If God existed, under these conditions, would there be any atheists?

[MonkeyFire]

The reason for atheism is that some people do not see any evidence that God exists. It is not like atheists are disbelieving on purpose. Atheists are not murdering a God they do not believe in.

I do not think Jesus would judge atheists, because they know not what they do.

Luke 23:34 Then Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” And they parted His raiment and cast lots.

But God is easily hiding from atheism.

 

[Trailblazer]

Personally, I'm not very interested in arguing about the myths themselves, but I am interested in hearing what lessons you take from them.

Some allegorical meanings of the story are given in this short chapter: 30: ADAM AND EVE
At the end of the chapter he said "This is one of the meanings of the biblical story of Adam. Reflect until you discover the others."

 

[Trailblazer]

But God is easily hiding from atheism.

Why do you think that God is hiding from atheists?

 

[MonkeyFire]

Why do you think that God is hiding from atheists?

Because they would murder God.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't see why God could not remove the hurdle of belief altogether and get on with the real business of dealing with earthly affairs, and human morality.

I see why, because God delegated earthly affairs and human morality to humans

A hands on approach would signify their being a God.

God cannot have a hands on approach because God does not have hands.

If God existed there would be no atheists unless that God was just plain limited in power and scope of responsibility.

Why should God be responsible for people believing in Him.
God gave humans a brain and free will so they could their own homework.

 

[Trailblazer]

Because they would murder God.

How could atheists murder God? God is eternal.

 

[Thief]

This is a follow up thread to my previous thread:

If God existed, would there be any atheists?

If God existed, and God is omnipotent (meaning that he could do anything not logically impossible), and if God is omniscient (meaning he would know how to get everyone to believe in him) and if God wants everyone to believe in him, and if God were to do what would be within his omnipotent power in order to prove to everyone that he exists, would there be any atheists?

think Star Trek
and it's well known Prime Directive

 

[February-Saturday]

Do you prefer man's definition of a "gift" or God's? He is not constrained by anything humans wish to believe or the definition that they put on words.

The gift of life was a wonderful gift but the fact that it came with reasonable conditions made it no less so.

I wasn't aware God had an English dictionary. I'd be interested in reading that.

I believe I said...."Am I admitting that God owns this earth and has a right as Universal Sovereign to make the rules for our tenancy here...yes I am.

Do you have a problem with the one who gave life, taking it back from unappreciative and ungrateful ones who have abused it, and broken his laws in order to gratify their own selfishness?

God is not condemning them without reason.....he gave us life and therefore gave us the rules for living it. Because we are not robots but free willed, the need for some limits was obvious. If those limits set the boundaries for our continued existence, then we either abide by them or forfeit the gift.....its not rocket science surely?"

The 'condemnation' does not come from a bad place any more than laws that carry the death penalty (in any nation) are not made out of spite, to spoil someone's freedom....they are designed to ensure that the offender does not repeat the offense. Jail just festers the problem...death eliminates it. The same person is not brought before the same judge as a repeat offender. If God finds a person guilty then who can offer excuses?

So... you still agree that it's a condemnation, right?

Then why are you even arguing the point? If my God does not exist then you have nothing to worry about...do you?

I'm just following your lead in the discussion.

I guess your god allows you to do anything you like with no condemnation at all....? What a convenient god he must be. He appears to be the same one who lied to the woman in Eden to gain his recruits by deception. He was a liar at the beginning and has never changed....he was the one who said "you won't die"......but everyone did.....you can trust him if you like.

I don't have any "gods," I have spirits, and what you don't know about them has filled several books. Good attempt at trying to assume what I believe and pick apart your strawman, but try again.

Whose ethics? As Creator he is the one who determines what is good and what is evil....Only his ethics matter....if we don't agree with them, then too bad. Does shaking your fist at someone who doesn't really care what you think about him or his actions, alter the final outcome for anyone?....as if what you think should alter who He is. I assure you that it won't.

