A Christian becomes a nonbeliever

[joelr]

And what makes a new religion automatically valid and improved? To my mind the anti-gay bigotry is evidence that it isn't in the running as a revelation. It's pissing in the punch bowl.

On top of that there is the Urantia religion. that book was written in the erly 1950's, I think. there is a small, global community of these people that I think numbers artound 100,000 people. I learned about it from my sister who lived in Boulder, CO. She picked it up from her boyfriend who worked at Celestial Seasonings (remembeer CS coughdrops? That was Steve's idea) and the founder, Mo Seagal, were into Urantia. I attended readings and read some of the 2000+ page book myself. Lots of stuff about Jesus and multi-colored aliens from different worlds. OK. I'm not convinced, but these folks are devout, but very liberal and progressive. It offers a much better message than Baha'i. Anyway, it's newer, so Baha'u'llah was wrong, and probably just tooting his own horn, as any franchise would do.

Ok, so now they cannot claim to be the newest religion. And using their methodology to judge a religion, Urantia is probably true because someone claimed God gave them messages. 2000 page book, wow, prolific, must be true then because Bahai is judged by the amount their messenger wrote.

 

[joelr]

There is no cosmic battle, except when people interpret scripture literally when it was intended to be interpreted figuratively.
Resurrecting to spiritual life, not physical life. Physical bodies do not come out of their graves once they have been buried and decomposed.
There will be paradise on earth but that doesn't happen overnight, it takes time. Humans don't change fast, history demonstrates that.
There is no magic wand that the return of Christ waves and then everything changes instantly. That is a Christian fantasy.

The Great Resurrection ​

The Day of Judgment is also the Day of Resurrection, of the raising of the dead. St. Paul in his First Epistle to the Corinthians says:—221

Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.—I Cor. xv, 51–53.​

As to the meaning of these passages about the raising of the dead, Bahá’u’lláh writes in the Book of Íqán:—

… By the terms “life” and “death,” spoken of in the scriptures, is intended the life of faith and the death of unbelief. The generality of the people, owing to their failure to grasp the meaning of these words, rejected and despised the person of the Manifestation, deprived themselves of the light of His divine guidance, and refused to follow the example of that immortal Beauty. …​

​

… Even as Jesus said: “Ye must be born again” [John iii, 7]. Again He saith: “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” [John iii, 5–6]. The purpose of these words is that whosoever in every dispensation is born of the Spirit and is quickened by the breath of the Manifestation of Holiness, he verily is of those that have attained unto “life” and “resurrection” and have entered into the “paradise” of the love of God. And whosoever is not of them, is condemned to “death” and “deprivation,” to the “fire” of unbelief, and to the “wrath” of God. …​

​

In every age and century, the purpose of the Prophets of God and their chosen ones hath been no other but to affirm the spiritual significance of the terms “life,” “resurrection,” and “judgment.” … Wert thou to attain to but a dewdrop of the crystal waters of divine knowledge, thou wouldst readily realize that true life is not the life of the flesh but the life of the spirit. For the life of the flesh is common to both men and animals, whereas the life of 222 the spirit is possessed only by the pure in heart who have quaffed from the ocean of faith and partaken of the fruit of certitude. This life knoweth no death, and this existence is crowned by immortality. Even as it hath been said: “He who is a true believer liveth both in this world and in the world to come.” If by “life” be meant this earthly life, it is evident that death must needs overtake it.—Kitáb-i-Íqán, pp. 114, 118, 120–21.​

According to the Bahá’í teaching the Resurrection has nothing to do with the gross physical body. That body, once dead, is done with. It becomes decomposed and its atoms will never be recomposed into the same body.

Resurrection is the birth of the individual to spiritual life, through the gift of the Holy Spirit bestowed through the Manifestation of God. The grave from which he arises is the grave of ignorance and negligence of God. The sleep from which he awakens is the dormant spiritual condition in which many await the dawn of the Day of God. This dawn illumines all who have lived on the face of the earth, whether they are in the body or out of the body, but those who are spiritually blind cannot perceive it. The Day of Resurrection is not a day of twenty-four hours, but an era which has now begun and will last as long as the present world cycle continues. It will continue when all traces of the present civilization will have been wiped off the surface of the globe.”
Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, pp. 220-222

So this post doesn't even know what it's arguing. It speaks of a metaphorical resurrection - "Resurrection is the birth of the individual to spiritual life,"
and then speaks of resurrection into a spirit body - "his life knoweth no death, and this existence is crowned by immortality. Even as it hath been said: “He who is a true believer liveth both in this world and in the world to come.” If by “life” be meant this earthly life, it is evident that death must needs overtake it.—Kitáb-i-Íqán, p"

Which has no evidence. Resurrection in Christianity and Judaism also entail a new spiritual body, which Bahai is obviously familiar with and making up his scripture based on that.
Again, you are sourcing literal legends and fictional stories, and providing zero evidence. Every time I dive into the evidence it looks worse than last time and I get bummed out people will believe something on no evidence whatsoever. His words are just simple ideas but extended to fill space, over and over again?

