Livindesert

Yes I have answered everyone of his questions only to be mocked and ridiculed by him instead of Orthodox just understanding that that is my point of view that I do not expect him to agree with.

pheonixduprese

Oh, moderator?! Where be you?

Orthodox

So when i responded to his claims about the early church I was completely unwarrented and when i responded to his claims about arianism as well as the bahai view of Christianity it was not related? I beg to differ sir.

Livindesert

Not really. In fact I have a friend that was teaching the faith to a friend at a outdoor cafe in Antigua and was then pulled over by a person listening in who procceded to ridicule him for half and hour. He just sat there and listened to his accuser and at the end said "well I don't agree with your opinion but I am glad you shared it".

Orthodox

Well your friend should have said why he didn't agree with it.

Livindesert

The person was in fact so amazed that my friend accepted but disagreed with his opinion without getting into a argument that he then started studing Baha'i scriptures.

Orthodox

Thats not really an amazing thing. I started reading them when many bahai started to refuse to answer my questions. And then i had more questions that bahai refuse to answer and still don't answer.

FrankMc

Rediculous (sic) challenge? Silly criteria? On the contrary, Orthodox. The challenge is designed to make you examine the writings that you are traducing. (And remember that Baha'is also consider the Qu'ran to be of divine origin.)
It's not a matter of 'objective proof' - that term is really pretty meaningless when dealing with articles of faith, as you need consensus of opinion on the existence of divinity in the first place - try giving 'objective proof' of the existence of God to a diehard athiest, and you'll be floundering pretty quickly. Don't bandy words like 'objective' around, trying to make your perspective seem superior.
It's clear from your posts that you aren't even bothering to read the quotations Baha'is here are providing you in answer to your questions - you keep repeating questions which have already been answered for you. The Baha'is here are not ignoring your questions - you're ignoring our answers!
You claim to want to discuss - then read the answers provided for you, and we can have a proper discussion. But at this stage, I don't believe anything you say - your actions belie your claims.

Orthodox

I have seen atheistic arguments and I believe a solid case can be made for the existence of God. I don't flounder in front of atheists, in fact usually it is the other way around. Atheism of todays variety can be rejected pretty easily. Some atheists believe in evil, well evil could not exist without God to define what is good and evil. It is arguments like that make me not submit to atheism. and the More I think about it theism comes out stronger, both logically and spiritually.

And no the challange is worded in such a way that it means to find something better than what is produced. But the problem is one cannot prove a sentance or something is divine in origin, simply because it sounds beutiful or good does not make it from God. I have read many books alright, so I do consider this criteria just silly for trying to prove a book greater over the other. Besides I gave you a wonderful memorial hymn.

"Blessed are you O lord, teach me your statutes."

However just because words and sentences cannot objectively be proven to be something from God, does not mean there cannot be provable objective truths. Science for instance tells us of objective truths such as reality, it doesn't matter how deluded you are, Gravity still exists. However science on its own is inadequate for answering the greater questions of the world.



That being said, if you would like some proof which might be considered objective as opposed to subjective, I bring you the first mover argument as thought of by Thomas Aquanis the Catholic theologian.

Consider that everything that begins to move needs something to make it move in the first place. However if we continue with this we get the problem of infinite regress, which is solved from an eternally existing unmoved source which made the first movement. This is just one of the logical arguments for the existence of God. I highly reccomend Dr William Lane Craig and his debates, he's a Christian apologist and Philosopher who deals with the logic of God's existence especially, check him out. Now if one wants physical evidence I would point to the ressurection of Jesus, as a ressurection of Jesus is the only way one can explain the empty tomb. As all natural explanations are inadequate and fail.

And you see my questions have not been answered. At least not adequately. Consider Livin, I ask him why is there a discrepency between the church Christ established and the bahai movement, He says there is none and simply says they are two parts of the same puzzle, I refute him saying they directly contradict one another so he just says both are correct. Then he repeats himself again saying they are two parts of the same puzzle after me pointing out he has committed a logical fallacy. So please stop accusing me of these things. I try do all things for a reason you know. a Reason which I believe can be justified.

