Questions for Atheists and Agnostics

[Trailblazer]

A god, by definition would not need anything or want anything. That would imply that the god hasn't been able to satisfy a want or a need, which would make him something less than a god.

You are absolutely correct.

 

[Trailblazer]

How do they know if they are zapped at birth? And by the way, I also do not like to walk, I would vastly prefer to fly. But I have no wings. Is that a problem?

How would that be a lot different from a parent indoctrinating a child into Christianity before he is old enough to think for himself and make his own decision? God does not want us to be born believe He exists. God wants that to be a choice that we make when we become old enough to make rational decisions.

Ach yes. Those middle men. God should know that there is a thing called chinese whisper. A variant of a problem with communication when transmitted on noisy channels.

He should know by now, given that there are and have been thousands of middle men all saying different things about God.

So what? How many of them claimed to be a Messenger of God? How many of them completed a 40 year Mission on earth? How many of them wrote scriptures? How many of them had a worldwide religion that resulted from their scriptures?

God has given us the job of discerning between false prophets from the true prophets. It is not that difficult if one sets their mind to it, which is exactly what God expects us to do.

Matthew 7:15-20 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Fruits: the pleasant or successful result of work or actions: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fruit

After some time has passed and a religion is established it is not that difficult to distinguish between the true and false religions.

So, what about speaking directly? I am sure that talking to billions does not take much more effort than speaking to one, for someone with infinite power.

Even if it was not difficult for God, it would be impossible from humans to understand God. No ordinary human could ever understand God if God spoke to him directly. Messengers are not just men, they have a universal divine mind so they can receive and transmit messages from God. They can bridge the gap between an ineffable God and humans.

Sure. Every religion makes up things that explain why God does not appear. It is a survival necessity.

However, there is a much simpler explanation for why God is so silent.

No, every religion just explains the reality of what is possible for God to do, because only religions are privy to any information about God, since only religions have Messengers who revealed that information. This is not rocket science. It is pretty simple stuff.

God cannot show up in a material world (earth) because God is a Spirit, not a material being. That is why God chooses certain men who are equipped to receive communication from God. Messengers of God are another order of God’s creation, a Being in between a man and a God. They are not like us so we cannot fully comprehend their nature. Unlike ordinary humans, whose souls come into being at the moment of conception, the souls of the Messengers of God were pre-existent in the spiritual world; there they were given the “capacity” to receive God’s revelation on earth and to communicate it to humanity in a way in which we can comprehend it. Since we are only human we can neither receive messages from God nor can we communicate God’s messages to humanity in a way that they can be understood by all. We just do not have that capacity.

“And since there can be no tie of direct intercourse to bind the one true God with His creation, and no resemblance whatever can exist between the transient and the Eternal, the contingent and the Absolute, He hath ordained that in every age and dispensation a pure and stainless Soul be made manifest in the kingdoms of earth and heaven. Unto this subtle, this mysterious and ethereal Being He hath assigned a twofold nature; the physical, pertaining to the world of matter, and the spiritual, which is born of the substance of God Himself. He hath, moreover, conferred upon Him a double station. The first station, which is related to His innermost reality, representeth Him as One Whose voice is the voice of God Himself.....The second station is the human station, exemplified by the following verses: “I am but a man like you.””
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 66-67

 

[Trailblazer]

One LAST time. Evidence that can NOT be verified is WORTHLESS. Your WORTHLESS evidence is JUST AS GOOD as no evidence at all. Yet you keep deluding yourself into believing that your evidence that can NOT be verified is somehow valid in some way.

Regarding Baha’u’llah, I have VERIFIABLE evidence of ALL the following:

• What He was like as a person (His character);
• What He did during His mission on earth;
• The history of His Cause, from the time He appeared moving forward;
• The scriptures that He wrote;
• What others have written about Him;
• The Bible prophecies that He fulfilled by His coming,
• The prophecies of other religions that He fulfilled by His coming;
• The predictions He made that have come to pass;
• The religion that He established (followers), what they have done and are doing now.

BECAUSE I can verify all of the above, I BELIEVE that Baha’u’llah was telling the Truth when He said He received a revelation from God. It is as simple as that.

Note: Before someone is elected to a political office such as the President it cannot be VERIFIED what they will DO during their term as President since nobody can predict the future. Therefore, people look at things similar to my bulleted list above: What he/she is like as a person (his/her character); what he/she has done during his/her life on earth, particularly in his/her political career; the books he/she might have written; what others have written about him/her.

After looking at all that, then people decide if they trust him/her enough to vote for him/her for President.

I cannot VERIFY that Baha’u’llah received a revelation for God. Likewise, nobody could have VERIFIED what President Trump was going to do when he got into office. Some things we have to take on faith because they cannot be verified. Rational people accept that. They look at all the evidence that is available and then they make a decision. They don’t say I am not going to vote at all because I cannot VERIFY what either candidate is going to do.

So if somebody is really interested in believing in God they can take the time to independently investigate the items on my bulleted list. They might discover something they not expect to find. However, the worst that can happen is that they decline belief.

