Does God welcome everyone into heaven?

[CG Didymus]

Yes, I like discussions better as I do not like to argue over who is right and who is wrong.
I said in my opinion you worry too much about details, but I never called them trivial.

Can you give your opinion on quotes from Genesis in post 357 of mine?

 

[Trailblazer]

Can you give your opinion on quotes from Genesis in post 357 of mine?

Do you mean why does it say Isaac and not Ishmael?
You already know what I believe about that.
You are free to believe whatever you want to, but it is not that straightforward. Here is some food for thought.

“Though it is generally believed by modern Muslims that Ishmael was the son who was almost sacrificed, among scholars and historiographers of early Islam, there is much debate. There are such persuasive arguments for both, in fact, it is estimated that 131 traditions say Isaac was the son, while 133 say Ishmael.[2]:135 Such dispute over which son suggests that the story, and where and to whom it happens, is extremely important.[2]:144 It is argued that the story originated from rabbinic texts and was adapted to Islam over time in order to give Mecca religious importance and connect the story with the pilgrimage.[7]:87Arguments by early Muslim scholars for Ishmael as the intended sacrifice include that Jews claim it is Isaac only because they are jealous that it was actually the ancestor of Arabs, Ishmael, and that the horns of the ram that was sacrificed instead hung in the Kaaba at one time.[6]:88–90 In looking solely at the text of the Quran to determine which son was to be sacrificed, there still are various views. The strongest case for Ishmael in the Quran is that directly after the sacrifice narrative, Abraham is told of the coming of Isaac's birth, therefore, it must be Ishmael who was about to be sacrificed.[6]:88 However Tabari argues that because it is only Isaac who is indicated by birth announcements that the announcement at the start of the sacrifice narrative, "So We gave him good tidings of a forbearing boy" refers to Isaac.[2]:135–136[6]:89 Authentic hadiths are said to not contradict each other because that negates the definition of the hadith.” Ishmael in Islam - Wikipedia

 

[BilliardsBall]

Why would people have to be perfect to live in utopia?

Morally perfect. To not ruin utopia. The Bible explains we will be transformed at the rapture.

 

[Trailblazer]

Morally perfect. To not ruin utopia. The Bible explains we will be transformed at the rapture.

I do not believe that heaven would be ruined if we are not morally perfect.
I do not believe in the rapture.

 

[CG Didymus]

Do you mean why does it say Isaac and not Ishmael?
You already know what I believe about that.
You are free to believe whatever you want to, but it is not that straightforward. Here is some food for thought.

“Though it is generally believed by modern Muslims that Ishmael was the son who was almost sacrificed, among scholars and historiographers of early Islam, there is much debate. There are such persuasive arguments for both, in fact, it is estimated that 131 traditions say Isaac was the son, while 133 say Ishmael.[2]:135 Such dispute over which son suggests that the story, and where and to whom it happens, is extremely important.[2]:144 It is argued that the story originated from rabbinic texts and was adapted to Islam over time in order to give Mecca religious importance and connect the story with the pilgrimage.[7]:87Arguments by early Muslim scholars for Ishmael as the intended sacrifice include that Jews claim it is Isaac only because they are jealous that it was actually the ancestor of Arabs, Ishmael, and that the horns of the ram that was sacrificed instead hung in the Kaaba at one time.[6]:88–90 In looking solely at the text of the Quran to determine which son was to be sacrificed, there still are various views. The strongest case for Ishmael in the Quran is that directly after the sacrifice narrative, Abraham is told of the coming of Isaac's birth, therefore, it must be Ishmael who was about to be sacrificed.[6]:88 However Tabari argues that because it is only Isaac who is indicated by birth announcements that the announcement at the start of the sacrifice narrative, "So We gave him good tidings of a forbearing boy" refers to Isaac.[2]:135–136[6]:89 Authentic hadiths are said to not contradict each other because that negates the definition of the hadith.” Ishmael in Islam - Wikipedia

So the story of Ishmael, Isaac and their father Abraham lasts for six chapters and some Scribe changed it? It's amazing what people in different religions believe.

 

[Trailblazer]

So the story of Ishmael, Isaac and their father Abraham lasts for six chapters and some Scribe changed it? It's amazing what people in different religions believe.

This is not about a Scribe. The story does not say which son was sacrificed, and that is the issue isn't it? Show me where it says that it was Isaac that was sacrificed.

