What’s your main reason for being a theist or an atheist?

[savagewind]

It is not a question of earning, it is about correct targeting. Had that person worshiped only one God, the God would had to come. There are other stories when Lord Vishnu ran barefoot without waiting to put his shoes on, as a crocodile had latched on to the leg of one of his devotees, the King of Elephants. The story is known as 'Gajendra Moksha' (the deliverance of the King of elephants).

Gajendra Moksha - Wikipedia

I do not understand that as I believe that just one God exists.

 

[Goodman John]

That is not a good scenario. You can't satisfy all. We have a story around here (India) that a Hindu was in trouble and asked Gods to help him. One God thought that there are hundreds of others too, why should I take the trouble. Surely someone else will help. The second God also thought the same was and did not move, and the thired and the fourth. In the end, there was no help for the person.

When a Christian was in trouble, he called Jesus, and Jesus came and helped him to overcome that trouble. The moral of this story is that you should finalize on one, so that you are not left hanging.

The advantage of choosing one god is that eventually you might learn what he/she/it will and won't help with and can plan accordingly.

On the other hand, the 'shotgun' approach- appealing to many gods- might improve your chances of getting help sooner (but they might get mad that you're dealing 'across the fence' with other gods, so your mileage may vary).

 

[CG Didymus]

What is the update CG Didymus, other than that Bahaullah is the latest 'avatara' (Manifestation - what becomes manifest, incarnation) of Allah, and that Allah has come with a new revelation which is better than all the rest that was revealed before? That is what all the other people also said. Jesus and Mohammad also brought new covenants. Peace, peace, peace! Did Jesus and Mohammad deny peace? So, what is new other than one more claimant of the pie?

That's the problem with the Baha'i Faith, they to are saying someday there will be peace because our prophet said so. Christians say... look at the mess the world in. These are the end times. Jesus is coming soon. Baha'is say... Baha'u'llah has come and has given the world the answers to heal a sick world but the world will not listen, therefore the world will go through all kinds of tribulations, like birth pangs, before peace will come.

So fulfilled prophecy would be nice to have as "proof" that what God has supposedly said is true. But, the biggest promise, that of a peaceful world, hasn't been fulfilled. And, if prophecy doesn't get fulfilled that makes the ones that made those claims false prophets. So just between the two, Christians and Baha'is, at least one of them will be spreading false prophecies, maybe both. And that won't look good for God and his messengers.

 

[CG Didymus]

I don't mean to be rude to Baha'i, and to add, you forgot The Buddha, Krishna, and Zoroastar.

I don't know much about the other religions. But I've heard that Buddhism didn't talk about a supreme god. Zoroastrianism had a good and evil god. And Krishna was God, but only one of many incarnations of God. And God consisted of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. And that doesn't fit into the Baha'i model. So all those religions and all others are reinterpreted to fit. And some religions are left out completely or explained away, like Taoism, Confucianism, Paganism, Shintoism and others.

To me, I think every body had ideas of what spiritual reality was, had some mystical experiences that somewhat validated those ideas and built on that. I think, also, some religions were just to give the people a model of behavior they were supposed to follow. And the rules for those people were then said to be given to them by their gods. But religions change over time and adapt. So I do see a progression in religious thought and practice. Just not like the Baha'i concept of "progressive revelation".

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I am not as intelligent as he is. But let me add, we go along very well with theists, but doing that with proselytizers and evangelists is a bit more difficult.

There are a few people on this site that keep coming on to each thread and proselytize their view of proselytizing very often now.

Why?

If they see a religious discussion or debate as such, maybe they should not post?

Stay well and happy

Regards Tony

 

[wandering peacefully]

the nature of the soul is the first to recognise the excellence of its Creator and a mystery that no man can fathom no matter how keen his intellect

Do you mind explaining where this soul originates from and what it is made of? In order for God to put it in a human body at conception must mean it was created out of something by God. And saying it's a mystery that no human can understand is just not even a poor explanation. If you believe it, you sure should be able understand the mechanics of it all?

 

[Alonzo Tanner]

We all believe what we do for some reason. I’m a theist and believe in the God of Abraham. That God I believe is concerned for humanity and for each one of us. Out of His love for us all He’s guided us through His Great Educators such as Christ, Muhammad, the Buddha and Krishna to name a few. What I believe makes perfect sense to me but I can see merit in arguments that would reject such a view. I believe in God because:
1/ It seems rational
2/ It resonates with my experience in life
3/ It works practically.

An atheist could use exactly the same argument of course. I tried atheism for about a year but it was the worst year of my life. Some atheists would probably say the same about their experiences of theism. So I can see how atheism makes sense. It just doesn’t work for me.

Why do you believe what you do? We’re in the religious debates section so feel free to debate. I might too...who knows!? I don’t really like atheist verses theist debates. This could be s first. Let’s see how we go.

I am a Atheist because I want to learn about and appreciate people and the world I live in without the influence of myth, lies & Deities.

 

[wandering peacefully]

There are a few people on this site that keep coming on to each thread and proselytize their view of proselytizing very often now.

