Do you think that God should communicate directly to everyone in the world?

[Trailblazer]

Something occurred to me: @Trailblazer - let’s assume that God exists, wants to communicate with humans, and decides to use a “messenger” to do it; why would the “messenger” necessarily be human?

A Messenger is human but He is more than human. He has to have a human nature in order for humans to be able to understand Him, but He also has a divine nature. A Messenger of God is not an ordinary human; He is another order of creation. Only He can understand His divine nature because He His divine nature is beyond out level of comprehension. We can only comprehend his human nature. We can understand that he has a divine nature but we cannot understand about His divine nature.

“In His Tablet to Muḥammad Sháh the Báb, moreover, has revealed: “I am the Primal Point from which have been generated all created things. I am the Countenance of God Whose splendor can never be obscured, the Light of God Whose radiance can never fade…. All the keys of heaven God hath chosen to place on My right hand, and all the keys of hell on My left…. I am one of the sustaining pillars of the Primal Word of God. Whosoever hath recognized Me, hath known all that is true and right, and hath attained all that is good and seemly…. The substance wherewith God hath created Me is not the clay out of which others have been formed. He hath conferred upon Me that which the worldly-wise can never comprehend, nor the faithful discover…” The Promised Day Is Come, p. 43​

For instance, why wouldn’t God use angels? Abrahamic scriptures are full of stories of angels appearing before people to give them messages from God. From what I understand, Baha’is believe in angels too, right?

Baha’is believe there are angels in heaven and on earth, but angels are humans, just like you and me. This article explains what one Baha’i wrote believe about angels: Do You Believe in Angels?

... so why are you assuming that God’s “messengers” are necessarily human?

They are human, but they are more than human, as noted above.
If they did not have a human nature, how could they garner human followers and write down the messages from God?

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't understand your question. Happened to who? Where?

You said that the Hindu God isn't the Ruler of the universe, but Abrahamic religions teach that God is the Ruler of the Universe; so what happened between the time Hinduism was revealed and the time the first Abrahamic religion was revealed?

 

[Vinayaka]

You said that the Hindu God isn't the Ruler of the universe, but Abrahamic religions teach that God is the Ruler of the Universe; so what happened between the time Hinduism was revealed and the time the first Abrahamic religion was revealed?

Nothing happened. It's two different world views, two different paradigms. Sanatana Dharma has existed in it's multifaceted diversity for at least 8000 years. Abrahamics came along, and started a different world view, of which the Baha'i now share. In Hinduism, at least all of the monistic versions, God is, and the universe is an extension of God, not created by God. In the potter with clay analogy, in Abrahamic faiths, God is the potter. In Sanatana Dharma, He/She is the clay.

So it's not some linear succession of manifestations, each being wiser than the last, as Baha'i argue, but two separate philosophies that developed at different times, with both co-existing today. Baha'is would be well advised to study a bit more about ancient pre-Abrahamic faiths before making overly simplistic generalisations about all religions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is a good point. The reason I did not list it is because there is no "evidence" that God has ever communicated a full revelation that could be written down to anyone else except the Messengers who have established the major religions.

I’d argue y

A Messenger is human but He is more than human. He has to have a human nature in order for humans to be able to understand Him, but He also has a divine nature. A Messenger of God is not an ordinary human; He is another order of creation. Only He can understand His divine nature because He His divine nature is beyond out level of comprehension. We can only comprehend his human nature. We can understand that he has a divine nature but we cannot understand about His divine nature.

“In His Tablet to Muḥammad Sháh the Báb, moreover, has revealed: “I am the Primal Point from which have been generated all created things. I am the Countenance of God Whose splendor can never be obscured, the Light of God Whose radiance can never fade…. All the keys of heaven God hath chosen to place on My right hand, and all the keys of hell on My left…. I am one of the sustaining pillars of the Primal Word of God. Whosoever hath recognized Me, hath known all that is true and right, and hath attained all that is good and seemly…. The substance wherewith God hath created Me is not the clay out of which others have been formed. He hath conferred upon Me that which the worldly-wise can never comprehend, nor the faithful discover…” The Promised Day Is Come, p. 43​

Baha’is believe there are angels in heaven and on earth, but angels are humans, just like you and me. This article explains what one Baha’i wrote believe about angels: Do You Believe in Angels?