“If a man were to declare, ‘There is a lamp in the next room which gives no light’, one hearer might be satisfied with his report, but a wiser man goes into the room to judge for himself, and behold, when he finds the light shining brilliantly in the lamp, he knows the truth!” Paris Talks, p. 103

From everything you've written it appears this aesthete is mimicking you and other theists when he insists that he KNOWS everything and that you can't question him.

You are absolutely wrong about that. I ought to know. I have been posting to him consistently on four different forums. He is serious when he says that he knows how god would communicate if god was real, direct communication to all of the 7.44 billion people in the world. I have the proof of what he has said all saved in many, many Word documents, since I write my posts in Word and save all of them.

The fact that this guy annoys you so much is rather telling. Clearly he's shining a light on the illogical nature of your belief system and that apparently threatens you.

That’s choice. The reason he annoys me so much is because he is (a) completely illogical and (b) insulting. It is completely illogical not to mention insane that God would have to communicate to 7.44 billion people just because a paltry number of atheists need a personal message from God because they don’t like Messengers.

There is nothing illogical about God using Messengers to communicate with humanity. I also have all the posts I have written saved in Word documents wherein I proved my points using logical arguments.

 

[Sir Doom]

Hypothetically speaking, if you define God as Creator, that is true.

That is absolutely true. You are quite a thinker.

Of course not. God is the God of the whole universe and all that is therein. Baha’u’llah explained that.

“As to thy question concerning the worlds of God. Know thou of a truth that the worlds of God are countless in their number, and infinite in their range. None can reckon or comprehend them except God, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise…..” Gleanings, pp. 151-152

“Verily I say, the creation of God embraceth worlds besides this world, and creatures apart from these creatures. In each of these worlds He hath ordained things which none can search except Himself, the All-Searching, the All-Wise. Do thou meditate on that which We have revealed unto thee, that thou mayest discover the purpose of God, thy Lord, and the Lord of all worlds. In these words the mysteries of Divine Wisdom have been treasured.” Gleanings, pp. 152-153

I understand that the God you speak of is the omni-God, but when you listed possibilities for God's communication methods you offered that one possibility is that God does not exist. If that is one possibility, then surely short of that would be that God isn't actually omnipotent and isn't capable of communicating in other ways. Shouldn't that be on the table if non-existence is?

 

[Sir Doom]

How would they know that without getting a revelation for the God?

They wouldn't. They'd be liars or mistaken. As it is, I have to take their word for it. I do not.

You are free to dismiss them if you want to. Most people do dismiss new Messengers but later they come to believe them after they see everyone else believing them. Most people cannot think for themselves, they just follow the crowd.

And the sheep that flees the shepherd's care may be lost in the wilderness, but it will also avoid the slaughter or fleecing as the case may be.

The reason to believe that is because God told the Messenger that the only way He can communicate is to a Messenger.

Do you just not get that this is circular reasoning?

Do you see any way around that? I mean God is not going to have a Messenger living all the time just so people can question Him. It is all written in books, not just what He wrote, but what others wrote about Him, a history of His life. So it is just as good as if He was alive. In fact He is believed more now than when He was alive.

It isn't just as good. My way around that is as I said. I trust you more than a dead man. You say trust the messenger, I say the messenger is no better than you except that we can converse. You are not beyond reproach as the dead are.

You are right. God won’t because that is not how God communicates to humanity. There are many reasons. One reason is because no ordinary human could ever understand God if God spoke to him directly. Messengers are not just men, they have a universal divine mind so they can receive and transmit messages from God. They can bridge the gap between an ineffable God and humans.

Omnipotent God should have no gaps other than it's own desire.

I very much respect that view. I agree that humans are dishonest and selfish. That is why Baha’u’llah said that we should never take His word for it that He was a Messenger of God.

The first principle Baha’u’llah urged was the independent investigation of truth, which means we all have to do our own research into the life and mission of the Messenger (Prophet).

“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

Yes, but we have been here already and my own investigation has come up wanting. By the messengers own urging is he rejected (not that I needed the messengers permission to be skeptical, mind you). It takes no more than two questions. How do you know you are a messenger? Vision from God. Ok, how do I know you had a vision from God? Trust? Sorry, dead friend you'll have to do much better than that. I don't even trust myself. Why go any further?

 

[Koldo]

Your father and mother were not the ones who made you what you are. They just created your body. They did not create your soul. God created your soul and that is your true reality.

The soul is the sum total of the personality so it is the person himself; the physical body is pure matter with no real identity. The person, after he dies and leaves his physical body behind remains the same person, and he goes to the spiritual world where he continues the life he conducted in the physical world. At that time the soul takes on another form, a form comprised of heavenly elements that exist in the spiritual realm. What I am trying to say is that your personality goes with you when you die because it is associated with your soul. That includes the character you have developed while living on earth.

I have been raised to become who I am by my parents.
My personality didn't pop out of nowhere to come into existence. It was built through many many years.
Also, my personality wouldn't be what it is without my body. What I have experienced through my body had a major effect on it. At best, God is a coauthor.