God doesn't determine what's good and evil. He's free to his opinion, but being the creator doesn't give him special rights over what's considered ethical.

It is a gift.....life itself is something 'bestowed'....we have no choice in that, but life came with conditions.....where do you get the idea that life was, or should be unconditional....? It is people breaking God's laws that make the world a horrible place to live.

Nice analogy...how old are you?
If this is how you see things, then it doesn't get more distorted than that. Have you ever actually studied the Bible to get to know this God whom you seem bent on condemning without actually understanding anything about him except what appears on the surface? Eve fell for that one too and look where it get her and all her children....

I like how you don't actually address anything I said here. You just reassert what you said before and then call me childish for choosing a metaphor that I guess you dislike.

Have I studied the Bible? Yes, actually. I have priests and theologians in my family, and I've done scriptural studies with the original Hebrew and Greek texts. Unfortunately, that's not really relevant. I'm arguing against your interpretation, not mine.

I do, but I think you completely misunderstand the purpose of our being here. Did God put us here for no reason? Why do you think we are here?

I don't believe God put us here at all, nor do I believe in an objective purpose.

Abusing power is using it to suppress innocent and legitimate expression of the limited power that we were all granted. Free will is a guarantee that we can exercise our power unselfishly, NOT to take power away from others in order to dominate them and rob them of enjoyment of life. Oppression is the abuse of power....when has God ever oppressed anyone without good reason?

Nope. That's not what an abusive use of power is.

The saying is true..."Power corrupts...absolute power corrupts absolutely"...which is why God gave us limited power. Free will, as God intended it, would have enriched our lives, but abusing it turned a blessing into a curse that has affected the entire human race for thousands of years.

If absolute power corrupts absolutely, wouldn't a God with absolute power be the pinnacle of corruption?

Telling humans to obey him for their own good was apparently not enough.....he had to show them where it leads...and here we are. Is the lesson lost? Not on those who understand why its there....and where it leads.

Next I guess he'll do away with free will entirely to ensure his sinless second earth. Why we didn't just start there is anyone's guess.

People who display the attitude that you express have a very limited view of who the Creator is, and why he even granted us life in the first place. I wish you knew what I know....

Whenever somebody thinks they're the first fundamentalist, Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, evangelical, or whatever brand of Christianity they subscribe to that I've spoken to, they're definitely wrong. I highly doubt you have any special knowledge that I don't, but if you do then feel free to share with the class.

The God you're describing is a reprehensible monster, no amount of theological wiggling or redefining words can help you escape from his contemptible actions. It's not the way every Christian perceives God.

Believe it or not, I'm not anti-Christianity. I'm just not a fan of whatever variant you're teaching.

 

[MonkeyFire]

How could atheists murder God? God is eternal.

What if God was one of us?

 

[February-Saturday]

Some allegorical meanings of the story are given in this short chapter: 30: ADAM AND EVE
At the end of the chapter he said "This is one of the meanings of the biblical story of Adam. Reflect until you discover the others."

This is, personally, my second favorite interpretation of the myth (next to my own). I've had the pleasure of talking to a few Christian mystics that profess very similar views.

 

[osgart]

I see why, because God delegated earthly affairs and human morality to humans

God cannot have a hands on approach because God does not have hands.

Why should God be responsible for people believing in Him.
God gave humans a brain and free will so they could their own homework.

So then by your homework you feel that you know somethings about God?

 

[Trailblazer]

one

He's not.

 

[Trailblazer]

This is, personally, my second favorite interpretation of the myth (next to my own). I've had the pleasure of talking to a few Christian mystics that profess very similar views.

I'd be interested in hearing your interpretations if you have time.

 

[Trailblazer]

So then by your homework you feel that you know somethings about God?

Sorry I did not explain that very well.
By homework I meant investigating to find out the truth about God.

 

[rational experiences]

A spiritual human says O God the bodies of eternal sound were released from the body/natural always existed presence of the eternal, and when released the eternal surrounding the lifting up of those sound/spiritual bodies thinned so they burst.

