied these texts for years, yet you clearly state that you don't care about them, don't care to read them. Because Baha'u'llah, which there is no evidence for, is telling the truth either, say otherwise. That is not to be honest or expressing an interest in seeking the truth, but rather that this is solely based on blind faith.

The fact that I do not care about the texts of the older religions has nothing to do with whether Baha’u’llah was who He claimed to be.

There is more evidence that Baha’u’llah was who He claimed to be than there is evidence for all the Prophets of the past put together. To even make a comparison is comical. There is no verifiable evidence that proves that Moses and Jesus even existed, let alone that they got messages from God and did all the things ascribed to them in the scriptures. All we have are some ancient scriptures that men wrote.

• The Bible Says Jesus Was Real. What Other Proof Exists?

• Did the Exodus of Moses and His People Happen?

By stark contrast, we know that Baha’u’llah existed and did what was ascribed to Him because it is contemporary history and it has been documents. We also have verifiable evidence that indicates that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God, although that cannot be proven since nobody can ever prove that anyone got messages from God.

The evidence that *indicates* that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is as follows:

• What He was like as a person (His character);
• What He did during His 40 year mission on earth;
• The history of His Cause, from the time He appeared moving forward;
• The scriptures that He wrote in His own Pen;
• The Bible prophecies that He fulfilled by His coming,
• The prophecies of other religions that He fulfilled by His coming;
• The predictions He made that have come to pass;
• The religion that His followers established, what they have done and are doing now.

 

[Trailblazer]

You claim that they are wrong except when it comes to the prophecies and predictions of Baha'u'llah, you haven't supplied any evidence for this that is consistence with the bible.

The evidence that the prophecies and predictions in the Bible were fulfilled by Baha’u’llah are in this book entitled Thief in the Night by William Sears

This is billions of peoples beliefs you are talking about, its historical interesting, as it tells us something about ancient religions, how they evolved etc.

That is fine if you are interested but I do not have time to breathe let alone be reading scriptures of ancient religions. Look how long it took me just to get back and answer your posts. I consider communicating with people more important than reading ancient scriptures that do not pertain to the present day society.

Again there is no clear evidence that the OT predicted any of them, only that a Messiah would come. And what this Messiah would do. None of those you speak of have done any of it. Therefore it is important because it again tells us about our history and about what was going on, how these religions evolved. Its the basis even for your religion.

Again, you are wrong that Baha’u’llah did not fulfill the OT and NT prophecies. The proof is in the book I linked to above. All the prophecies for the messianic age have not yet been fulfilled because this age will last no less than 500,000 years and we are only in the beginning of this age. However, everything that pertains to the coming of the Messiah and the return of Christ -- what would happen before during and after he came (during His lifetime) -- has been fulfilled.

No, the scriptures of the OT and the NT are not the basis for the Baha’i Faith. The Revelation that Baha’u’llah received from God is the basis for the Baha’i Faith.

Again you say that you do not care about these stories and that you haven't read them and see no reason to do so either. Yet it doesn't prevent you from just announcing with what appear to be complete certainty that all the other religions have been wrong interpreting their scriptures in varies degrees, purely based on how new they are?

The other religions are wrong in how they have interpreted their scriptures regarding the Messiah and the return of Christ if Baha’u’llah was the Messiah and the return of Christ. In other words, if Jews and Christians are still waiting for the Messiah/return of Christ and Baha’u’llah was Him, then they have to be wrong in how they interpreted their scriptures. It is really that simple.

Again you say that you do not believe that it's important to be familiar with them, even though these are what your own belief is based on.

AGAIN, my beliefs are NOT based upon the religions of the past, they are based upon the Revelation of Baha’u’llah. All the religions are part of one eternal religion of God but newer religions are not based upon older religions, they are based upon newer Revelations from God.

The prophecies that you claim is true is in these scriptures? But at the same time you claim that they can't be verified, so would you accept that you could be completely wrong, both in regards to the prophecies even happening and that you have the wrong information about them as these are based on the "unimportant" and "unverifiable" texts, that you do not care to spend time on?

