The extraordinary historical influence of the founding figures of Christianity, Islam and older world religions is regarded by Bahá'ís as a proof to any spiritually perceptive observer that these historical figures were vested with a superhuman sovereignty. Let this thread serve as an opening for a constructive dialogue on whether or not such a claim is tenable. The Bahá'í position is further elaborated by the Bahá'í World Centre in the document "One Common Faith" (Haifa, 2005):

* * *

"The recurring proof of the existence of God, therefore, is that from time immemorial He has repeatedly manifested Himself. In the larger sense, as Bahá'u'lláh explains, the vast epic of humanity's religious history represents the fulfilment of the "Covenant", the enduring promise by which the Creator of all things assures the [human] race of the unfailing guidance essential to its spiritual and moral development, and calls on it to internalize and give expression to these values. One is free to dispute through historicist interpretations of the evidence the unique role of this or that Messenger of God, if that is one's purpose, but such speculation is of no help in accounting for developments that have transformed though and produced changes in human relationships critical to social evolution. At intervals so rare that the known instances can be counted on one's fingers, the Manifestations of God have appeared, have each been explicit as to the authority of His teachings, and have each exerted an influence on the advance of civilization incomparably beyond that of any other phenomenon in history. . . ."

"The objection most commonly raised against the foregoing conception of religion is the assertion that the differences among the revealed faiths are so fundamental that to present them as stages or aspects of one unified system of truth does violence to the facts. Given the confusion surrounding the nature of religion, the reaction is understandable. Chiefly, however, such an objection offers Bahá'ís an invitation to set the principles reviewed here more explicitly in the evolutionary context provided in Bahá'u'lláh's writings. . . ."

"The differences referred to fall into the categories of either practice or doctrine, both of them presented as the intent of the relevant scriptures. In the case of religious customs governing personal life, it is helpful to view the subject against the background of comparable features of material life. It is most unlikely that diversity in hygiene, dress, medicine, diet, transportation, warfare, construction or economic activity, however striking, would any longer be seriously advanced in support of a theory that humanity does not in fact constitute one people, single and unique. . . ."

"A similar evolutionary process, Bahá'u'lláh indicates, has characterized the religious life of humankind. . . . "These principles and laws, these firmly established and mighty systems", Bahá'u'lláh asserts, "have proceeded from one Source, and are the rays of one Light. That they differ one from another is to be attributed to the varying requirements of the ages in which they were promulgated."

"To argue, therefore, that differences of regulations, observances and other practices constitute any significant objection to the idea of revealed religion's essential oneness is to miss the purpose that these prescriptions served. More seriously, it misses the fundamental distinction between the eternal and the transitory features of religion's function. The essential message of religion is immutable. It is, in Bahá'u'lláh's words, "the changeless Faith of God, eternal in the past, eternal in the future." Its role in opening the way for the soul to enter into an ever-more mature relationship with its Creator -- and in endowing it with an ever-greater measure of moral autonomy in disciplining the animal impulses of human nature -- is not at all irreconcilable with its providing auxiliary guidance that enhances the process of civilization building."

* * *

Oct 5, 2011 -- 4:56PM, chevy956 wrote:

You merely offer assertions and claims, but no actual testable, verifiable, empirical evidence for the objective existence of any god.

You would be right in saying that history knows thousands of prophetic claimants. Only a handful, however, have changed history. Moses was an orphan with a stammering speech and a murderer's blot on his name, Jesus was an impoverished vagabond known to be a fatherless child, and Muhammed grew up as an illiterate merchant at the outer reaches of the Arabian desert. Yet few will deny that the influence of these three ancient men is globally tangible even now, even as we speak. Few will deny that their influence far surpasses myriads of mighty historical potentates, conquerors, brilliant philosophers and visionary social reformers -- not only in the historical durability of their influence, but also in the sheer number of their admirers and the depth of their devotion.

All of these three declared to have brought a message from the One God. All of their words are, until today, studied, reflected and viewed as a source of inspiration and life guide. There is your evidence. The whole of human history. Given the phenomenal qualitative, quantitative and time-scale difference in the influence of these historical persons as compared to virtually all the other known great men of history (some of whose historicity may be equally disputed if we want to go down that road) -- men who were far more powerful and influential in their own time than these three men -- there is nothing unreasonable to explore the option that these men were inspired by the very Being in Whose name they prophesied.  Such an exploration may be uncomfortable at best for many a by-product of a thoroughly secularized generation. But not unreasonable. The burden of proof rests firmly on him who artificially lumps these individuals of such a provably extraordinary influence into the lesser categories of great philosophers, social reformers and political leaders.

With kind regards,

LilWabbit

Oct 6, 2011 -- 4:24PM, chevy956 wrote:

Aside from Moses, whose followers have done arguably more to improve humankind over history's course far more in proportion to their limited number, The followers of Christ and Muhammed have done little to improve humankind, murdered vast numbers of innocents by way of proccliaming their alleged Manifestation's "Message" and remain an impediment to a peaceful world even today.

The foregoing is not a counter-argument against the extraordinary influence of the personages in question. In fact, such unfortunate facts only corroborate the truth of their extraordinary influence. At best, the atrocities perpetrated by their followers indicates that their influence can be used to advance all manner of personal and political agendas. So can any other ideology or political cause.