They are human, but they are more than human, as noted above.
If they did not have a human nature, how could they garner human followers and write down the messages from God?

You realize that you deflected my question, right?

 

[Vinayaka]

You realize that you deflected my question, right?

Get used to that.

 

[Trailblazer]

I’d argue y

I guess part of your post got cut off.

You realize that you deflected my question, right?

No, I did not deflect. I explained why the Messenger had to be human. I explained what I think angels are. God does not use angels to communicate because angels do not have a divine nature. A Messenger has to have BOTH a human nature and a divine nature, in order to be a Mediator who can bridge the gap between humans and God.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't know what empirical evidence you are trying to reference......

I am referencing the empirical evidence that indicates that the Messengers spoke for God. For example:

“What then is the mission of the divine prophets? Their mission is the education and advancement of the world of humanity. They are the real teachers and educators, the universal instructors of mankind. If we wish to discover whether any one of these great souls or messengers was in reality a prophet of God we must investigate the facts surrounding His life and history; and the first point of our investigation will be the education He bestowed upon mankind. If He has been an educator, if He has really trained a nation or people, causing it to rise from the lowest depths of ignorance to the highest station of knowledge, then we are sure that He was a prophet. This is a plain and clear method of procedure, proof that is irrefutable. We do not need to seek after other proofs.” Bahá’í World Faith, p. 273​

But how about"
4. God exists but communicates in a manner we are unaware of cognitively.

That is possible, but there is no empirical evidence of that.

5. God exists but communicates directly to individuals instead of through messengers.

That is possible, but there is no empirical evidence of that.

6. God is a dick and communicates false things through a messenger.

7. God communicates through a messenger but the messenger is a dick and changes the message.

Any God that is a dick is an imaginary god. A Real God would not communicate false things. A Real God would not choose a Messenger who was a dick and would change the message.

Or the Christian version:
8. God communicates to individuals and has them pass around the messages orally for hundreds or thousands of years before finally writing them down in a language that later becomes a dead language so they can be copied, translated, copied, translated again, and then have some of them collected into a book while excluding the others.

God did not communicate to those individuals. God inspired them to write but humans are fallible so they make mistakes. Obviously, lots went wrong with Christianity, but in spite of what went wrong, the message of Jesus Christ shines through. It is difficult to find it through all the false Christian doctrines of the Church, but it is in the Bible.

 

[Trailblazer]

Nothing happened. It's two different world views, two different paradigms. Sanatana Dharma has existed in it's multifaceted diversity for at least 8000 years. Abrahamics came along, and started a different world view, of which the Baha'i now share. In Hinduism, at least all of the monistic versions, God is, and the universe is an extension of God, not created by God. In the potter with clay analogy, in Abrahamic faiths, God is the potter. In Sanatana Dharma, He/She is the clay.

So it's not some linear succession of manifestations, each being wiser than the last, as Baha'i argue, but two separate philosophies that developed at different times, with both co-existing today. Baha'is would be well advised to study a bit more about ancient pre-Abrahamic faiths before making overly simplistic generalisations about all religions.

I am sorry that I cannot go along with that because a religion is not a world view or a philosophy. A religion is revealed by God. All of what humans added to the original revelation from God and all of the misunderstandings about and misinterpretations of those scriptures are not the religion of God anymore. They are a religion of man. All the changes made to the original revelation from God become a world view or a philosophy that has nothing to do with God anymore.

