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

[HonestJoe]

There are concrete facts that support my belief that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God and there is logic behind the underpinning theology of my religion called Progressive Revelation.

That is not fact, it is a belief used to explain the inconsistency across all the purported messengers. There's no reason to accept that hypothesis over any other though, such as not all (if any) of the messengers actually being from God or, of course, God not existing (at least in the form proposed).

That is true, we cannot ever know what God is “doing.” I simply mean that in general God does not interfere with human free will.

You have literally said we can't know what God does and immediately claimed to know something he does (or doesn't do). You can't have it both ways and claim any kind of logic is involved.

Predestined means that something is destined to happen because it is written on the Tablet of Fate. God KNOWS it will happen, but knowing something will happen is not what causes it to happen:

I never said the knowing causes anything to happen. I am saying that if it is even possible for anyone or anything to know what is going to happen, everything must automatically be predestined. There doesn't need to be any causal link between the two concepts but there is an unavoidable logical link between them.

We cannot ever know the “essence” of God.

How can you know something is unknowable? Why couldn't it be knowable, but only in a particular manner we aren't (yet) aware of.

The reason God cannot change is because God is what God is.

Again all-powerful. If God wanted to stop being God, he could. Any statement that begins "God cannot..." is automatically false in relation to an all-powerful god by simple definition.

I knew you would catch that because you are very sharp, so I was planning to explain it when you caught it.The word ‘know’ has more than one meaning. If we believe with absolute certainty then we also know.

That's just more word games. That isn't the meaning of the word "know" that is commonly used in these discussions and it is unhelpful at best and dishonest at worst to intend that meaning without explaining.

He thinks he knows that if God existed God could do anything that is not logically impossible, but I told him that God is not bound by human logic.

Everything we've discussed here is based on assessing your beliefs with "human" logic. If you're now declaring that the existence of God (the God you've also declared unknowable of course) is not bound by that logic, all discussion on the topic becomes pointless.

That is fine by me if you want to separate beliefs from facts because they are separate. Facts can be proven to everyone but beliefs cannot be proven to anyone except the believer who has them.

Beliefs aren't proven by definition, even to ourselves. That's just the lie we tell ourselves because the whole point of belief is that reality is usually scary and depressing.

 

[Katzpur]

Here is the reason: The Messengers of God are another order of creation above an ordinary man. Their souls had pre-existence in the spiritual world before their bodies were born in this world, whereas the souls of all humans come into being at the moment of conception. The spiritual world is where They get their special powers from God. They possess a universal divine mind that is different than ours and that is why God only speaks to them directly and through Them God communicates to humanity.

That's an awful lot of conjecture on your part. I'd appreciate a few passages from the Bible that prove each of these points. I want something very specific, because I don't believe you know what you're talking about.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Please i don't waste my time

You wrote:-
The magical farting pixie has always been. The cause of its fart was magical gas in its magical digestive system.

Who made the gas?
Who's making the digestive system
If you do not know the answer please give up and don't waste my time,
I will shorten the way for you
God is the first with no beginning and no birth and the last with no end to succession
But the difference is who is the true God
You are now close to reaching it just need a dose of luck


These scientists are unable to survive more than 100 years or a little more
The power of scientists in this sections to speak because it is free hahahaha.
Because of the lack of evidence and proofs, everyone is enjoying their fake ideas
They speak with mood, philosophical and imaginary ideas, contradictory claims and different theories among scholars
huh. Having a degree does not mean you always understand


I am superior to you, one point ahead
Koran says that there is smoke in the heavens, although we can not as humans before 1440 years to see the smoke in the heavens
I have a copy before 1400 in the museum proving this miracle
He even said that meteors that fall, contain copper element

Who made the gas?
Who's making the digestive system
If you do not know the answer please give up and don't waste my time,
I will shorten the way for you
God is the first with no beginning and no birth and the last with no end to succession
But the difference is who is the true God
You are now close to reaching it just need a dose of luck

No, no, no! You've got it ALL wrong! It was my magical farting pixie that is the FIRST, with NO beginning and NO birth and the LAST with no end to succession!

You see, if YOU can make fantastical unsubstantiated claims about your god being, then I can ALSO make fantastical unsubstantiated claims about My magical pixie.

These scientists are unable to survive more than 100 years or a little more
The power of scientists in this sections to speak because it is free hahahaha.
Because of the lack of evidence and proofs, everyone is enjoying their fake ideas
They speak with mood, philosophical and imaginary ideas, contradictory claims and different theories among scholars
huh. Having a degree does not mean you always understand

The above is just an incomprehensible collection of words. Though from what I COULD understand, it sounds as if you're completely clueless about how the scientific method works. So sad.

I am superior to you, one point ahead
Koran says that there is smoke in the heavens, although we can not as humans before 1440 years to see the smoke in the heavens
I have a copy before 1400 in the museum proving this miracle
He even said that meteors that fall, contain copper element

Yet there IS no 'smoke' in the heavens... so your ancient book of myths got it WRONG. And any person who happened to find a fallen meteor could EASILY figure out that it contained copper. HARDLY a 'divine' insight. No wonder you are so easily manipulated into believing in nonsense.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, it means something totally different, Imo.

They're both valid ways of looking at the problem.

