Can god

[rational experiences]

The old testimonials were about man who caused sin against man self as theist scientist.

Pyramid temple technology machines and reactions are not God.

Status

So men had to write about their brothers in science cause.

Old testimonies machines pyramids blew up. Evidence temple stone step melted. Pyramids toppled.

Origin sun by mass radiation of earth converting had formed the dusts. Men were converting minerals chemicals nuclear dusts. Machine attacked. Sun had melted earths crystalline facure. Steps melted.

Proof science caused two different conditions.

Now imagine if you were standing on earth and a sink hole opened beneath your feet. Science caused that event.

If you were standing on the earth what would have occurred to your bio life? Seeing wood trees oxygenated your life asides from water owning oxygen naturally in science thesis.

Humans not being water mass lived by tree oxygenation not a science thesis of stages of forms in mass creation histories.

A status you never thought about! Oh that is right you said hearing the voice again the same voice I heard with visions to invent build science heard when the bushes burnt.

Ignored taught advice.

Man proved he invented cause of combustion in nature. Knew he did. As cosmic law owned the event to convert itself natural history when no nature existed.

No man owned any cosmic law.

So when they attacked life again in the Jesus review the wise men who told them not to do science of the pyramid again. Which they ignored. Were angry.

Hence even though new testimonies were written as they were told not to rebuild it ....the new testimonies were not reverenced in life.

Only the agreed causes were witnessed again. Man caused.

Pretty obvious why.

So when Rome got burnt by rebuilding temple after Jesus event the Vatican rich poor man Jesus believer built their own city.

Only those who served and were virgins were allowed. No murderers criminals wh ores or homosexuals were allowed in their holy order.

Seemingly you forget human pass laws in human society by choices.

Their own vow. The view taken to honour all they realised was wrong. On a non radiating rock status.

To bare children in the irradiation of life was for babies to be born mutated.

So the vow of chastity owned a teaching of being considered owning self control. Sex was taught as the sin of choice.

Ignored as relevant social advice. As irradiated behaviours in society is real. It emerged itself. And humans chose to separate themselves from the social changes.

The church founding proves what it emerged into is not origin choice.

The Baha'i honoured the Roman teaching as it was still about life's records historic and holiness. Which was why the conflict arose regarding the new teaching.

Jesus event had to be accepted as man chose to use science against his own better judgements.

Whether listening and heeding was chosen or not it was about causes and our future as the importance of the human teaching.

The Mohammad teaching said the asteroid was the saviour of life on earth. To then realise it was Ice historic that owned snap freeze of form as cosmic law.

Why Jesus teachings were supported advice. As if the information was advised and heeded originally Moses as an event would not have occurred.

Hence they accepted the evaluation ice snap freeze highest cosmic law position of water and earths saving.

In fusion.

 

[Nimos]

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.

Imagine Person A's fate is to be run over by Person B on street and die as a result. Then it doesn't matter what Person A or B does, whether they think they have free will to do what they want, because at that specific time the fate of both of them has to come to true, they will both be at the street so the fate can happen.

So neither of them had free will, its not like Person A could have decided to travel on vacation and Person B just wanted to watch Netflix at the time. If that was possible, then it was not their fate to be on the street at that specific time and therefore saying that it was their fate is pointless and can't be true. You agree with that?

Either they would have been "forced" to be on that place at the time the fate should come true and not have free will. Or they weren't fated to be at that place, because they had free will and therefore such thing as fate can't be true. You can't have both things.

If we take the Hitler / Jew example, neither of them can have free will, because they are connected. Just using some made of ages.

Hitler is 45 years old when he order the Jews to the concentration camps.

Jew A is 75 years old at the time they are killed in the concentration camp, which obviously mean that they were born before Hitler were, so their fate were decided before Hitler was even born along side every other Jew that were going to die as a result of this.

Hitler is born and his fate WILL have to be, to order the killing of all these Jews that were born before him. Otherwise, we can't say that the fate of these Jews were to get killed by Hitler. Hitler in return is forced to kill the Jews, because their fate is already decided and therefore his fate is decided as well. Neither the Jews or Hitler would have had free will in that case. It is simply not possible, if you want this to be even remotely logical consistent.

Do you see how this is impossible to be true, from a logical point of view?

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.

How do you know that they didn't? And that they didn't just reach the same conclusion as the billion of other people that don't think Baha'u'llah is a messenger of God either?

That hardly anyone knew of him, can only be either his own fault, or that of God for not giving his messengers the tools they need to spread his message. If the message from Baha'u'llah or God, were compelling enough, people would be convinced, its that simple.

And I know that you defend this through free will, but again, you can't blame anyone other than God for this if he have created this whole setup in such way that he is only capable of giving us vague and unclear guidance, that the majority is not convinced by, then clearly his approach or idea behind this is flawed.

You are not convinced by bible being true yet lots of people would claim that as a result of that, you are going to burn in hell for not accepting what it say and that Jesus were the son of God. Do you think it is fair for them to say that it is your own fault? or do you think that you are in your good right to disagree with them, because what they say is not compelling enough?

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.

It is completely irrelevant when it was written and by whom.

I could write something right here and now, and despite you knowing that I wrote it and even being able to ask me questions about it. It could still be wrong. Even the brightest scientist in the world could write something that ain't true. That is why it doesn't matter who or when something were written, the claims being made is what is important.

You have lots of people as we speak that both follow and think they are connected with God, or that they are the new Messiah etc. That doesn't make it true, unless they can demonstrate that their claims are true. And it is no different for Baha'u'llah, Jesus or Muhammad.

That is why we use skepticism as a method of dealing with claims.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

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. .........

Of course you, nor anyone else, has seen anyone resurrected in this life.
The Bible teaches that resurrection is future. Please notice the ' future tense' is used at Acts of the Apostles 24:15.
There ' is going to be' a resurrection...... Not was nor now but in the future.

To me this life ' as it is now ' is described at 2 Timothy 3:1-5,13.
We are in the last days of badness on Earth before Jesus will come to the rescue - Revelation 22:2,20
In other words, " A Better World Is Near "
Humble meek people will inherit the Earth as just Jesus' promised at Matthew 5:5 from Psalms 37:9-11.
The ' sword-like executional words from Jesus' mouth ' will rid the Earth of the wicked:
- see Isaiah 11:3-4; Revelation 19:14-15; Psalms 92:7; Psalms 104:35; Proverbs 2:21-22

 

[Jacob Samuelson]

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.

What I am saying is God maintains his omnipotence, not because he can't lie. To say he has no capability of evil is faulty. God chooses just as any person can choose to do good or evil. Otherwise, He is merely a machine that automatically does good because of some programming. The scriptures are to define His character not His abilities. Howbeit because he chooses good he maintains His Godship by definition. Hope that makes sense.