Yes, I understand. You would want to fulfill what God your Creator wanted because God knows what is best for you, since God is All-Knowing and All-Wise.

Would I agree with what he finds best for me ?
Because if I wouldn't agree then I wouldn't care what he finds best for me.
This is no different from my parents telling me what's best for me.

I understand what you mean but within the broader context of your ultimate purpose (to know and love God), you are free to be who you want to be and satisfy your own will. Moreover, if you know God and what God wants for you, that helps you be a better person.

I am not an object that is going to satisfies someone's wishes just because they want me to.
I don't care about any 'ultimate purpose' someone gives to me, be it God or human.
I don't love my mother just because she tells me that is my ultimate purpose. That would be weird.

It is not that simple. To say someone has a true self just means it is the self that God wants you to be, so you are fulfilling the “ultimate purpose” of your existence, to know and love God. You are living up to your full potential, reflecting the attributes of God. Your false self would be something other than what you are intended to be, not living up to your true potential. You have good and bad attributes, we all do, but all your good attributes are reflections of God’s attributes which He instilled into you.

Why would you frame yourself through God's eyes ?
Why see yourself in terms of true and false just because God sees it that way ?
That's a value judgment you don't have to partake.

 

[Koldo]

Besides that, Baha’u’llah wrote 15,000 Tablets. How is all that information to be conveyed in some “other way?” I said I wanted something logical, and no, God is not going to whisper in the ears of 7.44 billion people all 15,000 Tablets. There have to be scriptures so everyone can refer to them until God sends another Messenger in the future and He reveals new scriptures.

If we are talking about omnipotence as being able to do anything, anything at all, that doesn't entail a logical contradiction ( and, by the way, suspending the universe's laws is not a logical contradiction in itself ) then instilling everyone with knowledge about God would be possible without saying a word. I mean it quite literally, everyone could just know everything there is to know about God if he wanted to.

But let's assume God wanted there to be messengers for some reason. He could just simultaneously whisper into everyone's ears something like: This dude called "XYZ" is my messenger and you can trust whatever he claims to be my words. That would be enough for pretty much everyone to believe God exists.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hmm.

I agree. God wants people to believe in Him, but I do not think God requires everyone to believe in Him, and there are certain things God wants to see in believers. People are tested and sifted and those who are godly end up believing in God, the ungodly do not. So people are the ones who determine who will be believers; by their own choices and actions, the wheat are separated from the chaff.

Its an ultimatum.

Where does it say god does not believe anyone rejects him because people dont believe in his messengers and there is no consequence but benefit in not believing in god?

Sorry, but that is not ever going to happen because God does not speak directly to ordinary humans. By rejecting God’s Messengers people are rejecting God because God selected and prepared those Messengers for their mission on earth. God does not take too kindly to people who reject His Messengers.

He has for years. Abrahamic religions arent the only religion out there. Not all people need prophets.

Saying someone rejects someone else is not a form of love at all.

Maybe everyone would believe in God if God did what you said, but that is not how God wants everyone to come to believe. He wants them to believe on His Terms, which is by the method He chooses, a Messenger in every age. Sure, it is a little difficult for people to recognize who that Messenger is but it is certainly not impossible. After all, the Messenger that preceded each Messenger gave prophecies that would help us recognize the Messenger when He appeared. Holy Moly! There are so many prophecies that Baha’u’llah fulfilled that if people were willing to look and take the time they would know that Baha’u’llah was the Messiah, the return of Christ, and the Promised One of all the religions.

Thats speaking for god, though. No one knows god. Not even the messengers. As per the definition of god.

You can believe that if you want to. You can believe anything you want to. Maybe that makes sense to you, but it makes absolutely no sense to me that we are all god, so I could never believe it. But of course I am already a Baha’i so I have a belief that makes sense to me.

I believe all abrahamic religions are false; but, if god loves me hypothetically, that wouldnt matter. We dont need to convince each other to have a good conversation.

It is not Prophets that talk to God, it is God who talks to Prophets, and that is because they have the capacity to understand God, a capacity no ordinary human has.

God doesnt work that way; or, he wouldnt be god. Abraham was a normal guy and god spoke to him. Many people in the bible where no prophets and god spoke to them just as Moses and Jesus. Abrahams wife, I think she was, listened to god before she turned to face her burning city and turned into salt. God isnt limited by time period.

I never said it was a fact. I said it was belief. But it is also not a fact that God is not limited in any way. God is limited by His own nature.

If its not a fact, why believe in it?

But 1817 is not that far ago! How in the world can god talk then but just cut his convo short after 1892?

It would make you believe in something false.

Messengers are more than humans. They have a divine mind, so they can understand what we cannot.

I think I remember you saying they were human and they cant describe the nature of god.

But anyone can have a devine mind with god. Thats limiting god to a select few which god isnt limited to.

I had the same problem what I first became a Baha’i. That is why I read the Writings of Abdul-Baha, who was His appointed interpreter. Then later after I learned more about the Baha’i Faith and the station of Bahaullah, I went back and read Gleanings and understood it.

I don’t but Baha’u’llah does. That is my belief.

