Atheists, if God existed, would it be reasonable to expect God to...

[Shad]

Imo, nobody can determine what is possible for God, because the human mind cannot fathom the infinite God and subject God to logical analysis. Besides that, as you said, human logic is limited by what the human mind is capable of understanding.

We can in clear cases. A squared circle is logically impossible. Now if people go outside clear cut example there is an issue but my point is solid. The shape is impossible by definition.

As such, I consider it a complete waste of time to conjecture on what God can do.

This is ironic given you have no problem talking about God when the ball is in your court. What God can do like "messengers" and such.

 

[Trailblazer]

This is ironic given you have no problem talking about God when the ball is in your court. What God can do like "messengers" and such.

I have no ball and I have no court. Other than what is written in religious scriptures, I know nothing about God or what God can do.

 

[Shad]

I have no ball and I have no court. Other than what is written in scriptures of religions, I know nothing about God or what God can do...

So you have undermined your point. You do discuss what God can do but only by a narrow religious view you happen to hold.

 

[Trailblazer]

So you have undermined your point. You do discuss what God can do but only by a narrow religious view you happen to hold.

Other than what is in scriptures, nobody can know what God can do or what God does, Imo.

 

[Shad]

Other than what is in scriptures, nobody can know what God can do or what God does, Imo.

Noted that it is just an opinion based on your religion only.

Now back to my point. Do you think squared circles can exist? Keeping in mind what both words mean especially in geometry

 

[Trailblazer]

Now back to my point. Do you think squared circles can exist?

No, because they are logically contradictory.
A circle is a circle and a square is a square.
A circle cannot be a square and a square cannot be a circle.
Same as saying God cannot be a man and a man cannot be God.

 

[Shad]

No, because they are logically contradictory.
A circle is a circle and a square is a square.
A circle cannot be a square and a square cannot be a circle.
Same as saying God cannot be a man and a man cannot be God.

So we are in agreement about something God can not do as it is logically impossible without the need for any scripture.

The Trinity has numerous problems especially when trying to explain it by use of logic. It is a complete faith view devoid of any serious thought.

 

[Trailblazer]

So we are in agreement about something God can not do as it is logically impossible without the need for any scripture.

The Trinity has numerous problems especially when trying to explain it by use of logic. It is a complete faith view devoid of any serious thought.

True and true.

 

[Trailblazer]

No, you can’t know even if they “reveal” it in scripture because them “revealing” anything is literally just them saying it with absolutely nothing backing it up. Them “revealing” something in scripture is no different to me “revealing” something in this post. And if God is talking through me, all bets are off!

I think you are getting off track. I was trying to be logical. Hypothetically speaking, IF there are such Beings as Messengers of God and they are the only Source of information about God, THEN we would not know that they were the only Source of information about God unless they wrote it in their scriptures. Whether they have anything to back that up is a separate conversation.

That boils down to “what is the point of the thread?” then. I know the immediate point was to discuss what someone else proposed about God but why do you care about what people say or discussing anything in the field if you’ve no interest in convincing people that what you believe is logical and true?

The whole idea of convincing people of anything is repulsive to me because I believe that people have to do their own independent investigation of truth and become convinced. That does not mean that I do not want to put forth a convincing exhortation and help people understand the Baha’i Faith, Baha’u’llah said we should do that, but trying to convert people against their will was completely forbidden by Baha’u’llah. This is the age of reason and all the information is available and people can think for themselves.

Do you have any quotes of his directly stating that we should question and formally investigate what he is claiming? Not “search in your heart” kind of stuff or statements that “if you really think about it you will believe” but literal “how to test the evidence” directions?

I might be able to find some direct quotes later, but I already posted this to you:

“Bahá’u’lláh asked no one to accept His statements and His tokens blindly. On the contrary, He put in the very forefront of His teachings emphatic warnings against blind acceptance of authority, and urged all to open their eyes and ears, and use their own judgement, independently and fearlessly, in order to ascertain the truth. He enjoined the fullest investigation and never concealed Himself, offering, as the supreme proofs of His Prophethood, His words and works and their effects in transforming the lives and characters of men.” Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, p. 8

Nothing you list is prove. Being a “good” person, effective writer or convincing religious leader doesn’t require a divine connection. Prophecies are easy when they’ve already been written and you’re the author of your own life story. I could write my autobiography and “prove” I fulfilled some prophecy. Again, all followers of all the different religious and spiritual leaders will make exactly the same claims about their preferred choice.

