Questions for Atheists and Agnostics

[Polymath257]

No, you do not have to share God’s values just because God is God, but if God exists and if God is All-Knowing and All-Wise, that would mean God knows more and is wiser than you are. As such, you might want to value what God values. Within wide parameters, you could stilldo what you value and what you feel like doing. I mean if you have good moral values then your values would probably be in conflict with what God values.

I don't see how that follows. Just because someone is smarter and wiser than I am doesn't mean they value the same things I do nor that I should value the same things they do. Their goals may be different than mine. Their wisdom and intelligence pointed in a direction that I do not care about. Now, if they give advice about how to achieve *my* goals, then I will listen. But I see no reason to pursue the goals of even the smartest and wisest entity if its goals are not in line with my values.

 

[Polymath257]

Why would there need to be more than one Messiah? No scriptures ever prophesied more than one Messiah.

So? Why do you think scriptures have anything relevant to say? maybe they are the delusions of fanatics and not the sober realizations of the truth-seekers. That issue must be addressed *first*, before we take the word of any writings, whether labeled as 'scripture' or not.

But are they saying the same things and do they have the evidence to support their claims?

If we are looking to discover if a claimant is telling the truth, the main thing we need to look at is His Life, His Character, His Mission, His Writings, and His Religion that was established as the result of all those.

Interesting. I don't see the Life, Character, or Mission to be relevant *at all* in determining the truth of the Writings or Religion. They may say the person is a good person. But that doesn't imply that what they say is true.

To determine the truth of a claim, we go to the real world and test that claim. The sincerity of the claimant is irrelevant. If what they say corresponds to reality, their claim is true, no matter what their morality. And if it doens't, then it is false, no matter how good they are.

I consider myself logical, and the logical thing to do if one is seeking Truth about God is to go where the best evidence leads... I ask myself how all of the things in the various categories of evidence I have for Baha'u'llah could be proven wrong. If any of them can be proven wrong, I am glad to take a look, but they would have to have sources that are valid and verifiable, not just a personal opinion.

We need to look at the motives of the person hurling accusations at a religion. People who obviously have something to lose or something to gain have a reason to criticize a religion. Also, why would I be prone to believe the accusations of people who are very critical of others, jealous and very arrogant? These are not spiritual qualities but If one has these qualities one must try to keep them private and struggle with them and that is acceptable to God.

Why not just answer the accusations? Again, truth isn't determined by the morality of the claimant. Nor is it determined by whether the claimant is 'pure' or 'guiltless', although those may help to determine if you want to be their friend. Truth is simply a matter of corresponding with reality.

 

[Polymath257]

But what I said about the reason why people reject the new religion is a fact, because it can be proven by talking to people who have rejected it. The primary reason people reject a new religion is because they believe their older religion is the truth, and that means the new religion must be false. The reason nonbelievers reject the new religion is that they do not believe that God uses Messengers.
.

Well, I for one don't believe there is a God at all. A non-existent entity doesn't use messengers. Fro my perspective, you have to now prove *two* things: the existence of a deity and the existence of people that deity talks to to send messages to others. Neither point seems all that likely to me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The real messenger can be distinguished from the fake by some but not by all people. That is how this works. God does not expect all people to recognize the real messenger. However, in the future, everyone will recognize Baha’u’llah. People can get in on the ground floor now if they make the effort.

You just finished agreeing that a fake messenger might do what a real one would do. This means you can’t distinguish a fake one from a real one.

It is all recorded in history so it has been established.

Sorry - I’m just not that credulous. We also have different ideas of what “recorded in history” means, apparently.

But the actions of Jesus were very impressive.

Again: what actions? Which actions are you attributing to Jesus and why?

Keep in mind that you're talking to someone who is open to the idea that Jesus wasn't even a real historical person, or that he started as an amalgam of multiple people.

Jesus explained how to distinguish between a true prophet and a false prophet in Matthew 7:15-20. We shall know them by their fruits (the pleasant or successful result of work or actions).

Why should I care what Jesus said (or was quoted as saying)? How would we know whether he's correct?

A true Messenger would have a good character, an important mission on earth that was completed successfully, and scriptures that contain valuable information about God and other things we need to know in order to fulfill the purpose for our existence.

So Jesus (who has no scriptures attributed to him) doesn't qualify?

Why doesn't Paul qualify? He seems to tick all of your boxes (assuming that the Christian religion is an expression of "good character") but AFAIK he isn't considered a "Messenger" by Baha'is. Why not?

Why would Moses qualify? He's described as doing things like leading genocides. Do the Baha'i consider genocide to be consistent with good character?

Those scriptures would also have social teachings and laws and in this new age in this new age they would have the blueprint instructions humanity needs to build the Kingdom of God on earth. He would have a religion that was established by His followers who are living according to the teachings and laws and completing the tasks assigned by Him.

So if a person's "blueprint" for humanity hasn't resulted in "the Kingdom of God on Earth," then this is a sign that they arent a real Messenger?