Whatever Baha’u’llah wrote is identical to the Will of God. That is my belief. In effect, Baha’u’llah is God, just not the Essence of God, which is unknowable.

Sounds like the trinity. How is the trinity different than this statement?

By English grammar, it would be duality.

Baha’u’llah described all we are able to know about God, which is God’s Attributes and God’s Will for this age in history. Not even Baha’u’llah can know the Essence (intrinsic nature) of God. Every way is barred to that knowledge.

You cant have the mind of god then dont know his nature. Thats a contradiction. Why trust someone who doesnt know god yet at the same time can speak for him as if he does know him enough for other people to not be able to distinguish what a prophet says differently than what god says himself?

Why trust bahaullah when he doesnt even know the essense of god himself?

I mean, if I told someone I speak for X company and then they ask what the values of that company are, and I told them I didnt know, I dont see why the other would want to work for it. If I dont know the values, what I say about the company based on my experience as an employee means nothing.

A Messenger of God (Manifestation of God) is a mystery no human mind can fully understand. We can only understand His human nature, iot his divine nature.

Sounds trinitarian.

No, Baha’is do not believe in the Trinity the same way Christians do. In this chapter it explains how we believe in the Trinity. 27: THE TRINITY

I cant understand a word on that site. Its too religious and not to the point.

And you know that how? Can you prove that Baha’u’llah was a fraud?

Good luck with that... You’ll need it. Maybe you are just angry that Messengers got a message from God and you didn’t?

I cant find where I said that he was a fraud.

LOL Conversations do this to believers all the time!

We disagree; we must be mad at god. Thats silly.

I know god does not exist. Ive known that since I was young. I wasnt raised in any christian or believer household; and, hold no definitions of what a god is. I never knew what an atheist meant. If I didnt come on RF, I would be ignorant of any definition of god, hindu and pagan included. Abrahamics are not special.

I dont mind discussing god and the logistics of peoples beliefs but dont mistake as if I feel anything for god.

I was taking this convo seriously; but, if you think Im angry at god, I dont know how to reply that specific statement. Thats like saying Im angry at, I dont know, a second biological mother because I dont believe she raised me.

Baha’u’llah had the knowledge of God so He knew what humanity would need for at least the next 1000 years, until another Messenger comes.

One thing that stops me in logic is time period. 1817 wasnt that long ago. We can believe whatever we want, but 1892!

I have no idea, but I think I would be less likely to believe Him if He were alive today. That is how it has worked in the past with Messengers. Only a few people believe in Jesus when He walked the earth.

I think people would believe in christ before they believed bahaullah if the prophets came down. Muhammad to Islam. I see no one outside bahai believing in him. He just doesnt mirror anything in the christian bible. The Torah! (the ones the jews have not christians) I dont buy it (not asking you to convince me; I just dont)

They are not a replacement but they are what God gives us. There is no way to have a connection with God directly.

That severely limits god. Its one thing he chooses to talk to prophets but forced to??? He doesnt have the ability to talk to prophet believers otherwise?

No, not in the same way, not in words that I can write down on paper, but I think God can communicate to our minds if we listen. The problem is that we cannot really know it is God, even if we believe that it is.

It depends on the person and their religion. Pagans talk to their gods all the time. Hindus live in their gods and have a direct all around relationship in god. So, it really depends.

Im talking from an outsiders view. I cant talk from what I believe because I dont believe in god. I like talking about it and religion; but, like any other topic, there is no deep motive in my conversations just because it is religious in nature.

 

[Willamena]

No, the problem is that not one single atheist can give me one good reason why they have a problem with the idea of Messengers ---- something logical please, not just saying it is baloney... Also, not one atheist has come up with a better way by which God could communicate ---- something logical please, not that God could write “I exist!” in the sky.

There's nothing wrong with the idea of messengers of god: I've no objection to the metaphor. We all listen to the small voices inside, theist and atheist alike. It's just that some of us deny the "god" part.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I cannot VERIFY that Baha’u’llah received a revelation for God

Trailer, anyone can verify history since 1892. My genealogy goes further back than that on ancestry.com. that's not hard.

What's interesting is if you can't verify bahaullah received revelation from god, you can't verify prophecies nor metaphysic biblical connections; your statements of belief become void.

You can't verify the revelations but you can verify the prophecies?

That, and time period doesn't exclude prophetic events. If prophecies existed there would be no cut off point. It would be part of everyday life. Closest we have are miracles but even then it depends on the person's belief. One person's water stained walls is another person's virgin Mary.

But we can't verify it true if the source can't be verified. If there is no revelation there are no prophecies.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Regarding Baha’u’llah, I have VERIFIABLE evidence of ALL the following:

• What He was like as a person (His character);
• What He did during His mission on earth;
• The history of His Cause, from the time He appeared moving forward;
• The scriptures that He wrote;
• What others have written about Him;
• The Bible prophecies that He fulfilled by His coming,
• The prophecies of other religions that He fulfilled by His coming;
• The predictions He made that have come to pass;
• The religion that He established (followers), what they have done and are doing now.