The prophecies I claim are true are in the older scriptures and they CAN be verified in regards to what actually happened in history as well as geographical places that exist.

That is blind faith, because every claim of any significant ought to be questioned and examined, even the person in the video about truth you linked say that. But will get to that one soon.

No, it is not blind faith on my part, since I have examined and questioned my Baha’i beliefs for 49 years. I get the same accusation from other atheists, but who are THEY to say what I have examined and questioned? Have they been standing over my shoulder for the last 49 years?

Despite what you have said in the last many quotes, you still claim that you are able to "put all the older religions in their proper perspective" based on Baha'u'llah? Yet as with the example above, I see you provide no case for why Jesus is talking about accepting new religions?

I am sorry for that misunderstanding. As I explained, I did not mean that Jesus was talking about accepting new religions in the wine sacs verses; I was the one applying those verses to old vs. new religions.

or how Christians and Muslims are suppose to understand Jesus, as there are clearly contradictions here that one can't simply deny. So again how do you explain and present a case to them, that clearly shows which of them got it right in regards to Jesus? Saying that the Quran is more correct than the Bible, because its newer is not a valid argument and it will not convince anyone.

Yes, the Qur’an is more accurate than the Bible because it is authentic and the Bible is not authentic. The fact that believers have misinterpreted both the Bible and the Qur’an is another matter, but that does not take away from the authenticity and accuracy of those scriptures vs. the lack thereof.

Do you not see any contradictions in what you are saying in all this? It a mixture of not caring or not having examined things, something being true without any logical reason to why that is, to expressing absolute certainties after stating that you haven't read it and purely base it on what Baha'u'llah say.
If Baha'u'llah have written about how Jesus is really to be understood, is he the son of God (in the way some Christians believe, were he crucified and is he God) and how does that relate to Islam? Again, you state that you are able to put all these religions into proper perspective, so it should be fairly easy to explain this contradiction then?

It does not matter what Christians believe about Jesus. He was whoever He was. As a Baha’i, I have a reason to trust what Baha’u’llah said about Jesus. I have no reason to believe what Christians believe, not anymore than they have a reason to believe what I believe, based upon the Writings of Baha’u’llah. The same applies to what Muslims believe about Jesus. Both the Bible and the Qur’an can be interpreted such that it supports the Baha’i beliefs, but the Christians and the Muslims will not interpret those scriptures that way because they believe they are right in their own interpretations that support their beliefs. Do you know anything about psychology? They are emotionally attached to their beliefs so they cannot see it any way other than how they see it, unless they open their mind and are willing to look at another way. You could say the same thing about the Baha’is; the glaring difference is that we have an actual man who claimed to be the Messiah and they don’t have anything but a hope. The other difference is that Baha’u’llah fulfilled all the prophecies of past religions so that cannot happen again.

The reason they do this, is because it is stated in the bible and that is where they get it from. They don't do it because they think people don't know about Jesus, there is only a few places on Earth where the missionaries haven't been. Ultimately its about salvation and to get people to accept Jesus/God as their savior before the end times, so they can be saved.

Well, I know that, but I totally disagree that anyone needs to be saved or that the end times are coming, since I believe we are already living in the end times, which means the end of an age, not the end of the world. I will proceed to get very upset if I have to talk about this anymore. As far as I am concerned the Christians are living in a complete fantasy world, waiting for the same Jesus in the same body to drop down out of the sky in the clouds and save the day. This belief is responsible for much of what is wrong in the Western world today, because why do anything about climate change or anything else if Jesus is coming to come and FIX everything for us? What a cop-out.

Once my Christian coworker said that there is no point doing anything about racial prejudice because Jesus is coming and when he comes he will fix it and then she smirked. Then she also said everyone who does not believe in Jesus is going to hell. She is a very nice person, very polite, but I have never respected her since she said those things. She lives to eat, drink and be merry and she fusses over her physical appearance, and meanwhile she waits for Jesus to come and do everything. But Jesus is not coming back to earth. Jesus said so in plain language (John 14:19, John 16:28, John 17:4, John 17:11).

