Can god

[Nimos]

I’ve never belonged to a religion that taught me that everything bad is a punishment from God. I have no reason to believe all bad things are punishments from God. I believe in a loving God, not an angry one.

The wrath of God, as mentioned in the scripture, refers to eternal life, not this life. The scripture doesn’t tell us what exactly “wrath” means, or how it will be applied.

Don't get me wrong, I fully understand that. Also why I think one has to look at it in context. I think one is going to run into a lot of issues with scriptures assuming that God is purely all loving. Because God do not treat everyone equally, a lot of people is killed as a result of what God command. Whether that is the Israelites or their enemies and obviously these are killed due to different reasons as well.

That the verse doesn't refer to this life, doesn't really make a lot of sense to me from a logical point of view.

John 3:36
36 - Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

It doesn't make sense for John to say this, if you are already standing at the gates of heaven so to speak. Because at that point everyone would be a believer, even the most hardcore atheists would have to admit that God is real So if one could simply at that point say "Oooh.. I see, well sure I believe in Jesus" and then they are saved. Then no one ought to follow the scriptures, because it doesn't matter as you can always believe in the Son when the time comes. At least I would argue that atheists are definitely favored by God in that case as we obviously can live our whole life, not having to worry about God and then just "sneak" in when the time comes. Having read the bible, I do not get the impression that this is how it works.

Also I think you would agree that we have a clear distinction in the verse.

1. Those that believe
2. Those that don't believe

One group is promised one thing, and we can probably agree that eternal life, is considered good. The other group gets something else, in the form of wrath, which under normal conditions usually doesn't refer to something positive.

So I think one might be slightly ignorant, if they understand that as potentially being good. Especially because its also mentioned that they shall see no life, but wrath.

A quick search in the bible of how wrath is used, also kind of give us some clues:

Romans 1:18-20
18 - For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
19 - For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
20 - For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

Nahum 1:2
2 - The LORD is a jealous and avenging God; the LORD is avenging and wrathful; the LORD takes vengeance on his adversaries and keeps wrath for his enemies.

Revelation 20:15
15 - And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

The book of life is basically where God keep the names of everyone that should be saved.

So personally I don't think wrath refer to a slap on the hand and being told never to do it again.

 

[Revoltingest]

I've heard of a sun god, a rain god, but never a can god.

 

[viole]

Can God say, think, or do things that are not literally written in the bible and how do you know how he feels, says, and thinks that's not literally written and translated and interpreted?

Edit
For example, how do you know God told you to "Not cross that street" and you did and almost got hit by a car?

Since He is supposed to be omnipotent, I suppose He can.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Firelight]

That the verse doesn't refer to this life, doesn't really make a lot of sense to me from a logical point of view.

John 3:36
36 - Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

The verse says “eternal life,” which, based on my understanding, is not this life. This life on earth is not eternal. This is why I believe it refers to a life hereafter. It is ok if you understand it differently. I’m not claiming to be 100% correct.

1. Those that believe
2. Those that don't believe

One group is promised one thing, and we can probably agree that eternal life, is considered good. The other group gets something else, in the form of wrath, which under normal conditions usually doesn't refer to something positive.

Yes, i think we agree on this.

 

[Nimos]

The verse says “eternal life,” which, based on my understanding, is not this life. This life on earth is not eternal. This is why I believe it refers to a life hereafter. It is ok if you understand it differently. I’m not claiming to be 100% correct.

But do you believe that whatever this eternal life is, is separately from this life? Meaning that nothing from this life is caring on, such as memories etc.?

If you do, what would be the point of adding it to the bible, if it has nothing to do with this life?

 

[Trailblazer]

So isn't it irrelevant to even talk about different types of fates, meaning we might as well say that all of them are impending fates, and whenever God decide not to intervene, that is just it?

That is a logical way to look at it, whatever will be our fate will be our fate, but the reason it is good to know that there is an irrevocable fate and an impending fate is so we will understand why irrevocable fates are never altered and that impending fates can be altered by prayer and entreaty, at God's discretion.

Since you agree with logic of this, how come this doesn't apply to religious beliefs as well?

A = "That's right, I don't have any way of determining whether or not God is intervening or not."

B = "The primary way that God intervenes in this world is by sending Messengers."
C = "It is not known, if the primary way that God intervenes in this world is by sending Messengers."

Assuming that (A) is true, so God exist etc. but we have no way of determining whether he intervene or not. And B and C is the only possible results we limit ourselves to. Isn't it then just as likely that God did not intervene through the messengers as him doing so?

(A) is within a certain context, that context being that aside from Messengers, there is no way we can know if God is intervening or not (e.g. Intervening to answer a prayer or stop an earthquake from happening).

But you are right, there is no way we can know if God is intervening by sending Messengers since we can never prove that as a fact, so (B) and (C) are both equally likely to be true.