I never said that it was proof, I said it was evidence, and it is the preponderance of evidence that indicates that Baha’u’llah was telling the truth about His claim. Nobody can prove anyone received messages from God.

Baha’u’llah certainly did not write an autobiography. The history of His life and mission on earth is all carefully documented by people who lived in the 19th century. All one needs to do is look at what happened before, during and after His Coming and determine if it matches up with what was prophesied in the Bible.

Any religious leader can claim anything they want to claim but they cannot prove they fulfilled any Bible prophecies or any prophecies of other religions for the return of Christ and the Messiah because they didn’t.

The prophecies in the Bible for the return of Christ and the Messiah were fulfilled by Baha’u’llah and that was demonstrated in this book: William Sears, Thief in the Night.

A person would have to be as blind as a bat not to see that He fulfilled the Prophecies. Of course, if they are Jewish or Christian they will not see it because they will twist the prophecies to mean what they want them to mean because they do not want to accept Bahaullah. However, anyone without confirmation bias can read that book and understand that the prophecies were fulfilled. One cannot make up these things, they are history and geography.

I will give you one example of a prophecy so you can understand what I am saying; there are many more like it:

Micah 7:12 “In that day also he shall come even to thee from Assyria, and from the fortified cities, and from the fortress even to the river, and from sea to sea, and from mountain to mountain.”

He shall come from Assyria: At that time Assyria was a large area. Baha’u’llah and His family lived in the part that was Persia, now Iran, in the city of Tihran.

and from the fortified cities: Baha’u’llah was banished from city to city: After being released from the Black Pit dungeon in Tihran in 1852, His family and companions had only a short time before being sent to the fortified city of Baghdad. While living in Baghdad, He gained such a large following that the enemies where shocked. Right away He was banished again, this time to the fortified city of Istanbul.

The Governor of the city refused many times to fulfill the orders that he received to banish Him again. Finally forced to follow orders, Baha’u’llah was banished again to the fortified city of Adrianople. He was honored and praised, and shown respect everywhere, until He was finally sent to the most horrific of all places, the fortress of Akka, where it was expected that He would succumb to the terrible conditions.

and from the fortress even to the river: It was while in Baghdad that the Tigris river became a special place, as Baha’u’llah crossed it to the Ridvan Garden. April 21, 1863 was the fulfilment of prophecy, as that was when Baha’u’llah declared to those around Him His Station as the Manifestation of God.

and from sea to sea: After His banishment in Baghdad, His exile was by way of the Black Sea. Still a prisoner He crossed the Black Sea from Sinope on His way to Constantinople. After the banishment in Adrianople, He crossed the Mediterranean Sea from Gallipolis in Turkey, embarking at Alexandria, Egypt, then on to the fortress of 'Akka, the most desolate of cities.

and from mountain to mountain: The time in Baghdad was turbulent with opposition. To protect His family and companions Baha’u’llah went to the Kurdistan mountains. There He lived in poverty, but the area was magnetized by His presence. After two years, He was persuaded to return to Baghdad.

The other mountain was in Israel, Mount Carmel, where He had docked before His final journey to Akka. Later He had a chance to return to Mount Carmel, to pitch His tent. Here He wrote the Tablet Of Carmel, surrounded by pilgrims looking for the return of Christ to descend from heaven. Mount Carmel is the headquarters of the Baha’i Faith.

(Continued on next post)

 

[Trailblazer]

They could be messengers from God but you’ve misunderstood the message, they could be messengers of something that isn’t actually the God you believe in or some could be messengers but some could just be “good” people. You’re not presenting a simply binary “is or is not”, you’re presenting a long and complex narrative.

Sure, anything is possible, and that is why we have to do the necessary research if we want to know the truth, but nobody can ever prove that someone was a Messenger of God. That is why we have to look at all the evidence but at the end of the day faith is also required. The caveat is that once we are convinced by the evidence we do not even feel like we are believing on faith because we are so certain.

I meant independent history of his life and the claimed events within it, not what other believers write about what he wrote.

There is some of that but there is not much written by non-Baha’is because everyone who chronicled the Faith in the 19th century were Baha’is or became Baha is. Given the fact that the Baha’i Faith is a new religion, it is still not recognized by very many people so religious scholars have not taken an interest in it. In the future more will be written.