Jesus did not teach His followers to eat, drink and be merry and worry constantly about the way they look physically, hardly a denial of self.

Matthew 16:24-26 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

Obviously JWs have their own issues as they still suffers from having announce the end of times several times and been wrong each time. This cost members, which is probably why they have stopped adding anymore dates, but instead constantly talk about how it is coming near and that the evidence is all around the world, pretty much the exact same thing that Bahai believe. Except that you might not believe in the end times as they do. But all the signs in the world, they believe points and proof that they are correct.

They have missed the boat when it came in to port, just like all the other Christians, Imo. And just like all the other Christians, they will keep waiting for the ship that is never coming in. I find that rather sad but I am also angry about it because of the way it affects societies, especially the United States which is still about 75% Christian and about 60% of people in the United States believe Jesus is coming to FIX everything. Can’t you see how that impacts society? As I said in a previous post to you, I do not believe that Jesus or God is going to FIX anything that is wrong in the world; humans have to fix what needs to be fixed.

So again, History channel is not about education or teaching people anything, its about making money. Why real scientists appear on it, I have no clue, maybe they are paid well or in regards to Paul Davies, he have expressed a believe in a theory that some aliens might be behind the Universe, but also admit that this idea is just as ridiculous as that of God and the multiverse, as none of them can really explain anything.

Thanks for the heads up. I would have never known but then again, I do not watch the History Channel much as I do not have the time anymore.

 

[Trailblazer]

He have a lot of good ideas, but again his starting point is wrong as I also tried to explain to you a lot of posts ago. He is already convinced that God exists, so his truth revolve around how other religions perceive or live by God. But that is not how one gets closer to truth, if you start from a belief in God, without actually having proofed it first.

As I have told you before, there is no proof that God exists, except religion, so one has to start with the premise that God might exist and then look for the evidence that could support that belief within religions.

The person in the video does also not, provide any methods of how one ought to achieve truth. Which is absolutely crucial!! as that is pretty much the only important thing. Because if everyone uses the same method and have to follow the same rules, it means that someones work can be tested and verified independently by others. That is why when people say that science is a religion, that they are completely diluted.
It is a method of how one can get closer to the truth or get rid of wrong beliefs. it is also why it is referred to as the "scientific method". Its an approach to how one examine things from a neutral stand point and to test hypothesis of how one think something might be. If you falsify or make mistakes in your research, others can point it out and show where it went wrong. So it is a self correcting approach, which makes it such a strong way of getting closer to the truth compared to religious guessing.

Everyone cannot go about seeking the Truth in the same way; as all humans are different in how they think, the methods will vary. Moreover, religious beliefs cannot be tested and verified like scientific truths.

When dealing with history we use the historical method, which is mostly what we do with ancient texts, so they also do not simply guess. I tried to find a short video explaining it, but couldn't find any, so I urge you to go read about it here.

Historical Method
Historical method - Wikipedia

I can see why it would be necessary to use the historical method when examining ancient texts to determine if they are true; the same applies to the Baha’i Faith because there is a history we can read about.

The history of the Baha’i Faith began in 1844 with the coming of the Bab and it continues to this day. The two authoritative texts that depict the history are The Dawn-Breakers (Nabíl’s Narrative of the Early Days of the Bahá’í Revelation) and God Passes By (1844-1944).

The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4 covers the 40 years of His Mission, from 1853-1892.

There is not a lot written on the history of the Baha’i Faith from historians because it is too young of a religion for historians to have an interest in it.

So there is nothing wrong in what the person in the video is saying about seeking truth and that it is important, but without knowing how one ought to do it then there is little meaning to it.

My best advise when you seek knowledge is to check where you get your informations from and if these people are actually qualified in the topic of which they speak. Im not suggesting that the person in the video is of such nature, but merely that he does not explain anything in regards to how one ought to obtain it, but just make a common statement that you ought to do it. Which I agree with, so no issue there.