I do not know that much about him either, but I cannot understand how anyone was duped by him. Regardless of his past, his actions alone were indicative of a false messenger.

In hindsight, sure: when he started murdering people, that was a sign he was a bad guy. Early on, though, I can see why people were drawn to him: he was charismatic, preached a message of inclusion and equality, and told his followers they were all going to change the world for the better.

I'm not that surprised that people would be taken in by Jim Jones, because that sort of thing happens all the time. It's just that religious leaders usually just use their status to aggrandize themselves or accumulate power or wealth instead of to commit mass murder.

That is a Catch-22.Since the Messenger is the only evidence that God exists the existence of God is established by the Messenger. As such, one cannot establish the existence of God first.

It's not a Catch-22. It just means there's no path of justification to the conclusion you decided on in advance. If we start with an open mind, we can just conclude that the evidence doesn't support belief in God.

Obviously, if God does not exist, God cannot have a Messenger, but since you cannot prove that God does not exist that is a moot point.

It's not a moot point; it means that a purported "Messenger of God" can't be used to justify belief in God.

Yet there are inconsistencies... How can you explain how Jesus was able to do what Jesus did, as noted above?

I'm not convinced that Jesus did anything he attributed to him or existed at all. You may as well be asking me to explain how Paul Bunyan made Big Rock Candy Mountain.

How do you explain the fact that one third of the world population still follows Jesus after over 2000 years?

- aggressive proselytizing.

- no dietary or social restrictions that would have limited aggressive proselytizing by limiting where Christians could travel.

- nearly 2000 years of brutal conversion at swordpoint and gunpoint... and the indiscriminate slaughter of those who wouldn't convert.

- the dumb luck of becoming popular in Europe, which ended up being the seat of world power for centuries because of other factors (read Jared Diamond's "Gun, Germs & Steel" if you're curious about those other factors).

Are there any other men that have been able to do what the Messengers I have cited have done and have a lasting impact upon civilization and the progress of mankind for hundreds or even thousands of years?

I don't see why not. Confucious certainly did. So did Hammurabi, James Watt (or Newcomen if you're super old school), Newton, or the anonymous author of "An Agreement of the People."

Edit: I also note that the Bab, Baha'u'llah, and any Baha'i "messengers" since them have not had a lasting impact on humanity for "hundreds or perhaps thousands of years."

I am not very proficient in history.So what you are saying is that Christianity would never have gotten off the ground had it not been adopted by the ruler of the Roman Empire.

I think that the influence of Paul was what took it to anything more than a forgettable local cult, then adoption by the Roman Empire gave it influence and protection and made it widespread.

That no doubt gave it a boost, but I think that Christianity still would have spread eventually, although perhaps more slowly, as we can see with the Baha’i Faith today, which was rejected by all the kings and rulers of the earth in the 19th century,as well as by all the Christian and Muslim leaders of that time. Baha’u’llah predicted that they would all fall from power for rejecting Him, and all His predictions came to pass. Shoghi Effendi, the Guardian of the Baha’i Faith, wrote about that in The Promised Day Is Come.

Wait - you think that "all the kings and rulers of the Earth" who were alive when Baha'u'llah was active "all [fell] from power for rejecting him?"

Do I understand you correctly? If so, that claim is bonkers. It's obviously false.

 

[LuisDantas]

Why would there need to be more than one Messiah? No scriptures ever prophesied more than one Messiah.

I don't know what you mean by that.

For one thing, "Messiah" as a word has its meaning highly dependent on context and expectations. Its literal meaning is "anointed one". It is all too easy to conclude that at least the Messengers of your Bahai tradition qualify, or even that many more people do. It is really an arbitrary call.

For another, some Muslims seem to consider both Jesus and the Mahdi to be Messiahs and expect them to coexist at some point in the future.

As for your original question: there is no need for Messiahs whatsoever. But if we understand the concept to refer to figures of wisdom, then of course there will always be a need for as many of them as we can nurture.

 

[Trailblazer]

And now we are back to the sheep.

No, we are not back to the sheep because followers of a religion are not necessarily like sheep. Maybe some religious people are, but Baha’is are enjoined to independently investigate the religion and decide for themselves if it is true or not. We are warned never to follow what others do. We are even told that if we follow what others do and disbelieve in Baha’u’llah just because others disbelievewe will be held accountable by God for our disbelief,since we are all responsible for our own beliefs.

I didn't say there couldn't be. I said it will never convince me. Thus, God is using an ineffective method of communication. God is not communicating directly with me, and since I have no way to verify if God is communicating through a messenger, then God is also not communicating with me indirectly either.

God is not communicating with me no matter how you cut it.

Besides, it is a general mistrust of every human being on top of repeatedly verifying that those who speak for God do so selfishly.

It does not work for you as a means of communication but that does not mean it is ineffective – it is just ineffective for you. God is never going to communicate directly with you or anyone else, except His Chosen Messengers. That is how God operates. No ordinary human being has the capacity to understand communication from God directly and that is one reason God uses a Messenger who is a Mediator – He has a universal divine mind, so He can understand God and convey God’s message.