BECAUSE I can verify all of the above, I BELIEVE that Baha’u’llah was telling the Truth when He said He received a revelation from God. It is as simple as that.

Note: Before someone is elected to a political office such as the President it cannot be VERIFIED what they will DO during their term as President since nobody can predict the future. Therefore, people look at things similar to my bulleted list above: What he/she is like as a person (his/her character); what he/she has done during his/her life on earth, particularly in his/her political career; the books he/she might have written; what others have written about him/her.

After looking at all that, then people decide if they trust him/her enough to vote for him/her for President.

I cannot VERIFY that Baha’u’llah received a revelation for God. Likewise, nobody could have VERIFIED what President Trump was going to do when he got into office. Some things we have to take on faith because they cannot be verified. Rational people accept that. They look at all the evidence that is available and then they make a decision. They don’t say I am not going to vote at all because I cannot VERIFY what either candidate is going to do.

So if somebody is really interested in believing in God they can take the time to independently investigate the items on my bulleted list. They might discover something they not expect to find. However, the worst that can happen is that they decline belief.

“If a man were to declare, ‘There is a lamp in the next room which gives no light’, one hearer might be satisfied with his report, but a wiser man goes into the room to judge for himself, and behold, when he finds the light shining brilliantly in the lamp, he knows the truth!” Paris Talks, p. 103


You are absolutely wrong about that. I ought to know. I have been posting to him consistently on four different forums. He is serious when he says that he knows how god would communicate if god was real, direct communication to all of the 7.44 billion people in the world. I have the proof of what he has said all saved in many, many Word documents, since I write my posts in Word and save all of them.

That’s choice. The reason he annoys me so much is because he is (a) completely illogical and (b) insulting. It is completely illogical not to mention insane that God would have to communicate to 7.44 billion people just because a paltry number of atheists need a personal message from God because they don’t like Messengers.

There is nothing illogical about God using Messengers to communicate with humanity. I also have all the posts I have written saved in Word documents wherein I proved my points using logical arguments.

Regarding Baha’u’llah, I have VERIFIABLE evidence of ALL the following:

• What He was like as a person (His character);
• What He did during His mission on earth;
• The history of His Cause, from the time He appeared moving forward;
• The scriptures that He wrote;
• What others have written about Him;
• The Bible prophecies that He fulfilled by His coming,
• The prophecies of other religions that He fulfilled by His coming;
• The predictions He made that have come to pass;
• The religion that He established (followers), what they have done and are doing now.

BECAUSE I can verify all of the above, I BELIEVE that Baha’u’llah was telling the Truth when He said He received a revelation from God. It is as simple as that.

And because I can verify that Saint Nicholas was an actual person, I believe that all of the fantastical claims made about him are true. We BOTH have just as much verifiable evidence for our beliefs about the fantastical claims. Which is to say ZERO.

Your picking a president analogy isn't valid. Being able to predict what someone will do in the future is completely different from being able to verify what someone did in the past. In one case you're saying 'I THINK he MIGHT.' In the other you are saying 'I KNOW he DID."

You are absolutely wrong about that. I ought to know. I have been posting to him consistently on four different forums. He is serious when he says that he knows how god would communicate if god was real, direct communication to all of the 7.44 billion people in the world. I have the proof of what he has said all saved in many, many Word documents, since I write my posts in Word and save all of them.

Yeah... HE says HE knows how god would communicate. You say YOU know how god would communicate. Your serious when YOU say you KNOW how god would communicate. Gosh, you both sound exactly the same to me. ONLY difference is that you accept what OTHER people made up and He accepts what HE made up. And I'm still not sure why you think it gives you the high ground because you didn't make make up your beliefs yourself and simply accepted what someone else made up. I at least give this atheist credit for using his own imagination. Sadly, you've decided to rely on someone else's imagination.

You keep bringing up the same tired claims again and again

 

[Trailblazer]

I understand that the God you speak of is the omni-God, but when you listed possibilities for God's communication methods you offered that one possibility is that God does not exist. If that is one possibility, then surely short of that would be that God isn't actually omnipotent and isn't capable of communicating in other ways. Shouldn't that be on the table if non-existence is?

If God communicates a message to humanity, then God uses Messengers to communicate, since we have no empirical evidence that God has ever communicated to humans any other way.

To reiterate, I said that there were three logical possibilities:
1. God exists, and uses Messengers to communicate to humanity, or
2. God exists, and does not communicate to humanity, or
3. God does not exist

These categories are mutually exclusive. Obviously, if God does not exist, God does not communicate at all.

If God is omniscient, God knows everything, and if God is omnipotent, God has all power, so that means that God would know "many different ways to communicate" and God would have all power to use any one of those methods of communication. However, the only evidence we have of any communication from God was the Messengers, so it is logical to conclude that the use of Messengers to communicate to humanity had to be the optimal way to communicate.

Moreover, if God is All-Wise, don't you think God would know the best way to communicate to humanity?
Ask yourself why then do some people question God's use of Messengers?

 

[Trailblazer]

And the sheep that flees the shepherd's care may be lost in the wilderness, but it will also avoid the slaughter or fleecing as the case may be.

