A Christian becomes a nonbeliever

[Trailblazer]

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.

Okay, thanks for explaining that.... Spoken like a true believer!

I believe that God is good, since Baha'u'llah wrote that God is all-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?

God could have done a lot of things differently, and we don't know and can never know why He didn't.
Thus there is no explanation as to why animals evolved this way.
I cannot say I think it is good that animals eat other animals, but I am not the arbiter of what is good.

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?

God does think it is in wrong to mistreat animals.

The Baha'i Writings tell us to be kind to animals:

“Briefly, it is not only their fellow human beings that the beloved of God must treat with mercy and compassion, rather must they show forth the utmost loving-kindness to every living creature. For in all physical respects, and where 159 the animal spirit is concerned, the selfsame feelings are shared by animal and man. Man hath not grasped this truth, however, and he believeth that physical sensations are confined to human beings, wherefore is he unjust to the animals, and cruel.”
Selections From the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, pp. 158-159

The Bible also tells us to be kind to animals:

The Bible and Jewish law teach us to treat animals with kindness and respect and to protect nature and conserve its resources. Indeed, such teachings are fundamental to Judaism and its traditions.
https://www.humanesociety.org/sites/default/files/docs/commendements-of-compassion.pdf
https://www.humanesociety.org/sites/default/files/docs/commendements-of-compassion.pdf

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 as I told you before, that verse in Isaiah "and the lion shall eat straw like the ox" is not a promise that animals eventually won't harm each other.

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.

When you say there is no punishment, I guess you are talking about laws in the Bible. Those laws are outdated and don't apply to today's world.
It is important to note that in civilized societies there are secular laws about kindness to animals which did not exist in the Bible days.

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. they eventually won't harm each other.

Yes, I think suffering serves a twofold purpose. It helps us grow spiritually and it also tests our faith. That is in the Baha'i Writings:

“… from time immemorial even unto eternity the Almighty hath tried, and will continue to try, His servants, so that light may be distinguished from darkness, truth from falsehood, right from wrong, guidance from error, happiness from misery, and roses from thorns. Even as He hath revealed: “Do men think when they say ‘We believe’ they shall be let alone and not be put to proof?” 5 “​

Bahá’u’lláh, The Kitáb-i-Íqán, pp. 8-9​

​

“And yet they bear witness to this well-known tradition: “Verily Our Word is abstruse, bewilderingly abstruse.” In another instance, it is said: “Our Cause is sorely trying, highly perplexing; none can bear it except a favorite of heaven, or an inspired Prophet, or he whose faith God hath tested.””​

The Kitáb-i-Íqán, p. 82​

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

As I just said, suffering does test one's faith, and in so doing it helps people grow in faith, so that helps them grow spiritually.
Of course that does not apply to children dying at birth, etc. The Baha'i Faith teaches that those children will be recompensed.

Question.—What is the condition of children who die before attaining the age of discretion or before the appointed time of birth?​

​

Answer.—These infants are under the shadow of the favor of God; and as they have not committed any sin and are not soiled with the impurities of the world of nature, they are the centers of the manifestation of bounty, and the Eye of Compassion will be turned upon them.​

Some Answered Questions, p. 240​

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.

The whole problem is that the Bible is outdated so its laws do not apply to the age in which we live.

The part of the religion that refers to material things changes in each prophetic cycle to accommodate the needs of the times.

“The second part of the Religion of God, which refers to the material world, and which comprises fasting, prayer, forms of worship, marriage and divorce, the abolition of slavery, legal processes, transactions, indemnities for murder, violence, theft and injuries—this part of the Law of God, which refers to material things, is modified and altered in each prophetic cycle in accordance with the necessities of the times.”
Some Answered Questions, p. 48

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.

Some people listen to them as if they know but not all people do.

 

[F1fan]

If you were really a critical thinker you would know why more people are not becoming Baha'is.

Well there are plenty on this forum that are not convinced with your evidence. What does that tell you?

I am a critical thinker ...

No you aren't.

 

[Trailblazer]

You accused atheists of being blind to evidence you think is good. Your thinking is biased and flawed. I'm not sure why you get so defensive on these petty details.

That is not a detail. I did not accuse atheists of anything because I did not say they did anything illegal or wrong.
I'm not sure why you get so defensive. You always have to say something in your defense. "Your thinking is biased and flawed. "
This kind of behavior is childish.

Accusation
a charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong.
accusation meaning - Google Search

 

[Trailblazer]

Well there are plenty on this forum that are not convinced with your evidence. What does that tell you?

It does not tell me a thing except that plenty are not convinced by my evidence. So what? What do you think that means?
You call yourself a critical thinker yet you continually commit the same fallacy over and over again.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."​

​

This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia​

No you aren't.

Says who? One who does not even know a basic fallacy.

 

[joelr]

Baha'u'llah did not make anything up. He did not need the Bible because He received a revelation from God.