I don’t need to explain anything to support the possibility God doesn’t exist. You’d have to explain exactly why those things unconditionally require God and couldn’t be explained by literally any other possibility.

That is true. I was not saying that the Bible and the great Messengers such as Jesus unconditionally requires that God exists; I am only saying that it sure points in that direction. Humans being humans, they will always view the same things differently, so people can always find another explanation for the Bible, if they are seeking to disprove God’s existence. In my mind, God had to have something to do with the Bible, but I already believe God exists so it is easier for me to say that. Had I never become a Baha’i I might be singing another tune, but since Baha’u’llah validated the Bible as God’s greatest testimony to His Creatures, I see it in a different light.

I don’t pretend to know what he’d want but the idea that he’s sending all these messengers, inspiring all this scripture and, at least historically, is said to have directly intervened in human lives clearly suggests some kind of interest. Wouldn’t there be some kind of reasoning or motive there, however abstract?

The reason God sent all the Messengers and inspired all this scripture, thereby directly intervening in human lives, was for human benefit, not because God wanted anything for Himself. God is fully self-sufficient and full self-sustaining, so God has no needs. Thus anything that God wants is not for Himself, it is for us. God is completely independent of His Creatures, transcendent and exalted far above them, but that does not mean God does not care about us. God created us out of love for us, so God cares immensely.

Trailblazer said: although scriptures do indicate that God wants us to worship Him that is for our own benefit, not for God’s.

He says it’s for our benefit. Does he explain exactly how or is that one of the things conveniently beyond our understanding?

Yes, of course He explains why it benefits us but that is a very BIG subject. Of course we can understand it because it would be unjust for God to expect us to worship Him and not explain why. We were endowed with a rational mind so we could use our reason to understand things.

Since I have never thought that much about this I cannot just grab a passage and explain it but if it is important to you I will look for some explanations, as soon as I have time.

Baha’u’llah writes about what God does so applying logic to those claims is applying logic to what God does. This is especially true in the context that we’ve not even agreed that God exists so we can only discuss what is said about God.

Okay, fair enough. You are welcome to apply logic to anything I have said that Baha’u’llah wrote that God does.

I think it is a wise approach to look at what God purportedly does because that could be a back door approach to belief that God exists. I mean if what God does makes sense to you then maybe the existence of God could also make sense to you.

That’s my point. If you can’t prove something, you can’t just say “it is”. It’s an all too common “believer” problem.

But I can say “I believe it is.”

If it exists, it could be proven to exist (though we might not currently have the resources or capability to prove it).

That is true, and it is possible that in the future we will be able to prove the afterlife exists. In the meantime all we can do is “believe” it exists.

I recall reading something posted on a Baha’i forum some time ago that said that in the future it would be commonplace for people to communicate back and forth between the material world and the spiritual world. We cannot imagine that now but there was a time when we could not imagine we could go to the moon.

Well, the best I can do to get the ball rolling is to post this short video that explains what Baha’is mean by the afterlife:

Well, the first step would be for you to tell us exactly how you’re saying this animation and effect works in practice so we can compose experiments to test whether reality is consistent with your hypothesis. That is the standard process that we’ve used for hundreds of years now. This field is nothing special (however much you’d like to make it out to be).

The salient problem is that we do not know how the effect works in practice, since the nature of the soul is a mystery that even the most learned of men have failed to unravel.

Mystery only means we don’t know yet (otherwise mystery novels would be really boring

). Anyway, we’re only calling it a mystery because you’re claiming it is a mystery. You’re the only one claiming ignorance of the topic so you’re in no position to say what anyone else can come to know.

That’s true, but we can only live in the present, and what Baha'u'llah wrote about the soul being a mystery was written for the present age, which will last for the next 1000 years or more. I do not think I am the only one claiming ignorance on the topic. Let me know what anyone else has said claiming to understand the soul and its nature.

And you think that supports your position? He said it is a mystery but went on to explain it?!?

Again, you have to understand the difference between the nature of the soul and the function and eternal destination of the soul, as these are not the same. A person can know how the soul functions and what happens to it after we die without knowing its intrinsic nature, just as a person can know some things about God without knowing God’s intrinsic nature.