For it to be impossible for God to humanity to communicate with humanity, there has to be a mismatch between what God is able to "transmit" and what humans are able to receive and comprehend.

It's correct to say that this mismatch means BOTH that humans are incapable of "stepping up" their comprehension to understand God AND that God is incapable of "stepping down" his communication so that it can be understood.

No, God cannot do what humans can do just because God is God. In fact, the very reason God cannot do what humans can do is because God is not a human.

Then God isn't omnipotent.

An omnipotent God can do all things... or atleast all things that aren't logically contradictory. If humans can do something, it clearly isn't logically contradictory, so an omnipotent God must be able to do it, too.

Is your God omnipotent? It's okay with me if you say "no."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Baha’u’llah

If he could make God's messages available to everyone, why didn't he do this?

 

[CG Didymus]

I know because of “what I consider” to be evidence that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God. There are concrete facts and logic behind my beliefs, but of course it can never be proven as a fact that there is a God or that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God.

Concrete "facts"? Poor analogy. Concrete gets broken up all the time. Roots of trees, clay soil and jackhammers, not to mention dynamite. And your "logic"? "logic 101"? That's from you. You've "proven" it to yourself. Who have you been able to convince? Oh, yeah, that's not your job.

Also, even if God wanted the universe to be a certain way that does not necessarily mean that God would make it that way. The fly in the ointment is human free will. God “might” want something a certain way, but God normally does not interfere with human free will, even though He can.

You sure love your "free will". But even people make rules to curb others from doing whatever they want. So... 2000 years ago what is more "logical", that some invisible, unknowable God sent a messenger to give people rules, or some religious leaders made some rules they thought would be good for them and their society and told the people that an invisible God gave us these rules. And, if you break them you will be punished, maybe even be stoned to death. Did those people have the "free will" to do whatever they wanted? If those rules did come from a real God, wouldn't that kind of be like interfering with the "free will" of humans?

That is why God uses Messengers, because God does not relate to humans directly.

So who to do you pray to? To God or to some intermediary?

 

[CG Didymus]

we know the messages come from God if we believe that the Messenger was sent by God.

And what messages do you believe other than the Baha'i message and maybe the Quran? You don't give a "rip" about the other messages, so why do you believe in the messengers of those messages? Plus, Baha'is have to doctor those messages to get them to say what the Baha'is want them to say. But Baha'is don't call it "doctoring". They call it giving the correct interpretation. The interpretation that Baha'u'llah and Abdul Baha' have given them.

Oh, and about not giving a "rip", then why do Baha'is use the supposed prophecies from those Scriptures of the other religions to prove that The Bab and Baha'u'llah are the promised "Twin Manifestations" of every other major religion? Yes, Baha'is do give a "rip", but only when those other Scriptures can be used to help the Baha'i Faith. Even you use the Bible to "prove" your case.

The Messengers of God do not communicate TO God, God communicates to them, and it is not really a two-way conversation.

Genesis 18
1 The LORD appeared to Abraham... 2 Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby... 16 When the men got up to leave, they looked down toward Sodom, and Abraham walked along with them to see them on their way. 17 Then the LORD said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?... 20 Then the LORD said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.” 22 The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the LORD. 23 Then Abraham approached him and said: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?” 26 The LORD said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.” 27 Then Abraham spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, 28 what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five people?” “If I find forty-five there,” he said, “I will not destroy it.” 29 Once again he spoke to him, “What if only forty are found there?” He said, “For the sake of forty, I will not do it.” 30 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?” He answered, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.” 31 Abraham said, “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?” He said, “For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it.” 32 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?” He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.” 33 When the LORD had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.
​

Hmmm? The Bible contradicts you here. I wonder who is right? Of course it's you. The Bible is just stories. No wait... Abraham and Moses... and maybe even Adam and Noah are considered manifestations of God? Therefore their messages are true? No, they can't be 100% true, so only the good stuff, the stuff Baha'is can use and agree with. That stuff is from God. The rest is total &*%#ola.

Yet, you say that there is such a thing as "progressive" revelation? So, that stuff you don't give a "rip" about, that isn't 100% authentic shows how God sent a progression of messengers to teach people what they needed to progress to the next level of spiritual understanding of what God wanted them to do? Which culminates in the unity of all people and religions. And how are Baha'is bringing people and religions together? By telling them, and "proving" with "concrete" facts and "logic" how wrong their religion is. Or, by telling people how wrong they are about not believing in the God that created all those other religions, that you don't give a "rip" about? Something ain't right here.

 

[CG Didymus]

If he could make God's messages available to everyone, why didn't he do this?

I wonder which comes first... believing that Baha'u'llah is a messenger from God, therefore his message is the truth. Or, believe the message, therefore the messenger must be from God.

And what is part of that message? That all the other messages are only partially correct. People %&$#ed them up with added traditions that they made up. Plus they misinterpreted what the messenger said. Plus, the messenger isn't the one that wrote the things down (except for the Baha'i prophet and maybe Muhammad?). These messages were passed down by oral traditions for a few years, then written down? What? God and Jesus didn't think the message was important enough that he, Jesus, should write it down?