I believe that there are three mutually exclusive logical possibilities, given what we see in this world:

1. God exists and communicates to humans via Messengers who act as Mediators between God and man, or
2. God exists and does not communicate to humans at all, or
3. God does not exist

If 1 is true, then God would expect people to recognize His Messengers and hold humans accountable for believing in that He exists.

If 2 is true, God should not expect people to believe that He exists so God should not hold humans accountable for believing that He exists. (I say that because there would be no evidence that God exists were it not for the Messengers of God.)

If 3 is true, then the whole idea of God is a moot point.

The evil part was simply to give another reason for something being off with the baby.

What I don't get, is how it can ever be the best possible outcome for the parents and the baby to kill it and put the parents through such suffering. If God so easily could prevent it.

Why an all-powerful God who could prevent the a baby from dying instead allows a baby to die putting the parents through so much suffering is a theological question that nobody can answer.

Why does God allow any suffering? Some religious people believe they have the answer but I don't agree with their vacuous answer, that suffering is good for people. I think that sometimes suffering is good for people, but not necessarily and not always. That is just a vain attempt to get God off the hook for all the suffering in the world that is not the result of anything humans did to deserve it. Ultimately, there is no way to know why God allows so much suffering although I believe we will know after we die and realize how it might have benefited us.

God didn't get rid of Hitler as a baby, which one would assume would have made for a great candidate for this. So we are to believe that, whatever Hitler did, God thought that this were better than any other alternatives?

If that is the case, then clearly killing, murdering and executing people in huge numbers doesn't qualify as something God finds particularly bad, compared to whatever Hitler would have done, had God intervened?

We can never know what God is thinking so we cannot know if God thought that allowing Hitler to do what he did was better than any other alternatives. We also cannot know that killing, murdering and executing people in huge numbers isn't something God finds particularly bad. In short, we cannot know why God allowed Hitler to proceed instead of intervening and we cannot say that it was what God wanted to happen. I believe that because humans have free will and God honors free will choices that is why God did not intervene to stop Hitler.

It is interesting to note that Baha'u'llah warned the kings of rulers of His age what would happen if they rejected Him and His message, and everything He warned about came to pass just as He had predicted. That includes WWI and WWII, which he clearly predicted (see Tablet below).

Excerpts from the Tablet to Napoleon III:

“Give ear, O King, unto the Voice that calleth from the Fire which burneth in this verdant Tree, on this Sinai which hath been raised above the hallowed and snow-white Spot, beyond the Everlasting City: ‘Verily, there is none other God but Me, the Ever-Forgiving, the Most Merciful!’ ……. Arise thou to serve God and help His Cause. He, verily, will assist thee with the hosts of the seen and unseen, and will set thee king over all that whereon the sun riseth. Thy Lord, in truth, is the All-Powerful, the Almighty......

Ere long the world and all that thou possessest will perish, and the kingdom will remain unto God, thy Lord and the Lord of thy fathers of old. It behoveth thee not to conduct thine affairs according to the dictates of thy desires. Fear the sighs of this Wronged One, and shield Him from the darts of such as act unjustly.

For what thou hast done, thy kingdom shall be thrown into confusion, and thine empire shall pass from thine hands, as a punishment for that which thou hast wrought. Then wilt thou know how thou hast plainly erred. Commotions shall seize all the people in that land, unless thou arisest to help this Cause, and followest Him Who is the Spirit of God (Jesus Christ) in this, the Straight Path. Hath thy pomp made thee proud? By My Life! It shall not endure; nay, it shall soon pass away, unless thou holdest fast by this firm Cord. We see abasement hastening after thee, whilst thou art of the heedless. It behoveth thee when thou hearest His Voice calling from the seat of glory to cast away all that thou possessest, and cry out: ‘Here am I, O Lord of all that is in heaven and all that is on earth!’”
Proclamation of Baha'u'llah, pp. 18-20

That Tablet was written in 1869 when Napoleon was at the height of His glory. In 1870, Napoleon III fell in battle:

In July 1870, Napoleon entered the Franco-Prussian War without allies and with inferior military forces. The French army was rapidly defeated and Napoleon III was captured at the Battle of Sedan.

Napoleon III - Wikipedia

EVERYTHING that Baha’u’llah predicted came to pass. All those who rejected His Tablets fell from power just as He had warned them would happen. Those who persecuted Him and exiled and banished Him met with an ever sorrier fate. This is all history so it cannot be refuted. The only monarch He addressed that did not fall from power was Queen Victoria, because she did not reject Baha’u’llah:

Queen Victoria, upon reading the Tablet revealed for her by Baha'u'llah, remarked: "If this is of God, it will endure; if not, it can do no harm." (pdc 65) (18:49)

From: 2nd Coming of Christ by David Yamartino

Baha’u’llah also foresaw WWI and WWII in His Tablet to Kaiser Wilhelm I.