 

[joelr]

Of course a claim is not evidence. I never said a claim is evidence. Evidence is what supports a claim.

And there is no evidence, we just went over this.

 

[joelr]

Only when misinterpreted and taken literally does any prophecy say that there will be a garden of Eden on earth....
There was never a garden of Eden in the first place. Those Bible verses are symbolic, not literal. Check your sources.
Only Christians BELIEVE there was an actual garden of Eden and want a return to Eden, which would not be progression, it would be retrogression.

The story of the Garden of Eden is a theological use of mythological themes to explain human progression from a state of innocence and bliss to the present human condition of knowledge of sin, misery, and death. According to the Genesis account (2:4–3:24), God created Adam from the dust of the ground and then planted the Garden of Eden with the “tree of life” and the forbidden “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” at its centre. God tasked Adam with tending the garden and naming the animals therein and gave him the single command to not eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Lacking a helper for his work, Adam was put into a deep sleep while God took from him a rib and created a companion, Eve. The two were persons of innocence and lived unashamedly without clothes as husband and wife. However, an evil serpent in the garden deceived Eve, who ate of the prohibited fruit and gave some to Adam. With newly opened eyes, they recognized their nakedness and donned fig leaves as garments. Immediately God saw their transgression and proclaimed their punishments—for the woman, pain in childbirth and subordination to man and, for the man, relegation to an accursed ground with which he must toil and sweat for his subsistence. God clothed them with animal skins and then cast them out of the paradise garden, posting an angel armed with a sword of fire there to prevent their return.​

​

Garden of Eden | Story, Meaning, & Facts

Garden of Eden, in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) book of Genesis, biblical earthly paradise inhabited by the first created man and woman, Adam and Eve, prior to their expulsion for disobeying the commandments of God.

www.britannica.com

Yeah great expose on Eden. Wasn't talking about Eden. The Mt Carmel fraud was about Isaiah 34-35. It is not symbolic or metaphor. It's a prophecy about God coming down, all nations being defeated, humans and animals getting along, it's apocalypticism which was Persian and first seen in Daniel and Isaiah, so context is important. Apocalyptic literature is about the end of the world as it is now.
It is not about growing a garden on a hill.
Christians don't want a return to Eden. The 2nd coming is more apocalyptic mythology and a final war between God and the devil.
The Persians did not mean it symbolically, neither did the Jewish writers or Revelation in the NT.

You don't know even what sources to go to to understand this stuff so telling me to "check your sources" is ridiculous. Also your "source" is a bunch of writing by 1 man who makes a bunch of claims that you buy into and seem to suddenly think you are an expert on matters because you have taken in his version of what he wants history to be.

 

[joelr]

It's easy for Baha'is to fulfill Bible prophecies when they make up a symbolic meaning and don't have to take it literally. My favorite is still how they take the "Three Woes" in Revelation and make them Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah... Very creative, but how do the say it fits into the context?

Bizarre? What about Jesus, Krishna, Moses? I see they are trying to claim the prophecies were not literal so they can attempt to credit their religion. I don't get why people buy into this?

 

[Nimos]

Why are you defining 'good' as the will of God, because you think that whatever the will of God is has to be good?

For several reasons, assuming that the bible has some truth to it. I know you are more sceptical about it than others might be, which is fine. But Jesus says that God is the only one that is good. Also if God is the creator of everything, including the idea of good and evil and he is all good, then we can measure against his will, as it must be purely good. Besides that, he is also the final judge with the authority of deciding good from evil. So ultimately it doesn't matter whether we think we did good or not if he disagrees.

So whatever God say or command must be good per definition. And that is what the will of God is.

Some animals evolved to be carnivores so have to eat other animals but that does not mean that God thinks the suffering of animals is 'good.'

But if we assume that God created them or put evolution in motion, he would know how they would evolve and that they would end up eating each other. God could simply have made all of them herbivores, eat a little bit less and maybe live for a shorter period of time to make sure that they didn't multiply too much, I mean there seem to be a lot of alternatives to the design that would make them avoid eating each other.

But if you don't think it is any of those options, then what explanation would you give, that takes all the attributes and state of things into account?

It is morally right to punish people that mistreat animals because they are doing something wrong.