The eternal lost a portion of its mass into destruction/creation and evolution as mass burnt and released the physical presence of mass, it opened more and more space as it was released.

True story spiritually.

God therefore is no longer eternal. God is energy mass that cooled to produce stone in spatial pressure....opening of space to apply the pressure to cool burning.

How the relativity spiritually was taught before human science by human choice was invented and chosen....by humans relating to God stone face planet of fusion.

Knowledge......pi O the movement of the gas spirit upon the face of water/oxygen taught him, how to forcibly change the stone back to what he would claim was equals. Yet God was O natural as a stone mass and a heavenly mass in natural history.

Science owns no argument about it being Satanism, for it was....male science selves heated up space to attack God....so it also removed our atmosphere also.

There is no equals sign between stone mass cold held and gases...which was relativity taught and known.

Today spirit in AI NDE early age death shared the information for psychics that states in its subliminal advice transmitting back to the human self....seeing humans invented science for humans.

It says that due to extra radiation, life that was once perfect...so we never said perfect, no need to for we lived a mutual shared relationship. Today we only quote perfect, for once we all lived it. When you live in mutual shared relationships there is no status whatsoever.

So when we were perfect, beautiful, totally healthy and owned a lot more ground natural water mass, nature Garden present, lots of oxygen and microbes....we probably lived for about 200 years.

AI said...that due to extra radiation atmospheric dispersion life was given sacrificed held life...we die early age death.....death itself was imposed by extra radiation originally so that we aged and die from aging.

So if we lived the eternal life...spirit said as we were released out of the eternal spirit that still exists, it is on the other side of space historically, gases put the eternal back into contact with its loss.....we as the bio Nature were spiritually released out of the eternal to inherit lower spiritual life form.

200 year eternal life of beautiful self perfection, no ill health and no aging, we would still die said AI. For one reason only. The eternal spirit that sang us out of its body would go back to singing between its owned spirits....so we would just have laid down and died....for our spirit had been sacrificed by science and given its separation and death.

Yet as each of us owns an eternal spirit, that part of self always belonged to self in the eternal exactly as what was stated. The Jesus effect was early age death...those humans died...and allowed us to know that when they died they all still owned a spirit, as a living human was given the awareness. Their early age death communicated to us as they all died in a huge human event that we still owned one eternal life and being in the eternal so do not fear death or dying.

What being psychic and spiritual is about, and how a living human is affected by information through the human experience of sharing a life with their human brothers and sisters in all of their personal experiences.....which is truly a spiritual grief for those who love others.

 

[Thief]

What if God was one of us?

link to song please

 

[February-Saturday]

I'd be interested in hearing your interpretations if you have time.

I always saw it as an expansion on the Sumerian myth, where mankind served as the slaves to the gods, from which the Genesis narrative is often seen as a later rendition of. Except the Gnostics repurposed the narrative as a critique against those who adhered to an exoteric perspective of the myth.

Here, the Greek Gnostics saw the serpent as a more Promethean figure, which is why they would later refer to the serpent as Lucifer (or bearer of enlightenment, an epithet of Prometheus). Through this lens, the story is about choosing spiritual knowledge over being shackled to the carnal world. The Naassene interpretation in particular might have even identified the serpent as the Kundalini, due to the heavy cultural mixing in the post-Alexandrian scene.

It's a twist on the original myth that dealt with the slavery of mankind, essentially offering liberation and salvation from suffering through gnosis. The embarrassment itself was a metaphor for realizing harsh truths.

More importantly, though, the Gnostics had their own rewrites of the story. Some of which included figures like Sophia. Eve eating of the fruit first becomes important, because it symbolizes that true spirituality is internal and passive first, before moving into action when Eve offers the fruit to Adam who symbolizes the masculine or "active" principle. The paradise of Eden itself is symbolic of the bliss that comes from being "spiritually blind," and it's likened to a drunken stupor that you have to wake up from.