I think everyone has to go about seeking truth in their own way, whatever makes sense to them. That is why he did not delineate any particular methodology. You once delineated your way of seeking truth and that is valid for you, but not everyone will choose to go about it in that fashion.

 

[Nimos]

The fact that Jews and Christians do not interpret their scriptures the same way tells you that – logically speaking – there is more than one way the SAME scriptures can be interpreted. As such, there is NO REASON to think that the Baha’i interpretation is incorrect.

That is correct, which is due to this being interpretations based on a religious belief. Which means that its about the meaning of the scriptures themselves, like when Christians discuss whether Jesus was the son of God or whether the holy trinity is correct. This is for the most part what religious people does, they look at passages in the bible and draw conclusions about them and there is nothing wrong with that, when we are talking about faith.
But if we are interpret them within a historical context, its of no important whether Jesus was or wasn't the son of God. But rather how these texts and beliefs fit into what the people at the time thought and how they got to believe it, therefore its no longer a discussion about faith, but using a method to try to figure this out. Which of the stories were true? Did the people exist? Did the events happen the way they are described in the texts and so forth, and what evidence are available to us to draw those conclusions.

So if we take the example of the bible, like the claim that Jesus were the son of God, how could we approach that? Obviously we can't proof that he actually were who he claimed. But based on the texts, there is no reason to assume that his followers thought otherwise. Now imagine a person disagreeing with this.
Then its simply not good enough to just claim that this is false and expecting equal validity for such claim, without providing supporting evidence, for why Jesus followers wouldn't actually believe he were the son of God. So at this point we are not especially talking about faith, but rather if we ought to study the bible from the perspective that these people believe so or not. Now this is just an example, but guess you can imagine how this apply to all historical studies of the bible and its stories and how the texts are examined to fit into contexts of what the people actually believed, based on the material that is available to us.

Therefore we can approach topics like how they view women, slavery etc. as well and try to fit things together and give us an idea of how and what life were like back then and the same goes when looking at what the writers wrote about Jesus and what he said. We can put that into contexts with what happen historically, like why were Jesus so opposed to the Pharisees? What role did the Roman occupation have? Why does the bible speak of all the wars between Israel and their neighbors, why does it describe them the way it does etc. What could be the explanation for that? So drawing on all these studies, which is not based on purely guessing left, right and center, but draw on a range of evidences, like archaeology findings, foreign texts etc. Which allow us to start putting together a historical account of what happened at the time. With that, we can start to put passages of the bible into historical contexts as well, and what they might have meant with them and start to put forth ideas of why Jesus would say the things he did. Why the verses might have been written the way they were and what they tried to tell with these stories.

I really hope you see the difference here, when approaching these texts from such a point of view, compared to one of faith. Where people just claim whatever they feel like without any historical evidence or reasons to assume what they are saying is true.

So when I say that the bible do not support the view of Baha'u'llah, its not based purely on faith interpretations, but taking historical evidence into account as well. As there is nothing in the bible that suggest that any of the prophecies talk about Baha'u'llah. Because it doesn't fit with any of the historical studies of what the ancient Jews believed, or said in another way, one would have to supply evidence to why they would believe that Baha'u'llah would be their savior?

There is nothing wrong with you believing it to be true, but it simply doesn't fit into the historical evidence that we have and therefore your claim is one of faith, which hold no value in regards to understanding history. So again this is about the method of how one examine these things and providing evidence of why certain claims or beliefs does and does not fit into history.

So with all I have written above, do you see why what you write here is not really a good way to try to get closer to the truth?
I have read a lot of the Bible, the parts that I refer to and the parts that are pertinent to what I believe about Baha’u’llah. The rest of the Bible I have no need for because it is ancient history and does not apply to this new age.