You’re using the k-word about unsupported beliefs again. You don’t know anything about the soul. You believe a bunch of things about the soul and you’ve offered exactly zero reason why your beliefs should be given any more credence than anything else.

Fair enough, I do not know according to the common meaning of the word know. But that does not mean I do not know in the sense of having certitude and that is another definition of know: to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain.

I get the same kind of flak about knowing from other atheists so I think a good question is how people come from believing to knowing.

 

[HonestJoe]

Hypothetically speaking, IF there are such Beings as Messengers of God and they are the only Source of information about God, THEN we would not know that they were the only Source of information about God unless they wrote it in their scriptures. Whether they have anything to back that up is a separate conversation.

The key thing is that there is a difference between it being true and us knowing it’s true. Regardless of whether they are from God, we can’t know whether they are or aren’t without some external source of evidence. If there is no such evidence, we can never know.

The whole idea of convincing people of anything is repulsive to me…

You’ve still not explained what the fundamental purpose of this thread was then.

I might be able to find some direct quotes later, but I already posted this to you:

That still doesn’t seem to cover looking at independent third party evidence though, it’s still essentially “listen to me and look in to your heart” kind of stuff.

I never said that it was proof, I said it was evidence, and it is the preponderance of evidence that indicates that Baha’u’llah was telling the truth about His claim.

You said “evidence to establish the truth” and that is synonymous with “proof”. You’re just trying to say it without saying it, which is dishonest.

Regardless, Being a “good” person, effective writer or convincing religious leader it isn’t evidence of any divine connection either.

Baha’u’llah certainly did not write an autobiography. The history of His life and mission on earth is all carefully documented by people who lived in the 19th century.

Written at his direction though? What I’d need is truly independent information, entirely third party sources. For example, there are Roman sources which give some information about the existence of Jesus. It doesn’t establish any divinity of course but support the idea that the man existed and preached in that time and religion. Of course, there are also third party sources which contradict some of the events and timelines in the Bible, such as when certain kings ruled or certain events occurred not aligning with the sequence of events in the Bible. It is that kind of external validation I was suggesting would be beneficial (arguably required) to support the truth of any part of Baha’u’llah life and works.

All one needs to do is look at what happened before, during and after His Coming and determine if it matches up with what was prophesied in the Bible.

Are they really prophecies or are they just obscure and highly poetic lines in random scripture that can be manipulated to fit? Shouldn’t it work with the whole chapter rather than just a single line (though the rest of Micah 7 seems really weird anyway)? Also, are all of those elements of his background and life independently supported or is it just what his followers say he did? Again, it’s easy to fulfil a prophecy if you’re writing after the fact.

Sure, anything is possible, and that is why we have to do the necessary research if we want to know the truth, but nobody can ever prove that someone was a Messenger of God.

Research what exactly? And if you’re declaring that nobody can prove your claims, what would be the point of researching anything?

The caveat is that once we are convinced by the evidence we do not even feel like we are believing on faith because we are so certain.

You say that like it’s a good thing. It strikes me as ridiculous and dangerous to hold something as true based on faith but to act as if it isn’t just faith. That way leads to the worst elements of extremism.

That is true. I was not saying that the Bible and the great Messengers such as Jesus unconditionally requires that God exists; I am only saying that it sure points in that direction.

Well you’re not, you’re saying that you have a definitive faith that is certainly is the case. You just can’t present a rational reason for believing that (which is why it’s faith). You’re free to believe whatever you want but you can’t then start talking about evidence and logic unless you can back them up. It’s an either/or situation.

The reason God sent all the Messengers and inspired all this scripture, thereby directly intervening in human lives, was for human benefit, not because God wanted anything for Himself. God is fully self-sufficient and full self-sustaining, so God has no needs. Thus anything that God wants is not for Himself, it is for us. God is completely independent of His Creatures, transcendent and exalted far above them, but that does not mean God does not care about us. God created us out of love for us, so God cares immensely.

None of that makes any sense. You’re bouncing randomly between God wanting things and having feelings for us and God having no needs and being entirely separate. You’re trying to square a circle here. Either we can attribute human-like emotions and feelings to God, and therefore assess them logically or God is entirely beyond our understanding. Again, it’s an either/or situation.

Since I have never thought that much about this I cannot just grab a passage and explain it but if it is important to you I will look for some explanations, as soon as I have time.