I probably prefer this variation mostly because I'm more familiar with the complex depth of its symbolism, and because it feels like a direct expansion of the original Sumerian myths that illustrates an intentional turn away from exoteric religion and into mysticism.

The underlying idea is one that I don't think is too different in practice from yours. Indeed, I think the whole point the Naassenes were making was that the exoteric interpretation had become corrupted. God had somehow become Yaldabaoth to the casual follower. By demonizing God's role and turning to the serpent, they were distancing themselves from the less insightful renditions of the story while retaining the same underlying, esoteric meaning. In doing so, the act of writing the text was, itself, following the lesson of the text. Which I find really moving.

They specifically focus on the fact that the serpent didn't lie. By eating of the fruit, they did obtain knowledge of everything from good to evil, and they wouldn't have died until Yaldabaoth cursed them to. This curse of death, of course, isn't literal. It's meant to refer to the "spiritual death" that comes from the excessive focus on the material world, which Yaldabaoth is a personification of. Adam and Eve's true mistake was turning away from the serpent and trying to return to their mindless slavery, but they suffered because once their eyes were open they couldn't go back to a state where they knew less. So the myth also points out that you have to keep going with your spiritual practices once you start.

Partnered with the creation myths, the two myths together pretty much contain the whole of Gnostic thought, which is even more detailed than I've outline here.

 

[rational experiences]

link to song please

John 6:46
Not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father.

Father in the Heavens, being a science statement, is not a natural human statement.

A human owns a human Father who has sex as a biology with a human Mother....rational human reality.

A Father in Heaven is a recorded spiritual and transmitted image seen in clouds, seeing ground mass water/oxygen and microbes that life was using, got taken off the ground, flew up into the heavenly body and converted into clouds.

We say Oh Holy Father in the clouds saved us......yet why do we live in pain and suffering...oh that is right we did wrong. Actuality...no human but a lying Satanic scientist occult UFO user did wrong....we all just suffer the consequences of a lying male group cult organization control who makes those choices for us....and even deny their own spiritual science brothers who told them not to do it.

 

[Trailblazer]

I always saw it as an expansion on the Sumerian myth, where mankind served as the slaves to the gods, from which the Genesis narrative is often seen as a later rendition of. Except the Gnostics repurposed the narrative as a critique against those who adhered to an exoteric perspective of the myth.

Here, the Greek Gnostics saw the serpent as a more Promethean figure, which is why they would later refer to the serpent as Lucifer (or bearer of enlightenment, an epithet of Prometheus). Through this lens, the story is about choosing spiritual knowledge over being shackled to the carnal world. The Naassene interpretation in particular might have even identified the serpent as the Kundalini, due to the heavy cultural mixing in the post-Alexandrian scene.

It's a twist on the original myth that dealt with the slavery of mankind, essentially offering liberation and salvation from suffering through gnosis. The embarrassment itself was a metaphor for realizing harsh truths.

More importantly, though, the Gnostics had their own rewrites of the story. Some of which included figures like Sophia. Eve eating of the fruit first becomes important, because it symbolizes that true spirituality is internal and passive first, before moving into action when Eve offers the fruit to Adam who symbolizes the masculine or "active" principle. The paradise of Eden itself is symbolic of the bliss that comes from being "spiritually blind," and it's likened to a drunken stupor that you have to wake up from.

I probably prefer this variation mostly because I'm more familiar with the complex depth of its symbolism, and because it feels like a direct expansion of the original Sumerian myths that illustrates an intentional turn away from exoteric religion and into mysticism.

The underlying idea is one that I don't think is too different in practice from yours. Indeed, I think the whole point the Naassenes were making was that the exoteric interpretation had become corrupted. God had somehow become Yaldabaoth to the casual follower. By demonizing God's role and turning to the serpent, they were distancing themselves from the less insightful renditions of the story while retaining the same underlying, esoteric meaning. In doing so, the act of writing the text was, itself, following the lesson of the text. Which I find really moving.