And when I draw the conclusion that you don't really seem to care or see why understanding the ancient Jews point of view is important, before jumping to conclusions about what Baha'u'llah claimed. At least not from a historical point of view, as I fully understand that you don't have time to study all these things. There are lots of people working in this field everyday, trying to fit these historical accounts together, so I don't think any of them expect people like us, to get everything correct as none of us are experts in these things. And I would never claim to have full knowledge of all of this either, but I do respect the work these historians do, when putting together these accounts and why the evidence support one view over another.

I am not claiming that Jesus was talking about new religions in those verses.

Fair enough, I misunderstood your point.

Baha’u’llah wrote that verses can have many meanings, and they can all be correct, just different. On the other hand, it is possible that a verse or verses can be misinterpreted, and if it is intended to mean something specific, someone can be wrong in their interpretation of that verse.

So again, we just have to take Baha'u'llahs word for which are interpret correct or not? Because if they can have many meanings, who besides him decide what they are?

AGAIN, if Baha’u’llah was who He claimed to be, then the Jews and Christians have indeed misinterpreted their scriptures. I hope you can understand why.

Yes I understand the religious view of this. But its a "BIG IF", and as you say, which we obviously agree on, is that we don't know.
I tried to open that page with prophecies/predictions that you linked, but it doesn't seem to work. I did, however look it up on wikipedia and again, none of them have any value. So just to take this one:

The rise and fall of Communism
"...absolute equality is just as impossible, for absolute equality in fortunes, honors, commerce, agriculture, industry would end in disorderliness, in chaos, in disorganization of the means of existence, and in universal disappointment: the order of the community would be quite destroyed."

('Abdu'l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, 1904–6)

This is not a prediction, first of all Communism is pretty much just Socialism, where one seize power through violence, explained quickly.
Socialism and Communism is pretty much in all cases misunderstood and mixed with what is known as State capitalism. Which were what they had in the Soviet union, Stalin simply proclaimed that they now had communism, but it had nothing to do with the Socialistic ideas. Which were originally suggested as a solution to solve the false promises of capitalism. The idea of capitalism were to get rid of the feudalistic system, where the rich, nobles and church ran the show, their idea were to get rid of them to create a more equal system for all people. So they did that through revolutions, which killed a lot of people, so pretty much the same approach of communism. The socialist thought that one should obtain power through the political system in a none aggressive way, so basically through getting voted into power. Stalin eventually, if I don't recall wrong, threw out the capitalists and replaced them with state officials instead, State capitalism. Which we all know didn't go to well.

So what Baha'u'llah really talked about were the fall of state capitalism and not communism. But do you see, that when a prophecy is not specific, then one could say that this was in fact what he meant, but if it hadn't been that, then it would probably have applied to some other system, maybe even capitalism at some point or some other system somewhere else in the world, that is the issue with all prophecies, they are so unspecific and without any time limit that it is most likely going to sort of fit, some sort of event at some point.

However I did look up the link that is referenced from this prediction and it seems that Baha'u'llah or Abdu'l-Bahá or whoever said it, seemed to at least hint in support of socialism or along those lines. So im not really sure why it would be seen as a prediction, if it actually is? (Again its not from the link you supplied, but from Wikipedia)

Now on another issue with them, which im not sure you have thought of, is in regard to free will, now if Baha'u'llah is prophesied in the old scriptures, how does that work with free will? Would you for instance be able to do anything that would ruin that prophecy and if not how can one claim that we have free will given to us by God then?

The evidence that *indicates* that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is as follows:

• What He was like as a person (His character);
• What He did during His 40 year mission on earth;
• The history of His Cause, from the time He appeared moving forward;
• The scriptures that He wrote in His own Pen;
• The Bible prophecies that He fulfilled by His coming,
• The prophecies of other religions that He fulfilled by His coming;
• The predictions He made that have come to pass;
• The religion that His followers established, what they have done and are doing now.

Again, I can only say that these are not evidence for anything, none of them even suggest that this would be more plausible. What does his character have to do with him being a messenger of God?