 

[Trailblazer]

This is a better rephrase of my question. If gods nature is unexplained even by bahaullah, then how do we trust bahaullah as a conduit of god?

How do you be a conduit of something without definition?

Wouldn't you need to describe what god is, Then use bahaullah words to support your statement?

Foundation first then support.

Bahaullah can't be the source (like the Catholic trinity) so explain the source before you quote the support.

We do not need to know God’s nature (the definition of God) in order to trust Baha’u’llah.We come to trust Baha’u’llah by looking at the “evidence” that supports His claim to be a Messenger of God.

Baha’u’llah explained how we are supposed to establish the truth of His claim. First, we examine His own Self (His character); then we examine His Revelation (everything that surrounds His Mission on earth);and then we look at His words (His Writings).

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106

We can never know the Essence (intrinsic nature) of God.

God is, and has ever been, immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived. All we can know are the Attributes (qualities) of God and the Will of God for any age in history. Baha’u’llah revealed and reflected the Attributes of God and Baha’u’llah revealed the Will of God.

Baha’u’llah was not a conduit (channel) through which God was conveyed. He was a Mediator between God and man, through which the Attributes of God and Will of God were conveyed to humanity.

I hope that helps you to better understand the relationship between Baha’u’llah and God.

 

[Trailblazer]

If you actually believe the man gained nothing from his followers then you must have an incredibly narrow definition of gain. Have you ever had even 100 people listen to you speak? I assure you that, in and of itself, is elating. It isn't like he was new to religious endeavors when he was 'chosen' is it?

What you are doing is called Psychological projection.
You are projecting what you think someone claiming to speak for God would want onto Baha’u’llah, as if He would want what you would want. But that is not what Baha’u’llah wanted. Everything He did was for the sake of God. He said that repeatedly:

“Incline your ears to the counsels which this Servant giveth you for the sake of God. He, verily, asketh no recompense from you and is resigned to what God hath ordained for Him, and is entirely submissive to God’s Will.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 127

“Walk ye in the fear of God, and render not your works vain. Incline your ears to His words, and be not of them that are shut out as by a veil from Him. Say: God is My witness! I have wished nothing whatever for Myself. What I have wished is the victory of God and the triumph of His Cause.He is Himself a sufficient witness between you and Me. Were ye to cleanse your eyes, ye would readily perceive how My deeds testify to the truth of My words, how My words are a guide to My deeds.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 256-257

The way we can know that He was not seeking personal gain and that everything He did was for the sake of God is by reading about Him and His Mission on earth. All that is available to readonline or in books. The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4, covers the 40 years of His Mission, from 1853-1892.

Yes, he was new to religious endeavors when he was chosen.

Maybe the emotional content of his spoken words might have moved me, but in text this passage sounds immensely disingenuous. Self-aggrandizement disguised as self-pity. Seriously.

I think you are projecting your own thoughts and feelings onto Baha’u’llah again. Self pity? Self-aggrandizement? I have no idea where you get that idea. He just pointed out that He was an exile, a victim of tyranny, put in the Most Great Prison, and he was assailed by His enemies for His entire life. He was not complaining. He was just tying that in with the fact that what He did was for the sake of God and He did not care what anyone did to Him or how much He suffered – He was going to keep doing what He was doing for God. Elsewhere He says that He did not mind being a captive.

“My captivity can bring on Me no shame. Nay, by My life, it conferreth on Me glory. That which can make Me ashamed is the conduct of such of My followers as profess to love Me, yet in fact follow the Evil One. They, indeed, are of the lost.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 117-118

Nice little backhand there. So if I don't testify, I must not be a man of understanding or insight.

That is not want the passage says. It says that a man of understanding and insight who would know that whatever we get from God is for our own benefit, since an omnipotent self-sufficient God does not have to give us anything at all. We get it from God because God is merciful and God loves us, not because God needs us. Where the passage says “though He Himself can well dispense with all creatures” that is a way of saying God does not need us for squat.

I am starting to realize that these passages from Gleanings are not really for public consumption. I never even understood what they meant for decades; not until I had talked to a lot of other Baha’is and had read a lot of other Baha’i Writings and came to understand the mission and station of Baha’u’llah.

“Do you take issue with that? If so, why?”

Only because it is unbelievable.

Fair enough.

“That is true. That is why we have to look at all the evidence, everything that surrounds His Life and Mission, if we want to determine if He was a true Messenger.”

That's only necessary if you want him to be the messenger. If you dont, or don't particularly care, you only need to erode a tiny bit of trust. The benefit of the doubt only goes so far.

That is true. You don’t have to do anything if you don’t care if He was a Messenger or not.

No it's called the healthy practice of mistrusting humans.

I am not sure how healthy it is to mistrust humans but now at least I can see where some of your mistrust of Messengers is coming from.

