Non Christians: if the Christian God is real...

[stvdv]

If the Christian God was undoubtedly real, would you become a Christian? Let’s say the Christian God proved Himself to you, He does whatever He has to to make you believe

Of course, no problem at all

IF He proves Himself to me.

This implies:
a) His Omniscience
b) His Omnipotence
c) His Omnipresence
d) His Unconditional Love

This also implies:
*) I get temporarily the same attributes, otherwise I am unable to check it. And that is easy for a God having above 4 attributes

So, no problem at all. He proves, I follow

 

[firedragon]

I suppose that when I say Christian God I mean it in the sense of a general Protestant point of view. So, the Trinity with all three being god. I realize there is great diversity among Protestants.

Thanks for the clarification.

Now to honour your OP, if it was proven, I will have no choice whatsoever but to follow it.

 

[nPeace]

You are welcome. I find it not so difficult to be honest in this area. It would be like being honest when I'm saying that kids should not be killed. Who would be dishonest in that area?


In general no. I am aware that humans do that, but I would be really shocked if God would not be better than Hitler, Stalin and the like.

Wait. We are supposed to have inherited His morality. Is that why we also like to kill the way He does?

Ciao

-viole

In a sense yes. We have the quality of justice, and the potential to exercise it correctly.
That's why for example, if someone murders our family, or one member, we want justice - for the person to pay with their own life.
However, so that justice is served, there are laws put in place to make sure that the alleged murderer is not executed wrongly.
For example...

Spoiler: Example

(Deuteronomy 19:2-12) 2 you should set apart three cities in the midst of your land that Jehovah your God is giving you to possess. 3 You should divide the territory of the land that Jehovah your God has given you to possess into three parts, and prepare the roads so that any manslayer can flee to one of those cities. 4 “Now this is what should take place regarding the manslayer who may flee there in order to live: When he strikes his fellow man unintentionally and he did not previously hate him; 5 as when he goes with his fellow man into the forest to gather wood and he raises his hand to cut the tree with the ax, but the axhead flies off the handle and hits his fellow man and he dies, the manslayer should flee to one of these cities to live. 6 Otherwise, in the heat of anger, the avenger of blood may chase after the manslayer, overtake him, and kill him, because the distance to the city was too far. However, he did not deserve to die, since he did not previously hate his fellow man. 7 That is why I am commanding you: ‘Set three cities apart.’ 8 “If Jehovah your God enlarges your territory as he swore to your forefathers and he has given you all the land that he promised to give to your forefathers 9 —provided you faithfully observe all this commandment that I am giving you today, to love Jehovah your God and always to walk in his ways—then you are to add three other cities to these three. 10 In this way no innocent blood will be spilled in your land that Jehovah your God is giving you as an inheritance, and no bloodguilt will come upon you. 11 “But if a man hated his fellow man and he was waiting to attack him and he fatally wounded him and he died, and the man has fled to one of these cities, 12 the elders of his city should then summon him from there and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, and he must die.

That's why, if you have watched those old cowboy movies, if someone shot another in the back, and it was not a fair gunfight, a lynching party was formed, and if the sheriff does not intervene to give the alleged murderer a fair chance in court, the man is strung up. He dies.

Then we have prisons for those we want to keep off the street, in order to protect civilians from them.

We also have reform institutes, for juveniles, and when they don't reform, the police may end up shooting them down in the street, because they attacked and killed several elementary school children... after trying to blow out their grandma's brain.

We also have animal control, that arrive on the scene, armed with the "appropriate tool" to take your beloved pet that took a chunk of meat out of its owner's face - whether that pet be a chimp, snake, cat, or little terrier.
They will tell you. "We are sorry, but we have to put it down."

All of this is justice.
However, it's not perfect.
What if it was though, and we could detect within that 6 year old, that reform is no help, and you can save grandma, and 19 underage children, and their teachers.... Wouldn't it be great, if we took him out early?
A system like that would allow the peace lovers to enjoy peace, wouldn't it?

What do you think?
Do you see anything wrong with that?
(2 Thessalonians 1:6-9) 6 This takes into account that it is righteous on God’s part to repay tribulation to those who make tribulation for you. 7 But you who suffer tribulation will be given relief along with us at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels 8 in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance on those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus. 9 These very ones will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction from before the Lord and from the glory of his strength,

 

[Nakosis]

If it's beyond your ability, would you appreciate someone stepping in, in your behalf? The illustration in this video is the perfect example

Did not Adam pay for his sin by having his immortality taken from him?
Is it fair to not only give Adam the death penalty but also every child born to him?