That is not a good analogy because the Good Shepherd does not slaughter or fleece His flock. All the Messengers of God suffered horribly because those who held the reins of power in their day opposed and persecuted them. Some Messengers such as Jesus and the Bab were martyred so they sacrificed their lives to bring a message from God to humanity.

John 10:9-16 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep. I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

“The reason to believe that is because God told the Messenger that the only way He can communicate is to a Messenger.”
Do you just not get that this is circular reasoning?

Nope, because you should not believe what Baha’u’llah said just because He said it. That would be circular reasoning.

First you would have to believe that Baha’u’llah was actually a Messenger of God, before you would believe a thing He said. That entails looking at the evidence that supports His claim to be a Messenger.

In other words, it is not true just because Baha’u’llah claimed it is true; it is only true if Baha’u’llah is actually a Messenger of God.

It isn't just as good. My way around that is as I said. I trust you more than a dead man. You say trust the messenger, I say the messenger is no better than you except that we can converse. You are not beyond reproach as the dead are.

I do not reason it out that way. Just because I am alive does not mean I cannot be a liar and just because Baha’u’llah is dead is no reason to assume He was a liar. Logically speaking either me or Baha’u’llah could be lying or telling the truth.

I trust Baha’u’llah based upon His track record which can be verified by reading about His Life, His Mission and what He wrote. It is all available to read on the internet.

Omnipotent God should have no gaps other than it's own desire.

You are absolutely right. And the empirical evidence indicates that it has been the desire of God to use Messengers to communicate since the dawn of human history.

Yes, but we have been here already and my own investigation has come up wanting.

Have you actually investigated the Life, Mission, and Writings of Baha’u’llah?

It takes no more than two questions. How do you know you are a messenger? Vision from God. Ok, how do I know you had a vision from God?

The Messengers know that they got a message from God and Baha’u’llah explained how that Vision came to Him in His Writings. However, that is meaningless to us because we cannot understand what He can understand. It call goes back to what I said before; the Messengers of God are a different order of God’s creation above an ordinary human, meaning they have a divine mind and powers we do not possess.

Trust? Sorry, dead friend you'll have to do much better than that. I don't even trust myself. Why go any further?

You have an answer to your question in your question. You do not trust yourself to be able to do the research and differentiate between a false messenger and a True Messenger of God so you have closed the gate before you even opened it.

 

[Sir Doom]

If God communicates a message to humanity, then God uses Messengers to communicate, since we have no empirical evidence that God has ever communicated to humans any other way.

I will assume this premise for the purposes of the thread. Its not logical, but I'll assume it anyway.

To reiterate, I said that there were three logical possibilities:
1. God exists, and uses Messengers to communicate to humanity, or
2. God exists, and does not communicate to humanity, or
3. God does not exist

These categories are mutually exclusive. Obviously, if God does not exist, God does not communicate at all.

Okay, I can see that #1 assumes the premise. #2 and #3 do not assume the premise. I see no purpose to this list. #1 just reiterates the premise #2 and #3 are contradictory to the premise. What is this supposed to tell me? Its certainly not by any means anywhere near a definitive list of possibilities regarding God's communication, and it most certainly does not follow from your premise. Please explain.

If God is omniscient, God knows everything, and if God is omnipotent, God has all power, so that means that God would know "many different ways to communicate" and God would have all power to use any one of those methods of communication. However, the only evidence we have of any communication from God was the Messengers, so it is logical to conclude that the use of Messengers to communicate to humanity had to be the optimal way to communicate.

If we assume the premise, sure. We can assume that almighty, all knowing God does everything in the most effective way.

Moreover, if God is All-Wise, don't you think God would know the best way to communicate to humanity?
Ask yourself why then do some people question God's use of Messengers?

You gave two reasons why already. I gave a third. What do you think #2 and #3 are? Reasons not to believe in messengers.

 

[Trailblazer]

I have been raised to become who I am by my parents.
My personality didn't pop out of nowhere to come into existence. It was built through many many years.
Also, my personality wouldn't be what it is without my body. What I have experienced through my body had a major effect on it. At best, God is a coauthor.

Obviously, your personality has developed from the day you were born until the present time. It was shaped early on by your parents but then you went off on your own and became who you are today.

Obviously, the body is necessary because without it your soul would have no way to express itself. Everything is experienced through our body in this mortal world of existence.

Yes, I understand. You would want to fulfill what God your Creator wanted because God knows what is best for you, since God is All-Knowing and All-Wise.

Would I agree with what he finds best for me ?
Because if I wouldn't agree then I wouldn't care what he finds best for me.
This is no different from my parents telling me what's best for me.

It is very different, because your parents are not All-Knowing and All-Wise and they are not Inerrant, so they might be wrong about what is best for you. God if God exists cannot be wrong.

You still might not agree with what God thinks is best for you; often I don’t, but I realize that is illogical, because I cannot know more than an All-Knowing God.

I am not an object that is going to satisfies someone's wishes just because they want me to.
I don't care about any 'ultimate purpose' someone gives to me, be it God or human.

Okay then, you probably aren’t a good candidate for believing in God.