I used to mistrust everyone but I have changed a lot over time. I have learned to differentiate those who I can trust from those I cannot trust. For example, I had a tenant in one of my rentals who was way overdue on his rent. He was having trouble getting clients for his business so he could not pay the rent. I sensed he was telling me the truth so I kept allowing him to stay in the house instead of evicting him, as everyone told me I should do. This has been going on for about two years, and by January of this year he owed me about $10,000. My friends kept telling me to evict him, get another tenant, and cut my losses. I hung tight.

He had not even been paying the monthly rent he owed but then all of the sudden last fall he started paying the rent every month and then in January he paid me about $5000 of the back rent all at once. Then last week he paid another $5000. Who would have ever thought he would pay that? Nobody but me. Even my attorneys told me to evict him. How did I know he would ever pay? I was not sure, but I was pretty sure by the way he was acting and by what he said to me that he was not lying. He was sincere.

I have had other tenants and I knew right away when they were lying and I proceeded to take action and evict them and I had to take one of them to court. I will be going to court again soon if some tenants who moved out last year without paying back rent do not respond to my e-mail, trying to work out a deal out of court.

He had temporal power. Lots of it. You are proof of that yourself.

How am I proof that He had temporal power, just because I believe in Him? That did not given Him power over me because my belief was a choice.

Okay, you understand I don't mean 'fight' as in they beat each other up.
They squabbled over succession resulting in the younger brother being excommunicated. He then established the Unitarian Baha'i church. Bahaullahs will named his first son successor and the younger brother as next in command. Funny how that didn't really turn out as planned. Maybe he should just let God pick the successor like the time before with the vision and everything.

Interestingly enough, they both still revered their father as the true messenger of God, they just disagree on who was the next messenger, both choosing themselves. Clearly, nothing to be gained by speaking with the voice of the almighty to thousands of devotees. As can be clearly demonstrated by these two wise and learned humble servants of God bickering over the very same nothing.

That is a long convoluted story and I recently read what happened in a book entitled The Covenant of Baha’u’llah. The older brother broke the Covenant of Baha’u’llah by speaking out against Baha’u’llah and so He could not be the successor. Even though he was named in the will His successorship was contingent upon him being qualified.No, that is not true, they did not both revere Baha’u’llah. After Baha’u’llah died all hell broke loose. The older brother did horrible things in His name.

You can find all kinds of things on the internet but the true story was told in The Covenant of Baha’u’llah. I cannot remember all the details now.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't see how that follows. Just because someone is smarter and wiser than I am doesn't mean they value the same things I do nor that I should value the same things they do. Their goals may be different than mine. Their wisdom and intelligence pointed in a direction that I do not care about. Now, if they give advice about how to achieve *my* goals, then I will listen. But I see no reason to pursue the goals of even the smartest and wisest entity if its goals are not in line with my values.

Then it is a good thing you are an atheist.

As believers, we trust God and that God knows more than we do about what is best for us, according to what is in the scriptures. We can still have *our own goals* but if they are in conflict with what is in scriptures then we have to decide which is more important – our personal goals or what God wants for us.

There might be some things we want to do that do not align with the teachings and laws of the religion but we strive to do what we are enjoined to do because we believe in God that God knows more than we do about what is best for us.

It is not like we are limited in what we are allowed to do. There are wide parameters and as long as we are moral – do not lie, steal or cheat or treat others badly -- we can do most anything we want to do. As Baha’is, if we do not perfectly follow a Baha’i law we are not going to hell for that, we just struggle and do our best.

Besides that, if God is the smartest and wisest entity that means we cannot be as smart or as wise, let alone wiser or smarter than God. Why then would we not want to do what God enjoined us to do, knowing God is smarter and wiser than we are? That would not be logical.

On the other hand, people so not always behave according to logic. Most people just want what they want. It is human nature to be selfish unless we really believe in God as an entity greater than ourselves. That is not to say that people who believe in God cannot be selfish. But if they really trust God they will be less selfish.

Of course, you deferring to God is moot if you do not believe that God exists.

 

[Trailblazer]

So? Why do you think scriptures have anything relevant to say? maybe they are the delusions of fanatics and not the sober realizations of the truth-seekers. That issue must be addressed *first*, before we take the word of any writings, whether labeled as 'scripture' or not.

How do you think we can address that issue *first?*

Simply put, I believe the Writings of Baha’u’llah are the truth from God because I believe that Baha’u’llah got a revelation from God, and God is the Source of all truth. I believe the Bible and other religious scriptures are inspired by God because Baha’u’llah validates the older religions and their scriptures.

But before I can to believe that I *first* had to look at the Baha’i Faith and its teachings to determine if they corresponded to what I considered truth. I knew that right away that I agreed with the teachings , but then later I had to do more research into the life of Baha’u’llah and the history of His Faith.

I became a Baha’i a long time ago, but as I recall I did not think much about God back then, and that was not why I became a Baha’i; it was because of the teachings. Moreover, I had no “emotional attachment” to Baha’u’llah as Christians have to Jesus. I just believed in the teachings and the theology of progressive revelation made logical sense to me.