BruceDLimber

Actually, Phoenix, we do! [You really need to set up a new userid to correct your screenname's spelling, BTW!]

There are a number of well-known apologetics of the Baha'i Faith ("apologetic" means "defense") by Mirza Abu'l-Fadl, and there's also a large (around 700 pages) recent one known in America as Making the Crooked Straight (the original German title is Disinformation Als Methode).

So apologetics do indeed exist in the Baha'i Faith, and indeed, there are circumstances where our scriptures specifically encourage us to defend it against attack!

Peace, :-)

Bruce

FrankMc

More posturing, and no evidence that you bother to read the Baha'i writings at all - statements like "evil could not exist without God to define what is good and evil' are just plain dumb, Orthodox - believer and atheist alike recognise evil, without need of definition from the Creator.
How many times do you have to be reminded - this is a Baha'i forum. It is common practice for Baha'is to answer questions with quotations from the Writings, as these are where questions are best answered.
So far all you have done is, traduce the Baha'i writings and ignore the answers contained therein, and promote your own point of view. Calling that "a Reason" with a capital R indicates you're on some mission to do so, as I and others have pointed out.

So many of your arguments, on this and other threads, boil down to you saying the same thing again and again - 'This is wrong because it does not accord with my scripture'. Read the Kitab-i-Iqan, like you've been recommended on other threads, if you want answers to your assertion. It's a fundamental Baha'i text, and your posting all over this forum while you're obviously ignorant of it is a real insult.

When you ignore what we're trying to say to you, you are simply wasting your time trying to proselytise to us. What goes around comes around. You're absolutely stuck in your conviction the Baha'i revelation is wrong, that's the problem - you're not even trying to give some space to what's being said. Your attitude is obnoxious. Pretty soon you'll find nobody answering your posts.

pheonixduprese

Oh, Phoenix is misspelled on purpose. I was signing up for something else one day, and Pheonixduprese was already taken (what are the chances?) so I said, "Well, why don't I just spell 'Phoenix' phonetically?" And nobody had used that spelling yet, so it stuck. .

-Cole

Orthodox

Frank your ignorance of philsophy baffles me. Evil could not logically exist without a God. The atheist might recognize evil but he has no reason as to say what is and what is not evil. This is something philosophers of today realise. God defines morality okay something I thought you would agree with.

That being said I have ignored nothing Frank. You sound angry. But the answers I get are not satisfying or adequate. They open up more questions.

Clex19

Baha'is believe that evil is simply the nonexistence of good.


THE NONEXISTENCE OF EVIL

"The true explanation of this subject is very difficult. Know that beings are of two kinds: material and spiritual, those perceptible to the senses and those intellectual.

Things which are sensible are those which are perceived by the five exterior senses; thus those outward existences which the eyes see are called sensible. Intellectual things are those which have no outward existence but are conceptions of the mind. For example, mind itself is an intellectual thing which has no outward existence. All man's characteristics and qualities form an intellectual existence and are not sensible.

Briefly, the intellectual realities, such as all the qualities and admirable perfections of man, are purely good, and exist. Evil is simply their nonexistence. So ignorance is the want of knowledge; error is the want of guidance; forgetfulness is the want of memory; stupidity is the want of good sense. All these things have no real existence.

In the same way, the sensible realities are absolutely good, and evil is due to their nonexistence -- that is to say, blindness is the want of sight, deafness is the want of hearing, poverty is the want of wealth, illness is the want of health, death is the want of life, and weakness is the want of strength.

Nevertheless a doubt occurs to the mind -- that is, scorpions and serpents are poisonous. Are they good or evil, for they are existing beings? Yes, a scorpion is evil in relation to man; a serpent is evil in relation to man; but in relation to themselves they are not evil, for their poison is their weapon, and by their sting they defend themselves. But as the elements of their poison do not agree with our elements -- that is to say, as there is antagonism between these different elements, therefore, this antagonism is evil; but in reality as regards themselves they are good.