“O KING! I was but a man like others, asleep upon My couch, when lo, the breezes of the All-Glorious were wafted over Me, and taught Me the knowledge of all that hath been. This thing is not from Me, but from One Who is Almighty and All-Knowing. And He bade Me lift up My voice between earth and heaven, and for this there befell Me what hath caused the tears of every man of understanding to flow.” Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 57

Study the Holy Words, read your Bible, read the Holy Books, especially study the Holy Utterances of Baha’u’llah; Prayer and Meditation, take much time for these two. Then will you know this Great Thirst, and then only can you begin to Live the Life! – Abdu’l-Baha, Star of the West, Volume 9, p. 86.


The Bab, Baha'u'llah, and 'Abdu'l-Baha each praised and read the Bible and the Qur'an. Thus, by their example, we should familiarize ourselves with these two Books. I know that there are passages urging us to study the Holy Scriptures and many passages praising the Bible and especially the Qur'an that I am missing. Most of the quotes below are from the Guardian but in the context of what Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha urged.

The context and content of the Kitab-i-Iqan essentially urges us to study these books but with a fresh perspective so as to appreciate the symbolism and spiritual mysteries. A fuller understanding of the Kitab-i-Iqan and discussions of the prior traditions cannot be obtained without some familiarity with these sacred scriptures.


I have been informed that the purpose of your class meeting is to study the significances and mysteries of the Holy Scriptures and understand the meaning of the divine Testaments. It is a cause of great happiness to me that you are turning unto the Kingdom of God, that you desire to approach the presence of God and to become informed of the realities and precepts of God. It is my hope that you may put forth your most earnest endeavor to accomplish this end, that you may investigate and study the Holy Scriptures word by word so that you may attain knowledge of the mysteries hidden therein. Be not satisfied with words, but seek to understand the spiritual meanings hidden in the heart of the words. ....

All the texts and teachings of the holy Testaments have intrinsic spiritual meanings. They are not to be taken literally. I, therefore, pray in your behalf that you may be given the power of understanding these inner real meanings of the Holy Scriptures and may become informed of the mysteries deposited in the words of the Bible so that you may attain eternal life and that your hearts may be attracted to the Kingdom of God. -'Abdu'l-Baha, Promulgation of Universal Peace, Bahá'í Reference Library - The Promulgation of Universal Peace, Pages 458-460

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have already presented the evidence.

You presented claims.

 

[Nimos]

But as I told you before, that verse in Isaiah "and the lion shall eat straw like the ox" is not a promise that animals eventually won't harm each other.

Sure, if we look at that verse in isolation, one could reach the conclusion that it is not what it means. But if we take the promise given in Revelation into account, I don't see how it would not have to hold true.

Revelation 21:1-8
1 - Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.
2 - And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3 - And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.
4 - He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”
5 - And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” Also he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.”
6 - And he said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment.
7 - The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his God and he will be my son.
8 - But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

If there is no mourning, nor pain, nor crying in this new heaven on Earth, then you can't have animals running around eating each other as they do. One could get their pet eaten or killed which would result in pain.

I do like 8, that will get rid of a lot of people

When you say there is no punishment, I guess you are talking about laws in the Bible. Those laws are outdated and don't apply to today's world.
It is important to note that in civilized societies there are secular laws about kindness to animals which did not exist in the Bible days.

Outdated is definitely a word one could use, or one could use the word immoral as well

As I just said, suffering does test one's faith, and in so doing it helps people grow in faith, so that helps them grow spiritually.
Of course that does not apply to children dying at birth, etc. The Baha'i Faith teaches that those children will be recompensed.

That is all good. But try to explain that to people that lost a child during birth. What does it even mean that they will be recompensed, how on Earth could that even remotely work?

Answer.—These infants are under the shadow of the favor of God; and as they have not committed any sin and are not soiled with the impurities of the world of nature, they are the centers of the manifestation of bounty, and the Eye of Compassion will be turned upon them.

This answer doesn't answer anything, it could just as well be this:

Question.—What is the condition of children who die before attaining the age of discretion or before the appointed time of birth?

Answer.—Don't think about it, it's all good... somehow.

The whole problem is that the Bible is outdated so its laws do not apply to the age in which we live.

Sure they are outdated, but I think you are missing the greater point here, it is not remotely important whether that is the case or not. But that God made them and that they are immoral. Doesn't matter, at what time they were made. And even if they are just made up by humans and God had nothing to do with them, it doesn't change the fact that he clearly didn't bother to tell them to correct them and to make sure that they are indeed morally defendable, not even Jesus cared to do it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

True

Not ad populum AT ALL, since I did not say God exists is true because many or most people believe it.
I think you need to learn the fallacies.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

You said atheists aren't able to understand the supposed evidence and as support for that claim you said that atheists are a minority.

That is absolutely an argumentum ad populum.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I never said you did..


No .. it is not out of necessity .. it is your choice.

No, it is out of practical necessity.

The alternative would be to go through life as if all claims I don't believe were correct anyway.
That would make life completely impossible. It would also result in innumerable conflicting situations where I would have to live as if multiple mutually contradicting claims were correct.