“O KING of Berlin! Give ear unto the Voice calling from this manifest Temple: Verily, there is none other God but Me, the Everlasting, the Peerless, the Ancient of Days. Take heed lest pride debar thee from recognizing the Dayspring of Divine Revelation, lest earthly desires shut thee out, as by a veil, from the Lord of the Throne above and of the earth below. Thus counselleth thee the Pen of the Most High. He, verily, is the Most Gracious, the All-Bountiful. Do thou remember the one whose power transcended thy power (Napoleon III), and whose station excelled thy station. Where is he? Whither are gone the things he possessed? Take warning, and be not of them that are fast asleep. He it was who cast the Tablet of God behind him, when We made known unto him what the hosts of tyranny had caused Us to suffer. Wherefore, disgrace assailed him from all sides, and he went down to dust in great loss. Think deeply, O King, concerning him, and concerning them who, like unto thee, have conquered cities and ruled over men. The All-Merciful brought them down from their palaces to their graves.Be warned, be of them who reflect… O banks of the Rhine! We have seen you covered with gore, inasmuch as the swords of retribution were drawn against you; and you shall have another turn. And We hear the lamentations of Berlin, though she be today in conspicuous glory.”
Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p, 39

 

[Firelight]

But do you believe that whatever this eternal life is, is separately from this life? Meaning that nothing from this life is caring on, such as memories etc.?

If you do, what would be the point of adding it to the bible, if it has nothing to do with this life?

Why would you ask this when I previously stated that faith and obedience in this life determines whether we get eternal life or wrath?

 

[Nimos]

That is a logical way to look at it, whatever will be our fate will be our fate, but the reason it is good to know that there is an irrevocable fate and an impending fate is so we will understand why irrevocable fates are never altered and that impending fates can be altered by prayer and entreaty, at God's discretion.

I don't get that, its simply to complicate something for no good reason. Because it doesn't matter when we can't tell the difference, so assuming that they are always impending and just ignoring the irrevocable idea is the only reasonable thing to do. It only seem to function as an excuse to defend God, so whenever a person pray and things still go to hell, you can excuse it with it being an irrevocable fate. But the truth is that we can't tell the difference so it might as well be that God didn't care.

If 1 is true, then God would expect people to recognize His Messengers and hold humans accountable for believing in that He exists.

But this is clearly a huge flaw in God's approach then. Because first of all we can't established whether this is even true to begin with. So God expecting us to be able to recognize them have clearly failed.

If 2 is true, God should not expect people to believe that He exists so God should not hold humans accountable for believing that He exists. (I say that because there would be no evidence that God exists were it not for the Messengers of God.)

If this is true, God is irrelevant.

We can never know what God is thinking so we cannot know if God thought that allowing Hitler to do what he did was better than any other alternatives. We also cannot know that killing, murdering and executing people in huge numbers isn't something God finds particularly bad. In short, we cannot know why God allowed Hitler to proceed instead of intervening and we cannot say that it was what God wanted to happen. I believe that because humans have free will and God honors free will choices that is why God did not intervene to stop Hitler.

But this clearly wouldn't work with fate as we have been talking about. If God won't kill Hitler due to free will, then surely he wouldn't interfere with the death of babies either. Therefore the idea of fate is impossible, because fate will interfere with free will, so you can't have both.

If its your fate to die in three days in a car crash. First of all you wouldn't be aware of it, which means that knowing about impending fates is pointless, because you don't know what fate is waiting for you at what point, meaning you will never be prepared for it, so you won't be able to pray. If it's something that you can anticipate, like being sick and hope you will be cured etc. then you can, but that is only half of the puzzle, so to speak. Secondly, if it is your fate to die in that car crash, fate will interfere with your free will, because you will end up in the car crash in three days, otherwise it is wrong to say that it is your fate.

It is interesting to note that Baha'u'llah warned the kings of rulers of His age what would happen if they rejected Him and His message, and everything He warned about came to pass just as He had predicted. That includes WWI and WWII, which he clearly predicted (see Tablet below).

If we assume that Baha'u'llah actually did warn about WWI and WWII and it still happened, meaning God allowed it to happen, because humans obviously failed and still fail to recognize his Messengers, how can that ever be humans fault? It seems more like God is punishing people in that case, and honestly make God more of a monster for not giving us a more clear warning or pull his **** together and come down here himself, he did it before so clearly he should be able to do it again. I don't see how this could be seen any other way than God being incompetent?

For all the other predictions, why didn't God simply contact Napoleon instead, for instance? This whole setup that God has going, makes absolutely no sense. And it really doesn't help in regards to convincing anyone.

Surely you can see the issue here. As you have said before, we can't know for certain if the Messenger are truly who they say. Me or you, haven't had any personal experience or direct communication with God, so to be honest we have been played a pretty damn bad hand to work with, wouldn't you agree?

If that is how much God cares about us, why should we care about him, even if he exist. Can you give me one good reason why we should?

 

[Nimos]

Why would you ask this when I previously stated that faith and obedience in this life determines whether we get eternal life or wrath?