“Though it is generally believed by modern Muslims that Ishmael was the son who was almost sacrificed, among scholars and historiographers of early Islam, there is much debate. There are such persuasive arguments for both, in fact, it is estimated that 131 traditions say Isaac was the son, while 133 say Ishmael.[2]:135 Such dispute over which son suggests that the story, and where and to whom it happens, is extremely important.[2]:144 It is argued that the story originated from rabbinic texts and was adapted to Islam over time in order to give Mecca religious importance and connect the story with the pilgrimage.[7]:87Arguments by early Muslim scholars for Ishmael as the intended sacrifice include that Jews claim it is Isaac only because they are jealous that it was actually the ancestor of Arabs, Ishmael, and that the horns of the ram that was sacrificed instead hung in the Kaaba at one time.[6]:88–90 In looking solely at the text of the Quran to determine which son was to be sacrificed, there still are various views. The strongest case for Ishmael in the Quran is that directly after the sacrifice narrative, Abraham is told of the coming of Isaac's birth, therefore, it must be Ishmael who was about to be sacrificed.[6]:88 However Tabari argues that because it is only Isaac who is indicated by birth announcements that the announcement at the start of the sacrifice narrative, "So We gave him good tidings of a forbearing boy" refers to Isaac.[2]:135–136[6]:89 Authentic hadiths are said to not contradict each other because that negates the definition of the hadith.” Ishmael in Islam - Wikipedia

 

[BilliardsBall]

I do not believe that heaven would be ruined if we are not morally perfect.
I do not believe in the rapture.

Explain the first part? I can rape and murder in Heaven and it's still Heaven for my victims?

 

[Trailblazer]

Explain the first part? I can rape and murder in Heaven and it's still Heaven for my victims?

No, there is no rape or murder in heaven because heaven is a purely spiritual world with no physicality.
How could there be murder if all souls are already dead?

There is no evil in heaven because evil souls go to hell, where they can no longer hurt anyone.
What I meant is that no human is perfect upon entering heaven, it is a gradual growth process towards perfection.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, there is no rape or murder in heaven because heaven is a purely spiritual world with no physicality.
How could there be murder if all souls are already dead?

There is no evil in heaven because evil souls go to hell, where they can no longer hurt anyone.
What I meant is that no human is perfect upon entering heaven, it is a gradual growth process towards perfection.

1) Jesus resurrected in bodily form, we follow Him with a bodily form, morally perfect, at the Rapture.

2) Perfection as a gradual process perfectly describes religion. Transformation to true perfection--perfect going forward and perfect forgiveness for past imperfection, comes from Jesus, biblically speaking.

 

[Trailblazer]

2) Perfection as a gradual process perfectly describes religion. Transformation to true perfection--perfect going forward and perfect forgiveness for past imperfection, comes from Jesus, biblically speaking.

I agree.

 

[CG Didymus]

The story does not say which son was sacrificed, and that is the issue isn't it? Show me where it says that it was Isaac that was sacrificed.

What story are you referring to? The Genesis story in the Bible or the Wikipedia quote?

 

[Trailblazer]

What story are you referring to? The Genesis story in the Bible or the Wikipedia quote?

The Genesis story in the Bible.

 

[Trailblazer]

What story are you referring to? The Genesis story in the Bible or the Wikipedia quote?

I was referring to the Genesis story. You might want to read this:
5 reasons Abraham sacrificed Ishmael

 

[CG Didymus]

The story does not say which son was sacrificed, and that is the issue isn't it? Show me where it says that it was Isaac that was sacrificed.

Right from the start of the story about Abraham taking his son to be sacrificed it says Isaac. Why do you think Isaac is not named?

Genesis 22:1 Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, “Abraham!” “Here I am,” he replied.
2 Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.”​

I was referring to the Genesis story. You might want to read this:
5 reasons Abraham sacrificed Ishmael

From your link. It says that this is an early Christian forgery? But the Jew's would have had to change their Bibles too.