So we have lots of messengers with lots of contradictory messages scattered all around the world. People practicing and believing in a God or gods and religions that are all different. And somehow, we are to believe that this one true God wanted it this way? To let people and cultures live for centuries with misinformation? All because God thought it best to send regional messengers to different people? Messages that Baha'is claim were all consistent, but even if those message were at one time the same, they all became distorted? What a plan. What a God. How infinite is his wisdom.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

If he could make God's messages available to everyone, why didn't he do this?

I see it would require the abolition of our free will choice.

We are born into this creation to know and love God by our own choices.

Those choices enable us to sort the pearl from the shell, the gold from the mineral, the diamond from the rock.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

So we have lots of messengers with lots of contradictory messages scattered all around the world.

I see no contradiction in the Messages given by each of God's Messengers.

What are you looking for, or at, to see it that way?

Regards Tony

 

[QuestioningMind]

So you think it would be FAR more reasonable to conclude that the reason you do not see God communicating directly with humans is because God does not ye. They just need to know what to be looking for and it is not as if the fakes have these qualities.

Why would God need to create more than one God-man for every age given they can relay the messages to everyone? Should all of us be made President of the United States too just because we do not understand the President?

I don’t know, ask God, if you can contact Him on His cell. A better question is why would God choose to create beings that he could communicate directly with? In other words, why would the ALMIGHTY God want to be communicating directly with every human in the world? What would be the purpose? God is not a social Being, he is one and alone and remains in His own High Place. No, direct contact with humans is not what God wants; it is what atheists want, but guess who gets what He wants?

I do not know of any such messengers who I would be attracted to. I am very discerning. He would have to meet ALL the criteria before I would even consider him, not the least of which is fulfilling all the Bible prophecies and prophecies of all the other major religions. Baha’u’llah is the only one who meets that criteria. Also, His Writings are a big part of the proof for me.

That raises a good point. All the major religions are ‘true’ according to the Baha’i Faith but the Baha’i Faith is the religion for this age in history, so it was a slam dunk for me. Why would I want an older religion that has a message that is not even pertinent to this age, a religion that has become corrupted by men over the course of time, when I can have the new and pristine religion with the message for this age? That would not be logical, and I make my choices according to logic.

The husband analogy is not that great because more than one man ‘potentially’ could have worked out, many people marry several times, but there is only one true religion for this age, jut as there is only one religion that God wants everyone to follow in every age. The reason there is so much disunity and strife in the world is because there are so many different religions but in the future there will be only one religion everyone will follow, as that was ordained by God.

Scientology is not a religion because there is no God behind it. Scientology does not even claim that there is a Messenger of God who revealed it. I think you need a brief definition of the nature of religion so we will be on the same page:

“And now concerning thy question regarding the nature of religion. Know thou that they who are truly wise have likened the world unto the human temple. As the body of man needeth a garment to clothe it, so the body of mankind must needs be adorned with the mantle of justice and wisdom. Its robe is the Revelation vouchsafed unto it by God. Whenever this robe hath fulfilled its purpose, the Almighty will assuredly renew it. For every age requireth a fresh measure of the light of God. Every Divine Revelation hath been sent down in a manner that befitted the circumstances of the age in which it hath appeared.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 81

It is the only method that can be used to get the same message out to everyone in the world. God is not going to reveal the over 15,000 tablets that Baha’u’llah wrote to every person in the world. People just have to do their homework and they can find the true religion. There are no free rides because God does not give any free rides.[/QUOTE]

So you think it would be FAR more reasonable to conclude that the reason you do not see God communicating directly with humans is because God does not exist than to conclude that God is not CAPABLE of communicating directly with people? That is the same as saying that IF God existed God would communicate directly with people…. There is no reason to think that God would communicate directly with people. Moreover, if God exists we know that God does not communicate directly with people so that is not even a logical possibility. Given the empirical evidence there are only three logical possibilities:

1. God exists and communicates through Messengers, or
2. God exists and does not communicate, or
3. God does not exist

Let's apply this logic to other proposed entities.
1. Magical pixies exist and communicate through messengers
2. Magical pixies exist and do not communicate
3. Magical pixies do not exist

1. Invisible dragons exist and communicate through messengers
2. Invisible dragons exist and do not communicate
3. Invisible dragons do not exist

In both of my examples I wouldn't waste a single second of my time wondering about questions 1 and 2 until I FIRST had some evidence that either magical pixies or invisible dragons even exist. Because I could spend my entire life pondering such questions about fantastical entities for which there is no evidence. FIRST I'd need evidence that magical pixie are real before I could waste my time wondering how they can or cannot communicate. The exact same hold true for your proposed god entity. Do you waste your time contemplating how magical pixies communicate? If not, why do you contemplate such questions about an unsubstantiated god claim?




Of course, direct communication cannot be the best way to communicate to people since an All-Knowing and All-Wise God would have to know the best way and God does not use direct communication. Moreover, humans do not get to determine how an Almighty God is going to communicate with them, as if God was a short order cook.

Again, let's apply this argument to magical pixies. All-knowing and all-wise magical pixies would know the best way and since magical pixies do not use direct communication, that obviously isn't the best way. Moreover, humans do not get to determine how magical pixies are going to communicate with them.

First, you have to look at what these men claimed. They did not claim to get communication from God so there is no reason to consider that a possibility. I think that Joseph Smith claimed to hear the voice of Jesus but that is not the same as hearing from God.