Okay. It needs to be cleaned up.

Your are saying someone else left a mess that has to been clean up but assuming that I can't clean it up.
All I can say is again, thanks for the invalidation.

Done. A way has been found to prevent whoever made the mess for anyone from making it again in the future.
So yes then!?

How do you know it can't been done again?
Will people no longer be capable of disobeying God?

It'd likely trigger my other pet peeve, disliking being told what I can and can't do.
I'd likely be Adam all over again.

IOW, I suppose I can't be myself. God can't accept me for who I am. Another reason IMO to dislike God.

So if God were to accept me as I am, no strings attached, great. No need to pay for someone else's sin. No judgement.
Otherwise, the deal is off.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

It would be impossible for humans to prove and demonstrate that. God would be the only one who could demonstrate it to you. I believe it will be demonstrated to some of us after we die and go to the spiritual world, which is the World of Lights.

Why can't God do that right now? If God wants me to be a Baha'i (or any other monotheistic religion in fact) why doesn't God demonstrate this to me when it matters - when I am alive? I don't specifically know about your views of the afterlife, whether or not you believe in eternal paradise or damnation, but if it's so important for me to believe in your God why does your supposed "God of The Omniverse" show this to me now rather than when I die? What's the catch?

You said: Therefore, The Omniverse is God, and there is no "God of The Omniverse"
I don't understand why you think that. Are you saying that because it cannot be proven by humans that God is x, God cannot be x?

What I am trying to say is, the God I observe is a bottom-up approach. Not top-down. I don't see any way on how there could be this "God of The Omniverse" which is infinitely older than even The Omniverse, possess these characteristics you show forth mention, and not be apparent among everyone. And why would this God create multiple religions on Earth? Again, what's the catch?

The bottom-up approach is different from this top-down approach you assume. While I see God as The Omniverse, much of that divinity is something ultimately between us humans, something that occurs on Earth mostly, at least for what matters to us. Whether or not you see The Omniverse is something that is innately God or created by an Omniversal God, what matters is what we do here and now, how we help and grow the world in a way which humans can co-exist with everything else.

You primarily exist to prepare yourself for an afterlife. The afterlife isn't really going to be this "World of Lights" you have been lied to about. If there is no future for the human race then there is no future for anything or anyone on this planet. Not only do I not believe in an afterlife, I believe you will have no knowledge of it when you are dead. If we keep giving people empty promises of something greater without any evidence then science will never resurrect the seventy-two billion dead. And the way you see it - that's a good thing, because somehow death and being reunited with God is better than being alive and experiencing life the way we created it.

Fine. Go ahead and not exist. I don't care. I want to continue to exist, even if that means I have wait centuries for science to keep up with our aging.

 

[viole]

In a sense yes. We have the quality of justice, and the potential to exercise it correctly.
That's why for example, if someone murders our family, or one member, we want justice - for the person to pay with their own life.
However, so that justice is served, there are laws put in place to make sure that the alleged murderer is not executed wrongly.
For example...

Spoiler: Example

(Deuteronomy 19:2-12) 2 you should set apart three cities in the midst of your land that Jehovah your God is giving you to possess. 3 You should divide the territory of the land that Jehovah your God has given you to possess into three parts, and prepare the roads so that any manslayer can flee to one of those cities. 4 “Now this is what should take place regarding the manslayer who may flee there in order to live: When he strikes his fellow man unintentionally and he did not previously hate him; 5 as when he goes with his fellow man into the forest to gather wood and he raises his hand to cut the tree with the ax, but the axhead flies off the handle and hits his fellow man and he dies, the manslayer should flee to one of these cities to live. 6 Otherwise, in the heat of anger, the avenger of blood may chase after the manslayer, overtake him, and kill him, because the distance to the city was too far. However, he did not deserve to die, since he did not previously hate his fellow man. 7 That is why I am commanding you: ‘Set three cities apart.’ 8 “If Jehovah your God enlarges your territory as he swore to your forefathers and he has given you all the land that he promised to give to your forefathers 9 —provided you faithfully observe all this commandment that I am giving you today, to love Jehovah your God and always to walk in his ways—then you are to add three other cities to these three. 10 In this way no innocent blood will be spilled in your land that Jehovah your God is giving you as an inheritance, and no bloodguilt will come upon you. 11 “But if a man hated his fellow man and he was waiting to attack him and he fatally wounded him and he died, and the man has fled to one of these cities, 12 the elders of his city should then summon him from there and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, and he must die.