Take now your son, your only son, Isaac
GENESIS 22:2

This biblical verse names the "only son" as Isaac, and contradicts earlier Bible verses. This is a deliberate Bible forgery by early Christian scholars to support their Christian narrative.
​

Why would the early Christians care? That why I said that a Scribe would have had to change it. I was assuming that Baha'is and Muslims believed the change happened before Christianity. Which would be way before Islam too. So I don't see why they would care about making the change. And again, I don't see why the story has to be historically real anyway. I'd be fine believing that all of Genesis was past down oral traditions long before it ever got written down. It would be the story of the Jewish people not the Arabs. And Ishmael isn't in that line of descendants that leads to the children of Israel. They are the important ones. And they are the ones that wrote the Bible version.

Genesis16:16 Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore him Ishmael.
Genesis 17:15 God also said to Abraham, “As for Sarai your wife, you are no longer to call her Sarai; her name will be Sarah.
16 I will bless her and will surely give you a son by her. I will bless her so that she will be the mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her.”
17 Abraham fell facedown; he laughed and said to himself, “Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?”
18 And Abraham said to God, “If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!”
19 Then God said, “Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.
20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation.
21 But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year.”​

 

[Trailblazer]

Right from the start of the story about Abraham taking his son to be sacrificed it says Isaac. Why do you think Isaac is not named?

Genesis 22:1 Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, “Abraham!” “Here I am,” he replied.
2 Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.”​

From your link. It says that this is an early Christian forgery? But the Jew's would have had to change their Bibles too.

Take now your son, your only son, Isaac
GENESIS 22:2

This biblical verse names the "only son" as Isaac, and contradicts earlier Bible verses. This is a deliberate Bible forgery by early Christian scholars to support their Christian narrative.
​

Why would the early Christians care? That why I said that a Scribe would have had to change it. I was assuming that Baha'is and Muslims believed the change happened before Christianity. Which would be way before Islam too. So I don't see why they would care about making the change. And again, I don't see why the story has to be historically real anyway. I'd be fine believing that all of Genesis was past down oral traditions long before it ever got written down. It would be the story of the Jewish people not the Arabs. And Ishmael isn't in that line of descendants that leads to the children of Israel. They are the important ones. And they are the ones that wrote the Bible version.

Genesis16:16 Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore him Ishmael.
Genesis 17:15 God also said to Abraham, “As for Sarai your wife, you are no longer to call her Sarai; her name will be Sarah.
16 I will bless her and will surely give you a son by her. I will bless her so that she will be the mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her.”
17 Abraham fell facedown; he laughed and said to himself, “Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?”
18 And Abraham said to God, “If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!”
19 Then God said, “Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.
20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation.
21 But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year.”​

Thanks for doing all that reading and writing but since I can never really know what happened -- if it was Isaac or Ishmael -- I am going to have to opt out for now. Maybe if I ever have time I will look into it further.

The Universal House of Justice made a valid point:

"In one of His Tablets 'Abdu'l-Bahá refers to this discrepancy, and explains that, from a spiritual point of view, it is irrelevant which son was involved. The essential part of the story is that Abraham was willing to obey God's command to sacrifice His son. Thus, although the account in the Torah is inaccurate in detail, it is true in substance...."
The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments

Below is what Shoghi Effendi wrote:

“As to the question raised by the Racine Assembly in connection with Bahá’u’lláh’s statement in the Gleanings concerning the sacrifice of Ishmael; although His statement does not agree with that made in the Bible, Genesis 12:9, the friends should unhesitatingly, and for reasons that are only too obvious, give precedence to the sayings of Bahá’u’lláh which, it would be pointed out, is fully corroborated by the Qur’án, which book is more authentic than the Bible, including both the New and Old Testaments. The Bible is not wholly authentic, and in this respect not to be compared with the Qur’án, and should be wholly subordinated to the authentic Sayings of Bahá’u’lláh.”
Directives from the Guardian, p. 12

 

[Muffled]

I believe I have the Holy Spirit guiding me to discern what is true.

So then, how did you get the Holy Spirit?

 

[Trailblazer]

So then, how did you get the Holy Spirit?

From Baha'u'llah.

 

[Trailblazer]

Would you agree to the following. Pretty much any human that have ever lived on Earth, unless there is something genetically wrong with them, aim towards living a happy and fulfilling life?

So certain things we can consider as being not desired, like suffering, being psychologically hurt, starving, sick and ultimately die as well as a lot of other things which also reduce quality of life. Now lets say that everything opposite to these improve the quality of life.

With that in mind, how do you think that affects us when we have to make choices?