Having said that, why would you go through life as if claims you don't believe are correct?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Oh, not this again .. hiding behind "facts".

huh?
I don't get that. How does one "hide" behind facts? Facts should always be at the forefront.
Hiding facts seems a lot worse.

What about the facts that we can't be sure of?

We only know about the facts that we know about.
What a strange thing to say...

..just pretend they do not exist?

Again: we don't know about facts that we don't know about....

You do not know with any certainty, about where you came from,

I came from my parents.

and where you are going to

I have plans for the future, but I'm not a fortune teller.
I could cross the streets later today and be run over and die.
So while I can have a pretty good idea of where I intent to go, I can't tell the future.

.. you just assume .. as do I.

I don't have to assume where I came from. I factually know I came from my parents. Even if I were an orphan / adopted and didn't know my parents. I still know I came from parents.

I also know that my ancestors came from their ancestors.
I also know that my very distant ancestors weren't homo sapiens, but ancestral primate species.
And further still, ancestral mammalian species.
And further still, ancestral tetrapod species.
And further still, ancestral vertebrate species.

Etc.

I know this. These things are (genetic) facts.
No "assuming" required.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What he really means is: "I disagree with you."
He talks as if he speaks for all the critical thinkers in the world but of course that is logically impossible.
And that is critical thinking?

No.

What he means is that the reasoning offered to believe in theistic claims, isn't sufficient to justify belief when evaluated critically.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well there are plenty on this forum that are not convinced with your evidence. What does that tell you?

They are all "blind"?

 

[muhammad_isa]

No, it is out of practical necessity.

Right .. so you don't believe .. but you say "you didn't make the claim that there are no gods".
..implying that there might be gods..

..but you would rather live your life assuming that there is not.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I don't have to assume where I came from. I factually know I came from my parents..

Right you "came from" your parents..
I suppose you remember being in your Mother's womb..

..but do you remember where you were before that?
You assume that you did not exist in any shape or form, and that after your death,
you will again not exist in any shape or form.

These are assumptions, and not facts.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Right .. so you don't believe .. but you say "you didn't make the claim that there are no gods".
..implying that there might be gods..

..but you would rather live your life assuming that there is not.

Why didn't you quote the rest of the post?

Do you live your life assuming all claims you don't believe are correct anyway?
Or do you rather go about your life as if they are wrong?

Do you sacrifice virgin girls to appease the aztec gods "just to be sure"?
Do you wear a tin foil head to avoid CIA mindreading and tracking "just to be sure"?

I've explained ad nauseum and in ridiculous detail why I go about my life not assuming claims that I don't believe, are correct anyway.
And, if you are intellectually honest at least, you do the exact same thing. Everybody does.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Right you "came from" your parents..
I suppose you remember being in your Mother's womb..

I don't have to remember that.
What a ridiculous thing to say.

..but do you remember where you were before that?

I didn't exist.

You assume that you did not exist in any shape or form

Don't have to assume that. It's basic biology.

, and that after your death,
you will again not exist in any shape or form.

Yes. Brains die and rot away. My body will decay and the matter that made it up is recycled into nature.
These are not assumptions.

These are assumptions, and not facts.

Nope, they are facts.

That is factually, demonstrably what happens.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..if you are intellectually honest at least, you do the exact same thing. Everybody does.

I haven't claimed that I don't..
..but you said "I don't make the claim that there are no gods"

..so which is it?
Do you believe that there are no gods .. presumably you do .. claim or otherwise?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Nope, they are facts.

That is factually, demonstrably what happens.

No .. they are NOT facts .. if they were, then believers in God would not have a leg to stand on.
We are not that stupid, you know.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I haven't claimed that I don't..
..but you said "I don't make the claim that there are no gods"

..so which is it?
Do you believe that there are no gods .. presumably you do .. claim or otherwise?

Now, this may seem off-topic, but bear with me and it will provide you with an answer to your question and a useful analogy for understanding the logic behind that answer.

Here is a jar of jelly beans.

Now, can you tell me whether or not you believe* the number of jelly beans in the jar is even?

(*to be clear, to "believe" something in this context simply means "to hold that a given proposition is true")

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I haven't claimed that I don't..
..but you said "I don't make the claim that there are no gods"

Indeed, I don't. I also explained why not.

..so which is it?

I don't know how to explain it any simpler then I already did.

Do you believe that there are no gods .. presumably you do .. claim or otherwise?

I don't believe the claim that there are gods.
That's the claim in question here.

Just like when a defendant is set free in a murder case after being ruled "not guilty", it JUST means the jury didn't believe the claim that he was guilty.

The jury does not speak on the claim that the defendant is innocent. That's not the claim under discussion.

The defendant is treated as if he is innocent. But he isn't declared innocent. Instead, the claim of guilt is ruled to not be sufficiently supported.


I'm sorry that you seem to have such difficulty understanding this simple concept.