Perhaps you need to look at what these men said. L. Ron Hubbard claims to have been contacted by the Eight Dynamic - also known as the Supreme Being.

It makes sense that God never planned to communicate directly with ordinary humans since they are not capable of understanding God.

ONLY because your god CHOSE to create humans without the ability, when he easily COULD have. So your contention that it's IMPOSSIBLE for god to do so is not correct. The fact that god chose to create messages that he COULD communicate with proves as much.

Why would God need to do that, just because some atheists want direct communication from God?

Again, it's all about your contention that it's IMPOSSIBLE for god to have such communication.

God wanted to force us to rely upon Messengers and it says that in the scriptures, in so many words. And God always gets what God wants, so the people who relied upon God’s Messengers got the message and the other people were left out in the cold. Nobody can fight the Will of God, He always wins.

Of COURSE scriptures are going to tell you as much. FALSE messengers as well as any true messenger that might exist is going to make such a claim. Just because L. Ron Hubbard has a book where he claims that the only ways to become whole is through 'auditing' does not make it true. You need a better means of determining if a 'messengers' claims are true, other than 'they claimed it in a book'.

It really is not that easy to fake being a ‘real’ Messenger of God, if one looks with a discerning eye. They just need to know what to be looking for and it is not as if the fakes have these qualities.

Really? Then how do you explain the BILLIONS of people who have been fooled into believing in 'false' messengers? You're not under the impression that the vast majority of theists follow Baha’u’llah, are you?

Why would God need to create more than one God-man for every age given they can relay the messages to everyone? Should all of us be made President of the United States too just because we do not understand the President?

Let's see... maybe so that the vast majority of his creations aren't clueless and in the dark?

I don’t know, ask God, if you can contact Him on His cell. A better question is why would God choose to create beings that he could communicate directly with? In other words, why would the ALMIGHTY God want to be communicating directly with every human in the world? What would be the purpose? God is not a social Being, he is one and alone and remains in His own High Place. No, direct contact with humans is not what God wants; it is what atheists want, but guess who gets what He wants?

If you say so. But THAT is NOT a message that I would be 'attracted to', and according to your logic, if I'm not 'attracted' to it then I'm welcome to ignore it. Which leads me to conclude that there ISN'T a message from any god, but rather people just deciding that god's message is whatever they find to be 'attractive'.

I do not know of any such messengers who I would be attracted to. I am very discerning. He would have to meet ALL the criteria before I would even consider him, not the least of which is fulfilling all the Bible prophecies and prophecies of all the other major religions. Baha’u’llah is the only one who meets that criteria. Also, His Writings are a big part of the proof for me.

Yeah, that's kind of my point. It's impossible for god to have a message that you don't find attractive, because if you find the message that god's messenger has to be unappealing then you just conclude that it's from a 'false' messenger. This means that it's not possible for god to EVER have expectations for anyone that they don't happen to like. Which explains why there are so very many different religions. Everyone starts off imagining what they would find appealing in a god and magically THAT'S exactly what god turns out to be.

As for the prophecies', I m sure we've had this discussion before. But as I recall when I asked for specifics... that is a prophecy that is specific enough that it can only have one interpretation and something that isn't just an accurate prediction that someone made, you failed to provide any examples. So please, if you have a prophecy that you think isn't so vague that it could mean virtually anything and that isn't just the same as an accurate prediction, I'd love to hear it.

 

[QuestioningMind]

That's an awful lot of conjecture on your part. I'd appreciate a few passages from the Bible that prove each of these points. I want something very specific, because I don't believe you know what you're talking about.

You might want to reread the post. The boldface print are quotes from the person I'm responding to, not from me. You need to ask Trailblazer this question.

 

[Trailblazer]

They're both valid ways of looking at the problem.

For it to be impossible for God to communicate with humanity, there has to be a mismatch between what God is able to "transmit" and what humans are able to receive and comprehend.

I fully agree.

It's correct to say that this mismatch means BOTH that humans are incapable of "stepping up" their comprehension to understand God AND that God is incapable of "stepping down" his communication so that it can be understood.

I fully agree.

No, God cannot do what humans can do just because God is God. In fact, the very reason God cannot do what humans can do is because God is not a human.

Then God isn't omnipotent.

No, it means that God is not human. For example, some atheists insist that God can write because God is omnipotent, but God is not a man with hands so God cannot write. What God cannot do is because of the nature of God, not because God lacks power.

An omnipotent God can do all things... or at least all things that aren't logically contradictory. If humans can do something, it clearly isn't logically contradictory, so an omnipotent God must be able to do it, too.

God is not subject to human logical analysis because our minds are finite and God is infinite. We can only know what God can and cannot do if it was revealed by a Messenger of God.

Is your God omnipotent? It's okay with me if you say "no."

God is omnipotent but that does not mean God can do anything. It means that God is All-Powerful.

Omnipotence means all-powerful. ... Being omnipotent, God has power over wind, water, gravity, physics, etc. God's power is infinite, or limitless. Omniscience means all-knowing. God is all all-knowing in the sense that he is aware of the past, present, and future.
Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent God: Definition ...