Fair enough, maybe I just got confused.

 

[rational experiences]

I’ve never belonged to a religion that taught me that everything bad is a punishment from God. I have no reason to believe all bad things are punishments from God. I believe in a loving God, not an angry one.

The wrath of God, as mentioned in the scripture, refers to eternal life, not this life. The scripture doesn’t tell us what exactly “wrath” means, or how it will be applied.




The verse says both “obey” and “believe.” They go together. I don’t think anyone would be following/obeying the commandments of Jesus if they didn’t believe in him. The scripture verse says whoever don’t obey Jesus, then wrath will be upon him. Again, this is referring to eternal life, not this life and we don’t know exactly what is meant by “wrath” or how it will be upon someone.

This life is the time to build and strengthen one’s faith and belief in Jesus. Also, to learn his commandments and to do our best to obey them. We have free will to choose, but our choices will determine the consequences in eternal life.

If you don't believe that science sacrificed man's life by man's caused sin. Jesus was the teaching. Remembering it was a teaching. Then the wrath of God will destroy you.

How a theist who only wanted to be personally the eternal being not human first....killed us off.

A teaching of relative observation.

Theism a natural human first thinking about states and conditions they want to manipulate.

The scientist.

Conscious human says I want the eternal.

The eternal never was in creation. Separation from the eternal was in creation.

Why the teaching is self relative.

Science proven wrong man's evil sin.

Now if you think. I state the teaching.

A human says God gave me dominion over all things as two equal humans.

Both a creator human. Not a God a human creator by sex.

So you take over the creator function.

Then after science you said the creator said by sex was sin as babies are now mutated.

Yet science cause owned that sin. God never did it artificial science had designer.

How evil is a human....by their thoughts and subject of intent.

 

[rational experiences]

I don't get that, its simply to complicate something for no good reason. Because it doesn't matter when we can't tell the difference, so assuming that they are always impending and just ignoring the irrevocable idea is the only reasonable thing to do. It only seem to function as an excuse to defend God, so whenever a person pray and things still go to hell, you can excuse it with it being an irrevocable fate. But the truth is that we can't tell the difference so it might as well be that God didn't care.


But this is clearly a huge flaw in God's approach then. Because first of all we can't established whether this is even true to begin with. So God expecting us to be able to recognize them have clearly failed.


If this is true, God is irrelevant.


But this clearly wouldn't work with fate as we have been talking about. If God won't kill Hitler due to free will, then surely he wouldn't interfere with the death of babies either. Therefore the idea of fate is impossible, because fate will interfere with free will, so you can't have both.

If its your fate to die in three days in a car crash. First of all you wouldn't be aware of it, which means that knowing about impending fates is pointless, because you don't know what fate is waiting for you at what point, meaning you will never be prepared for it, so you won't be able to pray. If it's something that you can anticipate, like being sick and hope you will be cured etc. then you can, but that is only half of the puzzle, so to speak. Secondly, if it is your fate to die in that car crash, fate will interfere with your free will, because you will end up in the car crash in three days, otherwise it is wrong to say that it is your fate.


If we assume that Baha'u'llah actually did warn about WWI and WWII and it still happened, meaning God allowed it to happen, because humans obviously failed and still fail to recognize his Messengers, how can that ever be humans fault? It seems more like God is punishing people in that case, and honestly make God more of a monster for not giving us a more clear warning or pull his **** together and come down here himself, he did it before so clearly he should be able to do it again. I don't see how this could be seen any other way than God being incompetent?

For all the other predictions, why didn't God simply contact Napoleon instead, for instance? This whole setup that God has going, makes absolutely no sense. And it really doesn't help in regards to convincing anyone.

Surely you can see the issue here. As you have said before, we can't know for certain if the Messenger are truly who they say. Me or you, haven't had any personal experience or direct communication with God, so to be honest we have been played a pretty damn bad hand to work with, wouldn't you agree?

If that is how much God cares about us, why should we care about him, even if he exist. Can you give me one good reason why we should?

The God message.....

A human has to be living and be a theist.

Scientist takes human thinking into AI designer moment. AI doesn't exist first. Natural spiritual human is first.

Builds design machines that don't exist. Owns by man's thought control of machine. Still no identified God purpose. Then man puts into machine of gods body what he wants attacked changed.

Theist gets AI human caused feedback that gives him messages.

He is not the message he is just a human. Yet he has to be a spiritual human as spiritual innocent man was the first scientist.

Message owns lots of destructive ideals which a spiritual human in natural life never knew. Scientist caused. Then understands why the message about change is important to his family who he loves.

So he warns them in the too late moment as it already occurred.

Hence they said if I am taught then this information is predictive. Hence if I change my human life choices I can waylay the attack in the future.

Science a human choice was chosen says I want to act upon my choice it is my will.

Gods will versus man's will then discussed and a teaching was given about man's greed and destroyer men..tally....mentality.