Historians also seriously question the actual existence of Moses and Jesus, so any discussion of their origins is meaningless and irrelevant, anyway.

Let's be more precise. Only some historians seriously question the actual historical existence of Moses and Jesus. The majority of unbiased scholars accept that both of them existed while seriously contending the most fantastic accounts of their lives. Much of the professional debate among the established historians rather concern whether or not a minimalist or a maximalist account of their lives is closer to the truth. Only a small minority "seriously questions" that Moses or Jesus never existed. The minority is proportionally even smaller with the case of Jesus, albeit notoriously loud and populistic. Some historians question the nihilists' objectivity almost as much as they question the objectivity of "serious" Bible scholars purporting to prove the Resurrection of Christ as a historical fact.

Others with no divine claim whatsoever have done so- some for better, many for the worse.

Care to demonstrate which historical person has done better in order for us to make a fair evidential comparison?

Oct 6, 2011 -- 4:24PM, chevy956 wrote:

All of these three declared to have brought a message from the One God. All of their words are, until today, studied, reflected and viewed as a source of inspiration and life guide. There is your evidence.

>>> So what? So are the thoughts of Chairman Mao< Mein Kampf and Khomeini's "Green Book" We are supposed to believe their claims "because they said so"? Sorry- that isn't evidence. No, it isn't evidence- merely circular reasoning. It is simply a claim on your part.

My words did not end at the point your citation of me did. Show me that the thoughts of Chairman Mao, Adolf Hitler and Ayatollah Khomeini have (1) historically influenced more people more deeply than the thoughts of Moses, Jesus and Muhammed, and that (2) Chairman Mao, Hitler and (even) Khomeini claimed to be Messengers of God? The burden of proof is not on the claimant stating the evident, that billions of people are still and have historically been influenced by the three mentioned individuals, and that these individuals claimed to have brought a message from God. A mere claim of prophethood without such a provably extraordinary influence would obviously not call for any further examination of some unique divine status.

My contention remains: Given the evidence on their extraordinary historical influence, together with their claim of messengership, it is reasonable to explore the option that the three mentioned prophets were, in fact, representing what they claimed they were. Despite the provocative thread title, my contention is not that their unparalleled historical influence stands per se as a solid scientific proof of their divine origin. My contention is that a glib dismissal of the option of divine inspiration is palpably biased (against religious theories) rather than representing a scientifically reasonable avenue.

With kind regards,

LilWabbit

Oct 9, 2011 -- 11:26PM, chevy956 wrote:

Sorry, with no testable, verifiable, emprical evidence of your god's existence, any theory of alleged "manifestations" of said god is dead and floating in the water. All you supply is anecdotal evidence that because someone influenced large numbers of humans, they are somehow linked to the divine.

There is nothing anecdotal about billions of human beings on monday 10 October 2011 swearing by the ancient personages of Moses, Jesus and Muhammed. The main point remains uncontested by rational argument:

Given the verifiable and demonstrable evidence on their extraordinary current influence which has not risen out of a historical vacuum, together with their claim of messengership, it is not unreasonable to examine the option that the three mentioned prophets were, in fact, representing what they claimed they were. Again, the contention is not that their divinity has been thus scientifically proven. The contention is rather that their extraordinary influence over millennia cannot be dismissively explained away by a superficial appeal to charisma, power-play, mass-hysteria and poetic genius. Thousands have possessed all of the foregoing, yet remained far more chronologically temporary, horizontally limited and vertically superficial in their influence. A reasonable cause remains for exploring the theory of divine revelation scientifically. To suggest otherwise is unscientific and indicative of anti-religious bias.

With kind regards,

LilWabbit

Nov 8, 2011 -- 5:32PM, Ibn wrote:

Lilwabbit said: "You would be right in saying that history knows thousands of prophetic claimants. Only a handful, however, have changed history. Moses was an orphan with a stammering speech and a murderer's blot on his name, Jesus was an impoverished vagabond known to be a fatherless child, and Muhammed grew up as an illiterate merchant at the outer reaches of the Arabian desert. Yet few will deny that the influence of these three ancient men is globally tangible even now, even as we speak. Few will deny that their influence far surpasses myriads of mighty historical potentates, conquerors, brilliant philosophers and visionary social reformers -- not only in the historical durability of their influence, but also in the sheer number of their admirers and the depth of their devotion."

Oct 6, 2011 -- 4:24PM, chevy956 wrote:

Aside from Moses, whose followers have done arguably more to improve humankind over history's course far more in proportion to their limited number, The followers of Christ and Muhammed have done little to improve humankind, murdered vast numbers of innocents by way of proccliaming their alleged Manifestation's "Message" and remain an impediment to a peaceful world even today. Historians also seriously question the actual exisence of Moses and Jesus, so any discussion of their origins is meaningless and irrelevant, anyway.The fact that their followers have changed history is not proof that there is a God.

Can any atheist prove, using man-created scientific method, which created atom bomb to kill many innocent people, that something can be created out of nothing and nothing can create something?

Salaam my good friend Ibn,

I guess ultimately it all boils down to egocentrism. We really have two choices. Either to adopt an egocentric worldview where everything can be known by man, given enough time. Or a humbler worldview which accepts the existence of something which is beyond all human understanding and will always thus remain. For the theists, that something is Allah, Yahweh, Eternal Brahman, God.

Sincerely,

LilWabbit