I also cannot go along with what you say because it is illogical. The universe was either created by God and God is separate from the universe, or the universe is an extension of God. It cannot be both because those are contradictory. So either your understanding of Hinduism is correct or the Abrahamic religions understanding of God are correct.

It really does not matter what happened in the past, and I cannot explain why the pre-Abrahamic religions believe what they do about God or gods. I can only guess that it is because they are so old that much has been changed by humans over time.

 

[Vinayaka]

I am sorry that I cannot go along with that because a religion is not a world view or a philosophy. A religion is revealed by God. All of what humans added to the original revelation from God and all of the misunderstandings about and misinterpretations of those scriptures are not the religion of God anymore. They are a religion of man. All the changes made to the original revelation from God become a world view or a philosophy that has nothing to do with God anymore.

I also cannot go along with what you say because it is illogical. The universe was either created by God and God is separate from the universe, or the universe is an extension of God. It cannot be both because those are contradictory. So either your understanding of Hinduism is correct or the Abrahamic religions understanding of God are correct.

It really does not matter what happened in the past, and I cannot explain why the pre-Abrahamic religions believe what they do about God or gods. I can only guess that it is because they are so old that much has been changed by humans over time.

You're entitled to your views. Hinduism has never been considered a 'revealed religion' like the Abrahamic ones, by anyone, really. So the Hindus got it wrong, the Christians got it wrong, the Buddhists got it wrong, and the Muslims got it wrong? This from a faith whose basic premise is unity. You undersyand Christianity better than Christians, Islam better then Muslims, and Hinduism better than Hindus? This kind of arrogance is one of many reasons there are so many valid criticisms of your faith. It's doublespeak, extremely, and promotes an us versus them mentality.

Of course you have the right to that belief. I believe in the right of people to believe whatever they wish. I've had all the same argument before with other Baha'i on this forum so am not about to repeat the movie. It is an echo chamber.

Criticism of the Bahá'í Faith - Wikipedia

 

[Trailblazer]

You're entitled to your views. Hinduism has never been considered a 'revealed religion' like the Abrahamic ones, by anyone, really.

It does not matter one iota what people believe about Hinduism in today’s world. What people believe does not define reality. It was either a revealed religion in the distant past or it was not.

So the Hindus got it wrong, the Christians got it wrong, the Buddhists got it wrong, and the Muslims got it wrong? This from a faith whose basic premise is unity. You undersyand Christianity better than Christians, Islam better then Muslims, and Hinduism better than Hindus? This kind of arrogance is one of many reasons there are so many valid criticisms of your faith. It's doublespeak, extremely, and promotes an us versus them mentality.

That is a cheap shot. The Baha’is are not arrogant because Baha’is do not have an exaggerated sense of our own importance or abilities.

Arrogant: having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities. https://www.google.com/search

Baha’is just believe what Baha’u’llah revealed. I guess you will have to call Baha’u’llah arrogant, but if He was a Manifestation of God who spoke for God He cannot be arrogant, because He did not have an exaggerated sense of His own importance or abilities. Rather, He was important and He had the abilities, if He was a Manifestation of God.

If Baha’u’llah was actually a Manifestation of God who was infallible that means Baha’u’llah was right and the followers of those religions got many things wrong. So the ONLY important question is whether Baha’u’llah was a Manifestation of God or a false prophet. I have always known that is the only important question, from the very first time I started posting on forums over five years ago. Everything else people say about the Baha’i Faith on these forums are just personal opinions. If Baha’u’llah is the Manifestation of God for this age, and He spoke for God, whatever He wrote supersedes ALL that has gone before it. This is logic 101 stuff.

You said: “This kind of arrogance is one of many reasons there are so many valid criticisms of your faith.”