The epitome of this discourse is that it is possible that one thing in relation to another may be evil, and at the same time within the limits of its proper being it may not be evil. Then it is proved that there is no evil in existence; all that God created He created good. This evil is nothingness; so death is the absence of life. When man no longer receives life, he dies. Darkness is the absence of light: when there is no light, there is darkness. Light is an existing thing, but darkness is nonexistent. Wealth is an existing thing, but poverty is nonexisting.

Then it is evident that all evils return to nonexistence. Good exists; evil is nonexistent."

(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 264)

Orthodox

Even so you still need God to define what is good. The atheist cannot justify a good action from an evil action. This was my point and Frank just laughed at it not realising that this philosophically obvious. ONe cannot justify a type of morality without God. The atheist cannot tell me why it is bad to rape a child or kill someone. They instead have to submit to a naturalistic form of good and evil which doesn't satisfy anyone, merely saying morals evolve.

And Frank it is interesting that you think recognizing good and evil proves good and evil. Why do humans recognize good and evil? Perhaps because it is written on their heart. But the atheist cannot justify morality or how they feel. Simply ask an atheist why eating babies is bad. They will not be able to justify why it is bad. It can only been done with someone who defines morality, and that is God.

And no Frank, it isn't wrong simply because it doesn't agree with my scripture, it is wrong because I see historical and logical problems with it. None of which you address. You did not address my first mover argument, you did not address how words can be objectively proven to be better than another set of words as in order to prove divinity. No you merely complain about me being here.

Clex19

Forgive me if I am misunderstanding you on this, but even atheists are entitled to their own opinions. Atheists can still have their own definition of what is good, even if they don't believe in God. Atheists, like the rest of us, have consciouses; they have a gut instincts that tell them something is bad. Also, they may have learned morals from other atheists. Either way, whether an atheist is 'right' or 'wrong', they can nevertheless have the ability to distinguish good actions from evil actions. Again, I hope I understood what you said.

Orthodox

Oh don't get me wrong, it si great that atheists have morals. But they can't justify them which is my and one of the reasons why I am not atheism as it lacks an explanation for this apparent morality within almost every human. They can't tell me that it is wrong to eat babies, they have no basis on which to say it. They might say it will cause pain. I ask why is it wrong to cause pain? They might say it causes misery? I simply ask why is it wrong to cause misery.

I love that God has placed morality on all hearts. People may forget it or try to wash it out as atheists have and try to justify it without God. But all explanations for a natural atheistic morality lack any substance that can be taken of value. it is just personal opinion for them, nothing major.

Clex19

@Orthodox Thanks for clarifying.

pheonixduprese

Actually, since there is such a large atheist society (with clear morals), and as this has been known (philisophically) for a long time, morals aren't based on religion as much as they were. It's really more of a cultural thing.

Orthodox

I said morals come from God, and God reveals morality explisively through religion. So in a way you are right and wrong. But if that were the case and morality is based on a cultural thing, then it was therefore right for the Japanese to kick out and kill Christians in about the 18th or so century and isolate themselves from the world.

It was also alright for since for cultural reasons for ancient kings to sacrifice babies to the statue of their pagan gods by heating it up and letting the baby melt on the hands of it.

It was alright for carthegenians to sacrifice children for their gods, because hey it was their culture.

It was alright to be prejudice against jews in ancient europe and alright for the nazis to persecute them and bring them to extermination camps.

Do you really believe morality is defined by culture and not God? My point is that atheists cannot justify their morality. THey can have it, but they can't say why this is moral other than their own opinion. Morality needs to be defined and only God can do this.

pheonixduprese

Yes and no to all of those examples. It was correct for them to do it at the time, because it was what they saw fit. Our culture realizes it as wrong, though, so I personally see it as wrong.

Orthodox

Um no, it was never correct for any one to sacrifice to false pagan gods who did not exist? Are you saying would have gone along with the crowd of those times and sacrificed your only child? Morality does not change sir. It isnokay to murder one day and then other do not. Dear lord that is disgusting. lord have mercy.

pheonixduprese

If they had not recieved the moralities that God sent them, then they would be forced to interpret 'signs' from their gods to judge their moralities. They were correct in their way.