So lets say you have to go from point A to point B, you can either go straight ahead through a burning building, which will reduce the trip by 10 minutes or you could choose to go around which take a bit longer?

Going through the burning building is not really a choice, because you know that it will hurt you and again reduce quality of life.

So what we can do is apply heaven and hell to this scenario, so the burning building is hell and going around is heaven. Basically there is no difference. The idea behind heaven and hell is exactly that, you play on peoples fear.

Again no one forces or demand that you go around the burning building, the choice is yours. But if everything that improve your quality of life is found by going around it, obviously that would be the correct choice. The difference here is that "God" have made the scenario and packed it, like its a reasonable set of options.

If this type of choice should make any sense in regards to free will, it would have to be like this.

You have to go from point A to B, if you choose the left path, you will loose your left foot. If you take the right, then you loose your right foot.

Do you see the difference, why talking about free will in the last example makes sense and not in the first one?

Well Nimos, you always make me think, so that is one reason it took me so long to get back to this post. The other reason is that I have been so busy. The other reason is that it’s so cold in my house it is hard to type very well. I should turn the heat on but I tend to do things “the hard way” and the cheaper way. Nevertheless…..

I am a bit confused. Are you saying that choosing either way you lose something, whether you choose hell or heaven? If you take the shortcut you lose eternal life and end up in hell. If you take the long way around to get to heaven all you lose is the time go could have spent enjoying yourself in the material word, of dust.

So if heaven improved the quality of your life why would you choose to go through hell? Actually it is more like this; we have to go through hell for a long time to get to heaven because we have to suffer and sacrifice things we might have enjoyed; heaven does not come easy except in Christian theology.

But that makes no sense, its like looking at humans as group of robots, with absolutely no care to the individual. What does it matter in the eyes of a human that is living a poor live. Lets say a person starving in Africa and suffering day in and day out. Imagine God having to explain to this person that overall Africa is not doing bad enough compared to Syria, so he can't really help him at this time. Im sorry, but it makes so little sense.
Even the fact that this can be split into cultures and locations... think about it for a second....

God is looking at Earth based on cultures and countries and depending on how bad each of these are doing, he decide where a messenger should appear?

No, it is not like that at all. The Messenger has to have a geographical area of origin, just as we all come from a country we were born in, but the Messenger comes for the whole world, at least Jesus and Baha’u’llah did. Some lesser Prophets are more localized but Universal Manifestations of God come for everyone. The reason they appear in the most decadent of cultures is because (a) at that time when they come they are most needed in those cultures and (b) they provide such a stark contrast to those in religious and political power who reside there at the time. And because they provide such a contrast they are noticed by everyone living there at the time.

The Bab and Baha’u’llah raised quite a raucous so they could hardly go unnoticed and that was the point, to be noticed so the Cause of God could get off to a running start before Baha’u’llah died and handed it over to His successors who would later hand it over to Baha’is like me. Since Messengers of God are so rejected when they appear and for a long time even after they die, they have to make an impression so would-be followers can look at the early history and see what an impact they had upon the people they initially appeared to.

So basically what we could do, is gather all the people from all countries that are doing bad and put them in Australia and all those which do well there, we move to other places, then we know that the next messenger will come there right?

Again, if this is really what Bahai's believe in, it makes God such an incompetent excuse for a joke, that I really can't see how anyone can believe in it. And im sorry for putting it like that, but its simply insane to picture a being that is suppose to be all wise, all powerful and all loving to work in such ways.

Think about it, God doesn't give a flying turd about anyone, he is purely interested in statistical data of which region/country is doing the worse and then based on that, he decide to send them a messenger, which can do absolutely nothing for them. How is a messenger going to help people that are starving or living in the worse poverty imaginable. Unless this messenger is like Jesus and can turn water into wine or feed thousands of people with a couple of breads and fish or what it was.

No, it is not like that at all. The Messenger is not the one who does the work helping people in poverty. Although Baha’u’llah was well-known as the Father of the Poor before He started getting His revelations from God in 1852, after that He was too busy organizing the followers of the Bab and later organizing His followers, and he was writing volumes and volumes of scriptures. He did not have time for social work; that was destined to fall into the hands of His followers, the Baha’is, much later. Had the kings and rulers listened to Him they would have take care of their people as Baha’u’llah clearly enjoined them to treat all their people equitably, but since the kings and rulers did not listen, this would have to happen at a future time, after Baha’u’llah died. The whole point of his mission was to set an example and garner a few followers and write scriptures that contained a set of blueprint instructions so His followers could carry out his plans in the future, and that is exactly what Baha’is are doing now, all over the world.