That's why, if you have watched those old cowboy movies, if someone shot another in the back, and it was not a fair gunfight, a lynching party was formed, and if the sheriff does not intervene to give the alleged murderer a fair chance in court, the man is strung up. He dies.

Then we have prisons for those we want to keep off the street, in order to protect civilians from them.

We also have reform institutes, for juveniles, and when they don't reform, the police may end up shooting them down in the street, because they attacked and killed several elementary school children... after trying to blow out their grandma's brain.

We also have animal control, that arrive on the scene, armed with the "appropriate tool" to take your beloved pet that took a chunk of meat out of its owner's face - whether that pet be a chimp, snake, cat, or little terrier.
They will tell you. "We are sorry, but we have to put it down."

All of this is justice.
However, it's not perfect.
What if it was though, and we could detect within that 6 year old, that reform is no help, and you can save grandma, and 19 underage children, and their teachers.... Wouldn't it be great, if we took him out early?
A system like that would allow the peace lovers to enjoy peace, wouldn't it?

What do you think?
Do you see anything wrong with that?
(2 Thessalonians 1:6-9) 6 This takes into account that it is righteous on God’s part to repay tribulation to those who make tribulation for you. 7 But you who suffer tribulation will be given relief along with us at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels 8 in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance on those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus. 9 These very ones will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction from before the Lord and from the glory of his strength,

Psalms, 137:9
Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.

What do you think? Anything right about it?

And He is the giver of your morality, right?

Ciao

- viole

 

[sun rise]

It would depend on what Christian, right? There are so many versions.

I'm thinking specifically of parts of the Nicene Creed to start with but also all the encrusted theologies about this and that which various groups have written.

 

[nPeace]

Did not Adam pay for his sin by having his immortality taken from him?

Adam did not have immortality.
Adam was created a mortal. His living forever was dependent on obedience to God - It was conditional.

Is it fair to not only give Adam the death penalty but also every child born to him?

The death penalty was not like a sentence of death, like when a judge finds someone guilty, and orders their death.
Adam's death was a consequence of his decision to go against God.
Yes. He was guilty of death, but God had already laid out the terms.

Remember, if he ate from the tree of life, he would have been guaranteed life from God... In other words, God would have been obligated to souce his life, forever.

That not being the case, Adam's body would suffer the defects of one who does not meet God's standard of perfection. Sin then leads to death - the deteriation or decay (entropy) of the body, until it returns to dust.

Adam could only pass on what was in his degenerate body, through defective genes. So none of his children could live forever, and being tainted, they too miss the mark of 'perfection'.

God didn't end Adam's life with an execution, so all offspring born through him, are dying - not from God, but from Adam.
God allowed them to be born in this state, but on the basis of hope - that is, being rescued from sin and death.
Is that loving, just, wise, and righteous? I think so. Despite trials, I am happy to be alive, and the sure hope maintains that.

Your are saying someone else left a mess that has to been clean up but assuming that I can't clean it up.
All I can say is again, thanks for the invalidation.

Can mankind clean up the world's mess? No. It's beyond his ability. The problems are too big for him.
Millions appreciate help promised, and even the help with our sinful tendencies, which many "can't" help themselves with.

How do you know it can't been done again?

The Bible reveals that that problem will never occur again.
How so? The issue of universal sovereignty is being settled once and for all.
In other words, people are right now choosing if they want God as sovereign or not.
The 1000 year reign of Christ will finalize it, so that at the end of the 1000 years, people would have chosen.
Those who choose God, have decided.

It's always possible to change one's mind though right, but that starts in the heart. God reads hearts, and no, he says mankind will never ever face this mess again.
He'll make sure of that.

Will people no longer be capable of disobeying God?