No, arrogance is not the reason for the criticisms of the Baha’i Faith. Baha’is are not arrogant because they believe what Baha’u’llah revealed. The reason people criticize the Baha’is is because they do not want to believe that the Baha’i Faith is true even if it is true, because they do not want to give up what they already believe since they are emotionally attached to it. That is the reason people do not give any serious consideration to the Baha’i Faith but instead throw cheap shots at it. They do not want to know what is actually true; they just want what they want to be true because it is comfortable for them.

I am presently looking into some Christian beliefs that I think can be integrated into the Baha’i paradigm. I am always looking for Truth. I don’t care if the other Baha’is approve of me looking outside the Baha’i Faith for Truth. Truth can be found in many places.

Of course you have the right to that belief. I believe in the right of people to believe whatever they wish. I've had all the same argument before with other Baha'i on this forum so am not about to repeat the movie. It is an echo chamber.

I also believe that people have the right to believe whatever they want to. That is why we have free will. I do not want a repeat of the movie either, nor do I want to be lumped together with all the other Baha’is. All humans are uniquely different.

Criticism of the Bahá'í Faith - Wikipedia

People will always find ways to twist what the Baha’i Faith actually teaches, ways to pick fault with it. Some of those are misunderstanding and some are deliberate attempts to discredit. I could refute every point made on that website, but I do not have the time. I have many people I have to respond to on another forum.

All the criticism in the world is not going to change the fact that Baha’u’llah was a Manifestation of God, if He was. That is why people are so mad. They do not want Baha’u’llah to be who He was because that refutes the religions that they are emotionally attached to, religions which their lives revolve around.

 

[Milton Platt]

I am referencing the empirical evidence that indicates that the Messengers spoke for God. For example:

“What then is the mission of the divine prophets? Their mission is the education and advancement of the world of humanity. They are the real teachers and educators, the universal instructors of mankind. If we wish to discover whether any one of these great souls or messengers was in reality a prophet of God we must investigate the facts surrounding His life and history; and the first point of our investigation will be the education He bestowed upon mankind. If He has been an educator, if He has really trained a nation or people, causing it to rise from the lowest depths of ignorance to the highest station of knowledge, then we are sure that He was a prophet. This is a plain and clear method of procedure, proof that is irrefutable. We do not need to seek after other proofs.” Bahá’í World Faith, p. 273

A quote from a book is not empirical evidence.​

That is possible, but there is no empirical evidence of that.

That is true also of your listed possibilities

That is possible, but there is no empirical evidence of that.

That is true also of your listed possibilities

Any God that is a dick is an imaginary god. A Real God would not communicate false things. A Real God would not choose a Messenger who was a dick and would change the message.

How do you know this?

God did not communicate to those individuals. God inspired them to write but humans are fallible so they make mistakes. Obviously, lots went wrong with Christianity, but in spite of what went wrong, the message of Jesus Christ shines through. It is difficult to find it through all the false Christian doctrines of the Church, but it is in the Bible.

I take it then that your "messenger" was not actually human? What, then was your messenger? Provide evidence to support your claim of messages from a non-human source. If your messenger was a human, then it is subject to the same problems you pointed out for Christianity.

I am not claiming any of the possibilities I listed are true, only adding to your own short list of possibilities. There could be other possibilities as well if enough thought were given to my list. I have no evidence that any of the things are true, either on your list or mine. Neither do you. I am only pointing out that you implied that your list was exhaustive. It is not.

 

[Trailblazer]

A quote from a book is not empirical evidence.

No, but if what the book said actually happened that is empirical evidence.

Me: Any God that is a dick is an imaginary god. A Real God would not communicate false things. A Real God would not choose a Messenger who was a dick and would change the message.

You: How do you know this?

I know this because it is common sense and also because of what religions reveal about God.

Me: God did not communicate to those individuals. God inspired them to write but humans are fallible so they make mistakes. Obviously, lots went wrong with Christianity, but in spite of what went wrong, the message of Jesus Christ shines through. It is difficult to find it through all the false Christian doctrines of the Church, but it is in the Bible.