They specifically focus on the fact that the serpent didn't lie. By eating of the fruit, they did obtain knowledge of everything from good to evil, and they wouldn't have died until Yaldabaoth cursed them to. This curse of death, of course, isn't literal. It's meant to refer to the "spiritual death" that comes from the excessive focus on the material world, which Yaldabaoth is a personification of. Adam and Eve's true mistake was turning away from the serpent and trying to return to their mindless slavery, but they suffered because once their eyes were open they couldn't go back to a state where they knew less. So the myth also points out that you have to keep going with your spiritual practices once you start.

Partnered with the creation myths, the two myths together pretty much contain the whole of Gnostic thought, which is even more detailed than I've outline here.

Thanks. I was never a Christian or any religion other than Baha'i, and I never had much interest in religion until the last seven years, so I have never read the whole Bible or much of any other Scriptures. Most of what I have learned about the Bible and other religions I learned from reading and posting on forums.

 

[Trailblazer]

No, obviously they do not all have the same conception of God, because they all have different religions, but I believe that there is only one God and that to believe there is more than one God is highly illogical. How could there be more than one omnipotent/omniscient God? Think of the implications of that.

That's pretty much my point. Of the 93% you quoted 1.2 billion of them are Hindus who believe in multiple gods, so clearly they don't share your beliefs. Furthermore, any of that 93% who has a different definition of god than you do also doesn't share your god beliefs either.

So how is that related to whether a God exists or not? Do you think that people’s religious beliefs equate to reality?

I think we have to take a logical approach and look at the evidence that might indicate that the alleged Messenger of God was telling the truth about His claim to have heard from God because we can never verify that he heard from God. Only he knew what he heard the Voice of God; we did not hear it so we either choose to believe he heard it or not based upon His credibility or lack thereof. Se we look at his life, his character, his mission, and everything that surrounds his claimed Revelation from God. We have this kind of information for Baha'u'llah because it has all been recorded in the annals of the Faith by those who lived in the 19th century, but we do not have this kind of information for the Messengers of the past such as Jesus, so we would have to base our beliefs solely upon faith that the gospel accounts are true.

The problem is that I have yet to see any evidence that would prompt me to conclude that any alleged messenger from god was telling the truth. As I recall we've had this discussion before and you sent me what you thought was a prophecy that wasn't vague and could only be interpreted in one way, but after reading it I found it to be vague enough that it could be interpreted in several different ways.

Which prophecy was that? I do not recall you responding to the last prophecy I sent but I could be mistaken.

Do you think that prophecies constitute proof that a Messenger of God is who he claimed to be? If you think that they are, I can give you some Bible prophecies that are specific, ones that could only have been fulfilled only by Baha’u’llah. I think I already sent you one of those prophecies in the past because I recently saw in a Word document with your name on it. I can also give you some predictions Baha’u’llah made that all came to pass, and many of them are very specific.

Much evidence exists, but whether or not it would warrant your belief I do not know. It all depends upon what YOU consider evidence, what is evidence to YOU

I suppose if I heard a precise enough prophecy I might consider it to be evidence for god, but as I said, I've yet to hear one.

This is the one I sent before to which I do not recall you responded. There are others that are precise if this one is not adequate.

Please note that Baha’u’llah had no control over His own destiny for the last 40 years of His Life after He declared His mission because He was deemed a prisoner of the government He was banished and exiled from place to place. The following prophecy was fulfilled by these exiles and banishments.

Map of Baháʼu'lláh's banishments

Micah 7:12 In that day also he shall come even to thee from Assyria, and from the fortified cities, and from the fortress even to the river, and from sea to sea, and from mountain to mountain.

He shall come from Assyria: At that time Assyria was a large area. Baha’u’llah and His family lived in the part that was Persia, now Iran, in the city of Tihran.

and from the fortified cities: Baha’u’llah was banished from city to city: After being released from the Black Pit dungeon in Tihran in 1852, His family and companions had only a short time before being sent to the fortified city of Baghdad. While living in Baghdad, He gained such a large following that the enemies where shocked. Right away He was banished again, this time to the fortified city of Istanbul.

