Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are you claiming this god thing doesn't want the wars, genocide, confusion that's been going on for 1,000s of years and doesn't change the method?
If god changed the method to a more convincing one, we would still have free will to choose it.
As I said, just because God allows a certain outcome that does not mean God wants it, but the fact that God does nothing to intercede probably means that God accepts the outcome because it is all part of His Plan.
So god knows the mess it's creating and does nothing to change it.
There is no other Method whereby God could communicate to humans that would work better. If there was a better Method, an All-Knowing and All-Wise God would have used it.
God knows because God is All-Knowing, but I do not know if God is bothered by it or wants it; I only know God allows it because that is what we see.
That's true, but obviously God does not care to be convincing to everyone.
There is no reason to change the Plan became it is working.
Or the stories are just the myths of a war-like people. Even Krishna was driving a chariot for Arjuna in a war. God encouraged the Hebrews to go into battle. Christians have a battle going on between God and Satan. You'd think, if God were real and all-knowing and all-loving and just, he would have and could have done things much better. So what are we to think? That maybe religions and messengers aren't true, and this God they talk about isn't real. Like really? The world is a mess and that is how God wanted it?
That's probably the truth.
Yes, and that would be an example of a logical fallacy in logic 101, argument from ignorance. Another thing from logic 101 is, if God's actions shows that he made mistake(s), then logically, he is not infallible.
Glad to see that we are in agreement. God's method is flawed.
If a method is incapable of delivering a message without getting misinterpreted, then that method is flawed.
But according to you they don't have to, since "every" planet doesn't mean all the planets.
Logic 101, strawman argument. The discussion here is not about whether or not the "messengers" are genuine or not. It's about the method of delivering the message. Nice try though.
Logic 101, strawman argument. 84% of the world's population received the same message correctly, and believes in the same god and same faith? No. Out of that 84%, how many believes in the Baha'i faith?
No, you're the one who opened the door, but I'll through it and shut the door. God is not infallible if he made the mistake of assuming that they all believed in the him, the same god. I closed the door on your belief that God is infallible.
What you're saying is that God's method is flawed and not flawed, which is a contradiction and illogical. This is basic logic 101 stuff.
And yet, he failed to explained why God chose to used a flawed method to communicate his message to humanity. Or that "every" means "all" or "some."
[[Premise question:This is the continuation is a discussion I was having with @ QuestioningMind on another thread.
We got off topic so I decided to start a new thread. Anyone is welcome to contribute their ideas if they are so inclined.
Trailblazer said: It IS an important message, but it is unrealistic to expect everyone to receive it. That happens over the course of time, not all at once. The delivery system is not flawed just because everyone has not received the message. You have received the message but so far you have chosen to reject it.
QuestioningMind said: Apparently that's the case for EVERY religion. I've had Christians tell me after I read the bible that I'd received god's message, but I'm simply rejecting it. Muslims have said as much after I read the Koran, Hindus have said the same after I read the Vedas... now you've said it too. Yet when I read what you claimed were the most convincing messages from your religion, I found them to be just as vague and unconvincing as all of the other religions I've studied.
It is true that if you reject messages from any of the true religions, you are rejecting God’s message, because all of those messages were true. However they were also time-date stamped, so much of what they revealed is no longer pertinent to the age we now live in. The Spiritual teachings are eternal, but the social teachings and laws are not for this age, and the message is no longer needed in this day since it was intended for another age in history. In addition, those messages were not written by a Messenger of God, they were written by man on His behalf, and as such they are not exactly what the Messenger said. In addition to that, the religions themselves have been changed and corrupted by man over the course of time.
Yet when I read what you claimed were the most convincing messages from your religion, I found them to be just as vague and unconvincing as all of the other religions I've studied.
I do not know what messages you are referring to, but reading a few things I have posted is not the way to determine if a religion is actually the truth from God or not.
What is the flaw and who has the flaw; that is the hundred-dollar question. If religious believers believe they already have the truth from God and they refuse to look at a new message, whose fault is that? I think they are the ones who are flawed. I agree that those who are unaware that there is a new message are somewhat screwed, and that is why it is so important for Baha’is to get the message out. However, those people are not completely screwed because If they were really seeking a new religion they could find the message on the internet and contact the Baha’is in their area who are readily available to talk to seekers.
After reading this several times all I can conclude is that you're saying the 'flaw' is in a person ever believing that they already have the truth from god. Even if you're convinced that you have discovered god's TRUE messenger, you shouldn't accept it and instead continue to look for new messengers who might actually have the truth from god.
I can understand why you concluded that but that is not exactly what I am saying. There is no reason they should not believe they have the truth from God in their religion because they were probably raised in that religion and that is what they learned thus believed to be the truth. However, here is the caveat:
“Each of the world's major religions contains Messianic prophecies.
Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, the Zoroastrian religion and even the Native American religions all foretell the coming of a Promised One. Each of the Founders of these great religions either promised to personally return himself, to send another like himself or in some instances.... the Founder promised to do both.”
Prophecy Fulfilled Webpage
Because all the major religions foretold that another one would come and fulfill the prophecies of their respective religions, they should be looking, or at least open, to a man who makes such a claim. This is particularly true of the Jews and Christians, as the Jews have been waiting for their Messiah for thousands of years, and of course we all know that Christians are waiting for the return of Christ. So if a man such as Bahaullah comes claiming to be the Messiah and the return of Christ, they should at least be willing to check Him out in order to determine if He is who He claims to be.