You: I take it then that your "messenger" was not actually human? What, then was your messenger? Provide evidence to support your claim of messages from a non-human source. If your messenger was a human, then it is subject to the same problems you pointed out for Christianity.

As I posted to Penguin earlier today:

A Messenger is human but He is more than human. He has to have a human nature in order for humans to be able to understand Him, but He also has a divine nature. A Messenger of God is not an ordinary human; He is another order of creation. Only He can understand His divine nature because He His divine nature is beyond out level of comprehension. We can only comprehend his human nature. We can understand that he has a divine nature but we cannot understand about His divine nature.

“In His Tablet to Muḥammad Sháh the Báb, moreover, has revealed: “I am the Primal Point from which have been generated all created things. I am the Countenance of God Whose splendor can never be obscured, the Light of God Whose radiance can never fade…. All the keys of heaven God hath chosen to place on My right hand, and all the keys of hell on My left…. I am one of the sustaining pillars of the Primal Word of God. Whosoever hath recognized Me, hath known all that is true and right, and hath attained all that is good and seemly…. The substance wherewith God hath created Me is not the clay out of which others have been formed. He hath conferred upon Me that which the worldly-wise can never comprehend, nor the faithful discover…” The Promised Day Is Come, p. 43​

You said: Or the Christian version:
8. God communicates to individuals and has them pass around the messages orally for hundreds or thousands of years before finally writing them down in a language that later becomes a dead language so they can be copied, translated, copied, translated again, and then have some of them collected into a book while excluding the others.

Baha’u’llah is not subject to the same problems that Christianity has because NONE of what you wrote above happened in the Baha’i Faith.

Baha’u’llah wrote His scriptures in His Own Pen, which Baha’is refer to as “the Writings” and we have all the Original Writings in a vault in Haifa, Israel. His handwriting has even been authenticated by modern science. We even have the Pen He wrote with. Exhibition of Baha’u’llah’s Writings Opens at British Museum

I am not claiming any of the possibilities I listed are true, only adding to your own short list of possibilities. There could be other possibilities as well if enough thought were given to my list. I have no evidence that any of the things are true, either on your list or mine. Neither do you. I am only pointing out that you implied that your list was exhaustive. It is not.

I never said my list was exhaustive. Those are just the three primary logical possibilities given what empirical evidence we have.

I have evidence that God has communicated via Messengers. It is called religion. 84 percent of the world population has a faith and those faiths all have some kind of Founder, what I refer to as a Messenger.

 

[Milton Platt]

No, but if what the book said actually happened that is empirical evidence.

No, if what the book said actually happened, it is interesting, but not empirical evidence. The veracity of the claims must be looked at closely. What are the claims, how detailed is the information?
If a book said something like, "Japan would send airplanes over an American naval base on Hawaii and destroy many ships and planes", and gave a specific date and time.....it would be remarkable. Still not evidence of a god, however. Only evidence that somehow someone knew this information in advance. We still would not know how they came by the information. Religious prophecies are far more vague.

I know this because it is common sense and also because of what religions reveal about God.

The same common sense that caused people to believe the sun revolved around the earth? The same common sense that made people believe that hanging garlic around their necks would ward off vampires?

Religions reveal what people have written about their beliefs about god, nothing more. There is no way to verify any of those claims.
As I posted to Penguin earlier today:

A Messenger is human but He is more than human. He has to have a human nature in order for humans to be able to understand Him, but He also has a divine nature. A Messenger of God is not an ordinary human; He is another order of creation. Only He can understand His divine nature because He His divine nature is beyond out level of comprehension. We can only comprehend his human nature. We can understand that he has a divine nature but we cannot understand about His divine nature.

Evidence for this human that is something more than human?