Why?

Probably because it is such a fascinating psychological attribute to be able to literally deny a definition and meaning of a simple concept such as proselytizing just because their sect of a religion claims they do not do that, when everyone outside of that particular sect clearly can recognize proselytizing when they see and read it.

It seems it is a mystery only Bahai and their prophet seem to have an answer to. The rest are just trying to understand it would be my guess.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

One has its doors open to any number of Gods and, the other insists on one God.

What I see is over time the lines between all the names of the One God have been blurred. Each one of those names are of God, like the elephant story one just has to take the blindfold off to see we talk of the same elephant.

Thus I can see why at one time it was seen there were many Gods. Then there are those that see they themselves as a God and others see no God.

I also see people do not have to accept the way I have come to see it

Regards Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

God wants everyone to search for Him and determine if He exists by using their own innate intelligence and using their free will to make the decision to believe. God wants those who are sincere and truly search for Him to believe in Him. God wants to distinguish those people from the others who are not sincere, those who are unwilling to put forth any effort.

So that sounds like all those that found truth in any other religion, but Baha'i, weren't sincere enough, not pure hearted enough to find the real truth, the Baha'i Faith. Then what about those that have left the Baha'i Faith? Poor lost souls.

But, what about the Atheists here. You know lots of them did search, investigate and even became believers as best they could in some religions. And then left. Why did they leave? Was it the hypocrisy of the followers? And every religion has those, even Baha'is, since no one is perfect. Is because the teachings were just too outside of logic and reason? That's what Baha'is could be, and I think should be learning from Atheists. What is it about religions you don't agree with? What is it about the Baha'i Faith you don't agree with?

Local Baha'is do virtually nothing in my area. And I live close to San Francisco and Sacramento. I talk to you on the forum here, because the local Baha'is aren't doing anything. We have poor people coming Central America and are being locked up as criminals. Where's the Baha'is? We have mass shootings happening all over the U.S. What do the Baha'is have to say about guns. We have the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. What are the Baha'is doing about this? Virtually nothing. Why? Because you are waiting for this world to crumble? Because the leaders of the world rejected Baha'u'llah's message back in the 1800's?

Baha'is had a Peace Statement in 1986. What happened to it? What happened to let "deeds not words" be what Baha'is are known for? Baha'is are part of an organized religion that has to follow the rules. It doesn't allow individuals the freedom to get to "radical" in calling for change. Sorry, but for me it seems like too many Baha'is are sitting around doing very little to bring about positive change in the world. So Baha'is are just like so many other organized religions. They have a bunch of nominal followers.

I think it is great that you like to discuss things with Atheists, but are you listening to them and learning from them? In almost every thread here that involves Baha'i, it seems like Baha'is haven't drawn people together but have pushed them further away. Am I wrong in that? Do you feel you're making friends or creating enemies? Is there a mutual understanding and respect for each others opinions or beliefs, or do both sides dig in and fight for their beliefs and find ways to prove the other side is wrong? Sorry, but if the Baha'i Faith is the truth, I just think Baha'is should be the peacemakers and should be bringing people together.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Probably because it is such a fascinating psychological attribute to be able to literally deny a definition and meaning of a simple concept such as proselytizing just because their sect of a religion claims they do not do that, when everyone outside of that particular sect clearly can recognize proselytizing when they see and read it.

It seems it is a mystery only Bahai and their prophet seem to have an answer to. The rest are just trying to understand it would be my guess.

I have brought up previously that meanings of words evolve, proselytizing is a good example. Baha'i have been given a clear meaning as to what it means and it is unlawful for a Baha'i to proselytize.

Other people see it as they choose to and thus I put these thoughts forward.

This is a religious debate forum, each member free to choose and comment on a thread that is not a DIR.

No one is forced to read, nor comment on a post. If one does read and comment they have accepted a reply is possible. When they get a reply they can also say, sorry not interested.

What is the point of a religious debate or discussion, if one cannot post an alternate view here?

Debate;

Is a formal discussion on a particular matter, in which opposing arguments are put forward.

Discussion

Is the action or process of talking about something in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas, or a conversation or debate about a specific topic.

Maybe Baha'i have been given such a compelling argument, that is scares some people that it may have influence on their own decisions?

Regards Tony

 

[wandering peacefully]

Baha'i have been given a clear meaning as to what it means and it is unlawful for a Baha'i to proselytiz

And there you and they have it. Just because you have been deceived into believing proselytizing isn't proselytizing doesn't mean proselytizing isn't proselytizing. It should be clear by the fact everyone other than a Bahai, recognize it.

 

[savagewind]

Proselytizing means to try to make someone something that they are not.

Sharing an opinion isn't that.

To be changed is the business of the person and God.
Nobody has the right to judge what another person should or should not be, imo.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't know much about the other religions. But I've heard that Buddhism didn't talk about a supreme god. Zoroastrianism had a good and evil god. And Krishna was God, but only one of many incarnations of God. And God consisted of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. And that doesn't fit into the Baha'i model. So all those religions and all others are reinterpreted to fit. And some religions are left out completely or explained away, like Taoism, Confucianism, Paganism, Shintoism and others.