Orthodox

They were never correct because their gods never existed. They were in ignorance yes, so it is up to God to judge them. But that doesn't excuse their actions. Their actions were evil. They were never right. And I find it unbelievable you can defend ancient pagan practices.

cire perdue

Orthodox, It is interesting to me that if a Baha'i disagrees with even core beliefs, but considers himself to be a Baha'i, I as an individual do not have the right, place, or position to correct him/her. There are Baha'is who believe in re-incarnation. However I would say they are a very small portion of the Faith. There is amazing unity and there is a core belief for which 99.9% are in agreement, if someone does not see something or believe what I believe then I don't correct him/her. Someone who would be teaching reincarnation as a Baha'i belief would be asked not to teach it or anything that is not a core belief. They can believe anything they want. We certainly do not attempt to correct people from other religions who talk with us. The job of Baha'is is not to tell other Baha'is or those of other religions how they should believe. There are teachings of the Bab that one should make every effort not to cause another human being any pain or sadness, and it is a pervasive influence. When there are disruptive individuals it is not unusual for the complaining Baha'is to be told to love the individual more.

I feel certain there are Christians who would not agree with everything you believe, that is why there are so many churches and different beliefs almost as varied as the churches. Telling us Christians don't believe what we believe is redundant, in fact many of us are Baha'is, because Christianity ceased to make sense. It doesn't make sense to tell me that I cannot view other instances in the Bible spiritually, rather than literally. Sorry I have made my own search, and there is nothing in Christianity for me or I would still be there. I am in the Faith that answers the most questions, and I sought the answers, and remain firm. I would die for what I believe right now. I am not threatened with hell in the Baha'i Faith if I don't believe a certain way. I am told that deeds are more important than words, that as I believe so shall my actions be.

We don't have clergy either. We have elected groups who only have authority in session making group decisions. It appears that those who are most interested in correcting others and enforcing rules seek to control others and have power over others. We do not engage in telling people they are wrong. I also do not have to have answers for anyone else. It is the individual's job to make the search and not mine to tell him/her what to do unless asked. A great definition for insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Baha'is are not interested in Chrisitianity in the same way that Christians aren't interested in Judaism. We don't have to put new wine in an old skin, we have new wine in a new vessel and we are getting on with our lives.

pheonixduprese

Well said, cire perdue

Orthodox

Your right that certain Christians wouldn't agree with alot of orthodoxy. In fact they call us idolators. But all members of the church believe in the core essential things I do. There can be no doubt as to this. We are not divided in theology, though we are antiochian, greek, Russian and Israelite. We are all united in the church of Christ, the orthodox church. And actually alot of Christians are interested in Judiasm, pre Christ judiasm to be exact. Which is different from todays brand. And its interesting that you say you have an authority. Do you have to listen to these men of authority? I was told women can't be these elected councils, why is that I wonder? Also 99% of all bahais are united in belief? Interesting, so far I have found many contradictions between what some bahais tell me and what others tell me in this forum. perhaps 70% is more accurate.

whine of astonsihment

The Baha'i 'ring-stone' symbol is a calligraphic representation of the interrelationships between God the Unknowable Essence (the Father), His Manifestations (the prophet founders of the major religions), the Holy Spirit, and the rest of humanity, not unlike the Christian geometric representation of the Holy Trinity.

But another and very different metaphor to describe it might be to say: that we (humanity) are the 'trees' which the Gardener/Carpenter (God's Manifestations) shapes into His beautiful Throne, and God the Unknowable Eessence (the Father) is the One Who created the Gardener/Carpenter. (That's not from the Writings - just a personal restatement of the concept as I understand it)

whine of astonsihment

Yes I'd like that link please.

Orthodox

Thoughts from The Other Side of the Mountain: A Catechumen's Journey from Hinduism

LordOfGoblins

The trinity makes no sense at all. Three persons in one God? What is that? That is just non-sensical. God is one in essence. The sun in the mirror analogy makes a lot more sense indeed. Good luck arguing your trinity explanation it holds no water at all...

Lunitik

I fully agree with you here, however this thread died mid September - just letting you know