Only much later, during the last five years, did I delve into the Writings of Baha’u’llah that address the nature of God and Messengers of God and why we need them, as well as the nature of the soul and its eternal destination. Most of my life I did not do anything with the Baha’i Faith and I did not think much about God, but my priorities have changed now that I am older. I take God and religion more seriously now.

Interesting. I don't see the Life, Character, or Mission to be relevant *at all* in determining the truth of the Writings or Religion. They may say the person is a good person. But that doesn't imply that what they say is true.

I understand that. However, we cannot “prove” that a claimant got a revelation from God so we have to go through the back door and look at his Life, Character, and Mission in order to try to determine if he is trustworthy, thus telling the truth.

We need to know much more than that he was just a “good person.” We need to look at everything surrounding his life and revelation, and especially what he wrote.

To determine the truth of a claim, we go to the real world and test that claim. The sincerity of the claimant is irrelevant. If what they say corresponds to reality, their claim is true, no matter what their morality. And if it doens't, then it is false, no matter how good they are.

You raise a really good point, and this is more of the evidence we need to look at. In fact, this is what Baha’u’llah said we should look at, “His words and works and their effects in transforming the lives and characters of men.”

Jesus said something similar in Matthew 7:15-20 that we would know a true prophet by his fruits, which means the pleasant or successful result of work or actions.

“Bahá’u’lláh asked no one to accept His statements and His tokens blindly. On the contrary, He put in the very forefront of His teachings emphatic warnings against blind acceptance of authority, and urged all to open their eyes and ears, and use their own judgement, independently and fearlessly, in order to ascertain the truth. He enjoined the fullest investigation and never concealed Himself, offering, as the supreme proofs of His Prophethood, His words and works and their effects in transforming the lives and characters of men.” Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, p. 8

So at this juncture, we would want to look at how the Baha’i Faith has transformed the lives of the Baha’is all over the world, what the Baha’is are doing and how the Baha’is are affecting other people in the world. This video is a little long but it shows how believing in Baha’u’llah has transformed the lives of people all over the world: Light to the World

Why not just answer the accusations? Again, truth isn't determined by the morality of the claimant. Nor is it determined by whether the claimant is 'pure' or 'guiltless', although those may help to determine if you want to be their friend. Truth is simply a matter of corresponding with reality.

I fully agree, and that is exactly what I do. If people hurl accusations at Baha’u’llah I respond to them, and I make sure I have the necessary proof to back up what I am saying.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, I for one don't believe there is a God at all. A non-existent entity doesn't use messengers. Fro my perspective, you have to now prove *two* things: the existence of a deity and the existence of people that deity talks to to send messages to others. Neither point seems all that likely to me.

The existence of God cannot be proven *first* because the Messenger of God is the evidence that God exists, although it is not proof.

All we have is evidence that God exists, not proof. The Messengers of God are evidence, but since not everyone believes they were sent by God not everyone is going to believe in them.

If God had never used Messengers, hardly anyone would believe in God because the main reason people believe in God is because of one of those Messengers and the religions they established. 84 percent of the world population has a faith and those faiths all have some kind of Founder, what I refer to as a Messenger. Some people just believe in God and do not need evidence the Messengers provide, but that is a small minority of people.

I probably never would have believed in God if I had not stumbled upon the Baha’i Faith during my first year of college, because I would have had no reason to believe in God, since I was not even searching for God.

My parents were both raised as Christians but they dropped out of the Church before us kids were born. I never saw the inside of a Church until I went to live with relatives after my father died when I was 12. It was rather frightening but it had no impact upon me. I could not have cared less about God back then.

I know my father was an atheist but I think my mother retained her belief in God, and she became a Baha’i about 10 years after my father died.By then my brother and sister had become Baha’is, so that was the whole nuclear family. My extended family on my mother’s side were Greek Orthodox or Roman Catholic, on my father’s side they were atheists.

Were you raised as an atheist or are you another one of those ex-Christian atheists?

 

[Trailblazer]

You just finished agreeing that a fake messenger might do what a real one would do. This means you can’t distinguish a fake one from a real one.

They might do “some of the same things” on a superficial level, but if we dig deeper we will see that the fake messenger would not be persecuted, exiled, banished, imprisoned, and suffer and sacrifice for God or write any useful scriptures. He also would not have a world religion that is flourishing all around the world.

Sorry - I’m just not that credulous. We also have different ideas of what “recorded in history” means, apparently.

Everyone is free to read the history and make their own evaluation.

Again: what actions? Which actions are you attributing to Jesus and why?

Keep in mind that you're talking to someone who is open to the idea that Jesus wasn't even a real historical person, or that he started as an amalgam of multiple people.

Granted, I think that atheists tend to be more educated than believers on the whole and above average in intelligence, but sometime I think they wear blinders. All of Western society has been affected by the New Testament teachings of Jesus, e.g., do onto others, love thy neighbor, etc. They are affected whether they believe in Jesus or not. The same can be said for Moses and the Ten Commandments. All morality originates in religion.