But shouldn't they ALSO be looking at all of the old messengers who claimed to have the truth of god as well? After all, the true messenger may have come 3000 years ago and you were never fortunate enough to have been exposed to their message.
The Messengers that came thousands of years ago were true Messengers, but as I said above the messages that they brought are not what humanity needs in this age. They should be concerned about what humanity needs now, but instead they cling to their older religious traditions because that is comfortable for them. The older religions do not have the answers to the serious problems humanity is facing NOW. If there is an All-Knowing God who cares about humans, don’t you think that God would know what humanity needs in this age and reveal that to humankind? I believe that is exactly what has happened.
“The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and center your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 213
But why would anyone keep seeking a new religion if they're convinced that they've already found the TRUE religion? That's like saying that after you've determined that the statement 2 + 2 = 4 is TRUE, but you're going to continue to seek evidence that maybe 2 + 2 is ACTUALLY 9. Once someone has found an answer for a question, it's illogical to expect them to keep searching for an answer.
I like your logic and you just nipped it in the bud. Why indeed would they seek a new religion of they are convinced that their religion is the one TRUE religion? And therein lies the essential problem. With some exceptions, most people who hold a religious belief believe their religion is true, the only way, the best and the last religion God will ever reveal, so if course they would not be seeking another religion. It is only a small number of people who are open to the idea that God might have revealed a new religion, a religion that does not invalidate any of the religions of the past but rather fulfills the promises of their religion, as noted above.
So it seems to me that if it's just as easy for someone to convince themselves that religion A is true, when it actually isn't, as it is to convince themselves that religion F is true, when it is, THAT'S a huge flaw in the system. If someone picks the wrong religion it should be as evident as someone claiming 2 + 2 = 9. Otherwise it has virtually nothing to do with what religion is actually true, but rather on which religion a person if first introduced to and indoctrinated into. If we determined the truth of mathematical statements the way we determine the truth of religious claims then anyone taught that 2 + 2 = 9 would have just as reliable evidence as those who claim that 2 + 2 = 4.
You raise a valid point, but according to Baha’i beliefs, there is no WRONG religion, although there are religions whose messages and social teachings and laws are outdated. For example, do you believe that adulterers and homosexuals should be put to death, as the Torah teaches? Those ancient laws have been updated by Baha’u’llah who revealed a new Book of Laws with penalties that are pertinent to the age in which we live.
Once someone grasps the idea that there is only one true God and that God reveals different religions through different Messengers over the course of time, according to the ever-changing needs of humanity, called Progressive Revelation, the sky is the limit. Unfortunately most religious people are so mired in their own religious beliefs they cannot see the forest, they only see one tree. I always hope that an atheist might understand because at least atheists are logical and unbiased towards one particular religion, but hurdle for atheists is that they do not believe in a God that would use Messengers to establish religions.
“The Purpose of the one true God, exalted be His glory, in revealing Himself unto men is to lay bare those gems that lie hidden within the mine of their true and inmost selves. That the divers communions of the earth, and the manifold systems of religious belief, should never be allowed to foster the feelings of animosity among men, is, in this Day, of the essence of the Faith of God and His Religion. These principles and laws, these firmly-established and mighty systems, have proceeded from one Source, and are the rays of one Light. That they differ one from another is to be attributed to the varying requirements of the ages in which they were promulgated.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 287-288
(Continued on next post)
How many times have we pointed out that the God of the Bible ordered whole cities destroyed which included the killing of all the women and children. How many times did the God of Israel go before them into battle.
Let me figure out the logic here. God's methods are flawed. But, since he is infallible, then his methods can't be flawed. And we know God is infallible, because his infallible messengers, the ones that brought the flawed messages, said so.
It would be if I had not presented that as a conditional statement.
That is illogical because no fallible human can say that God made mistakes since that would be based upon their fallible criteria of what a mistake is.
I did not agree that God's method is flawed.
Only by your standards, but you are just a fallible human being and that is just a personal opinion.
Nice try at a dodge. I was addressing the method that you claim is flawed. I said “even if Baha'u'llah was a false prophet, that would not mean that God using Messengers is a flawed Method since there have been Messengers the predate Baha'u'llah.”
84% of the world population did not receive the same message because God did not reveal the same message in every age. That was all according to God’s Plan because different religions have different messages that are revealed according to the needs of the times and the people to whom they were revealed. As such there is no reason to believe that they would all have the same conception of God because (a) the scriptures differ and (b) people interpret the scriptures differently even within the same religion.
The problem is that you do not know the mind of god so you cannot know if God assumed anything. You also cannot know if God cares if anyone, let alone everyone, believes in one God, so you are projecting onto God what you think God would want.
That is not what I am saying. There are not only two options, flawed or not flawed. I knew that was illogical so that led me to look on the web and find out what the fallacy is called.
It is not a flawed method just because you believe it is a flawed method. That is just your personal opinion, not a fact.
Nit-picking about the meaning of words throws up a smokescreen over the main issue in dispute, whether the method is flawed or not. I knew that was illogical so that led me to look it up and I was right, there is a fallacy for nitpicking.
What would be fun is if the person who posted this, is wrong and can only tell everyone else they're wrong.