Lots of people have suffered worse than he have and haven't lived to tell about it, so how does that remotely suggest anything? I would make the claim that any Jew experiencing the holocaust would have suffered more than he have, yet that doesn't suggest that any of them are a messenger of God.

I already gave an example with the communism above and how that failed, and my guess is that you can do it for the rest as well. And even if he by chance got one correct, it still doesn't explain all those that were wrong. Which is another issues with predictions, people tend to focus on the ones that seem correct and then ignore those that weren't.

Continue..

 

[Nimos]

The evidence that the prophecies and predictions in the Bible were fulfilled by Baha’u’llah are in this book entitled Thief in the Night by William Sears

I believed I have already looked at it, and that it is not very good either, the person have already reach his conclusions and just want to make it fit with what he believes. He grabs three promises that he think is good, why those three is not explained as far as I remember.

So why didn't he take this promise by Jesus:

Matthew 16: 27-28
27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.

28 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

What is wrong with that promise? Guess its because, its quite difficult to explain how it would it into his conclusion "I found that all three of Christ’s prophecies to His disciples had been fulfilled exactly as He promised."

Now 1844 is very important to him, which seems to be because that was when the Bahai faith was founded?

So this seem to turn into some conspiracy or flat earther type logic and manipulation of numbers to fit things together.

Messiah would appear and restore their Faith and the purity of their belief. This was the general conclusion. When would this take place? Daniel said it would come to pass in 2,300 days. In prophecy, this becomes 2,300 years. Using the same frame of reference for the second coming, as was used for the first coming (the decree of Artaxerxes), the Bible scholars made the following calculations:

1. The decree was issued in 457. They subtracted 457 from 2,300 and arrived at 1,843. Thus the year 1843, they said, would mark the beginning of the end of the ‘abomination of desolation’.

2. Some scholars pointed out that from the issuing of the decree in 457 until the birth of Christ there were 456 years, not 457; therefore, it was necessary to subtract 456 from 2,300. This left the year 1844.

Although many disputes arose as to the exact month, day, and hour, there was a basic agreement among nearly all that Christ’s return must take place between the years 1843 and 1845, with the year 1844 as the central point of reference. One group of Christian scholars worked out Daniel’s prophecy in the greatest detail. They even built a special chart to show that Christ would return in the middle of the year 1844.

1. The Gospel had been preached in all the world for a witness.
2. The times of the Gentiles had been fulfilled.
3. The prophecy of Daniel given by Christ as the time to stand in the holy place had come to pass.

Each of these prophecies had been fulfilled in the year 1844!

Yet no one noticed the return? Guess that was because Baha'u'llah weren't old enough as he was born in 1817. Im sorry but this way of reasoning and conducting research is really not good. Its like the pizza box man that I showed in another thread:

Once my Christian coworker said that there is no point doing anything about racial prejudice because Jesus is coming and when he comes he will fix it and then she smirked. Then she also said everyone who does not believe in Jesus is going to hell.

Well that is what the bible say, none believers won't be saved. So according to Christianity, you are not in a better position than I am, because, if im not mistaken you do not accept Jesus as being who he claimed to be, right? Meaning that he was God or the son of God?

But Jesus is not coming back to earth. Jesus said so in plain language (John 14:19, John 16:28, John 17:4, John 17:11).

This solely depends on what you read. John 14:19 - speaks about the holy spirit being within people. But if you read:

Matthew 24:
36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.

Matthew 25
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.

Everyone cannot go about seeking the Truth in the same way; as all humans are different in how they think, the methods will vary. Moreover, religious beliefs cannot be tested and verified like scientific truths.