To me, I think every body had ideas of what spiritual reality was, had some mystical experiences that somewhat validated those ideas and built on that. I think, also, some religions were just to give the people a model of behavior they were supposed to follow. And the rules for those people were then said to be given to them by their gods. But religions change over time and adapt. So I do see a progression in religious thought and practice. Just not like the Baha'i concept of "progressive revelation".

Literally years ago, I spoke with Bahai on this. My final take is that christianity believes jesus is god; Krishna IS god (which makes abrahamic beliefs polytheistic if it actually taught this); The Buddha knew that gods exist (Hinduism) but it wasn't in his Dharma. (Probably someone sects have incarnations but they are just the same as humans).

I don't know about Zoroaster at all. I think one Muslim debunked Bahai but he came and left so quickly, I forgot in a gist what he said.

I can't remember the answer, but my (rhetorical) question was, if the said divine books in the past where incorrect, why take from them unless to change them to make them divine because of their original faults.

If the divine books were faulty, why take from them to make them divine.

You're right, spiritual experiences do confirm religious theology. That's why it's hard for them or anyone whose experiences back up their reality to see anything outside it. The only way it can be productive is if we learned outside our box; at least attempt. We do so with fiction stories but why not with religion?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

And there you and they have it. Just because you have been deceived into believing proselytizing isn't proselytizing doesn't mean proselytizing isn't proselytizing. It should be clear by the fact everyone other than a Bahai, recognize it.

That was just a baseless rejection of a sound argument put forward.

More like a childish tantrum.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I can't remember the answer, but my (rhetorical) question was, if the said divine books in the past where incorrect, why take from them unless to change them to make them divine because of their original faults.

The answer would have been is that the Message given by each of those Prophets was not wrong.

How we each choose to see what they said, is what confuses what was the original Message.

Regards Tony

 

[wandering peacefully]

This is a religious debate forum, each member free to choose and comment on a thread that is not a DIR

Yes, that is what I thought I did. I'm sorry if this is a DIR, I didn't realize it. Carry on Tony, we know you will. See you in every other thread with your all wise advice about the only true religion and prophet for this day which is as plain as the noonday sun. Just not to the rest of us blind folk.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Yes, that is what I thought I did. I'm sorry if this is a DIR, I didn't realize it. Carry on Tony, we know you will. See you in every other thread with your all wise advice about the only true religion and prophet for this day which is as plain as the noonday sun. Just not to the rest of us blind folk.

Maybe, we can hope, that with this excursion off the post, aimed at personal selves, it may be seen to be better to actually address the OP and keep our accusations to our selves?

That would be good, how about you?

Regards Tony

 

[Goodman John]

I can't remember the answer, but my (rhetorical) question was, if the said divine books in the past where incorrect, why take from them unless to change them to make them divine because of their original faults.

If the divine books were faulty, why take from them to make them divine.

This is the sort of reason I rely on Thomas Jefferson's take on the Bible, or at least the 'Gospels According To...' parts. Jefferson combined them into one single chronological narrative, and stripped out all the 'miracles' and such. What was left was a coherent- and entirely plausible- story of Jesus' life and ministry. After all, Jesus doesn't have to be divine for his lessons to be valuable, does he? (If Jesus just HAS to be divine in your faith, easy enough to handle: plug in your own elements of Christology and voila! instant Divine Jesus.)

Now one can say, and quite rightly, "But he corrupted the Bible and wrote it to say things the way he wanted!" Those detractors are indignant, and rightly so from their perspective. But how many others have re-written and re-edited and added to and subtracted from the Bible overall (not to mention the religious texts of other faiths)- and how do we know how many times the Gospels themselves were jerked around by their authors (certainly not the Apostles they were attributed to) before they made it to publication originally- and to this day they continue to be jerked around.

Now, it's entirely possible that the foundation of Jefferson's work was faulty- in fact, it's almost certain the Gospels were/are faulty. But what he did- in good faith- was try to boil the Christian faith down to its very essence: the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. But what he did also was FREE Jesus from belonging to Christianity alone, and provided a role model who could very easily be included in nearly any faith or religion. Even if every one of the stories about Jesus in the Gospels was total fiction- thus rendering Jefferson's work a total fiction as well- we would still be left with a fictional character providing wonderful lessons for life and behavior.

Do I consider Jefferson's Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth to be a volume worthy of study? Most certainly.

Do I consider Jefferson's Life to be 'divinely inspired'? More than likely not, certainly no more than any other religious text can claim to be 'divinely inspired'.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The answer would have been is that the Message given by each of those Prophets was not wrong.

How we each choose to see what they said, is what confuses what was the original Message.

Regards Tony

Bahai constantly said the books were incomplete. They were updated to mirror the progression of messengers. Every other person here debated bahai on this point alone. It's just a content of Baha'i faith we just don't agree. It's poorly placed an not by confusion.

We're not confused just because we disagree.

It's a rethorical question. I can't remember the reply since it's been so long.