“Omnipotent” derives from the Latin omnis meaning “all” and potens or “powerful.” Omnipotent is not a word used in the Bible, but “almighty” appears in virtually every book of the Old Testament, often dozens of times. El Shaddai, a Hebrew name for God, evokes His omnipotence as the Almighty. El Shaddai means God most powerful or God Almighty. What Does it Mean that God Is Omnipotent?

Question: "What does it mean that God is omnipotent?"

Answer: The word omnipotent comes from omni- meaning “all” and potent meaning “power.” As with the attributes of omniscience and omnipresence, it follows that, if God is infinite, and if He is sovereign, which we know He is, then He must also be omnipotent. He has all power over all things at all times and in all ways. What does it mean that God is omnipotent? | GotQuestions.org​

God cannot do what it is not within His nature to do. For example, God cannot be evil because God is by nature good. God cannot become flesh because God is by nature Spirit. If God became flesh, then God would no longer be God, He would be a man. As a man, God would no longer be exalted beyond anything that can ever be recounted or perceived, which is who God is.

So maybe you could say it is logically impossible for God to become evil or for God to become a man.

Here is another one I just thought of. If you think omnipotent means that God can do anything, then that would mean God could become weak. But if God became weak, then God would no longer be omnipotent. So you see, it is logically impossible for God to become weak and that means that God cannot literally – do anything.

 

[Trailblazer]

If he could make God's messages available to everyone, why didn't he do this?

He did... The Works of Bahá'u'lláh

 

[Trailblazer]

Concrete "facts"? Poor analogy. Concrete gets broken up all the time. Roots of trees, clay soil and jackhammers, not to mention dynamite. And your "logic"? "logic 101"? That's from you. You've "proven" it to yourself. Who have you been able to convince? Oh, yeah, that's not your job.

That's right, I can only prove it to myself. Then again, I have never tried to convince anyone because that is not my job.

You sure love your "free will". But even people make rules to curb others from doing whatever they want. So... 2000 years ago what is more "logical", that some invisible, unknowable God sent a messenger to give people rules, or some religious leaders made some rules they thought would be good for them and their society and told the people that an invisible God gave us these rules. And, if you break them you will be punished, maybe even be stoned to death. Did those people have the "free will" to do whatever they wanted? If those rules did come from a real God, wouldn't that kind of be like interfering with the "free will" of humans?

God gave us the rules but God gave us free will so that is why we can break any rules we choose to break.

So who to do you pray to? To God or to some intermediary?

I pray to God but sometimes I cry out to Jesus, "Jesus help me!"
How's that for a traitor.

 

[Trailblazer]

And what messages do you believe other than the Baha'i message and maybe the Quran? You don't give a "rip" about the other messages, so why do you believe in the messengers of those messages?

I do believe in the messages in other scriptures, I just realize they are not authentic and I interpret them my own way. I believe in the other messengers because they are validated by the Baha'i Faith.

Plus, Baha'is have to doctor those messages to get them to say what the Baha'is want them to say. But Baha'is don't call it "doctoring". They call it giving the correct interpretation. The interpretation that Baha'u'llah and Abdul Baha' have given them.

Sorry, but no doctoring has been done, because that assumes that there is a correct interpretation that someone else has and we messed with that.

Oh, and about not giving a "rip", then why do Baha'is use the supposed prophecies from those Scriptures of the other religions to prove that The Bab and Baha'u'llah are the promised "Twin Manifestations" of every other major religion? Yes, Baha'is do give a "rip", but only when those other Scriptures can be used to help the Baha'i Faith. Even you use the Bible to "prove" your case.

We do not use those prophecies to prove that the Bab and Baha'u'llah were who they claimed to be. We simply point out that these prophecies have been fulfilled. Baha'u'llah told us what the proof is and that is what we are to look at.

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106

Genesis 18
1 The LORD appeared to Abraham... 2 Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby... 16 When the men got up to leave, they looked down toward Sodom, and Abraham walked along with them to see them on their way. 17 Then the LORD said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?... 20 Then the LORD said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.” 22 The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the LORD. 23 Then Abraham approached him and said: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?” 26 The LORD said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.” 27 Then Abraham spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, 28 what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five people?” “If I find forty-five there,” he said, “I will not destroy it.” 29 Once again he spoke to him, “What if only forty are found there?” He said, “For the sake of forty, I will not do it.” 30 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?” He answered, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.” 31 Abraham said, “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?” He said, “For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it.” 32 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?” He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.” 33 When the LORD had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.
​

Hmmm? The Bible contradicts you here. I wonder who is right? Of course it's you. The Bible is just stories. No wait... Abraham and Moses... and maybe even Adam and Noah are considered manifestations of God? Therefore their messages are true? No, they can't be 100% true, so only the good stuff, the stuff Baha'is can use and agree with. That stuff is from God. The rest is total &*%#ola.

I have no idea what you think is contradictory. Yes, Baha'u'llah wrote that Abraham and Moses, Noah and Adam were Prophets/Manifestations of God.

Yet, you say that there is such a thing as "progressive" revelation? So, that stuff you don't give a "rip" about, that isn't 100% authentic shows how God sent a progression of messengers to teach people what they needed to progress to the next level of spiritual understanding of what God wanted them to do? Which culminates in the unity of all people and religions.

Yes.