Surely this is a fundamental element of your entire faith. I would have expected your to be able to explain it in your own words, at least at a high level.

Okay, fair enough. You are welcome to apply logic to anything I have said that Baha’u’llah wrote that God does.

The problem is that every time I do (or anyone else does) that, we get to a point where I propose a logical conflict and you declare that it is a mystery that we can’t understand. You’ll obviously never accept that there are any logical inconsistencies in your faith and you’ll always have that “beyond our understanding” canard to fall back on.

But I can say “I believe it is.”

No, you say “It is!”. You might mean “I believe it is” but you’ve already said that you come to ignore that key distinction.

The salient problem is that we do not know how the effect works in practice, since the nature of the soul is a mystery that even the most learned of men have failed to unravel.

The salient point is that you’re saying we can’t know and that it’s a mystery while at the same time claiming to know (or even just “believe”) all sorts of things about it. You’ve failed to give any valid reason to even accept that any such thing even exists.

I get the same kind of flak about knowing from other atheists so I think a good question is how people come from believing to knowing.

Then why do you keep using the word you’re fully aware is misleading and only leads to confusion and argument. “Believe” is the correct word for your position, you just don’t want to admit it, even to yourself. Maybe you should deal with that internal conflict before you start presenting your beliefs to other people (whatever the actual reason you have for doing that ).

 

[Trailblazer]

The key thing is that there is a difference between it being true and us knowing it’s true. Regardless of whether they are from God, we can’t know whether they are or aren’t without some external source of evidence. If there is no such evidence, we can never know.

Hmmmmm.... I understand the point you are making, but IF it is true, THEN it is true, whether we can prove it or not. There is some evidence even if is not the kind of evidence you require, enough evidence to *believe* it is true, and belief can and often does lead to certitude without actual proof.

You’ve still not explained what the fundamental purpose of this thread was then.

The purpose of this thread was to share what the atheist on my forum said and to get some opinions from atheists about what he said, as you can see in the OP:

“The reason I am posting this is because I have been posting to an atheist on some other forums for over five years and he insists that if god existed god would communicate directly to every single person in the world rather than using messengers.”

I did not get any opinions from atheists about what god would do if god existed because most atheists are too rational to entertain the possibility they could ever know what a god would do.

Then of course the conversation veered off onto other things as often happens on these threads.

That still doesn’t seem to cover looking at independent third party evidence though, it’s still essentially “listen to me and look in to your heart” kind of stuff.

No, not at all. Baha’u’llah said we should and use our own judgement and independently investigate in order to ascertain the truth. He enjoined the fullest investigation, so that would include looking at independent third party evidence. However, a word of caution is in order: Most third party evidence is not unbiased; it is from other religious people who consider the Baha’i Faith as a threat or as competition, so they present false information about the Faith, hoping that naïve people will believe them. Unfortunately, there is not a lot written by scholars who are not Baha’is, because there is not yet that much interest in the Faith.

You said “evidence to establish the truth” and that is synonymous with “proof”. You’re just trying to say it without saying it, which is dishonest.

I do not recall where I said “evidence to establish the truth.” I would need the context in order to respond to that.

Regardless, Being a “good” person, effective writer or convincing religious leader it isn’t evidence of any divine connection either.

Obviously that is not sufficient evidence in and of itself. All we can do is look at all the evidence and decide if we believe that there was a divine connection, but as I said, “Nobody can prove anyone received messages from God.”

Written at his direction though?

Absolutely not written at His direction.

What I’d need is truly independent information, entirely third party sources. For example, there are Roman sources which give some information about the existence of Jesus. It doesn’t establish any divinity of course but support the idea that the man existed and preached in that time and religion.

As I said, where the history is concerned, there are not that many third party sources, because the Revelation of Baha’u’llah is still young.One scholar who wrote about Baha’u’llah was Edward Granville Browne:

“Edward Granville Browne was a British orientalist who published numerous articles and books of academic value, in the areas of Persian history and literature. Professor Browne took an interest in subjects which few other Western scholars were willing to explore to any sufficient degree. Professor Browne’s interest in the Bábí and later Bahá’í movements was piqued by a book by the French diplomat Comte de Gobineau and resulted in his enjoying a number of private interviews with Bahá’u’lláh Himself in His home at Bahji in 1890. Browne was the only Westerner to meet Bahá’u’lláh and leave a description of the experience.”