People will alway have free choice to do what they want, but cannot everyone choose to obey God?
Consider if everone chose to be like Christ.
. . .I always do the things pleasing to him. . . (John 8:29)
. . .for the world to know that I love the Father, I am doing just as the Father has commanded me to do. . . (John 14:31)

Then everyone will want to obey God.

It'd likely trigger my other pet peeve, disliking being told what I can and can't do.
I'd likely be Adam all over again.

IOW, I suppose I can't be myself. God can't accept me for who I am. Another reason IMO to dislike God.

So if God were to accept me as I am, no strings attached, great. No need to pay for someone else's sin. No judgement.
Otherwise, the deal is off.

Okay. Thanks for that. You are making your choice... or should I say, you have made your choice - like Adam - to reject God's right to rule.
No problem. Guess I won't be seeing you in paradise. Unless you change your mind.

 

[nPeace]

Psalms, 137:9
Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.

What do you think? Anything right about it?

And He is the giver of your morality, right?

Ciao

- viole

It saddens me when Atheist do this.

Psalms 139
8 O daughter of Babylon, who is soon to be devastated,
Happy will be the one who rewards you
With the treatment you inflicted on us.
9 Happy will be the one who seizes your children
And dashes them against the rocks.

Cherry picking one line, sentence, or verse, is like what dishonest media does, when trying to stain someone.

Who will be happy? The enemies of the Babylonians, who devastate them.
Why? They are destroying their enemies.
So who were the ones destroying Babylon? Those warriors - like the previous - were known for their cruelty.
Hence why they are described as wild beast.

God's people are not described like these beasts.

Another thing Atheists do, is they ignore questions that make their position awkward. In other words, they don't respond to what is said, but instead build up a strawman, and run behind it... but the strawman always falls down, or goes up in flames.

You know what flames do to straw right? It quickly is gone.
Sigh

 

[viole]

It saddens me when Atheist do this.

Psalms 139
8 O daughter of Babylon, who is soon to be devastated,
Happy will be the one who rewards you
With the treatment you inflicted on us.
9 Happy will be the one who seizes your children
And dashes them against the rocks.

Cherry picking one line, sentence, or verse, is like what dishonest media does, when trying to stain someone.

Who will be happy? The enemies of the Babylonians, who devastate them.
Why? They are destroying their enemies.
So who were the ones destroying Babylon? Those warriors - like the previous - were known for their cruelty.
Hence why they are described as wild beast.

God's people are not described like these beasts.

Another thing Atheists do, is they ignore questions that make their position awkward. In other words, they don't respond to what is said, but instead build up a strawman, and run behind it... but the strawman always falls down, or goes up in flames.

You know what flames do to straw right? It quickly is gone.
Sigh

It is obvious that it saddens you when atheists do this. But atheists have a huge reservoir that clearly shows that the Bible is a sort of metaphysical Mein Kampf. And you do not need to be an atheist to see that. It is so easy to find morally repulsive statements in your holy book, that it is almost embarrassing.

So, your post is clearly a desperate attempt to deviate from the issue. Namely that your book promotes the dashing of kids against walls.

So, any intentions to effectively defend that? How does it feel to inherit one's morality from a children murderer?

Ciao

- viole

 

[QuestioningMind]

I’m asking non Christians this hypothetical. If the Christian God was undoubtedly real, would you become a Christian? Let’s say the Christian God proved Himself to you, He does whatever He has to to make you believe. Maybe the sky was ripped open in front of you and Jesus Christ poked His head out and said “hey”.
I saw someone say that “even if he was real, he wouldn’t meet my moral standards.” Is this true for you? The God of the Bible does some pretty gnarly stuff. And He commanded the Israelites to do some gnarly stuff with His law.
For me, I think I would serve Him. I would suspend my understanding of moral standards I suppose. Allow myself to know that I have a subjective perspective. What about you though? Even if He is real, would you want to be His follower?
I am unsure of my position. Jehovah is mighty but arguably immoral from our human perspective. Jesus Christ is great though, died for us and stuff.

If indeed the bible depicts this god accurately then no, I would not worship or follow such a horrendous being.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why can't God do that right now? If God wants me to be a Baha'i (or any other monotheistic religion in fact) why doesn't God demonstrate this to me when it matters - when I am alive?