That is the reason we use methods and keep adjusting them where needed if there are issues, to avoid the exact problem of having people going around seeking or claiming truth in whatever way they feel like. There are not more truth, there is one truth about a given thing and that is what we want to figure out and get as close to as possible. You are certainly correct that most things do not have an obvious truth written on them or that can easily be tested. That is why we use evidence, to get rid of those things that definitely dont fit. But if no one knows how you went about and reached your conclusion, then no one would be able to test your claims. Like if I claim that Jesus is satan, because that is what my "search" for truth say, yet im not willing to tell others how I reach my conclusion, but instead they just have to take my word for it. That is not how it works and it doesn't need to be scientific stuff in order for others to test something and find arguments against my claim. As I said with the historical method, these people don't just go around and claiming stuff, there need to be something to back up these things, pointing in the direction of the claim, when enough evidence points towards something, we tend to categorize it as being a fact, but this is a long process.

I think everyone has to go about seeking truth in their own way, whatever makes sense to them. That is why he did not delineate any particular methodology. You once delineated your way of seeking truth and that is valid for you, but not everyone will choose to go about it in that fashion.

Again as above and I need to stress this. People should not get about seeking truth in whatever way they think is correct. That is the approach of flat earthers and the pizza box guy. That is why people are being educated in what it means to do critical and evidence based research, such as the scientific method, because it need to be possible to verify and test claims. That is one of the issues with religious claims, they are not testable. We can't test if Jesus is the son of God or if God exist and therefore we shouldn't treat such claims as being true, but rather faith.

Imagine we were talking about how to measure the distance to the moon. You suggest that we ought to use trigonometry to do it, because that way we get a precise distance. However I completely disagree and think we should just estimate the distance since I have good eyesight.

Despite which of these approaches we use, we both agree that the moon is far away. However how far away it is, we don't agree on, as I claim my estimate is really good. And then we can have a discussion whether or not that is true or not. Its not a good way to go about finding truth, I hope you would agree with that.

 

[Unity of Mankind]

So again, I put my hope in science, but expect the slow and painful solution

Presently in the US there is a political crisis going on. I think the basic problem is corruption and an unprecedented leader of it, the US President. Quite a while ago I viewed a US Journalist’s report on TV with documented evidence that Trump was riding the US Department of Agriculture of as many scientists as he could. Why? Scientists were interfering with his political agenda by refuting Trump’s claim that humans were not causing dangerous climate change.

Apparently Trump can only appreciate monetary greed regardless of where it leads. After all, Trump has been using his political position as President to accumulate as much wealth for his personal pocket book as he can. If Trump is reelected some speculate he may cause irreparable damage to the American Political System of government. He has been caught in so many lies journalists have stopped counting! So if you are counting on scientific solutions for solving pressing issues facing mankind such as human culpability for causing climate change don’t ever expect any solutions from that source in the US unless Trump is somehow not reelected or is impeached.

From a religious point of view I agree with you God does not solve anything but God did create humankind with the capacity of rational thought and reasoning in order to solve pressing personal as well as social challenges in life. The problem is rational thought and reasoning alone does not directly provide a code or law of morality which promotes behavior corresponding to the higher nature of mankind. Perhaps that is what Jesus meant when He said “Man does not live by bread alone” as reported in the New Testament of the Bible. So people in and out of government can just as easily exercise or use rational thought and reasoning for selfish greedy purposes. Perhaps that is why Baha’u’llah wrote “The greatest prison is the prison of self” as I recall He did. He also wrote that “The vitality of belief in God is dying out in every land” as I also recall.

Offhandedly, I think religious sentiments stemming from Christianity is, as I recall, written into the US Constitution that mankind was created with certain rights as expressed in a document entitled “The Bill of Rights.” Sentiments, however, are not the same as direct laws from a Prophet. So while the US has certain traditions which could be associated with Christianity it is not moored in any religion but just the opposite in vowing to uphold the principle of separation of church and state.

 

[Nimos]

Presently in the US there is a political crisis going on. I think the basic problem is corruption and an unprecedented leader of it, the US President. Quite a while ago I viewed a US Journalist’s report on TV with documented evidence that Trump was riding the US Department of Agriculture of as many scientists as he could. Why? Scientists were interfering with his political agenda by refuting Trump’s claim that humans were not causing dangerous climate change.