And how are Baha'is bringing people and religions together? By telling them, and "proving" with "concrete" facts and "logic" how wrong their religion is. Or, by telling people how wrong they are about not believing in the God that created all those other religions, that you don't give a "rip" about? Something ain't right here.

It is not the job of the Baha'is to bring people together.... Remember, we all have free will so they have to choose to come together if they want to. I did not tell anyone they were wrong, I just stated what I believe. And I am not obligated to give a rip about older religions whose dispensations have been abrogated.

But I might not react this way if they were not constantly being shoved down my throat. I sick to death of hearing about the Bible. I do not consider it the Word of God for this age, so I consider it a waste of my precious and limited time to look at it. I have not even read all of the Baha'i Writings.

In the following passage the Word of God which comes with every new Messenger of God is likened to a City that is renewed every thousand years or so. I live in the new City, not in an old City.

“They that valiantly labor in quest of God, will, when once they have renounced all else but Him, be so attached and wedded unto that City, that a moment’s separation from it would to them be unthinkable. They will hearken unto infallible proofs from the Hyacinth of that assembly, and will receive the surest testimonies from the beauty of its Rose, and the melody of its Nightingale. Once in about a thousand years shall this City be renewed and readorned….

That City is none other than the Word of God revealed in every age and dispensation. In the days of Moses it was the Pentateuch; in the days of Jesus, the Gospel; in the days of Muhammad, the Messenger of God, the Qur’án; in this day, the Bayán; and in the Dispensation of Him Whom God will make manifest, His own Book—the Book unto which all the Books of former Dispensations must needs be referred, the Book that standeth amongst them all transcendent and supreme.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 269-270

 

[Trailblazer]

That is not fact, it is a belief used to explain the inconsistency across all the purported messengers.

Logically speaking, why would there be consistency across Messengers? I mean why would God send NEW Messengers with exactly the same message? The spiritual teachings are consistent but the message changes in every age because humans evolve and change and the world we live in also changes, so we need a NEW message in every age. Also, because the world changes, we need new social teachings and new laws in every age.

There's no reason to accept that hypothesis over any other though, such as not all (if any) of the messengers actually being from God or, of course, God not existing (at least in the form proposed).

No, there is no reason to accept any hypothesis unless you have done a lot of homework and the logic and math adds up for you.

You have literally said we can't know what God does and immediately claimed to know something he does (or doesn't do). You can't have it both ways and claim any kind of logic is involved.

I said that we cannot know what God is doing right now wherever God is, but we can know some things God has done, such as giving humans free will to make choices. We cannot know in the sense of being able to prove that, but we know it through scriptures that come through Messengers.

I never said the knowing causes anything to happen. I am saying that if it is even possible for anyone or anything to know what is going to happen, everything must automatically be predestined. There doesn't need to be any causal link between the two concepts but there is an unavoidable logical link between them.

You might have a point there. On the other hand, just because God knows what will happen that does not mean it is written in stone, because what God knows will happen can change according to what humans choose to do. Of course, since God is All-Knowing, God knew it would change, but it did not change until we made the choice and changed what could have happened. If we are talking about fate and predestination, there are two kinds, according to my beliefs.

“Know thou, O fruit of My Tree, that the decrees of the Sovereign Ordainer, as related to fate and predestination, are of two kinds. Both are to be obeyed and accepted. The one is irrevocable, the other is, as termed by men, impending. To the former all must unreservedly submit, inasmuch as it is fixed and settled. God, however, is able to alter or repeal it. As the harm that must result from such a change will be greater than if the decree had remained unaltered, all, therefore, should willingly acquiesce in what God hath willed and confidently abide by the same.

The decree that is impending, however, is such that prayer and entreaty can succeed in averting it.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 133

Note that it says it “can succeed” not that it “will succeed.” What that amounts to is that we are completely at the mercy of God, even if we are unaware of that, so having free will does not mean that God will allow everything we choose to unfold. It might be thwarted by God if God overrides our free will; but of course there is no way we can ever know what God is doing behind the scenes. All we can do if we are believers is try to follow the teachings and laws of our religion and accept the Will of God, whatever it is. All a nonbeliever can do is follow his own conscience and act morally according to his own principles.

How can you know something is unknowable? Why couldn't it be knowable, but only in a particular manner we aren't (yet) aware of.

The way I know that is because it is written throughout the Writings of Baha’u’llah, but it is possible we might know more about God after we die and get closer to God in the spiritual world.

Again all-powerful. If God wanted to stop being God, he could. Any statement that begins "God cannot..." is automatically false in relation to an all-powerful god by simple definition.

No, logically speaking, God cannot stop being God because then God would no longer be God.
This subject comes up a lot so I just happened to post this to Penguin a while ago, and it explains what I believe about omnipotence:

God is omnipotent but that does not mean God can do anything. It means that God is All-Powerful.

Omnipotence means all-powerful. ... Being omnipotent, God has power over wind, water, gravity, physics, etc. God's power is infinite, or limitless. Omniscience means all-knowing. God is all all-knowing in the sense that he is aware of the past, present, and future.

Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent God: Definition ...

“Omnipotent” derives from the Latin omnis meaning “all” and potens or “powerful.” Omnipotent is not a word used in the Bible, but “almighty” appears in virtually every book of the Old Testament, often dozens of times. El Shaddai, a Hebrew name for God, evokes His omnipotence as the Almighty. El Shaddai means God most powerful or God Almighty. What Does it Mean that God Is Omnipotent?