God does not want anyone to be a Baha'i unless they choose to be a Baha'i of their own free will. That requires investigating the Baha'i Faith and coming to believe it is true. If God proved it to you then it would only be fair for God to prove it to everyone, but that has never been how God operates, although God could prove it to everyone.

I don't specifically know about your views of the afterlife, whether or not you believe in eternal paradise or damnation, but if it's so important for me to believe in your God why does your supposed "God of The Omniverse" show this to me now rather than when I die? What's the catch?

Yes, I believe in an afterlife, call it heaven or paradise, but I do not believe in eternal damnation. In short, Baha'is believe that heaven is nearness to God and hell is distance from God and that is a state of the soul that exists in this life as well as in the afterlife (spiritual world)

I have explained the catch many times on this forum.
Of course an omnipotent God could prove that He exists IF He wanted to.

If God doesn't prove that He exists, but rather provides evidence that He exists, then all doubts about God's existence are on the people who reject the evidence that God provided. The REASON that God does not prove He exists is noted below.

“He Who is the Day Spring of Truth is, no doubt, fully capable of rescuing from such remoteness wayward souls and of causing them to draw nigh unto His court and attain His Presence. “If God had pleased He had surely made all men one people.” His purpose, however, is to enable the pure in spirit and the detached in heart to ascend, by virtue of their own innate powers, unto the shores of the Most Great Ocean, that thereby they who seek the Beauty of the All-Glorious may be distinguished and separated from the wayward and perverse. Thus hath it been ordained by the all-glorious and resplendent Pen…”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 71

In the context of the passage above, If God had pleased He had surely made all men one people means that God could have made all people believers, but IF God has pleased, implies that God did not want to make all people into believers, which is why all men are not believers. The passage goes on to say why God didn’t want to make us believers... In short, God wants us to make an effort and become believers by our own efforts (by virtue of their own innate powers).

According to this passage, God wants everyone to search for Him and determine if He exists by using their own innate intelligence and using their free will to make the decision to believe. God wants those who are sincere and truly search for Him to believe in Him. God wants to distinguish those people from the others who are not sincere, those who are unwilling to put forth any effort.

If God proved to everyone that He exists then it would be impossible to distinguish between people and how much they really care about believing in Him.

What I am trying to say is, the God I observe is a bottom-up approach. Not top-down. I don't see any way on how there could be this "God of The Omniverse" which is infinitely older than even The Omniverse, possess these characteristics you show forth mention, and not be apparent among everyone. And why would this God create multiple religions on Earth? Again, what's the catch?

Baha'u'llah wrote that God and the Creation have always existed but that is a big subject.

God has revealed multiple religions on Earth at various times throughout human history through Messengers because what humanity needs is different in different ages.

“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

“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

The bottom-up approach is different from this top-down approach you assume. While I see God as The Omniverse, much of that divinity is something ultimately between us humans, something that occurs on Earth mostly, at least for what matters to us. Whether or not you see The Omniverse is something that is innately God or created by an Omniversal God, what matters is what we do here and now, how we help and grow the world in a way which humans can co-exist with everything else.

It is a Baha'i teaching that what matters is what we do here and now on this Earth, how we help and grow the world in a way which humans can co-exist with everything else. For this reason we are urged not to dwell on the afterlife, but only know it exists.

You primarily exist to prepare yourself for an afterlife. The afterlife isn't really going to be this "World of Lights" you have been lied to about. If there is no future for the human race then there is no future for anything or anyone on this planet. Not only do I not believe in an afterlife, I believe you will have no knowledge of it when you are dead.

No, I do not primarily exist to prepare myself for the afterlife although one purpose of this Earthly existence is to prepare. The other reason we are put on Earth is to make this Earth a better place for the present generation and the generations to follow.

If we keep giving people empty promises of something greater without any evidence then science will never resurrect the seventy-two billion dead. And the way you see it - that's a good thing, because somehow death and being reunited with God is better than being alive and experiencing life the way we created it.

Do you believe that dead bodies will be resurrected to live on Earth forever? I believe we were intended to live on Earth for a short time and then when our bodies die our souls ascend to the spiritual world where we take on a new forum, a spiritual body. Other than that Baha'u'llah did not reveal much about the nature of the afterlife.

I think you have me pegged incorrectly. Although we share common beliefs, all Baha'is do not have the same attitudes towards God and this life and the afterlife. I do not look forward to death and being reunited with God but the reasons for such would entail a long story.

