How can you be a True Christian™ if you don't take the Eden story literally?

[YoursTrue]

And you misinterpreted it. That is not my fault.

Wow, Once again you demonstrate that you do not know how to use logic. Not all statements need to be logical. It was a conclusion drawn from the poor argument that you presented. If you did not understand why it was nonsense the time to ask was when you were corrected. Not pages later.


Oh my! You are once again limited God's knowledge with that claim. You are saying that he is not omnipotent. If he does not know the outcome of all of those possibilities ahead of time that is something that he does not know. That is you stating that God does not know everything. Or in other words your solution to the problem was to make God not omniscient. That is a logical argument.


Freewill is a claim that is refuted by omnipotence and omniscient. I can break it down for you if necessary. I have doubts if you will let yourself understand.

And once again you are limiting God's knowledge with that model.


And you are not following the argument. Your model means that God is not omniscient. The claim was that he cannot be both and not have everything be his fault.

I never claimed that God is immoral. Once again you are conflating your flawed personal version of God with a possible real God. Your version is demonstrably immoral. But you keep posting a version of God that is self refuting. Do not conflate the refutation of your God with a refutation of God in general.


No, again I did not claim that God was immoral. If anything you did. We are going by your model of God for this hypothetical. You keep repeating rather basic errors.

If anyone is doing it it is you. You do not like how your God is refuted by logic. I never made the claim that refutes all versions of God. It only refutes flawed versions of God. You cannot own up to the obvious fact that your version of God is fatally flawed.

A God that is omniscient and omnipotent can make choices, even for himself. Because He is all-knowing, all-powerful. Therefore -- He can choose what He does with His power.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please -- how would you know any version of god is fatally flawed?

By using tools that you appear to lack. When people continually demonstrate that they cannot reason rationally they limit their right to make demands of others.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A God that is omniscient and omnipotent can make choices, even for himself. Because He is all-knowing, all-powerful. Therefore -- He can choose what He does with His power.

He can choose for himself, but no one else can. If you disagree then it is rather obvious that you cannot reason logically.

 

[Subduction Zone]

She's right about knowing about God without it being a fact. She understands. That is the content of your reply to which I responded.

No, that is mere belief. There is nothing wrong with saying that one believes, but if one cannot demonstrate why one is right all one has is belief. Knowledge is demonstrable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure they will. What are you talking about? Have you ever gotten to know any Bahai or spent any time with them? They are absolute work-horses.

They're the worker bees in the Abrahamic faiths.

Name one.

 

[YoursTrue]

There are no gods known to exist, so why bring it up? We know evolution is a real phenomenon, so we use that explanation of how organisms change over time.

Some may think it's a phenomenon, but why would you say it's a phenomenon anyway? Let's see -- definition of phenomenon -- one definition is: What is a phenomenon?
observed. How is macroevolution observed? Please do say, thank you. "A phenomenon, in a scientific context, is something that is observed to occur or to exist. It is simply a fact or event that can be observed with the senses, either directly or using equipment such as microscopes or telescopes. "
I agree that observing things through a microscope is fabulous, but how is macroevolution observed?

 

[Subduction Zone]

why does one need to know? and it would be interesting for you to please describe the God of Abraham? What do you know about it?

What one needs to know depends upon the subject. And why do you think that I need to describe the God of Abraham? There are countless versions. You still do not know enough about your own faith to properly ask questions about it. That is beyond amazing.

 

[Audie]

Their respective places in the history of Western culture, in particular.

But as I understand it there was an historical Paul, and there was an historical Brigham Young.

That's not what I was asking.

Seems very long complex visions
to remember and record. J Smith of
course had these gold books attested to
by sworn witnesses.
How is Saul more or less a charlatan?

A sliding scale maybe, of least to most
charlatanesque


In any event the world is full of religious
shysters- obviously- and there's no evident
reason to believe any are legit.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yet, they don't.

Yet they do.

 

[Audie]

He can choose for himself, but no one else can. If you disagree then it is rather obvious that you cannot reason logically.

How can he choose since as a omnipotentate
He exists at all points in time and space.
Everything has already happened and is known.

 

[Trailblazer]

Right about what? The Baha'i Faith?

No, @dybmh did not say "right about the Baha'i Faith." He meant right about not expecting God to be our slave. We believers do it a little differently.

She's 100% right as usual. If a person is not devoted to God, or perhaps want to be God, and they want the God to be their slave ( which will never happen ), then yeah, they're going to attempt to dominate the concept, basically rape it. But we believers don't do that. We speak a little differently, we do things a little differently.

 

[Trailblazer]

Sure they will. What are you talking about? Have you ever gotten to know any Bahai or spent any time with them? They are absolute work-horses.

They're the worker bees in the Abrahamic faiths.

That's true, and many of them work harder than I do. I only work on forums.

 

[ppp]

Yet they do.

Explanations are only explanations when the explainer starts at a common ground with the explainee. Then builds with sound argumentation towards the conclusion, all the while faithfully checking in with the explainee every single step of the way.

Baha'i do not do this.

 

[Trailblazer]

Explanations are only explanations when the explainer starts at a common ground with the explainee.

If you are referring to Baha'is talking to atheists there is no common ground. That is why most Baha'is do not talk to atheists. I am an exception.

 

[ppp]

If you are referring to Baha'is talking to atheists there is no common ground.

Baha'i think that there is no common ground with a subset of their fellow human beings? That is a historically concerning position.

 

[Trailblazer]

Baha'i think that there is no common ground with a subset of their fellow human beings? That is a historically concerning position.

Common ground regarding God. That is what I was referring to in the post you cited.

I cannot speak for other religious believers, but Bahais can rationally explain their thinking and experience in ways that suggest they aren't imagining their version of truth.

Explanations are only explanations when the explainer starts at a common ground with the explainee.

Of course we have common ground with atheists regarding other things.

 

[ppp]

Common ground regarding God. That is what I was referring to in the post you cited.

Ah. I was not speaking so narrowly. My reference to common ground was to starting with common ground on reality. Do Baha'i think that they lack ccommon ground with atheists with regards to reality?

I say that there is an objective reality that we both share. That we appear to not be brains in vats. That the logical absolutes apply.
Do Baha'i disagree?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How can he choose since as a omnipotentate
He exists at all points in time and space.
Everything has already happened and is known.

I may have misunderstood since I was talking about only God choosing for himself. If God is omnipotent and omniscient God is the only one with any free will.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

No gods are known to exist by you.

Your straightforward statement stood out to me. Personally, I honestly don't know whether any gods exist, including the Abrahamic God. So I'm not willing to insist one way or another. I don't believe that it would be honest of me to do so since I don't think that I can actually prove or disprove their existence.

 

[Trailblazer]

Ah. I was not speaking so narrowly. My reference to common ground was to starting with common ground on reality.

Okay, thanks for clarifying that.

Do Baha'i think that they lack common ground with atheists with regards to reality?

That depends upon what you mean by reality. If you mean "all that exists" then atheists are not on common ground with Baha'is since atheists believe that this physical world is all that exists and Baha'is believe that there are many worlds of existence, such as a spiritual world of existence.

I say that there is an objective reality that we both share. That we appear to not be brains in vats. That the logical absolutes apply.
Do Baha'i disagree?

Yes, we share the belief that the objective reality of the physical world is real and we both share a logical mind, what Baha'is refer to as the rational soul.