That is why, I wrote that even if that happened it would be near impossible to believe in. But at least it would make more sense for God to do, as these people speak in different languages. As you have mentioned yourself (If I recall correctly), the writings of Baha'u'llah have yet not been translated so everyone can understand them.

The Writings of Baha’u’llah that are essential for everyone to read have been translated into over 800 languages so far and they are working on translations into additional languages. Many of His Writings have not even been translated from Persian and Arabic into English yet, that is a work in progress and will be completed as soon as they have the proper funding to pay the panels of translators that will be needed.

So having 10000s of them going around spreading the word and teaching would make a lot more sense, especially if you backed this up by them performing miracles, like healing the sick, creating food out of thin air, walking on water, bringing back the dead. All that would really help, even though I know that you don't think miracles are required, I would really disagree. Miracles would make the whole difference. Because that would let us study them, and if these turned out to be true miracles, obviously it would lay the foundation for God to really make an entrance

.

But as I said above, spreading the word and teaching is not the job of the Messenger, it is the job the followers of the Messenger, so it is what Baha’is were enjoined to do after Baha’u’llah died. It was the same for Jesus. Jesus garnered a few disciples they were the ones who were instructed by Jesus to carry the gospel message far and wide.

As far as miracles are concerned, that is just what you would like to see because you are an atheist, but a miracle is only proof to the ones who witness it, and how many people in the world could witness the miracles of one man in a 40 year period of time. Baha’u’llah could do miracles but He did not want people to believe in Him for His miracles, He wanted people to believe in Him for who He was as a Person, what He did on His mission, and what He wrote. He said these three things were the evidence we need to look at and the evidence of God’s mercy unto men.

And God is not going to make an entrance; you already know that and the reasons why. If God made an entrance it would make it too easy to believe and people would not need faith.

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

I recall you showing me these proofs/predictions, but lets be honest, they are not really strong, compared to what you would expect or require.

What more would you expect or require?

(Continued on next post)

 

[Trailblazer]

No, the problem is that God send these messenger with no ability to proof who they are. That is the issue!

The amount of messengers is irrevant, if they could truly prove it. Again having someone under controlled conditions, bring back the dead, heal the sick, walk on water etc. Would go such a long way. But God does not seem to understand this either, he still think that blind faith is the best way, which makes no sense, when he can see that people demand evidence for these claims more than ever.

But I already explained that Baha’u’llah had the ability to appear in all His naked glory so everyone would believe in Him and in God and do everything He said to do, but Baha’u’llah did not do that because God wants belief to be a free will choice and he wants people to obey because they want to, not because they think they have to.

So Baha’u’llah did not prove it to you, but rather He provided evidence so you could prove it to yourself because God wants you to do the leg work.

Nobody ever walked on water or brought back the dead. These were just Bible stories used to try to convince people reading them to believe in Jesus. That was necessary 2000 years ago but now we can read and do research so we do not need that kind of proof. It is not blind faith to expect you to look at the evidence God provides, but it is a lazy man’s faith to expect God to prove it to you and that is one reason God doesn’t do that.

But this again end in a checkmate as I also described in the last post about how religions works. Because obviously you believe that there is not going to be another messenger for the next 800 years, therefore Bahai must be the right one.

I do not believe that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger just because another Messenger won’t be coming for at least 843 years; I believe in Him because of the evidence that you do not see as evidence.

Lets try to compare that to the other big religions. Why do you think Jesus would warn about false prophets and that people should stay away from these?

Simple, because Jesus knew there would be many false prophets, and there were many false prophets and they continue to come.

So imagine you are back in time, before Baha'u'llah... why is it important for a religion to make it, so no one can claim to be a new prophet or authority?

Why is it that Muhammad is considered the last prophet by muslims and that it is important to make it, so that no one will come after him?

Now how does that differ from Bahai saying that a messenger will only occur once every 1000 years, far longer than a human lifespan?