Professor Edward Granville Browne (1862-1926)

Of course, there are also third party sources which contradict some of the events and timelines in the Bible, such as when certain kings ruled or certain events occurred not aligning with the sequence of events in the Bible. It is that kind of external validation I was suggesting would be beneficial (arguably required) to support the truth of any part of Baha’u’llah life and works.

I do not know of any such sources, but that does not mean that they do not exist. Are you suggesting that the history chronicled by the Baha’is is possibly biased or downright incorrect?

But you raise an important issue: How do we know that a history written by anyone is accurately depicts the actual events?

(Continued on next post)

 

[Trailblazer]

Are they really prophecies or are they just obscure and highly poetic lines in random scripture that can be manipulated to fit? Shouldn’t it work with the whole chapter rather than just a single line (though the rest of Micah 7 seems really weird anyway)? Also, are all of those elements of his background and life independently supported or is it just what his followers say he did? Again, it’s easy to fulfil a prophecy if you’re writing after the fact.

I gave you one example of a verse in order to demonstrate how it was fulfilled by actual events that involve geographical locations. I do not see how that could be manipulated to fit, if Baha’u’llah was actually exiled and traveled to those locations. There is probably a way to independently verify those exiles because more than just the Baha’is were aware of them since governments were involved.

It is not possible to fulfill a prophecy unless one actually DID what the prophecy says. Clearly, Baha’u’llah did do what is in the prophecies. Below is an example of an entire chapter that was fulfilled by Baha’u’llah. There in the valley of ‘Akká, in sight of holy ‘Carmel’, the entire prophecy of Isaiah 53 was fulfilled by Baha’u’llah. Christians believe this chapter is about Jesus but it cannot be about Jesus, for reasons I stated below.

Regarding Isaiah 53:3, Jesus was despised and rejected by certain Jews who wanted Him executed, but He was not rejected by most men. Jesus was a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief, but He was esteemed by many men.

Certainly, Isaiah 53:4 and Isaiah 53:5 could apply to Jesus, but they also apply to Baha’u’llah. However, Isaiah 53:8, Isaiah 53:9, and Isaiah 53:10 cannot apply to Jesus because Jesus was not taken from prison and from judgment, Jesus did not make His grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death. Jesus made his soul an offering for sin, but He did not see his seed and His days were not prolonged, so there is no way Isaiah 53:10 can be about Jesus, and that is why we know it is about someone else who would be the Messiah of the end days.

Isaiah 53:3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

• Bahá’u’lláh was rejected by his own countrymen, and was sent into exile. His life was filled with grief and sorrow.
• The Emperor Franz Joseph passed within but a short distance of the prison in which Bahá’u’lláh was captive. Louis Napoleon cast behind his back the letter which Bahá’u’lláh sent to him, saying: “If this man is of God, then I am two Gods!” The people of the world have followed in their footsteps.

Isaiah 53:4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

• I read the following words of Bahá’u’lláh concerning his persecution and imprisonment: “Though weariness lay Me low, and hunger consume Me, and the bare rock be My bed, and My fellows the beasts of the field, I will not complain, but will endure patiently … and will render thanks unto God under all conditions … We pray that, out of His bounty—exalted be He—He may release, through this imprisonment, the necks of men from chains and fetters…” The Promised Day is Come, Shoghi Effendi, pp. 42–3.

Isaiah 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

• Bahá’u’lláh was twice stoned, once scourged, thrice poisoned, scarred with hundred-pound chains which cut through his flesh and rested upon the bones of his shoulders. He lived a prisoner and an exile for nearly half a century.

Isaiah 53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

• Bahá’u’lláh was taken from the black-pit prison in Tihrán for judgement before the authorities. His death was expected hourly, but he was banished to ‘Iráq and finally to Israel. In the prison-city of ‘Akká, on another occasion, “… the Governor, at the head of his troops, with drawn swords, surrounded (Bahá’u’lláh’s) house. The entire populace, as well as the military authorities, were in a state of great agitation. The shouts and clamour of the people could be heard on all sides. Bahá’u’lláh was peremptorily summoned to the Governorate, interrogated, kept in custody the first night … The Governor, soon after, sent word that he was at liberty to return to his home, and apologized for what had occurred.” God Passes By, Shoghi Effendi, pp. 190–191.