So Jesus (who has no scriptures attributed to him) doesn't qualify?

Jesus does qualify because the New Testament scriptures were attributed to Jesus, even though He did not write them Himself, as Baha’u’llah wrote His.

Why doesn't Paul qualify? He seems to tick all of your boxes (assuming that the Christian religion is an expression of "good character") but AFAIK he isn't considered a "Messenger" by Baha'is. Why not?

Simply put, because (1) Paul never claimed to get a message from God but rather deferred to Jesus, and (2) Baha’u’llah did not name Paul as a Messenger of God (Prophet).

Why would Moses qualify? He's described as doing things like leading genocides. Do the Baha'i consider genocide to be consistent with good character?

You are oversimplifying this. I never said that just because someone has a “good character” they are a Messenger if God. There are many “other requirements.” Gandhi and Martin Luther King had a good character but they were just men. I do not know what Moses or Muhammad did, and I do not believe all the stories, but I believe that they were Messengers of God because Baha’u’llah said so.

So if a person's "blueprint" for humanity hasn't resulted in "the Kingdom of God on Earth," then this is a sign that they arent a real Messenger?

No, absolutely not, because the Kingdom of God on earth is a “work in progress” and it is only in the beginning stages of being built. It took thousands of years for humanity to make a big mess in the kitchen; that cannot be cleaned up overnight.

“God’s purpose is none other than to usher in, in ways He alone can bring about, and the full significance of which He alone can fathom, the Great, the Golden Age of a long-divided, a long-afflicted humanity. Its present state, indeed even its immediate future, is dark, distressingly dark. Its distant future, however, is radiant, gloriously radiant—so radiant that no eye can visualize it........

What we witness at the present time, during “this gravest crisis in the history of civilization,” recalling such times in which “religions have perished and are born,” is the adolescent stage in the slow and painful evolution of humanity, preparatory to the attainment of the stage of manhood, the stage of maturity, the promise of which is embedded in the teachings, and enshrined in the prophecies, of Bahá’u’lláh. The tumult of this age of transition is characteristic of the impetuosity and irrational instincts of youth, its follies, its prodigality, its pride, its self-assurance, its rebelliousness, and contempt of discipline.”
The Promised Day Is Come, pp. 116-117

I'm not that surprised that people would be taken in by Jim Jones, because that sort of thing happens all the time. It's just that religious leaders usually just use their status to aggrandize themselves or accumulate power or wealth instead of to commit mass murder.

I am staring to understand your point, and the points others here are making. How do you differentiate such that you can know for certain who is a fake messenger and who is a real one? There has to be some kind of starting point, some reason to be looking in one place rather than another.To me it is logical that the starting point would be the major religions that are established and have a track record.Why would anyone look at some “new religion” unless they had a good reason to do so, unless they were looking for something new, or unless they did not see anything they want in the older religions and they still wanted to believe in God?

Maybe I was just fortunate to discover the Baha’i Faith before I was jaded by everything else out there and also; because I was never of any religion before that, I did not have any confirmation bias towards religion or Messengers. I just accepted the Baha’i Faith at face value based upon its teachings. But since that time I have done due diligence, and in fact that is practically ALL I have done for the past five years, so if there was something hiding in the closet that would refute my beliefs I most likely would have found it by now.

As I said, I just accepted the Baha’i Faith at face value, and I saw no need to compare it with the other world religions. Since then I have done so and now it makes sense to me how they are all tied together, all revealed by the same God. There is no other religion I would be able to believe in because they all have one problem in common, they have all been changed by man so they no longer represent the original revelation from God.

It's not a Catch-22. It just means there's no path of justification to the conclusion you decided on in advance. If we start with an open mind, we can just conclude that the evidence doesn't support belief in God.

You can if you want to. To me the evidence that God exists is staring me in the face, it is so obvious.

“Obviously, if God does not exist, God cannot have a Messenger, but since you cannot prove that God does not exist that is a moot point.”

It's not a moot point; it means that a purported "Messenger of God" can't be used to justify belief in God.

He can be if you believe that He was sent by God.

“How do you explain the fact that one third of the world population still follows Jesus after over 2000 years?”

- aggressive proselytizing.
- no dietary or social restrictions that would have limited aggressive proselytizing by limiting where Christians could travel.
- nearly 2000 years of brutal conversion at swordpoint and gunpoint... and the indiscriminate slaughter of those who wouldn't convert.
- the dumb luck of becoming popular in Europe, which ended up being the seat of world power for centuries because of other factors (read Jared Diamond's "Gun, Germs & Steel" if you're curious about those other factors).

You raise some good points. I always appreciate looking at things through atheist glasses. Given human nature and the sheep mentality, that could explain how Christianity grew; at least that is part of the reason. Also, being “saved and forgiven” by the blood of Jesus and getting to heaven without having to “do anything” is a pretty attractive package, even today. Also, being loved by Jesus and God is very attractive, as most people want to be loved. What I just said probably explains the reason Christianity is still popular, even though it is not growing very fast and many Christians are dropping out.