But bear in mind that God does not want anything for Himself because God does not need anything for Himself. Whatever God wants for us is only because it is in our best interest.

“Consider the mercy of God and His gifts. He enjoineth upon you that which shall profit you, though He Himself can well dispense with all creatures.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 140

I don't love my mother just because she tells me that is my ultimate purpose. That would be weird.

You are right. That would be weird. So why should we love God? We should love God because it is in our best interest. That is a big subject.

Why would you frame yourself through God's eyes ?

Because God created us so God knows who we are. We are all made in the image and likeness of God, so one who knows God knows himself, meaning that they know what they were created for.

“Having created the world and all that liveth and moveth therein, He, through the direct operation of His unconstrained and sovereign Will, chose to confer upon man the unique distinction and capacity to know Him and to love Him—a capacity that must needs be regarded as the generating impulse and the primary purpose underlying the whole of creation…. Upon the inmost reality of each and every created thing He hath shed the light of one of His names, and made it a recipient of the glory of one of His attributes. Upon the reality of man, however, He hath focused the radiance of all of His names and attributes, and made it a mirror of His own Self. Alone of all created things man hath been singled out for so great a favor, so enduring a bounty.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 65

Why see yourself in terms of true and false just because God sees it that way ?
That's a value judgment you don't have to partake.

It is not about a true and false dichotomy. Nothing about you is true or false. I can see I am not explaining this very well. In man there are two natures and we strive to live according to our spiritual nature. We thereby become our true selves in the sense of becoming who God intended us to be, a reflection of God’s attributes.

“In man there are two natures; his spiritual or higher nature and his material or lower nature. In one he approaches God, in the other he lives for the world alone. Signs of both these natures are to be found in men. In his material aspect he expresses untruth, cruelty and injustice; all these are the outcome of his lower nature. The attributes of his Divine nature are shown forth in love, mercy, kindness, truth and justice, one and all being expressions of his higher nature. Every good habit, every noble quality belongs to man’s spiritual nature, whereas all his imperfections and sinful actions are born of his material nature. If a man’s Divine nature dominates his human nature, we have a saint.” Paris Talks, p. 60

 

[Trailblazer]

If we are talking about omnipotence as being able to do anything, anything at all, that doesn't entail a logical contradiction ( and, by the way, suspending the universe's laws is not a logical contradiction in itself ) then instilling everyone with knowledge about God would be possible without saying a word. I mean it quite literally, everyone could just know everything there is to know about God if he wanted to.

That would be true if God had created us with a brain that has the capacity to know all of that, but God did not create us that way so the limitation of not God’s limitation, it is a human limitation.

Then you have to ask yourself, what purpose would that serve for God to instill everyone with knowledge about God? Why would God have given us free will and a brain if God was going to do all the heavy lifting? Why can’t we just get that knowledge ourselves, by reading what God revealed through His Messenger?

So should God just instill all the information we need to become a doctor in our brain so we won’t have to go to medical school?

But let's assume God wanted there to be messengers for some reason. He could just simultaneously whisper into everyone's ears something like: This dude called "XYZ" is my messenger and you can trust whatever he claims to be my words. That would be enough for pretty much everyone to believe God exists.

It would accomplish 100% belief but that is not what God is trying to accomplish. God wants us to do our own homework and come to our own conclusions about the Messenger.

Baha’u’llah wrote that God could have made all men one people. In the context of the passage below, it means that God could have made all people believe in His Messengers. The passage goes on to say why God didn’t do that...

“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

According to this passage, is that God wants everyone to search for Him and determine if He exists by using their own free will (by virtue of their own innate powers). God only 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 (wayward and perverse).

God does not owe everyone a free ride just so they won’t have to do anything. Everyone has free will so it is a level playing field and everyone can look at the Messenger if they choose to do so... However, that requires some effort, just like anything in life...

“The incomparable Creator hath created all men from one same substance, and hath exalted their reality above the rest of His creatures. Success or failure, gain or loss, must, therefore, depend upon man’s own exertions. The more he striveth, the greater will be his progress.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 81-82

 

[Sir Doom]

That is not a good analogy because the Good Shepherd does not slaughter or fleece His flock. All the Messengers of God suffered horribly because those who held the reins of power in their day opposed and persecuted them. Some Messengers such as Jesus and the Bab were martyred so they sacrificed their lives to bring a message from God to humanity.


John 10:9-16 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep. I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

Its an excellent analogy. I wasn't talking about Jesus. Jesus calling himself a shepherd was a bad analogy because of what shepherds do. Calling his followers sheep was a bad analogy because sheep are docile, stupid and ultimately doomed. Calling his disciples fishers of men was a bad analogy because fish ends up getting gutted and eaten which means 'fishers of men' is a good analogy for a con-man. I don't think that's how Jesus intended those analogies, but they are still bad.

I was talking about actual shepherds and actual sheep. I would much rather be lost in the wilderness left to my own devices than follow some glad-handing crocodile smile to my death.

Nope, because you should not believe what Baha’u’llah said just because He said it. That would be circular reasoning.

That is what you said. It is circular.

