Atheists: If God existed would God……

[Truthseeker]

Of course, faith is required to believe that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God since it can never be proven that He got communication from God. However, I do not believe mostly on faith but rather I believe mostly because of the evidence which is why I have certitude of my beliefs.

Yes, I do, too.

 

[Trailblazer]

Sorry. No. If you had read your Bible, it was Moses giving the orders as a messenger of god to commit those atrocities. Or do you just pick and choose. If you agree with it, then it is from God. If you disagree, it is not from God.

Heck, its almost exactly like you are God.

That is the fallacy of black and white thinking. I do not have to accept all of it or none of it. I can pick and choose. The basis for my picking and choosing comes from my own religion.

Here are some Baha'i views of the Bible:

Introduction

Although Bahá'ís universally share a great respect for the Bible, and acknowledge its status as sacred literature, their individual views about its authoritative status range along the full spectrum of possibilities. At one end there are those who assume the uncritical evangelical or fundamentalist-Christian view that the Bible is wholly and indisputably the word of God. At the other end are Bahá'ís attracted to the liberal, scholarly conclusion that the Bible is no more than a product of complex historical and human forces. Between these extremes is the possibility that the Bible contains the Word of God, but only in a particular sense of the phrase 'Word of God' or in particular texts. I hope to show that a Bahá'í view must lie in this middle area, and can be defined to some degree.

Conclusion

The Bahá'í viewpoint proposed by this essay has been established as follows: The Bible is a reliable source of Divine guidance and salvation, and rightly regarded as a sacred and holy book. However, as a collection of the writings of independent and human authors, it is not necessarily historically accurate. Nor can the words of its writers, although inspired, be strictly defined as 'The Word of God' in the way the original words of Moses and Jesus could have been. Instead there is an area of continuing interest for Bahá'í scholars, possibly involving the creation of new categories for defining authoritative religious literature.

A Baháí View of the Bible

``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Below is the Baha'i position on the Bible according to the Guardian of the Baha'i Faith, Shoghi Effendi:

The Bahá'ís believe what is in the Bible to be true in substance. This does not mean that every word recorded in that Book is to be taken literally and treated as the authentic saying of a Prophet.

...The Bahá'ís believe that God's Revelation is under His care and protection and that the essence, or essential elements, of what His Manifestations intended to convey has been recorded and preserved in Their Holy Books. However, as the sayings of the ancient Prophets were written down some time later, we cannot categorically state, as we do in the case of the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, that the words and phrases attributed to Them are Their exact words
(9 August 1984 to an individual believer)

The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments

Regarding the stories in the Bible, the following are more letters from Shoghi Efffendi about the Bible:

When 'Abdu'l-Bahá states we believe what is in the Bible, He means in substance. Not that we believe every word of it to be taken literally or that every word is the authentic saying of the Prophet.
(11 February 1944 to an individual believer)

We cannot be sure of the authenticity of any of the phrases in the Old or the New Testament. What we can be sure of is when such references or words are cited or quoted in either the Quran or the Bahá'í writings.
(4 July 1947 to an individual believer)

We have no way of substantiating the stories of the Old Testament other than references to them in our own teachings, so we cannot say exactly what happened at the battle of Jericho.
(25 November 1950 to an individual believer)

Except for what has been explained by Bahá'u'lláh and 'Abdu'l-Bahá, we have no way of knowing what various symbolic allusions in the Bible mean.
(31 January 1955 to an individual believer)

(From letters written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice)

The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments

 

[Trailblazer]

There are three claims in those sentences alone.

There are no claims at all. Get a dictionary.

 

[ppp]

That is the fallacy of black and white thinking. I do not have to accept all of it or none of it. I can pick and choose. The basis for my picking and choosing comes from my own religion.

You are mistaken. Yet again. What you are doing with the Bible is cherry picking.

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position. Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally.

 

[ppp]

There are no claims at all. Get a dictionary.

There were three claims. Get a dictionary.

 

[Trailblazer]

You are mistaken. Yet again. What you are doing with the Bible is cherry picking.

I will do any damn thing I want to do and you cannot stop me.
Oh, the beauty of free will.

 

[ppp]

I will do any damn thing I want to do and you cannot stop me.
Oh, the beauty of free will.

As this has nothing to do with what I said, you are just making noise.

 

[Truthseeker]

I am not looking to influence people but I like educating people, sharing what I know about God.

What's the distinction? Maybe you see what I am saying influence as a way to sneak up on people, but I am not saying that. Is that what you think I am saying? I like educating people, too.

I would not mind getting to know other believers but I simply don't have time right now, as you can see what this thread has become. I consider it my responsibility to answer posts here because I started the thread.