“In His Tablet to Muḥammad Sháh the Báb, moreover, has revealed: “I am the Primal Point from which have been generated all created things. I am the Countenance of God Whose splendor can never be obscured, the Light of God Whose radiance can never fade…. All the keys of heaven God hath chosen to place on My right hand, and all the keys of hell on My left…. I am one of the sustaining pillars of the Primal Word of God. Whosoever hath recognized Me, hath known all that is true and right, and hath attained all that is good and seemly…. The substance wherewith God hath created Me is not the clay out of which others have been formed. He hath conferred upon Me that which the worldly-wise can never comprehend, nor the faithful discover…” The Promised Day Is Come, p. 43​

You said: Or the Christian version:
8. God communicates to individuals and has them pass around the messages orally for hundreds or thousands of years before finally writing them down in a language that later becomes a dead language so they can be copied, translated, copied, translated again, and then have some of them collected into a book while excluding the others.


Baha’u’llah is not subject to the same problems that Christianity has because NONE of what you wrote above happened in the Baha’i Faith.

I did not say he was. However, there is no better evidence for the veracity of your religion than for Christianity or any other.

Baha’u’llah wrote His scriptures in His Own Pen, which Baha’is refer to as “the Writings” and we have all the Original Writings in a vault in Haifa, Israel. His handwriting has even been authenticated by modern science. We even have the Pen He wrote with. Exhibition of Baha’u’llah’s Writings Opens at British Museum

We have lots of writings from lots of people which have been authenticated by science. It does not make them factual, only authentic.

I never said my list was exhaustive. Those are just the three primary logical possibilities given what empirical evidence we have.

I have evidence that God has communicated via Messengers. It is called religion. 84 percent of the world population has a faith and those faiths all have some kind of Founder, what I refer to as a Messenger.

Religion is only evidence that people believe in gods, not that they exist. It is also evidence that they cannot agree which god actually exists, and cannot agree within a single faith what their individual god is like. In fact, many religions are in conflict with each other on may points. if religion indicates anything at all, it is that it is all made up.

Sorry for the way I am quoting, by the way. Never have figured out how to use the quote function on the forum. I am using red only so my comments will stand out for you.

 

[Nanda 160892]

If by "direct" you mean like talking to everybody with clear voice and appearance, I don't think God should do that. Since we are not in the Heaven, yet. That is why there were Prophets and Messengers. Worldly lives are just a test whether we are the obidient or the lawless. However, God can do whatever He wants to do, so, I can only say so much.

 

[Trailblazer]

@Milton Platt

Milton said: No, if what the book said actually happened, it is interesting, but not empirical evidence. The veracity of the claims must be looked at closely. What are the claims, how detailed is the information?
If a book said something like, "Japan would send airplanes over an American naval base on Hawaii and destroy many ships and planes", and gave a specific date and time.....it would be remarkable. Still not evidence of a god, however. Only evidence that somehow someone knew this information in advance. We still would not know how they came by the information. Religious prophecies are far more vague.

Trailblazer said: What the book says is just general information on how to know, generally speaking, if a Prophet is a true Prophet of God. If one wants to know about a specific Prophet (Messenger) of God then the veracity of the claims must be looked at closely

The same common sense that caused people to believe the sun revolved around the earth? The same common sense that made people believe that hanging garlic around their necks would ward off vampires?

No, it is not the same as that because none of what you noted is common sense, but if God exists it is common sense that God is a not dick and communicates false things through a messenger and that the messenger God chooses to receive His message is not a dick who changes the message.

Religions reveal what people have written about their beliefs about god, nothing more. There is no way to verify any of those claims.

No, religions are based upon scriptures that were inspired by God or revealed by God to a Messenger, and then written down. Of course we cannot verify that they came from God because we are not the ones who received the message. Only the Messenger knows that it came from God. That is why we are charged with the duty of determining whether the Messenger is trustworthy. We have to work backwards by looking at all the evidence that surrounds the Revelation of Baha’u’llah, and then decide if we believe Baha’u’llah was speaking truly or not.

Evidence for this human that is something more than human?