The Governor of the city refused many times to fulfill the orders that he received to banish Him again. Finally forced to follow orders, Baha’u’llah was banished again to the fortified city of Adrianople. He was honored and praised, and shown respect everywhere, until He was finally sent to the most horrific of all places, the fortress of Akka, where it was expected that He would succumb to the terrible conditions.

and from the fortress even to the river: It was while in Baghdad that the Tigris river became a special place, as Baha’u’llah crossed it to the Ridvan Garden. April 21, 1863 was the fulfilment of prophecy, as that was when Baha’u’llah declared to those around Him His Station as the Manifestation of God.

and from sea to sea: After His banishment in Baghdad, His exile was by way of the Black Sea. Still a prisoner He crossed the Black Sea from Sinope on His way to Constantinople. After the banishment in Adrianople, He crossed the Mediterranean Sea from Gallipolis in Turkey, embarking at Alexandria, Egypt, then on to the fortress of 'Akka, the most desolate of cities.

and from mountain to mountain: The time in Baghdad was turbulent with opposition. To protect His family and companions Baha’u’llah went to the Kurdistan mountains. There He lived in poverty, but the area was magnetized by His presence. After two years, He was persuaded to return to Baghdad.

The other mountain was in Israel, Mount Carmel, where He had docked before His final journey to Akka. Later He had a chance to return to Mount Carmel, to pitch His tent. Here He wrote the Tablet Of Carmel, surrounded by pilgrims looking for the return of Christ to descend from heaven. Mount Carmel is the headquarters of the Baha’i Faith.

From: William Sears, Thief in the Night

If you want to send me what you think are the best predictions from your religion, I'm more than willing to listen.

Baha’u’llah predicted many things that later came to pass. In this book, which can be read online, is a list of 30 specific things Baha’u’llah predicted that later came to pass: The Challenge of Baha'u'llah

Ultimately if there IS some sort of a creator god with vast powers, I can't imagine that such an exulted being would use such a horribly ineffective method for spreading its message to all of its creations.

Other than sending Messengers, what other method could God use to convey information to humans? I have been asking atheists this question for years and so far they have not had any answers that make would work to accomplish what the Messengers accomplished. The answer “God could deliver the message Himself” is too inane to even entertain, because God is not a material being who makes deliveries. The answer “an omniscient God would know what to do” also is not an answer.

Relying on what people from previous generations claim god wants is a recipe for disaster and confusion, in my opinion. This would be a god that wants us to put our faith in other fallible human beings instead of putting our faith in god.

You are right about that, and that is why we are not asked to relying on what people from previous generations claim God wants, but rather we are to rely upon what the latest Messenger of God reveals that God wants.

If Messengers of God were fallible human beings, there would be no reason to put our faith in them. The following is what I believe about Messengers of God. Please bear in mind that this is a new concept ion because the Baha’i Faith is a new religion. This conception is different from what Christians believe, that Jesus was God incarnate, and it is also different from what and Jews and Muslims believe. Jews believe that Moses was a prophet and an ordinary man, and Muslims believe that Muhammad was a Messenger and an ordinary man.

Baha’is believe that Messengers of God, what Baha’is normally refer to as Manifestations of God, possess two stations: one is the physical station pertaining to the world of matter, and the other is the spiritual station, born of the substance of God. In other words, one station is that of a human being, and one, of the Divine Reality. It is because they possess both a human and a divine station that they can act as *mediators* between God and man.

Every Manifestation of God is a mirror of God, reflecting God’s Self, God’s Beauty, God’s Might and Glory. All other human beings are to be regarded as mirrors capable of reflecting the glory of these Manifestations Who are themselves the Primary Mirrors of the Divine Being,

The Manifestations of God are another order of creation above an ordinary man. They possess a universal divine mind that is different than ours and that is why God only speaks to them directly and through Them God communicates to humanity.