Gods will already destroyed naturally in reactive heavens reactive earth. Man scientist was not intelligent is his thesis.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

This is a paradox statement. Because God is able to lie, maintaining his omnipotence however, by so doing He will immediately cease to be God. So the action in itself can be done but the affect of the action completely changes who is performing the action. God cannot lie defines His Character not his ability.

God is Not a mere man who tells lies - Numbers 23:19
Whereas, at Hebrews 6:13-18 which says it is impossible for God to lie.
Thus, God can't lie, so God can't cease to be God.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The verse says “eternal life,” which, based on my understanding, is not this life. This life on earth is not eternal. This is why I believe it refers to a life hereafter...............

I find originally with Adam and Eve they were only offered eternal life right here on Earth.
So, when Jesus spoke of humble meek people inheriting the Earth - see Psalms 37:9-11; Matthew 5:5 - Jesus was speaking about the wicked being gone forever but the upright people remaining here on Earth.- Proverbs 2:21-22
'life hereafter' or ' after life ' teaches being more alive after death than before death.
If that was the case there would be No need for a resurrection because the living don't need a resurrection.
ALL the resurrections Jesus performed were healthy physical resurrections back to life on Earth.
Thus, Jesus was giving us a preview, a coming attraction of what earthly resurrections Jesus will be performing during his coming 1,000-year reign over Earth.
Please notice 1 Corinthians 15:24-26 because Jesus will bring an end to ' enemy death ' right here on Earth - Isaiah 25:8

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't get that, its simply to complicate something for no good reason. Because it doesn't matter when we can't tell the difference, so assuming that they are always impending and just ignoring the irrevocable idea is the only reasonable thing to do. It only seem to function as an excuse to defend God, so whenever a person pray and things still go to hell, you can excuse it with it being an irrevocable fate. But the truth is that we can't tell the difference so it might as well be that God didn't care.

Whenever a person prays and things still go to hell it could have been an impending fate or an irrevocable fate but the truth is that we can't tell the difference. It does not mean that God does not care, it only means that God chose not to change our fate because it would have caused more harm than good.

But this is clearly a huge flaw in God's approach then. Because first of all we can't established whether this is even true to begin with. So God expecting us to be able to recognize them have clearly failed.

We cannot establish as a fact that Messengers of God exist, but that does not mean that they do not exist.
We can prove to ourselves that a Messenger of God was a Messenger of God if we do our due diligence.

If this is true, God is irrelevant.

God would still be relevant if He created and is maintaining the universe, even if God is not a personal God who communicates to humans.

But this clearly wouldn't work with fate as we have been talking about. If God won't kill Hitler due to free will, then surely he wouldn't interfere with the death of babies either. Therefore the idea of fate is impossible, because fate will interfere with free will, so you can't have both.

Fate does not interfere with free will because what God has predestined (fated) is not subject to free will since it is not something that we chose, so it is outside our control unless it is an impending fate and God answers our prayers and answers them.

There is a difference between stopping Hitler and helping babies as a result of prayers the parents said. Stopping Hitler would interfere with His free will choice to do what he did but helping babies does not interfere with anyone's free will choices.

If its your fate to die in three days in a car crash. First of all you wouldn't be aware of it, which means that knowing about impending fates is pointless, because you don't know what fate is waiting for you at what point, meaning you will never be prepared for it, so you won't be able to pray. If it's something that you can anticipate, like being sick and hope you will be cured etc. then you can, but that is only half of the puzzle, so to speak. Secondly, if it is your fate to die in that car crash, fate will interfere with your free will, because you will end up in the car crash in three days, otherwise it is wrong to say that it is your fate.

That's right. If we do not know what is going to happen, such as a car crash, we cannot pray and alter our fate so in that case it is is a moot point whether it was impending or irrevocable fate. A car crash is not freely chosen so free will is never involved, only fate is involved. However, that is different from something we know about; if we are sick and want to be cured we can pray with the hope of being cured. That is why (as I think you said before) it would be wise to always pray for things we know might happen if we want to avert them; e.g., we are sick and might get sicker or even die.

If we assume that Baha'u'llah actually did warn about WWI and WWII and it still happened, meaning God allowed it to happen, because humans obviously failed and still fail to recognize his Messengers, how can that ever be humans fault?

Clearly, it is human's fault for not recognizing Baha'u'llah because humans have free will to choose.

It seems more like God is punishing people in that case, and honestly make God more of a monster for not giving us a more clear warning or pull his **** together and come down here himself, he did it before so clearly he should be able to do it again. I don't see how this could be seen any other way than God being incompetent?

The clear warning that a Messenger would be sent (i.e., Baha'u'llah) is all throughout the Bible since all the OT and NT prophecies point right to Baha'u'llah, and even the date can be determined using Bible prophecies. However, most religious people did not recognize Baha'u'llah and still don't because if they are Christians they are still waiting for the same man Jesus to return or if they are of another religion they are waiting for the Promised Messiah that is mentioned in their scriptures to come, a Messiah they imagine is coming based upon the misinterpretation of their scriptures.