The reason that Messengers of God only come every 500-1000 years is not so no new ones can come in between and claim authority; the reason they come so infrequently is because they bring what is needed for humanity for 500-1000 years until the next Messenger comes. Baha’is are not saying that Baha’u’llah was the LAST Prophet as Muslims say about Muhammad; we only say He is the current Messenger we are to turn to until the next Messenger comes.

So looking at the above about why it is important for religions to claim that no one else is going to replace them. Is largely to do with each religion claiming to be the final authority, the one and only true religion.

Whereas that is true for all the religions of the past, it is not true for the Baha’i Faith. We do not claim to be the final authority or that only true religion; we only claim to be the most recent and current religion.

No one will come after Jesus, because this is the right religion. No one will come after Muhammad because that is the final true religion. No one will come after Baha'u'llah because he is the final religion. Doesn't matter if you add 1000 years or ever, the idea is exactly the same.

It DOES MATTER that you add the 1000 years because that makes the idea very different. Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe that their Prophet is the BEST one and the LAST one that will ever come; Baha’is do not believe that about Baha’u’llah. Rather, we believe that all the Messengers are of equal stature and we believe there will never be a LAST Prophet since God will continue to send Messengers throughout all of eternity.

That is not true, you do whatever you can for your cats. Obviously you are limited by being a mere human, but you taking as best care of them as you can, does not make them human. At most it makes them happy.

Its no different than God compared to humans, we would be considered less than ants in comparison, even if he healed all of us, brought peace and harmony.... heaven to Earth. He would still be the creator and God and we would be his cats, just being slightly happier overall than we are now.

You cannot compare me caring for the cats to God caring for humans. If God completely neglected us that would be like me neglecting the cats but the WAY God cares for us is by sending His Messengers so they can help us so we can do the work.

God does not want to do these things for humans, not because God does not care, but because He does care, and it is better for humans to do what is necessary for themselves. God wants humans to do these things because that is what we are here for, to build a new world order, to cure diseases, to unite humanity, to bring world peace.

I weren't speaking of you in regards to atheists, it was more of a general statement, as there a countries where being atheist is punishable by death. But its everyone, not only atheists. The biggest difference is that atheists are being killed or "violated", for something we don't even believe in and for most of us, don't even care about.

Sort of like you being able to be punished by death if you don't believe in unicorns... how absurd would that be.

I guess you are referring to some of the Muslim countries, they can be pretty harsh.

You are fortunate to live in a country that is very progressive and socially just, more so than the United States which is two steps forward and one step back, mainly owing to party politics and the party divisions. Hopefully this will change, I think it will now that this pandemic and Trump have hit us so hard.

That didn't really answer my question

Where do you see the effect of God?

I do not see the effect of God, except in the Messengers.

Saw that the US is hit really hard, but not only because of the virus, but now you also have the mass unemployment etc. It seems to me, that the US system is far worse at dealing with these crisis than we are, simply due to how we do things here. The mere fact that we have completely free healthcare for everyone, makes it so much easier and less stressful for everyone.

Can only imagine the frustration that those in the US that have been fired must feel... It could completely ruin them if they get sick.

I feel terrible for all the people who are now unemployed in the United States. I have no idea how they will ever get back on their feet. Sometimes I wonder whether it was worth it to shut everything down. I have always worked for the government so I have always had a secure job and never had to worry about health care. That is one way I have been very fortunate, that and finding the Baha’i Faith. My husband is not half bad either when we are not bickering over nonsense. He is a long time Baha’i and loves cats so we can always agree on those.

 

[Nimos]

The other reason is that it’s so cold in my house it is hard to type very well. I should turn the heat on but I tend to do things “the hard way” and the cheaper way. Nevertheless…..

That sounds a lot like me I hate having it to warm, so I have my windows open almost constantly with no heat on all year round. My friends often refer to me living in an igloo, because they think its way to cold. But personally I just can't stand it when its warm, I get very lazy and uncomfortable.

I am a bit confused. Are you saying that choosing either way you lose something, whether you choose hell or heaven? If you take the shortcut you lose eternal life and end up in hell. If you take the long way around to get to heaven all you lose is the time go could have spent enjoying yourself in the material word, of dust.

No, its about making choices.

That you can construct these in such way that what might seem like a choice, ain't really one. This is what the religious choice in regards to heaven and hell is.