You are jumping to a conclusion, I don't disagree with you that we should punish them

But first, we have to figure out whether they are actually doing anything wrong, in a Universe with God. Even if God exists, we can still agree that it is wrong, but that is not really the question here, but whether God thinks it is?

Just because 'some animals' evolved as carnivores I don't think we can conclude that God does not care about avoiding animal suffering.
The Bible and the Baha'i Writings say we should be kind to animals so it is right to punish people who harm animals.

But things need to be consistent.

If God didn't want animals harmed, then it is a very odd design. Especially given the promise that they eventually won't harm each other as the verse indicated. So we need to keep things separated so we don't mix what is said to be true, compared to how things actually are.

But people who cause suffering to animals have done something wrong in the eyes of God.

I think that is a bit of a stretch, but even if we agree that God does not like it. There is no punishment for doing so, at least from what I can see. The only punishment is in relation to having sex with animals, which will require both humans and animals to be killed, but yet again the reason for it is not related to suffering, but rather that it is a perversion.

But it is not the will of God for people to cause other people to suffer. People who cause others to suffer are always guilty because it is not the will of God for anyone to suffer at the hands of others.

But in that case, suffering ought not to be a way of gaining spiritual growth. If we are to assume that the bible is true, then suffering seems to be used more as a means of testing faith and whether people are true believers or pure of heart so to speak and maybe as a way of redeeming themselves. That is basically what the story of Job is about testing his faith, regardless of how immoral God is in it, as he should already know. The same can be said with Jesus being tempted by Satan, one could argue that he is suffering, yet he does not give in. Not really that it makes sense, especially if the Trinity is true Because one would assume that Satan would know that Jesus was God, but anyway. Also, the whole journey of the Jews and them constantly complain about how bad they have it and question God. I think one could argue is also a form of suffering test. Especially since God kills them in great numbers for complaining and doing things that he doesn't like.

At least to me, suffering seems more like a test or a way of confirming one's belief, rather than a means of gaining anything. Obviously one could say that if you endure the suffering then you will come out stronger on the other side

It is complete madness. Just becaue suffering can be beneficial for people it does not follow that people should deliberately cause others to suffer, and then act like they did them a favor. God does not like to see people suffer, suffering is simply a byproduct of life in a physical world.

Yet God created it that way, nonetheless.

Which could make some sort of sense, if suffering had the purpose of testing one's faith. Obviously, this falls apart the moment we talk about children dying at birth etc. But if one ignores that minor detail

Some religious people might believe they are doing good and do it in the name of God, but these rules are not coming from God. They are coming from people's misunderstanding of scriptures.

Some of them are I agree, but if the bible is considered true, a whole lot of them are from the bible. There are a lot of wicked rules to be found here, that are difficult to misinterpret. Obviously, not all of them are being done as that would be insane.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21
18 - “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them,
19 - then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives,
20 - and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’
21 - Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

But how can these "authorities" in religion give a consistent and rational explanations for why God allows it when they have no answers?

That is the question, isn't it Yet, they seem to have no issues speaking as if they do and people listen to them as if they know.

 

[Koldo]

God does not like to see people suffer, suffering is simply a byproduct of life in a physical world.

Do you mean a byproduct of life in our physical world? I am asking because the existence of life in a physical world doesn't entail the existence of suffering. It just happens to be case that life in our physical world gave rise to suffering.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Um....noooo.

Um.... yessss.

An observation would be that you observed that he hasn't presented any evidence. You however said there was no evidence. That you silly meatball spaghetti thingamabob is a claim.

It's a conclusion from observation.
You can call it a claim if you wish.

The fact is that if there actually were evidence, then after thousands of years of theists claiming there is evidence, that evidence would have been common knowledge by now.

In the same way, I can say that there is no loch ness monster.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's because there is evidence.

So theists keep claiming, have been claiming for millenia.

Yet no theists seems able to present it.
Whenever they try, it turns out to be nothing but hearsay.
Claims aren't evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There most certainly is.
I think some people think that proof and evidence are the same thing..
..which they are not.

Absolutely not.

I don't confuse proof with evidence.

It's rather a matter of theists confusing claims with evidence.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Whenever they try, it turns out to be nothing but hearsay.
Claims aren't evidence.

That is because you dismiss the evidence .. and then call it a "claim".
A person who accepts the evidence does not dismiss it.

 

[F1fan]

Ok, so now they cannot claim to be the newest religion. And using their methodology to judge a religion, Urantia is probably true because someone claimed God gave them messages. 2000 page book, wow, prolific, must be true then because Bahai is judged by the amount their messenger wrote.

Right, Baha'i dies by its own claims. They need a better messenger.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is because you dismiss the evidence .. and then call it a "claim".
A person who accepts the evidence does not dismiss it.