Isaiah 53:9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

• Bahá’u’lláh was buried in the precincts of the Mansion of Bahjí, owned by a wealthy Muslim. He was surrounded by enemies; members of his own family who betrayed his trust after his death and dwelt in homes adjacent to his burial-place.

Isaiah 53:10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.

• Bahá’u’lláh did see his ‘seed’. He wrote a special document called the Book of the Covenant, in which he appointed his eldest son to be the Centre of his Faith after his own passing. This very event was also foretold in the prophecies of the Psalms that proclaim:
• “Also I will make him my first-born higher than the kings of the earth … and my covenant shall stand fast with him.” Psalms 89:27, 28
• The ‘first-born’ son of Bahá’u’lláh, was named ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, which means ‘the servant of Bahá’(‘u’lláh). Bahá’u’lláh appointed him as his own successor in his Will and Testament. He called ‘Abdu’l-Baháthe Centre of his Covenant.
• Bahá’u’lláh’s days were prolonged. He was born in 1817 and passed away in the Holy Land in 1892. In the last years of his life, Bahá’u’lláh was released from his prison cell. He came out of the prison-city of ‘Akká and walked on the sides of Mount Carmel. His followers came from afar to be with him, and to surround him with their love, fulfilling the words of the prayer of David spoken within a cave: “Bring my soul out of prison, that I may praise thy name: the righteous shall compass me about; for thou shalt deal bountifully with me.” Psalms 142:7.
• These events in the valley of ‘Akká with its strong fortress prison had been foreshadowed in Ecclesiastes 4:14: “For out of prison he cometh to reign; whereas also he that is born in his kingdom becometh poor.”

Comments from: Thief in the Night, pp. 155-159

(Continued on next post)

 

[Trailblazer]

Research what exactly? And if you’re declaring that nobody can prove your claims, what would be the point of researching anything?

What I am saying cannot be proven is that Baha’u’llah actually received communication from God. How could anyone ever prove that given God is unknowable? Think about it.

We can investigate everything else that surrounds the Revelation of Baha’u’llah, including who He was as a Person (His character); His mission on earth; the history of His Cause, from the time He appeared moving forward; the scriptures that He wrote; what His appointed Interpreters wrote; what others have written about the Baha’i Faith; the Bible prophecies that He fulfilled, as well as prophecies of other religions that He fulfilled; predictions He made that have come to pass; the religion that He established (followers) all over the world and what they have done and are doing now.

You say that like it’s a good thing. It strikes me as ridiculous and dangerous to hold something as true based on faith but to act as if it isn’t just faith. That way leads to the worst elements of extremism.

But it is NOT based solely upon faith; it is based upon evidence. The only thing we need to have faith in is that God revealed messages to Baha’u’llah, since such a thing can never be proven.

Moreover, it seems logical to me that if God wanted us to have faith, that is just how it works, and there is no way to circumvent that because God is the one holding all the high cards. I mean we have to believe on God’s terms if we are to believe at all, we cannot set the standards for evidence because we are powerless to make an omnipotent God do anything differently.

Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who approaches Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.

I will tell you a little story that indicates that verse is true, especially the last part. I just heard this story from a friend who I know really well because he posts on my forum. I have posted to him on various forums for many years and I have also had private e-mail communication with him. He was raised as a Christian but he dropped out a long time ago and became an atheist. He relayed a story from his friend, who is also my friend, who was also a Christian who became an atheist. Both of them have posted on forums to me for many years and we have had private e-mail communications. They live close to each other so know each other in person, but I have never met them in person.

As the story goes, my friend told me that our friend was going through a crisis in his life a couple of months ago and he cried out to God in prayer in desperation for God to do something to help him in that moment. He asked God to use that moment to prove He is real, and He promised he would never bad-mouth God again IF God answered. God answered within an hour. He later told his friend that God kept His end of the bargain, and now it was his turn to keep his end of the bargain. He now believes that God exists and he is at peace with it all and his entire life has changed. I have not spoken to him since because I knew about the crisis he was going through and I did not want to bother him and bring up feelings associated with that crisis. Eventually I will contact him and find out how he is doing. I always seem to know when the time is right.

God will answer urgent prayers for people who are sincere in wanting to believe in Him… This is what I consider having faith first, and then getting actual proof. This is not the only atheist I know who has become a believer in this fashion. God knows who is sincere and who will believe in Him since God is All-Knowing.