The evidence is what He did in His lifetime and what He wrote. That is not proof, but it is evidence.

I did not say he was. However, there is no better evidence for the veracity of your religion than for Christianity or any other.

There is better evidence because we have the original writings of Baha’u’llah and we have documented history of the Baha’i Faith from beginning to end. We do not have that for any other religion. The best people can do, of theya re interested, is read that and try to understand why we Baha’is believe it is a divinely revealed religion.

We have lots of writings from lots of people which have been authenticated by science. It does not make them factual, only authentic.

But they did not claim to be a Messenger of God and the Return of Christ, and the content of the writings is not the same.

Religion is only evidence that people believe in gods, not that they exist. It is also evidence that they cannot agree which god actually exists, and cannot agree within a single faith what their individual god is like. In fact, many religions are in conflict with each other on many points. if religion indicates anything at all, it is that it is all made up.

I can understand why you would say that but that argument against religion won’t fly anymore, because the Baha’i Faith explains WHY within the same religion they cannot agree and WHY the different religions appear to conflict and contradict each other. The reason they cannot agree within the same religion is because there was no written Covenant so the religion split into many sects, and that is primarily because everyone interpreted the scriptures differently. Also, because the followers did not interpret their scriptures correctly, and because the followers changed the original scriptures, we really do not have the originally revealed religion of God anymore, but rather we have the religion of men.

We do not have that problem in the Baha’i Faith because we have a written Covenant and appointed interpreters of the Writings. Anyone who breaks with the Covenant is no longer a Baha’I; they are a Covenant-breaker. This protects the unity of the Faith so there will never be any sects, only one religion.

Sorry for the way I am quoting, by the way. Never have figured out how to use the quote function on the forum. I am using red only so my comments will stand out for you.

That’s fine. I know how to use the quote function, but it is very time-consuming on longer posts, so I prefer the color and/or the italics method, which is what I use on my other forums.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It does not matter one iota what people believe about Hinduism in today’s world. What people believe does not define reality. It was either a revealed religion in the distant past or it was not.

That is a cheap shot. The Baha’is are not arrogant because Baha’is do not have an exaggerated sense of our own importance or abilities.

Arrogant: having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities. https://www.google.com/search

Baha’is just believe what Baha’u’llah revealed. I guess you will have to call Baha’u’llah arrogant, but if He was a Manifestation of God who spoke for God He cannot be arrogant, because He did not have an exaggerated sense of His own importance or abilities. Rather, He was important and He had the abilities, if He was a Manifestation of God.

If Baha’u’llah was actually a Manifestation of God who was infallible that means Baha’u’llah was right and the followers of those religions got many things wrong. So the ONLY important question is whether Baha’u’llah was a Manifestation of God or a false prophet. I have always known that is the only important question, from the very first time I started posting on forums over five years ago. Everything else people say about the Baha’i Faith on these forums are just personal opinions. If Baha’u’llah is the Manifestation of God for this age, and He spoke for God, whatever He wrote supersedes ALL that has gone before it. This is logic 101 stuff.

You said: “This kind of arrogance is one of many reasons there are so many valid criticisms of your faith.”

No, arrogance is not the reason for the criticisms of the Baha’i Faith. Baha’is are not arrogant because they believe what Baha’u’llah revealed. The reason people criticize the Baha’is is because they do not want to believe that the Baha’i Faith is true even if it is true, because they do not want to give up what they already believe since they are emotionally attached to it. That is the reason people do not give any serious consideration to the Baha’i Faith but instead throw cheap shots at it. They do not want to know what is actually true; they just want what they want to be true because it is comfortable for them.

I am presently looking into some Christian beliefs that I think can be integrated into the Baha’i paradigm. I am always looking for Truth. I don’t care if the other Baha’is approve of me looking outside the Baha’i Faith for Truth. Truth can be found in many places.