That looks like compulsion.

One goal I have is to find common ground with atheists and become their friends and I have succeeded in doing that on other forums and even here. I do not have to argue with them just because we disagree on the existence of God.

You mean you have common ground with some atheists, and you have found a way to not argue even though you disagree?

As you know, the basic message of Baha’u’llah was the interconnectedness of all created things and the Unity of Mankind, meaning that we are all part of one whole and that we all proceed from the same Source, God.

The interconnectedness of all things sounds very Buddhist, though it is also Baha'i.

Anyway, doing this over and over, does it get you anywhere? Are you making new friends? Are you making progress in educating them?

 

[Trailblazer]

As this has nothing to do with what I said, you are just making noise.

I don't have to defend myself against your accusations or any other atheist accusations...
I have no interest in arguing with anyone.
Oh the beauty of free will.

I thought we were done but apparently you did not get the message.

Happy trails.

 

[CG Didymus]

How so? Any examples?

It helps people get off drugs and alcohol. It can give them a hope for the future knowing that someday God will make things better. But I also said it can make lives worse. And even the good effects can only be temporary. Like when the person quits believing the religion and goes back to drugs and alcohol and loses all trust in God and religion. A big negative for some that stay in some religions is how they become obsessed with their religion and have to try and prove it to everybody they meet. Another negative for "organized" religions is how most of the people become only nominal believers. But I'm sure that if you asked them, they'd say that their religion has made them better... even though they barely practice it.

 

[CG Didymus]

And even that low standard has not been met. But this is not a court of law. it is much more important.And so it requires a higher standard of evidence.

Baha'u'llah is not the only one making claims. There are also those making claims that what Baha'u'llah said is reliable. There are also those making claims that Baha'u'llah was a messenger from God. And not only Baha'u'llah makes those claims.



OK, so you are not trying to convince me. So what are you trying to do? Are you trying to convince me that this message deserves a hearing? because even that has not been done. I see a bunch of statements that you say you believe. I see others that you say you know. I see no evidence that either are actually correct. You say the messengers are the evidence, but they seem like very flimsy evidence for a very bold position.

And Christians claim Jesus rose from the dead and is coming back, and Baha'is say that neither one of those are true. But everything their Scriptures say is true.

 

[ppp]

I don't have to defend myself against your accusations or any other atheist accusations...

That is true.

 

[Trailblazer]

What's the distinction? Maybe you see what I am saying influence as a way to sneak up on people, but I am not saying that. Is that what you think I am saying? I like educating people, too.

No, that is not what I think you are doing. I think you educate people.

That looks like compulsion.

Sometimes it feels that way, but I have a handle on it.

You mean you have common ground with some atheists, and you have found a way to not argue even though you disagree?

Yes, I believe I have found that with some atheists.

The interconnectedness of all things sounds very Buddhist, though it is also Baha'i.

Yes, it is.

Anyway, doing this over and over, does it get you anywhere? Are you making new friends? Are you making progress in educating them?

I have no idea what other people are learning but I think some people hear what I say and learn something from it. Sadly, some people have no interest in learning anything, all they want to do is criticize and argue.

 

[CG Didymus]

Interesting. So nothing in the OT is God's commandments. Not even the ten commandments? I thought Moses was supposed to be a messenger.

Strange isn't it. Supposedly, all we can know about God is what the manifestations say about him. But the Bible wasn't written by them. That means that Baha'is don't necessarily have to take the Bible as the literal word of God and most seem to make those stories to be metaphorical. Incredibly convenient.

 

[Truthseeker]

I have no idea what other people are learning but I think some people hear what I say and learn something from it. Sadly, some people have no interest in learning anything, all they want to do is criticize and argue.

This is just a personal belief, but the probability of people learning is not doing what you are doing right now with Policy. I have traced this argument back a little ways. At least he is arguing. I now remember that he expressed sympathy on an occasion. So there may not be hard feelings. He is human, not just a criticism machine. But he is not learning. How many people are following this long thread this far? That's also a consideration. You don't know who's learning, but you can make an educated guess.

 

[CG Didymus]

Sorry. No. If you had read your Bible, it was Moses giving the orders as a messenger of god to commit those atrocities. Or do you just pick and choose. If you agree with it, then it is from God. If you disagree, it is not from God.

Heck, its almost exactly like you are God.

Pick and choose... that sums it up.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It helps people get off drugs and alcohol.

People say that, but it seems doubtful to me.

I know that 12-step programs - which make "a higher power" a core part of their approach, generally have awful efficacy rates.

It can give them a hope for the future knowing that someday God will make things better.

Is that a positive, though?

I mean, thinking that you have a million dollars more in your bank account than you actually do can give short-term "hope" too, but only until reality comes crashing in.