Question: "What does it mean that God is omnipotent?"

Answer: The word omnipotent comes from omni- meaning “all” and potent meaning “power.” As with the attributes of omniscience and omnipresence, it follows that, if God is infinite, and if He is sovereign, which we know He is, then He must also be omnipotent. He has all power over all things at all times and in all ways. What does it mean that God is omnipotent? | GotQuestions.org

God cannot do what it is not within His nature to do. For example, God cannot be evil because God is by nature good. God cannot become flesh because God is by nature Spirit. If God became flesh, then God would no longer be God, He would be a man. As a man, God would no longer be exalted beyond anything that can ever be recounted or perceived, which is who God is.

So maybe you could say it is logically impossible for God to become evil or for God to become a man.

Here is another one I just thought of. If you think omnipotent means that God can do anything, then that would mean God could become weak. But if God became weak, then God would no longer be omnipotent. So you see, it is logically impossible for God to become weak and that means that God cannot literally – do anything.​

That's just more word games. That isn't the meaning of the word "know" that is commonly used in these discussions and it is unhelpful at best and dishonest at worst to intend that meaning without explaining.

Sorry about that, but I told you I thought you would catch it and then I would explain it so there was a method to my madness.

Everything we've discussed here is based on assessing your beliefs with "human" logic. If you're now declaring that the existence of God (the God you've also declared unknowable of course) is not bound by that logic, all discussion on the topic becomes pointless.

We can use logic to determine if the existence of God makes logical sense to us; what I meant is that God cannot be bound by what we think is logical, since God is infinite and cannot be bound by anything.

In other words, we cannot know what God can or cannot do according to fallible human logic, since God is immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived.

Beliefs aren't proven by definition, even to ourselves. That's just the lie we tell ourselves because the whole point of belief is that reality is usually scary and depressing.

So I guess you are saying that the only reason people even have religious beliefs is because the real world is scary and depressing. That is a valid point because that could be one reason some people have beliefs, but it is not logical to say that the only reason people have beliefs or that all people have beliefs for that reason. Moreover, even if beliefs do help people navigate the scary and depressing material world, people who do not have beliefs or take them seriously use other things to survive, things that distract them from reality such as alcohol, drugs, sex, consumerism, etc.

I do not believe that this world is the ultimate reality. This material world is real but by comparison to the spiritual world it is not real; it is just a shadow stretching out, a reflection of the true reality which is spiritual.

I understand your point about beliefs not being actually proven but I think we can prove them to ourselves. Proof is not only about having facts, it is about being certain something is true.

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

Logically, since a belief can be either true or false, we could be wrong about what we believe is true, but that can apply to anything in life. Life is full of risks and we cannot prove everything. When we get married we believe it will work out but it might not work out. When we take a new job we believe it will be better than the job we had but there is no guarantee. I believe when I leave for work I am not going to have an accident but then I had an accident on my bicycle and I sustained a leg injury. Luckily it was not worse but it has put a serious crimp in my lifestyle, so now along with all the other crimps I now have one more.

The upshot is that we have little control over anything in life, even if we think we do. As a believer I believe that God is in total control and that gives me a kind of assurance that whatever happens is God’s Will and it is for the best, but trusting in an Unseen God is not always easy to do. For most of my life as a believer, 49 years, I did not like God or trust God; it is only within the last seven years that I have begun to turn that ship around, but it still sails off in the wrong direction on occasion.

 

[Trailblazer]

I see no contradiction in the Messages given by each of God's Messengers.

There are no contradictions, just additions. A new chapter in a book does not contradict the previous chapters, it just adds onto them.

It is the believers who contradict each other because they do not understand what the Messengers said in the chapters, and they add onto it and embellish it.

 

[Trailblazer]

@ QuestioningMind

You might want to fix that last post #131 so it is clear what I said and what you said.
Apparently you got your brackets in the wrong place.

 

[Trailblazer]

Let's apply this logic to other proposed entities.
1. Magical pixies exist and communicate through messengers
2. Magical pixies exist and do not communicate
3. Magical pixies do not exist

1. Invisible dragons exist and communicate through messengers
2. Invisible dragons exist and do not communicate
3. Invisible dragons do not exist

In both of my examples I wouldn't waste a single second of my time wondering about questions 1 and 2 until I FIRST had some evidence that either magical pixies or invisible dragons even exist. Because I could spend my entire life pondering such questions about fantastical entities for which there is no evidence. FIRST I'd need evidence that magical pixie are real before I could waste my time wondering how they can or cannot communicate. The exact same hold true for your proposed god entity. Do you waste your time contemplating how magical pixies communicate? If not, why do you contemplate such questions about an unsubstantiated god claim?

I understand where YOU are coming from but the God claim has been substantiated for me by the Messenger so I am coming from a different point of view. I consider it completely unrealistic to have evidence of God other than the evidence God would provide, so to expect something other than Messengers is unrealistic. If your inability to believe that God sends Messengers means you cannot believe God exists, so be it.