Apparently Trump can only appreciate monetary greed regardless of where it leads. After all, Trump has been using his political position as President to accumulate as much wealth for his personal pocket book as he can. If Trump is reelected some speculate he may cause irreparable damage to the American Political System of government.

Im not surprised, however I think one should be aware that he is probably not acting alone, meaning that its not purely for personal gain. The lobby in the US is very powerful, so one could imagine that him taking or denying climate issues, makes it easier for industry working with coal and other highly climate impacting areas to benefit, which makes them happy. It seems to fit well with his bring job back to the industry. So if he starts to tax or limit these industries due to climate regulations, it would not look good.

Also to me, Trump appears to be a person solely interested in personal success, to show others how good he is at what he does and that he is a person that you don't mess around with. Not meant in a mature way, but in a childish way.

If Trump is reelected some speculate he may cause irreparable damage to the American Political System of government. He has been caught in so many lies journalists have stopped counting! So if you are counting on scientific solutions for solving pressing issues facing mankind such as human culpability for causing climate change don’t ever expect any solutions from that source in the US unless Trump is somehow not reelected or is impeached.

He is already damaging the US system as far as Im concerned, so agree with you, the longer he is in power, the worse it will be damaged. I really don't think he is a good president for the US and think the citizens will figure that out at some point. Hopefully before the election.

Luckily science work across borders, so even scientists in the US will be able to help find solutions, the key issues is obvious that fewer money might be spend on this, than if it had been a President that cared about it. But again, the US is in decline in regards to being the leader of science compared to other countries, China and Europe are quickly gaining ground, so maybe the solutions will come from here.
Obviously the US have organisations such as NASA, good universities and lots of people that actually do care etc. So hopefully they can make up for the lack of political support in these areas.

The problem is rational thought and reasoning alone does not directly provide a code or law of morality which promotes behavior corresponding to the higher nature of mankind.

Agree, probably not for the reasons you think But more that rational thought and reasoning need something to be based on. Which is knowledge, without it these are reduced to guesswork and beliefs. I do however think that as knowledge increases and thereby rational thinking and reasoning follows along, that our morality in large comes from this.

A clear example is when terrorist decide to blow up others, then that is clearly a result of lack of knowledge, causing them to rely on guesswork and beliefs to guide their morality. But for everyone else looking at what they are doing, this is should be obviously wrong, not only due to their actions, but also because their reasoning and justifications for these actions are flawed and misguided.

And to me, not a lot different than that of other religious people, as the overall idea is the same. People assign value and authority to something for which there is no logical reasons for doing. And through this, it is possible to place unjustified judgement on others, which does not share such beliefs. The obvious difference is that most religious people, do not turn to terrorism as a result of this unjustified authority. But yet the overall idea behind it remains the same for all people doing it, terrorist or not. One might object to this, but isn't it much the same, when people are convinced that abortion should not be allowed, because it is written in a old book? When people decide to treat others in ways, which again is only justified by old scriptures? The overall approach is the same as that of a terrorist, morality is guided by none rational thinking and reasoning, due to lack of knowledge. Whether that is due to not understanding or willing to accept ones role in the Universe as not being important, the fear of death or lack of understanding of how so many things in the world turned out as they did, when one expected them to be much better.

So people in and out of government can just as easily exercise or use rational thought and reasoning for selfish greedy purposes.

As above, this should not come as a surprise to anyone, you make a system which encourage and teach people to be greedy, this is what they know, this is how one survive. But if you teach them values of sharing, that ones worth is not determined by material goods and power, but rather how people and animals around you thrives in their lives, you would have a different world. But our system is build on old ideas, where people were expected to take on roles of power and wealth and that this were what defined them in the end. Without it, you would just be another human. So the system were build by them and is maintained by them, even today. People with money, have influence and those without have none. The system encourage that and make sure that it doesn't function, if some does not suffer. Also why it is in a deadlock, no nation can easily change their ways, because the first that does, will loose all influence. So it has to be done globally. So even if a person should get into a position of power with the right intentions, the system will make sure that they can not succeed.