But I also said it can make lives worse. And even the good effects can only be temporary. Like when the person quits believing the religion and goes back to drugs and alcohol and loses all trust in God and religion.

If someone's temporarily happier but worse off overall in the end, I wouldn't say that the effect was "for the better."

A big negative for some that stay in some religions is how they become obsessed with their religion and have to try and prove it to everybody they meet. Another negative for "organized" religions is how most of the people become only nominal believers. But I'm sure that if you asked them, they'd say that their religion has made them better... even though they barely practice it.

I think that religion is often ingrained in people's lives, so church just happens to be where people learn important life lessons, but that's not the religion doing it, really.

To tease out the effect of religion specifically, you really need a control group: look at the success rate or benefit received (however we measure it) of theists compared to non-theists; whatever the differences are, that's the likely effect of theism. Do religious people recover from drug addiction at greater rates than non-theists? Do they have more positive outcomes than non-theists? I don't see anywhere where theists come out ahead, really.

 

[Trailblazer]

This is just a personal belief, but the probability of people learning is not doing what you are doing right now with Policy. I have traced this argument back a little ways. At least he is arguing. I now remember that he expressed sympathy on an occasion. So there may not be hard feelings. He is human, not just a criticism machine. But he is not learning. How many people are following this long thread this far? That's also a consideration. You don't know who's learning, but you can make an educated guess.

No, I don't know but I don't really care. I am just doing my work.
I have no hard feelings towards Policy or anyone else, but I don't want to argue.

Some people can see the positives about Baha'i but it is squashed by all the negatives. Some people have to criticize all the time. Nothing is ever good enough. As a Baha'i I try to do what Abdu'l-Baha said and look for the good in everybody and the good in their religions and that includes atheists. I see us as all one people.

 

[CG Didymus]

This is just a personal belief, but the probability of people learning is not doing what you are doing right now with Policy. I have traced this argument back a little ways. At least he is arguing. I now remember that he expressed sympathy on an occasion. So there may not be hard feelings. He is human, not just a criticism machine. But he is not learning. How many people are following this long thread this far? That's also a consideration. You don't know who's learning, but you can make an educated guess.

Those old-time Bible preachers thought they were "educating" people about the truth of God... that without Jesus they were doomed to hellfire. I wonder how many people got "saved" by that kind of "educating" and how many got turned off to religion and became Atheists?

Is preaching about God and his manifestation educating Atheists or turning them off even more? That science and religion must agree is something that Baha'i and Atheists would agree on. But is there scientific proof of God? There's been several threads where the same arguments have been hashed over. "God is real, but he's invisible and unknowable." "Then how do you know God is real?" "Because of his manifestations." "How do you know they are telling the truth?" And it comes down to, "Is there proof or objective evidence?" "Yes, but you won't accept it." For me, it has been an education. But probably not in the way it was hoped to be.

 

[CG Didymus]

People say that, but it seems doubtful to me.

I know that 12-step programs - which make "a higher power" a core part of their approach, generally have awful efficacy rates.


Is that a positive, though?

I mean, thinking that you have a million dollars more in your bank account than you actually do can give short-term "hope" too, but only until reality comes crashing in.



If someone's temporarily happier but worse off overall in the end, I wouldn't say that the effect was "for the better."


I think that religion is often ingrained in people's lives, so church just happens to be where people learn important life lessons, but that's not the religion doing it, really.

To tease out the effect of religion specifically, you really need a control group: look at the success rate or benefit received (however we measure it) of theists compared to non-theists; whatever the differences are, that's the likely effect of theism. Do religious people recover from drug addiction at greater rates than non-theists? Do they have more positive outcomes than non-theists? I don't see anywhere where theists come out ahead, really.

I think that anybody in any religion can be happy and feels that they are better off now that they have found "The Truth". However, since all the religions can't be true, or maybe none of them, then it's only make believe.

Oh, one other thing, religions and their moral codes. Even the Baha'is have rules against doing anything sexual until married, even with yourself. I don't think many people can live up to that. So, it causes people that want to belong to the religion to lead double, hypocritical lives. Baha'is also have laws against alcohol and drugs. So, a person that smokes a little pot or drinks beer or wine or mixed drinks has to hide their behavior. I'd have to make that part of what is bad about religion. Some of God's laws can't easily to lived up to by some people. And it makes me question whether these religious laws even came from a God. But it ends up with some religious people pushing their morality on everybody and calling them evil and sinners. That too I think belongs in the bad list. So, you're right. Even the good stuff religion might be doing for some comes with a lot of bad stuff too.

And one more thing that's worth repeating... probably the worst thing that happens is when some people get obsessed with their religion being true.