I also note that the Bab, Baha'u'llah, and any Baha'i "messengers" since them have not had a lasting impact on humanity for "hundreds or perhaps thousands of years."

History has not yet unfolded so the jury is still out. That does not disqualify them, for obvious reasons.

I think that the influence of Paul was what took it to anything more than a forgettable local cult, then adoption by the Roman Empire gave it influence and protection and made it widespread.

Indeed, Christianity never would have spread without Paul... I know that much history.

Wait - you think that "all the kings and rulers of the Earth" who were alive when Baha'u'llah was active "all [fell] from power for rejecting him?"

Do I understand you correctly? If so, that claim is bonkers. It's obviously false.

I absolutely believe it, but don’t take my word for it, you should never do that. By reading history you can at least verify what rulers fell from power, why and when and where, even if you do not believe it was because they rejected the message of Baha’u’llah. The caveat is that Baha’u’llah predicted they would fall, who and when and where; some were those who rejected His Tablets, some were those who banished Him from place to place.

As I said, I am not that proficient in history, not even Baha’i history, but I have taken it upon myself to try to learn some history. I was reading about the above in the book entitled The Promised Day Is Come. It is utterly amazing.

As an example, in “The Promised Day Is Come” there is one little excerpt which describes what happened to Napoleon III after he received the Tablet of Baha’u’llah written for him:

“It is reported that upon receipt of this first Message that superficial, tricky, and pride-intoxicated monarch flung down the Tablet saying: “If this man is God, I am two gods!” The transmitter of the second Tablet had, it is reliably stated, in order to evade the strict surveillance of the guards, concealed it in his hat, and was able to deliver it to the French agent, who resided in ‘Akká, and who, as attested by Nabíl in his Narrative, translated it into French and sent it to the Emperor, he himself becoming a believer when he had later witnessed the fulfillment of so remarkable a prophecy.” The Promised Day Is Come, p. 51

The whole depiction of what happened with Baha’u’llah and Napoleon III is in this chapter, Humiliation Immediate and Complete.

Baha’u’llah wrote Tablets addressed specifically to certain kings and rulers and religious leaders of all faiths. Some of those Tablets are in the book entitled Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't know what you mean by that.

For one thing, "Messiah" as a word has its meaning highly dependent on context and expectations. Its literal meaning is "anointed one". It is all too easy to conclude that at least the Messengers of your Bahai tradition qualify, or even that many more people do. It is really an arbitrary call.

For another, some Muslims seem to consider both Jesus and the Mahdi to be Messiahs and expect them to coexist at some point in the future.

As for your original question: there is no need for Messiahs whatsoever. But if we understand the concept to refer to figures of wisdom, then of course there will always be a need for as many of them as we can nurture.

I believe that Jesus was “a Messiah” and there might have been other Messiahs, if we interpret that word as you said.

However, I believe that there was only one Messiah of the latter days, the One prophesied in all the religions of the past, the Promised One of All Ages.

“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.

Christians await the return of Christ and the coming of "another comforter." The Jewish scriptures foretell the coming of "another Prophet" like Moses and the return of Elijah from heaven. Many Moslems await the appearance of Mahdi and Meseeh. Krishna promised to personally return from age to age. Buddha said that he was not the first Buddha ever to appear and that another "supremely enlightened" Buddha was still yet to come. Zoroastrian prophecies foretell the coming of a "World-renovator." Native American prophecies foretell the coming of a bearded white man from the east who will bring teachings which will restore the hoop of unity.

Each religion, in its own way, has foretold the coming of a great 'religion restoring', 'world uniting', 'peace bringing' Messiah.

For centuries, people from all over the world have been hoping and praying that they will be the generation which will witness the appearance of their Promised One. Not many have considered the possibility that these prophecies from the various religions might actually all be foretelling the exact same event.

Members of the Baha'i Faith believe that in the middle of the last century these prophecies actually were fulfilled and that the Promised One truly did appear.

Baha'u'llah, the Prophet founder of the Baha'i Faith, claims to be the Promised One whose coming was explicitly foretold, not only in the Old and the New Testaments.... but also in the prophecies of the Hindu, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Islamic and other religions.

If Baha'u'llah truly is the Promised One then His appearance is one of the greatest events of human history. Are Baha'u'llah's claim true? How can we know for certain? Just take a look at some of the proofs and prophecies... and then decide for yourself.”

From: Prophecy Fulfilled Webpage

 

[LuisDantas]

I did.

 

[ArtieE]

Granted, I think that atheists tend to be more educated than believers on the whole and above average in intelligence, but sometime I think they wear blinders. All of Western society has been affected by the New Testament teachings of Jesus, e.g., do onto others, love thy neighbor, etc. They are affected whether they believe in Jesus or not. The same can be said for Moses and the Ten Commandments. All morality originates in religion.