When do you think God came down before?

For all the other predictions, why didn't God simply contact Napoleon instead, for instance? This whole setup that God has going, makes absolutely no sense. And it really doesn't help in regards to convincing anyone.

God does not speak to any humans directly as He speaks to His Messengers. God set it up so he would only communicate with His Messengers and they would communicate to ordinary humans like us.

Surely you can see the issue here. As you have said before, we can't know for certain if the Messenger are truly who they say. Me or you, haven't had any personal experience or direct communication with God, so to be honest we have been played a pretty damn bad hand to work with, wouldn't you agree?

Yes, I see the issue here because it is not that easy to recognize the Messenger of God, especially during the first few centuries before more people start to recognize Him. What we now see happening with Baha'u'llah being obscure also happened to Jesus when He first walked the earth; only a few people recognized Jesus, and that is why Jesus said:

Matthew 7:13-14 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

If that is how much God cares about us, why should we care about him, even if he exist. Can you give me one good reason why we should?

One good reason we should care if God exists, the most important reason, is because God exists and cares about us, even if not everyone is aware of that. God is completely self-sufficient and self-sustaining and as such God needs nothing from humans, so we can logically deduce that anything we do get from God is only because God cares about us.

“Consider the mercy of God and His gifts. He enjoineth upon you that which shall profit you, though He Himself can well dispense with all creatures.” Gleanings, p. 140

“The one true God, exalted be His glory, hath wished nothing for Himself. The allegiance of mankind profiteth Him not, neither doth its perversity harm Him. The Bird of the Realm of Utterance voiceth continually this call: “All things have I willed for thee, and thee, too, for thine own sake.” Gleanings, p. 260

 

[Nimos]

We cannot establish as a fact that Messengers of God exist, but that does not mean that they do not exist.
We can prove to ourselves that a Messenger of God was a Messenger of God if we do our due diligence.

I think we have already talked a bit about this idea of "proving something to oneself" in another thread. And to me it not really how it works, to me there is only one truth, meaning either a Messenger is a Messenger of God or they are not, and this is true no matter what. There saying that one can prove something to oneself, doesn't really make sense.

God would still be relevant if He created and is maintaining the universe, even if God is not a personal God who communicates to humans.

What I mean with him being irrelevant is because it would be impossible to establish such truth. Equally I could say that, invisible demons are the reasons for everything bad in the world, despite that it might actually be the case, its irrelevant to live ones life as if that is the case, since its impossible to establish whether it is actually true. It makes no difference to ones life, whether you think these demons exist or you don't, the outcome will be the same and therefore it is irrelevant.

Fate does not interfere with free will because what God has predestined (fated) is not subject to free will since it is not something that we chose, so it is outside our control unless it is an impending fate and God answers our prayers and answers them.

There is a difference between stopping Hitler and helping babies as a result of prayers the parents said. Stopping Hitler would interfere with His free will choice to do what he did but helping babies does not interfere with anyone's free will choices.

Fate is usually something that is predestined to happen and outside our control and in many cases it must be connected to several people.

For instance, couldn't you argue that the Jews that died as a result of Hitler, were fated to die like that? Which means that God predestined their fate, which means that they had no free will in that regard, no matter what they had done in their life, they would end up dying the way the did, because God couldn't interfere with Hitler's free will? Which means that the Jews had no free will, their fate were already predestined.

I don't see how there is not going to be a conflict of interest here?

Clearly, it is human's fault for not recognizing Baha'u'llah because humans have free will to choose.

If I warn you now, that if you do not listen to what im saying and do as I tell you, because God told me and it is the truth. That it is your own fault if anything bad happens to you. Because you failed to recognize me speaking God's word. You don't see a problem with this? First of all, why should you believe me? secondly, if you do not demand very good evidence for what im saying, that you are very likely to simply be manipulated? Thirdly, that you are in your good right to be skeptical about anything im telling you, and that it can never be your fault, if God did not give you any good reason to believe that me?

The clear warning that a Messenger would be sent (i.e., Baha'u'llah) is all throughout the Bible since all the OT and NT prophecies point right to Baha'u'llah, and even the date can be determined using Bible prophecies. However, most religious people did not recognize Baha'u'llah and still don't because if they are Christians they are still waiting for the same man Jesus to return or if they are of another religion they are waiting for the Promised Messiah that is mentioned in their scriptures to come, a Messiah they imagine is coming based upon the misinterpretation of their scriptures.

When do you think God came down before?

When talking about the bible in this context and we are trying to figure out what is true about it and what is not, we have to able to establish what is true and what is not.

For instance, did Moses speak with God when he took shape as a burning bush?

If we accept that he did, then what reason do we have for not accepting that God walked in the Garden of Eden, which were located on Earth as the bible say he did?

Genesis 3:8-9
8 - And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.
9 - But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?”