I also believe that people have the right to believe whatever they want to. That is why we have free will. I do not want a repeat of the movie either, nor do I want to be lumped together with all the other Baha’is. All humans are uniquely different.

People will always find ways to twist what the Baha’i Faith actually teaches, ways to pick fault with it. Some of those are misunderstanding and some are deliberate attempts to discredit. I could refute every point made on that website, but I do not have the time. I have many people I have to respond to on another forum.

All the criticism in the world is not going to change the fact that Baha’u’llah was a Manifestation of God, if He was. That is why people are so mad. They do not want Baha’u’llah to be who He was because that refutes the religions that they are emotionally attached to, religions which their lives revolve around.

You GOT to look through How are these Great Beings explained? How are these great beings explained.

I know it would take years to read it through as it took years to write it; but, the gist is that you cant have unity among diversity when the foundation of that diversity is god and you separate other people as false (as in your latest post) while at the same time seeing them as rays of one sun.

The contradiction is a huge issue beyond the criticism of those web sites (which I havent read).

What is illogical about god being the clay rather than the potter?

How do you separate the potter from his art? (From an artist, Im just ) Seriously. @Vinayaka set a good analogy. I understand the position of the potter but do you have views about god being the clay itself? (I understand it from a different view than a Hindu would see it)

and you can use Bahai words if it answers the question and its short with commentary.

 

[Trailblazer]

the gist is that you cant have unity among diversity when the foundation of that diversity is god and you separate other people as false (as in your latest post) while at the same time seeing them as rays of one sun.

Show me where I separated other people as false.

I only said that if two beliefs are contradictory they cannot both be true. That is a logical impossibility. Therefore one of them has to be false.

What is illogical about god being the clay rather than the potter?

How do you separate the potter from his art?

God is either the potter or the clay. God cannot be both the potter and the clay because the potter is not the clay.

The potter is not his art. The potter creates his art so the potter is separate from His art.
God is not His creation. God created His creation so God is separate from His Creation.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Show me where I separated other people as false.

You gotta look at context too.

Potter and clay is separating two things creator and creation
Seeing god as someone who you go to or he comes to you is separating god from yourself
Messengers are a separation between god and you (you cant know god without them)

It isnt bad in and of itself. Its just the bahai and christian thing. I havent figured out why you guys do it, though. My mind isnt like that.

God is either the potter or the clay. God cannot be both the potter and the clay because the potter is not the clay.

How so/not?

The potter is not his art. The potter creates his art so the potter is separate from His art.

God is not His creation. God created His creation so God is separate from His Creation.

Yes. Can you explain how this is true, though. The logic behind how god is separate from his creation?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Yes. Can you explain how this is true, though. The logic behind how god is separate from his creation?

Using the Artist and clay pot as an example, I would say the part of the clay pot that is of the artist, is the design and perfection of the vessel, the outward clay vessel is only a result of the spirit that created it.

Then the created pot becomes evidence that a great potter is at work.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

Potter and clay is separating two things creator and creation
Seeing god as someone who you go to or he comes to you is separating god from yourself.

I do see God as separate from myself. I do not see how the creator can be the creation. It makes no sense to me.

Messengers are a separation between god and you (you cant know god without them)

Messengers are the connection between me and God, the only connection I have to God.
They bring me closer to God; they do not separate me from God.

How so/not?

The potter is the one who makes the clay just like a driver is the person who drives the car.
Is the car the SAME as the person who drives the car?

Yes. Can you explain how this is true, though. The logic behind how god is separate from his creation?

Unless God is part of His creation God is separate from His creation. I do not believe that God is part of His creation because it makes no sense to me since I believe that God is enthroned upon the heights of His independent sovereignty and grandeur, self-subsisting, beyond anything that can ever be recounted or perceived. We can reflect God’s attributes because we were made in the image of God, but we cannot ever know nor have any access to the Essence of God. I do not even know why anyone would want to. Why do people want to encompass everything? Why can’t some things just be a mystery?