Well you’re not, you’re saying that you have a definitive faith that is certainly is the case. You just can’t present a rational reason for believing that (which is why it’s faith). You’re free to believe whatever you want but you can’t then start talking about evidence and logic unless you can back them up. It’s an either/or situation.

Yes, *I believe* that the Bible and the great Messengers such as Jesus mean that God exists, and I consider my reasons rational because there IS evidence that supports this belief even though there is no proof that it is true. You are saying it has to be an either/or, either faith or proof, but that is not logical to me because God does not provide proof since God wants our faith, and I am not so illogical that I think I can make an omnipotent God change His Ways. Of course, what I just said is also a belief, I am well aware of that, but it makes sense to me, and that is one reason I believe it. Of course I also believe the source of the belief, the scriptures.

None of that makes any sense. You’re bouncing randomly between God wanting things and having feelings for us and God having no needs and being entirely separate. You’re trying to square a circle here. Either we can attribute human-like emotions and feelings to God, and therefore assess them logically or God is entirely beyond our understanding. Again, it’s an either/or situation.

My point was that God needs nothing for Himself because God is fully self-sufficient and fully self-sustaining. God reveals teachings and laws through the Messengers which are beneficial to humans. God wills these for humans. Anything that God wills is not for Himself, it is for us because God is completely independent of His Creatures, transcendent and exalted far above them.

Just because God loves us and cares about us that does not make God like a human. We use these words because we are humans and these are words we can relate to as humans. How God loves and cares is not something we are able to comprehend.

You are creating a false dichotomy. The Essence (intrinsic nature) of God is entirely beyond our understanding, but the Will of God can be known through the Messengers of God. Of course, that is a belief I hold.

Surely this is a fundamental element of your entire faith. I would have expected you to be able to explain it in your own words, at least at a high level.

Leave it to an atheist to call me out.

I will now tell you why I never thought much about it now. The reason is because I have been distant from God for most of my life and then I was just damn angry at God for about 10 years (even though I believed He existed this entire time) so I was in no mood to worship God. But why you might ask did I not know about worshipping God given it is a fundamental tenet of my religion? Well, the reason is simple. I did not join the Baha’i Faith because of God, I joined because of Baha’u’llah and it was the teachings I fell in love with.

Only much later in my life, about seven years ago, did I start to think about the implications of God’s existence, but since then I have been too busy on various forums to think about WHY I am supposed to worship God. Off the top of my head I think it is because God wants our worship since it benefits us to humble ourselves before God and understand how insignificant we are compared to God. What results from loving God is that we will follow God’s teachings and laws because with love comes respect for the One we love.

The problem is that every time I do (or anyone else does) that, we get to a point where I propose a logical conflict and you declare that it is a mystery that we can’t understand. You’ll obviously never accept that there are any logical inconsistencies in your faith and you’ll always have that “beyond our understanding” canard to fall back on.

It is true that God’s intrinsic nature is beyond our understanding and that is why it is problematic to apply logic to God. We also cannot use logic to determine what God could, would, or should do based solely on omnipotence and omniscience.

However, you can apply logic to certain beliefs so you can apply logic to some of what Baha’u’llah wrote. If you see logical inconsistencies in the Baha’i beliefs I would need some concrete examples of what you consider logical inconsistences and an explanation as to why you think that they are logically inconsistent.

The salient point is that you’re saying we can’t know and that it’s a mystery while at the same time claiming to know (or even just “believe”) all sorts of things about it. You’ve failed to give any valid reason to even accept that any such thing even exists.

The soul is kind of like God. We can know somethings about its purpose and function but we cannot know its intrinsic nature.

The reason *I accept* that the soul exists is because Baha’u’llah revealed that it exists. Obviously, that is not a valid reason for you, since you do not believe in Baha’u’llah.

Then why do you keep using the word you’re fully aware is misleading and only leads to confusion and argument. “Believe” is the correct word for your position, you just don’t want to admit it, even to yourself. Maybe you should deal with that internal conflict before you start presenting your beliefs to other people (whatever the actual reason you have for doing that

).

The context of what I said is how people go from *just believing* to having certitude of their beliefs (knowing).

I have no internal conflict. I used to believe my belief was probably true, but now I know what I believe is true, and that’s called certitude. That does not mean I can know it as a fact and that is why I have to admit it is a belief.