Fine. Go ahead and not exist. I don't care. I want to continue to exist, even if that means I have wait centuries for science to keep up with our aging.

So you want to continue to exist on Earth forever in the same body?
I believe that one reason for the suffering we endure in this world is so we will not be attached to this world, and since I have suffered most of my life I am pretty detached from this world. That does not mean I look forward to living forever the afterlife but that is another long story.

 

[F1fan]

It is limited how much we know about God. We know more about what God is not than what He is.

Since no Gods are known to exist there isn't anything anyone can claim to know about one, or more. We can know what people believe Gods are, but that is a different thing. What believers believe is not knowledge.

 

[nPeace]

It is obvious that it saddens you when atheists do this. But atheists have a huge reservoir that clearly shows that the Bible is a sort of metaphysical Mein Kampf. And you do not need to be an atheist to see that.

Atheists have a huge reservoir of what? Ignorant arguments.

It is so easy to find morally repulsive statements in your holy book, that it is almost embarrassing.

There were some morally repulsive events recorded in the Bible.
There were written as examples and warnings... that we do not follow bad examples. - 1 Corinthians 10:6-11

There is nothing embarrassing about reading about violent acts in the Bible.
Only people who think men do not act violently, or wickedly, would be embarrassed.

So, your post is clearly a desperate attempt to deviate from the issue. Namely that your book promotes the dashing of kids against walls.

No. It's clearly the truth, which you obviously aren't willing to admit

The book promotes it?
Promote - support or actively encourage (a cause, venture, etc.); further the progress of.

No. The verse you quoted does not support or actively encourage the dashing of kids against walls. In the same way it does not support or actively encourage idol worship, rape, theft, etc, although those things are recorded in the Bible.

The Bible is largely historical, and prophetic.
What history is, is a record of events - both good and bad. That's what history is.

Prophecy is relating what would occur in the future - both good and bad..
The fact that the Bible contains prophecy of events that would occur, does not mean it encourages those actions.

You now have me thinking the next thing I will hear an Atheist say is that the Bible promotes nailing people to the cross, and people becoming drunk.

So, any intentions to effectively defend that? How does it feel to inherit one's morality from a children murderer?

Ciao

- viole

Defend what... a strawman set up by someone desperately clutching at straws? The strawman was burnt.
Maybe build another one. Then try hiding behind that too.

What's sad to me, is that an Atheist so desperate to win their argument, though it's a failed strawman, would try to play off as being correct in their baseless assertion about the verse they cherry picked.

How much more desperate can one be.
For the record... for those who haven't stopped up their ears and going, 'La la la la.'...
The verse prophetically relates how tyrannical Babylon would suffer at the hands of their victorious enemy - Persia.
It gives a graphic detail on the treatment the Babylonians would suffer.

It is no different to when the Bible prophesied that Israelite parents would eat their children while under seige. (Deuteronomy 28:52-57)

It's no different to when the Bible prophesied the destruction of the Jewish temple, by Roman armies, and the woes that would befall pregnant and nursing women.
(Luke 21:20-24)

That's simply prophesying events. Not promoting anything.

Now that your distraction failed, can we get back to the post you didn't address?
Can you answer the question, or would that compromise your position?

 

[JustGeorge]

There is but one God for me, but this one God is conveyed in different terms to different times and cultures, according to their outlook. Of course Hindus are a little different, but I think the concept of Brahmin or Vishnu in the case of Krishna came along and is the one God according to different Hindus. "A rose by any other name is just as sweet".

Its a little complicated. Brahman is not so much a God in a sense like Durga, Vishnu or Shiva is(Krishna is an incarnation of Vishnu), but is formless and all that exists(Gods, people, thoughts, etc) is a part of it/he/she already.

With all being Brahman(in my belief), I can agree that the God of the Abrahamic faiths does exist, but I see him as being in a 'chain' of Gods and coming from a specific place/time/culture. I equate him as being similar in relevance to Aphrodite, Thor, or Laima. These deities are all important(in my opinion), but represent places/times/cultures. I don't equate the Abrahamic deity to Brahman(of which I believe he would just be a part of, along with the myriad of other Gods). Any one of these deities can be worshipped at a person's wish and bring about a full and meaningful religious experience/practice, but I don't feel any of its exclusionary(i.e you must worship this deity to find the way).