What reason or by which criteria do we evaluate whether something in the bible is true or false? Did Lazarus raise from the dead? If you don't believe that is true, what reasoning did you use to establish that, when you might be willing to accept that Moses spoke with God?

That to me, seems to simply be someone selectively choosing what they want to believe rather than actually being able to provide a reason for why. So in regards to the supernatural claims made in the bible, how do one go about and determine which of them are true and which are not?

God does not speak to any humans directly as He speaks to His Messengers. God set it up so he would only communicate with His Messengers and they would communicate to ordinary humans like us.

Again, according to the bible God did speak to people and lots of them heard him speaking as well. Moses, Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Abraham, Noah, when Jesus is baptized, God spoke to all of those presence at the event, many of which were not messengers. God send angels as well speaking on his behalf etc.
So again, how do you reach the conclusion that these claims are false, but that the bible is right in regards to Jesus? Again according to the bible, God spoke when he was baptized.

 

[Truthseeker]

A car crash is not freely chosen so free will is never involved, only fate is involved.

A little flaw, just a little. If you drive badly and crash, in that case it is free will. When I stop to think of it there is the free will of the other driver.

It is hard sometimes to disentangle what is free will and what is fate maybe also. If you cross at an intersection a second or two earlier or later is that free will or fate?

 

[Trailblazer]

A little flaw, just a little. If you drive badly and crash, in that case it is free will. When I stop to think of it there is the free will of the other driver.

It is hard sometimes to disentangle what is free will and what is fate maybe also. If you cross at an intersection a second or two earlier or later is that free will or fate?

If you drive badly and crash I do not think that is free will because it was not a choice you made to crash. An accident is a misfortune, not something that is freely chosen. I am thinking of what Abdu'l-Baha said about free will.

“Some things are subject to the free will of man, such as justice, equity, tyranny and injustice, in other words, good and evil actions; it is evident and clear that these actions are, for the most part, left to the will of man. But there are certain things to which man is forced and compelled, such as sleep, death, sickness, decline of power, injuries and misfortunes; these are not subject to the will of man, and he is not responsible for them, for he is compelled to endure them. But in the choice of good and bad actions he is free, and he commits them according to his own will.” Some Answered Questions, p. 248

Man forced to endure them because God set it up that way by determining our fate.

 

[Firelight]

I find originally with Adam and Eve they were only offered eternal life right here on Earth.
So, when Jesus spoke of humble meek people inheriting the Earth - see Psalms 37:9-11; Matthew 5:5 - Jesus was speaking about the wicked being gone forever but the upright people remaining here on Earth.- Proverbs 2:21-22
'life hereafter' or ' after life ' teaches being more alive after death than before death.
If that was the case there would be No need for a resurrection because the living don't need a resurrection.
ALL the resurrections Jesus performed were healthy physical resurrections back to life on Earth.
Thus, Jesus was giving us a preview, a coming attraction of what earthly resurrections Jesus will be performing during his coming 1,000-year reign over Earth.
Please notice 1 Corinthians 15:24-26 because Jesus will bring an end to ' enemy death ' right here on Earth - Isaiah 25:8

I haven’t witnessed anyone being resurrected in this life. But, I have been to lots of funerals for dead people. The discussion had concerned this life as it is now.

Your comments don’t really fit in with the previous discussion and I have no idea where you are taking this new discussion.

 

[Truthseeker]

If you drive badly and crash I do not think that is free will because it was not a choice you made to crash. An accident is a misfortune, not something that is freely chosen.

I don't think that quote by 'Abdu'l-Baha covers this completely. It is free will to learn to learn to drive well. However, there are some crashes that are indeed beyond your control probably.

 

[Trailblazer]

I think we have already talked a bit about this idea of "proving something to oneself" in another thread. And to me it not really how it works, to me there is only one truth, meaning either a Messenger is a Messenger of God or they are not, and this is true no matter what. There saying that one can prove something to oneself, doesn't really make sense.

I agree that there is only one truth, meaning either a Messenger is a Messenger of God or they are not, and this is true no matter what. However, nobody can establish as a fact that an alleged Messenger of God is actually a Messenger of God, all we can do is prove to ourselves that a Messenger of God was a Messenger of God if we do our due diligence.

What I mean with him being irrelevant is because it would be impossible to establish such truth. Equally I could say that, invisible demons are the reasons for everything bad in the world, despite that it might actually be the case, its irrelevant to live ones life as if that is the case, since its impossible to establish whether it is actually true. It makes no difference to ones life, whether you think these demons exist or you don't, the outcome will be the same and therefore it is irrelevant.

Okay, I agree with that because even if it was true that God created and was maintaining the universe it would be impossible to establish any such truth about God or anything else about God if God never communicated to humanity.

Fate is usually something that is predestined to happen and outside our control and in many cases it must be connected to several people.