Again, let's apply this argument to magical pixies. All-knowing and all-wise magical pixies would know the best way and since magical pixies do not use direct communication, that obviously isn't the best way. Moreover, humans do not get to determine how magical pixies are going to communicate with them.

I get your point but there is no way around it as I noted above.

Perhaps you need to look at what these men said. L. Ron Hubbard claims to have been contacted by the Eight Dynamic - also known as the Supreme Being.

They can claim anything they want to claim, but can they support that claim? Anyone who would believe that deserves what they get.

ONLY because your god CHOSE to create humans without the ability, when he easily COULD have. So your contention that it's IMPOSSIBLE for god to do so is not correct. The fact that god chose to create messages that he COULD communicate with proves as much.

God could have but God didn’t, and if God is All-Knowing God had to know what He was doing and the reasons for it. God could not correct that now unless He recreated humans.

Again, it's all about your contention that it's IMPOSSIBLE for god to have such communication.

It does not matter what could have been the case. It is impossible NOW, given the way humans were created.

Of COURSE scriptures are going to tell you as much. FALSE messengers as well as any true messenger that might exist is going to make such a claim. Just because L. Ron Hubbard has a book where he claims that the only ways to become whole is through 'auditing' does not make it true. You need a better means of determining if a 'messengers' claims are true, other than 'they claimed it in a book'.

Do you think I believe in Baha’u’llah just because He claimed to BE a Messenger? It would be circular reasoning to believe He was a Messenger of God just because He said so, but it is not circular reasoning because there is evidence that can be used to support His claim. Anyone can say that they are a Messenger of God but why would I believe them without a lot of evidence to back up that claim? The evidence I have might not be evidence to you but it is evidence to me.

Really? Then how do you explain the BILLIONS of people who have been fooled into believing in 'false' messengers? You're not under the impression that the vast majority of theists follow Baha’u’llah, are you?

First we need to establish something. Who ‘do you think’ are these BILLIONS of people who have been fooled into believing in 'false' messengers? Baha’is believe that all the people who follow any one of these Messengers are following a True Messenger: Abraham, Krishna, Moses, Zoroaster, Buddha, Christ, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha’u’llah.

Let's see... maybe so that the vast majority of his creations aren't clueless and in the dark?

If God created more than one God-man for every age to relay the messages to everyone that would be even more confusing than creating one Messenger, because then people would not know which Messenger to follow. And if they all had the same message, why would we need more than one?

84 percent of the world population has a faith
The reason that the vast majority of people are clueless and in the dark is because they cling tenaciously to the older Messengers and religions and they adamantly refuse to look at anything new that might contradict their precious beliefs. The reason why atheists are clueless and in the dark is because they do not like the idea of Messengers. The only way to get out of the dark is to read what Baha’u’llah wrote, that ALL the religions were revealed by God in successive stages, as mankind was ready for a new message.

If you say so. But THAT is NOT a message that I would be 'attracted to', and according to your logic, if I'm not 'attracted' to it then I'm welcome to ignore it. Which leads me to conclude that there ISN'T a message from any god, but rather people just deciding that god's message is whatever they find to be 'attractive'.

So you would not be attracted to it because you want to socialize with God?

I did not say you should ignore it just because you are not attracted to it. I only said that you should look at religions you might consider, not ALL the religions, because that would be impossible. I do not think that what you are attracted to should be the determinant of what you pick. I think you should decide according to what is actually the truth from God, whether you like it or not.

Yeah, that's kind of my point. It's impossible for god to have a message that you don't find attractive, because if you find the message that god's messenger has to be unappealing then you just conclude that it's from a 'false' messenger.

No, that is not true, because I do not go by what is appealing, I go by what is logical and makes sense. It is really easy to know which ones are false just by looking at their lives and their writings, but I already have a set of criteria to go by so maybe that is why I can tell which ones are obviously false.

For example, it might be more appealing for me to be a Christian because they say you are saved and forgiven and that you can have a personal relationship with God through Jesus, but since that is illogical and makes no sense to me I could never be a Christian.

This means that it's not possible for god to EVER have expectations for anyone that they don't happen to like. Which explains why there are so very many different religions. Everyone starts off imagining what they would find appealing in a god and magically THAT'S exactly what god turns out to be.

That might be what happens if people pick a new religion in adulthood, but normally what happens is that people are raised in a certain religion and they continue to adhere to it in adulthood.

God does have expectations that they will look for the true religion rather than just following status quo because they like it.

As for the prophecies', I m sure we've had this discussion before. But as I recall when I asked for specifics... that is a prophecy that is specific enough that it can only have one interpretation and something that isn't just an accurate prediction that someone made, you failed to provide any examples. So please, if you have a prophecy that you think isn't so vague that it could mean virtually anything and that isn't just the same as an accurate prediction, I'd love to hear it.

You are talking about predictions Baha’u’llah made, but I was talking about prophecies that were fulfilled by the coming of Baha’u’llah. These are two different animals.

Baha’u’llah did not make predictions in order to prove He was a Messenger of God. He made them because He was a Messenger of God so He could SEE into the future. He also made these predictions to warn the kings and rulers and the religious leaders what would happen if they did not heed His call and all that came to pass.

In this book is a list of 30 specific things Baha’u’llah knew and things He predicted that later came to pass and it explains how they came to pass: The Challenge of Baha'u'llah