I'm not meaning to disparage your beliefs in any way, just explaining my view.

 

[Tiberius]

I’m asking non Christians this hypothetical. If the Christian God was undoubtedly real, would you become a Christian? Let’s say the Christian God proved Himself to you, He does whatever He has to to make you believe. Maybe the sky was ripped open in front of you and Jesus Christ poked His head out and said “hey”.
I saw someone say that “even if he was real, he wouldn’t meet my moral standards.” Is this true for you? The God of the Bible does some pretty gnarly stuff. And He commanded the Israelites to do some gnarly stuff with His law.
For me, I think I would serve Him. I would suspend my understanding of moral standards I suppose. Allow myself to know that I have a subjective perspective. What about you though? Even if He is real, would you want to be His follower?
I am unsure of my position. Jehovah is mighty but arguably immoral from our human perspective. Jesus Christ is great though, died for us and stuff.

If I was provided with evidence that proved that the Christian God was real, yes, I would become a Christian, or whatever else he asked of me.

That's a mighty big IF though...

 

[Truthseeker]

Brahman is not so much a God in a sense like Durga, Vishnu or Shiva is(Krishna is an incarnation of Vishnu), but is formless and all that exists(Gods, people, thoughts, etc) is a part of it/he/she already.

Yeah, I know that about Brahman, but I thought it was Brahmin, I get confused. I consider Brahman a alternate definition of the same one God. We Baha'is also consider what we call as also formless, save that He is not what exists, but all that exists is a manifestation of Him. We also don't consider human beings as part of Brahman, but reflect His attributes, and in that sense can be one with Him.

I consider these others are small g gods that perhaps combine to into one God, the trinity if you will of Hindu. I have heard that Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu, that is said to be the same as incarnation, but I think something has been lost along the way it how it has been transmitted down the years.

Hindu thought developed over a long time, and it changed over time. Whatever.

Hindu is definitely very different and a challenge to understand it's origins and where it came from.

 

[PearlSeeker]

I’m asking non Christians this hypothetical. If the Christian God was undoubtedly real, would you become a Christian? Let’s say the Christian God proved Himself to you, He does whatever He has to to make you believe. Maybe the sky was ripped open in front of you and Jesus Christ poked His head out and said “hey”.
I saw someone say that “even if he was real, he wouldn’t meet my moral standards.” Is this true for you? The God of the Bible does some pretty gnarly stuff. And He commanded the Israelites to do some gnarly stuff with His law.
For me, I think I would serve Him. I would suspend my understanding of moral standards I suppose. Allow myself to know that I have a subjective perspective. What about you though? Even if He is real, would you want to be His follower?
I am unsure of my position. Jehovah is mighty but arguably immoral from our human perspective. Jesus Christ is great though, died for us and stuff.

That would be fascinating but also very disappointing - that our creator was a mass killer, demanded blood sacrifice of Jesus for our sins etc. If I would know such God I guess I would be a wayward child.

 

[firedragon]

Did not Adam pay for his sin by having his immortality taken from him?
Is it fair to not only give Adam the death penalty but also every child born to him?

Not true. There was no indication of some immortality even in the genesis account. This immortality belief comes from a reading in English without reading the Tanakh as a whole. In my opinion, anyone who has read the Tanakh as a whole will never make this kind of statement. This death is not a physical death spoken of in it, it is a spiritual death. Otherwise, the soul that sin's shall die, will have to be considered resurrected and to live forever if he repents.

 

[firedragon]

Yeah, I know that about Brahman, but I thought it was Brahmin, I get confused. I consider Brahman a alternate definition of the same one God. We Baha'is also consider what we call as also formless, save that He is not what exists, but all that exists is a manifestation of Him. We also don't consider human beings as part of Brahman, but reflect His attributes, and in that sense can be one with Him.

I consider these others are small g gods that perhaps combine to into one God, the trinity if you will of Hindu. I have heard that Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu, that is said to be the same as incarnation, but I think something has been lost along the way it how it has been transmitted down the years.

Hindu thought developed over a long time, and it changed over time. Whatever.

Hindu is definitely very different and a challenge to understand it's origins and where it came from.

I was surprised by that a bit. Is the Bahai faith a pantheistic faith?