Lets try to analyze this whole setup.
So you present an idea (in this case heaven and hell) for people, in such way that they have to make a choice based on free will. Now It is very important that free will is there, because that symbolize control, independence and so on. Whereas the lack of it would suggest slavery and suppression, which we in general don't like, because we don't like to be forced to anything. Therefore the choice a person has to make needs to be presented in such way that it seems like they decided it for themselves.

Next is the actual choice we have to make, which is where this whole setup or illusion of free will breaks apart. Because you can choose between either hell or heaven, those are the two options you have.

Knowing that we as humans, prefer to not suffer and in some cases fear death. You can use this to manipulate the choices. Which is exactly what is done in this setup.

Option 1 - Hell
Hell suggest that you will suffer for an eternity, with no one caring for you. Your afterlife will be more miserable than you can imagine.

Option 2 - Heaven
Heaven is presented as this is where you will receive and be eternally happy, God will care for you and everything will be wonderful.

Making the choice
So after that, you now know all the rules and it is up to you to "freely" make whatever choice you want, based on what you think is best. That was the idea with the burning building example in the last post. You are presented by a choice as if it is free, but the scenario for which you have to make this choice is stacked against one side, making it outright stupid to choose one compared to the other.

In this case hell, obviously no one with a sane mind would ever choose hell, which only leaves one option to choose from using ones free will. Which is obviously heaven. So free will in this setup is nothing but an illusion, there is no choice to be made, because the choice plays on our fears.

The reason they appear in the most decadent of cultures is because (a) at that time when they come they are most needed in those cultures and (b) they provide such a stark contrast to those in religious and political power who reside there at the time. And because they provide such a contrast they are noticed by everyone living there at the time.

But this doesn't change the fact, that God is simply not there for those that needs him. The way you present this doesn't allow it. Compare it to that of Christianity, why do you think it was important for them to point out, even today this is a core element in it, that you can pray to God and he hear all of them? This idea serves the very purpose of people being able to feel near God or Jesus, that they listen to you, that they care about you, that no matter how terrible a situation you are in, they are always there ready to listen to you. This makes God accessible to all, doesn't matter if you are rich or poor. Next what is done, is you add the idea that God knows all your thoughts, he knows when you do something wrong, so you can't hide from him. Which is done to secure that people are more likely to behave in accordance with whatever rules that is decided by the religions. You follow the rules, because ohhh boy if you don't God will know and will punish you for it.

But using a system of messengers as the Bahais suggest, might follow the same idea as Christianity. But by simply adding the idea of a messenger and that these were chosen by God and that this is the way that he primarily interact with the world.

So if one is to accept this setup, I don't see how you get around, that God is not equally present to all people around the world at they need him. He chooses those that seems to suffer the most, which must mean that in order to do this, he has to look at all countries, since suffering is often divided by national borders, and based on these he choose where to appear. The reason I said that it doesn't make any sense, is because first of all, borders are human construct, nothing on Earth, besides us decide where these borders are, so for God to play along with our silly idea is stupid, as he should look at humans as a whole.
Secondly that God has to make a choice, an evaluation of who on Earth has it the worse, is completely none sense. Because one person's suffering doesn't necessarily have anything to do with someone else suffering.

In regards to your option (b) that this serves a contrast to political and religious power, makes little sense as well. As God is considered the final and only authority. Why on Earth should he care about our silly political and religious power struggles? Why not just smite them to the ground and say this is how you do it. And then implement a system which is fair, honorable, based on justice, equality, peace, love and harmony.
Because think of this, based on what you wrote, this is clearly part of the reason for these messengers in the first place. But it is done, in such an incompetent way, that its really difficult to buy into the idea that God should be behind it.

So like the idea of free will in the choice between heaven and hell above, this whole setup follows along the same lines. We as humans have to figure this out for ourselves (The free will argument), but in this case we don't really have to make a choice, but rather we need to acknowledge the idea of the messenger bringing justice and guidance. And if we just submit to them this will happen. And again, no one prefer living in a society of suffering, inequality, suppression. So there again is no choice to be made, the only sensible way to go, is to follow the messenger, because they talk about all the stuff that we like.

And again the final result, which is ultimately suppose to come out of doing this, is the exact same thing, that if God simply replaced these corrupt systems with something better. So it shouldn't matter whether this is done through a messenger or directly by God. The outcome is suppose to be the same anyway.

Continue...