For instance, couldn't you argue that the Jews that died as a result of Hitler, were fated to die like that? Which means that God predestined their fate, which means that they had no free will in that regard, no matter what they had done in their life, they would end up dying the way the did, because God couldn't interfere with Hitler's free will? Which means that the Jews had no free will, their fate were already predestined.

I don't see how there is not going to be a conflict of interest here?

I believe that the Jews that died as a result of Hitler were fated to die like that, which means that God predestined their fate, which means that they had no free will in that regard. No matter what they had done in their life, they would end up dying the way the did, because that was their fate. Jews had free will but if they were forcibly taken to concentration camps then they had no ability to exercise their free will. Their fate was already predestined.

I don't see that as a conflict of interest, it is just that the fates of humans are interconnected so what Hitler did affected the fates of many millions of people.

If I warn you now, that if you do not listen to what im saying and do as I tell you, because God told me and it is the truth. That it is your own fault if anything bad happens to you. Because you failed to recognize me speaking God's word. You don't see a problem with this? First of all, why should you believe me? secondly, if you do not demand very good evidence for what im saying, that you are very likely to simply be manipulated? Thirdly, that you are in your good right to be skeptical about anything im telling you, and that it can never be your fault, if God did not give you any good reason to believe that me?

I said: "Clearly, it is human's fault for not recognizing Baha'u'llah because humans have free will to choose."
i meant that very generally speaking, and of course they should not have been expected to believe He was who He claimed to be without any evidence. There would have to be a very good reason to believe His claims as they were bold claims. But the thing is that the kings and rulers did not even investigate or look at the evidence, that just tossed His Tablets behind them. As for everyone else who rejected Baha'u'llah most have rejected Him without even looking at the evidence, although a fair amount of people never heard of Him and thus they are not accountable for recognizing Him.

When talking about the bible in this context and we are trying to figure out what is true about it and what is not, we have to able to establish what is true and what is not.

For instance, did Moses speak with God when he took shape as a burning bush?

If we accept that he did, then what reason do we have for not accepting that God walked in the Garden of Eden, which were located on Earth as the bible say he did?

Genesis 3:8-9
8 - And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.
9 - But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?”

What reason or by which criteria do we evaluate whether something in the bible is true or false? Did Lazarus raise from the dead? If you don't believe that is true, what reasoning did you use to establish that, when you might be willing to accept that Moses spoke with God?

That to me, seems to simply be someone selectively choosing what they want to believe rather than actually being able to provide a reason for why. So in regards to the supernatural claims made in the bible, how do one go about and determine which of them are true and which are not?

I do not think we can know what parts of the Bible are literally true and what parts are only figuratively true.
As a Baha'i, I go by what the Baha'i Writings say, so since they say that the bodily resurrection of Jesus did not literally happen that is what I believe.

23: THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST

I believe that the story of Adam and Eve is an allegory, not a true story. I believe that the story of Adam and Eve who ate from the tree, and their expulsion from Paradise is a symbol. The story contains divine mysteries and universal meanings, and it is capable of many explanations.

I believe that there was a real man called Adam and that He was the first Prophet of the Adamic Cycle of religion. I also believe we inherited the sins of Adam, but not because he ate an apple from a tree. This is how I believe the descendants of Adam inherited the sins of Adam:

The meaning of the serpent is attachment to the human world. This attachment of the spirit to the human world led the soul and spirit of Adam from the world of freedom to the world of bondage and caused Him to turn from the Kingdom of God to the human world. When the soul and spirit of Adam entered the human world, He came out from the paradise of freedom and fell into the world of bondage. From the height of purity and absolute goodness, He entered into the world of good and evil.

The full explanation of what I believe about the allegory is in this chapter: 30: ADAM AND EVE

do not believe much of the Bible stories are historically accurate but all Baha'is are free to have their own views on this.

Here are some Baha'i views of the Bible:

Introduction

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

Conclusion

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

A Baháí View of the Bible

Again, according to the bible God did speak to people and lots of them heard him speaking as well. Moses, Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Abraham, Noah, when Jesus is baptized, God spoke to all of those presence at the event, many of which were not messengers. God send angels as well speaking on his behalf etc.
So again, how do you reach the conclusion that these claims are false, but that the bible is right in regards to Jesus? Again according to the bible, God spoke when he was baptized.

I believe that God did speak to all the Messengers of God and prophets in the Bible, including Adam, Abraham, Moses, Noah, Jesus and others, but I have no reason to believe that God spoke to all of those presence at the event referred to in the Bible. The salient problem is that the Bible was written by men, unnamed authors, so it is only as accurate as it was recorded. It is not as if it was the actual words that these Messengers and prophets spoke because that would be logically impossible since thy did not actually write these scriptures. Such is not the case with the Writings of the Bab and Baha'u'llah who wrote their own scriptures, so we know exactly what they said. The Qur'an is also much more authentic than the Bible because it is the words Muhammad uttered which were either copied down or memorized by scribes and some of them are known.