Actually morality evolved. You will find a lot of interesting information online and in books about the evolution of morality. Evolution of morality - Wikipedia You can also find a lot of interesting information on how religions evolved. The Origins of Religion: How Supernatural Beliefs Evolved

 

[Polymath257]

Were you raised as an atheist or are you another one of those ex-Christian atheists?

I was raised Christian, but I was always skeptical. Even as a very young child, when no response happened from prayer, I saw that as evidence the adults might be mistaken. I saw the stories in Bible school as closer to Aesop's fables than history, even when I was less than 10 years old.

So, while I was raised Christian, I can't say I ever really believed it.

 

[Polymath257]

I am staring to understand your point, and the points others here are making. How do you differentiate such that you can know for certain who is a fake messenger and who is a real one? There has to be some kind of starting point, some reason to be looking in one place rather than another.To me it is logical that the starting point would be the major religions that are established and have a track record.Why would anyone look at some “new religion” unless they had a good reason to do so, unless they were looking for something new, or unless they did not see anything they want in the older religions and they still wanted to believe in God?
.

It goes a bit deeper than even that. Why think that even the major religions got any part of it right? Isn't it far more likely that, in regards to deities, they all get it wrong? I mean, sure, they all have similar morality, but that is something even atheists can agree on for the most part. The existence of a supernatural is the primary point at issue. And, given the disagreements, I find it far more likely that all major religions get it wrong than that any get it right.

Why would someone want to believe in God if there isn't one?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I remember you mentioned bahaullah had some sort of divine property. The trinity is the same. The prophet have a divine property that makes them (not you and not me) able to speak as evidence of god. In that way, it sounds like the trinity. Using duality for English purpose since there is no third person in Baha'i.

We do not need to know God’s nature (the definition of God) in order to trust Baha’u’llah.We come to trust Baha’u’llah by looking at the “evidence” that supports His claim to be a Messenger of God.

I wouldnt trust the evidence of someone with whom does not know the nature of what he speaks of. If you don't know gods nature. He doesn't know. What exactly does he say (in your words) that would be evidence for a god he is doesn't know?

Baha’u’llah explained how we are supposed to establish the truth of His claim. First, we examine His own Self (His character); then we examine His Revelation (everything that surrounds His Mission on earth);and then we look at His words (His Writings).

But without know gods nature, you can do this to know yourself but to know god, what exactly are you learning that you have yet to know of god from the evidence you say you receive?

In other words, why trust bahaullah as evidence to support god when the evidence he uses does not explain the nature of god just how you two try to define his dictations; which is not the same as his nature.

I wouldn't trust someone who speaks for someone else of that person doesn't know the person (or company) with which that person speaks for.

We can never know the Essence
(intrinsic nature) of God.

Hence why bahaullah evidence doesn't make sense. What have you learned about god when you don't even know who god is?

If bahaullah knew the nature of god like jesus then I can see it. He does not. So that puts a hole in what you say. Source first then evidence.

Aka nature of god first before quoting bahaullah as evidence you trust to support it true (to you).

He was a Mediator between God and man, through which the Attributes of God and Will of God were conveyed to humanity.

Sounds like the trinity: through him one has eternal life; mediator between god and man

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus
Timothy 1:25

That's what the trinity means. Jesus is not inseparable from god. You can't speak for god you don't even know.

That's like trying to tell you about John mckinny when I never met him what he is (a person? Dog?)

Don't see a difference between bahaullah relation-ship with god and Christ to his god.

The problem, though, is trying to peak for a god you both can't describe. Which makes it hard to trust bahaullah evidence (as you mentioned)

Who would trust what I said about John is true without even meeting or hearing for herself John before trusting anything I said about him is true.

I can't judge something like bahaullah words true without knowing who he speaks about personally. Evidence means nothing without the source of it.

In other words, evidence for the source means nothing unless you know the source first to judged whether the evidence you receive is true or just words you put blond trust (by strict definition of the phrase).

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@Trailblazer

Trinity means relationship between three people. Jesus had a relationship with his father (duality) so he can speak for him as evidence of his existence and dictations. Bahaullah can so the same. Hende why both are inseparable from god.

That, by definition, is the trinity.

The quotes you post mean nothing. I can't judge if they are true because I don't know the nature of the person to which those quotes say they are evidence of.

Explain the nature of god
Then give quotes
Then I can judge what the quotes say is true based on what I already know of the source.

I have no reason to trust evidence; it can speak of anything, and I wouldn't know if it's true since I have no basis of comparison. Aka, it would be blind faith if I did by strict definition.

Which isn't a bad thing.

Summary of my post

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Keep thinking of new examples

That's like if I never heard not ate an apple, I ask you what it is, then you say

It's a fruit. It's red or green. I trust it's a fruit because that's what it says in this cookbook

Have you ate this apple?

No.

Have you used it in cooking?

No.

What exactly is an apple?

I don't know. I just know what the book says about it.

But how do you know the cookbook is true when you don't know what an apple is to begin with?

Don't use Baha'i terms this as an analogy. Answer or comment on the analogy terms and context itself.