Well, I have my own evidence and you have yours. I don't doubt that you have evidence as you. I just doubt it is mine, because I have mine, which is not yours.
So the bold one works for us both, just differently.

 

[F1fan]

That is because you dismiss the evidence .. and then call it a "claim".
A person who accepts the evidence does not dismiss it.

The "evidence" theists claim is very subjective and tends to require assumptions to interpret a favorable way. Whether it's the Bible, or Quran, or Baha'i texts, they all require assumptions of them being divine and true for any believer to take them as eviudence for their religious belief. It's notable that Muslims won't interpret the Bible the way Christians do, or Baha'i texts the way Baha'i do. Baha'i reject your interpretation of the Quran and your beliefs. Christians don't think the Quran or Baha'i texts mean anything.

So the evidence any religious group has is not even good enough for other believers, but it is expected to convince critical thinkers?

 

[muhammad_isa]

..the evidence any religious group has is not even good enough for other believers, but it is expected to convince critical thinkers?

It doesn't have to convince anybody. G-d knows why we say what we say,
and claim to believe what we believe.

Even if you don't believe in any version of God, there is still a reason for our utterance.

 

[F1fan]

Well, I have my own evidence and you have yours. I don't doubt that you have evidence as you. I just doubt it is mine, because I have mine, which is not yours.
So the bold one works for us both, just differently.

Right, and critical thinkers will look at @Trailblazer's evidence, at @muhammad_isa 's evidence, and your evidence and realize these conflict and thus cancel out the overall claims of these three different versions of God existing. It's not just a select set of what a believer's evidence is, it is ALL the evidence collected, as what science does. The believer's don't seem to realize the many different versions of God is a problem, and the conflicting claims of evidence is a problem. Tb says God can't interact with humans but then Christians claim God does interact with them, so someone, or both, is wrong. How does this conflict get resolved to an actual answer? It doesn't. There is no adequate evidence or testing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Right, and critical thinkers will look at @Trailblazer's evidence, at @muhammad_isa 's evidence, and your evidence and realize these conflict and thus cancel out the overall claims of these three different versions of God existing. It's not just a select set of what a believer's evidence is, it is ALL the evidence collected, as what science does. The believer's don't seem to realize the many different versions of God is a problem, and the conflicting claims of evidence is a problem. Tb says God can't interact with humans but then Christians claim God does interact with them, so someone, or both, is wrong. How does this conflict get resolved to an actual answer? It doesn't. There is no adequate evidence or testing.

I have no evidence that God exists. So you are treating me like a gnostic. I am not.
I am just pointing out that it is cases of different subjectivity and that is all.
Just as you and I think/feel differently in some cases.

 

[F1fan]

It doesn't have to convince anybody.

But you are convinced, but not @mikkel_the_dane or @Trailblazer . You're not convinced of Trailblazer's belief and evidence. So since this is all subjective due to weak evidence why bother trying to argue your beliefs?

G-d knows why we say what we say,

Assuming a God exists the way you assume it does. You could be mistaken.

and claim to believe what we believe.

Yes, it's what you believe, and it differes from otehr believers. Lots of confused people that don't have a solid foundation of shared evidence.

Even if you don't believe in any version of God, there is still a reason for our utterance.

Do believers really understand why they ended up believing in supernatural ideas? Do they understand the biology and the social influence at work in their brains? Not from they reveal.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But you are convinced, but not @mikkel_the_dane or @Trailblazer . You're not convinced of Trailblazer's belief and evidence. So since this is all subjective due to weak evidence why bother trying to argue your beliefs?

Assuming a God exists the way you assume it does. You could be mistaken.

Yes, it's what you believe, and it differes from otehr believers. Lots of confused people that don't have a solid foundation of shared evidence.

Do believers really understand why they ended up believing in supernatural ideas? Do they understand the biology and the social influence at work in their brains? Not from they reveal.

Well, the trick is that I am a non-believer in evidence for a God. And I don't have that evidence. But I have evidence that I don't use positive evidence for God. Go figure.

 

[F1fan]

I have no evidence that God exists.

Yet you believe anyway. Why would a person believe in an idea that not only has no evidence, but is also inconsistent with what is observed?

It's like a child being offered the option of broccoli or imaginary cookies, and they pick the imaginary cookies. You tell the kid that the cooking are imaginary and they respond with "But I like cookies".

So you are treating me like a gnostic. I am not.

I'm treating you as anyone else who states their beliefs.

I am just pointing out that it is cases of different subjectivity and that is all.

Thus no truth, yet the believers don't seem to quite understand this.

Just as you and I think/feel differently in some cases.

The difference is why believe in some implausible idea that lacks evidence versus not believing. You make it seem as if we are debating coke versus pepsi as the better cola.