First you would have to believe that Baha’u’llah was actually a Messenger of God, before you would believe a thing He said. That entails looking at the evidence that supports His claim to be a Messenger.

That evidence is YOU. And I don't take your word for it. Hence, I do not believe he is a messenger at all. You don't seem to get it. I will not be trusting any person whatsoever that claims to speak for god. Not you, not your messenger, not any prophet in the Bible, Quran, or any other holy book ever written. Those words are from people attempting to get something. Not people speaking for God. People speaking for their own self-interest (and sometimes in the interest of peace and prosperity).

In other words, it is not true just because Baha’u’llah claimed it is true; it is only true if Baha’u’llah is actually a Messenger of God.

This is a gigantic problem for me. It should be true regardless of who he is. For some strange reason you think that I will read about this man and come to a different conclusion than I have. Why is that? Did you? If so, why are you incapable of telling me what he has told you? Does the message change coming from you? If so, did you really learn anything from the messenger or are you interpreting on your own after the fact? If not, then why can't I trust you to be the messenger now that he is gone? Did the truth get lost between him to you to me? If so, it was never the truth to begin with.

If his revelation from God was so private and so for his eyes only, then why is it so important that I know about it? Could he not just speak what God told him and let the rest of us follow him out of pure righteousness instead of 'selling' it to me with this esoteric revelation?

I do not reason it out that way. Just because I am alive does not mean I cannot be a liar and just because Baha’u’llah is dead is no reason to assume He was a liar. Logically speaking either me or Baha’u’llah could be lying or telling the truth.

I didn't say I assume he's a liar, I just don't care what he has to say anymore than I care what you have to say. Except that I can discuss with you. I can't discuss with him. Its that simple.

I trust Baha’u’llah based upon His track record which can be verified by reading about His Life, His Mission and what He wrote. It is all available to read on the internet.

The good act doesn't wash out the bad, nor does the bad wash out the good. In other words, It makes no difference.

You are absolutely right. And the empirical evidence indicates that it has been the desire of God to use Messengers to communicate since the dawn of human history.

You don't seem to understand the term empirical. No evidence of the kind exists.

Have you actually investigated the Life, Mission, and Writings of Baha’u’llah?

I read about his life a bit. He had an esoteric divine revelation. That's plenty to dismiss him as just another human who wished he was more than he was.

The Messengers know that they got a message from God and Baha’u’llah explained how that Vision came to Him in His Writings. However, that is meaningless to us because we cannot understand what He can understand. It call goes back to what I said before; the Messengers of God are a different order of God’s creation above an ordinary human, meaning they have a divine mind and powers we do not possess.

Or they lied or they were mistaken or they were insane.

You have an answer to your question in your question. You do not trust yourself to be able to do the research and differentiate between a false messenger and a True Messenger of God so you have closed the gate before you even opened it.

In a sense, yes. I was never truly open to hearing anything from anyone who claims to speak for God. I'm pretty sure I said that early on. You kept insisting that all I need to do is read about this man and I'll be convinced. I didn't even get into the details of the religion before his life demonstrated he is nothing more than a regular man. His sons even fought over the 'throne' when he died! Is that how God chooses the next messenger?

 

[Trailblazer]

These categories are mutually exclusive. Obviously, if God does not exist, God does not communicate at all.

Okay, I can see that #1 assumes the premise. #2 and #3 do not assume the premise. I see no purpose to this list. #1 just reiterates the premise #2 and #3 are contradictory to the premise. What is this supposed to tell me? Its certainly not by any means anywhere near a definitive list of possibilities regarding God's communication, and it most certainly does not follow from your premise. Please explain.

It was not intended to be a definitive list of possibilities regarding God's communication. How could I know what it is possible for a God to do? All I know is what the empirical evidence indicates, that God has used Messengers to communicate.

If we assume the premise, sure. We can assume that almighty, all knowing God does everything in the most effective way.

I believe that Messengers was that way because that is the only method of communication that God has ever used and it has been effective, since 93% of people in the world believe in God and 84% of people have a religion that was established by a Messenger...

Moreover, if God is All-Wise, don't you think God would know the best way to communicate to humanity?
Ask yourself why then do some people question God's use of Messengers?

You gave two reasons why already. I gave a third. What do you think #2 and #3 are? Reasons not to believe in messengers.

I do not think that #2 and #3 are the reasons not to believe in messengers. #2 and #3 are the conclusions come to as a result of people not beleiveing in messengers.

I still do not have any answer to this question: Why do some people question God's use of Messengers?
In other words, why do people want God to communicate in some way other than Messengers?

 

[Trailblazer]

Its an excellent analogy. I wasn't talking about Jesus. Jesus calling himself a shepherd was a bad analogy because of what shepherds do. Calling his followers sheep was a bad analogy because sheep are docile, stupid and ultimately doomed. Calling his disciples fishers of men was a bad analogy because fish ends up getting gutted and eaten which means 'fishers of men' is a good analogy for a con-man. I don't think that's how Jesus intended those analogies, but they are still bad.

I think Jesus used the sheep analogy because sheep follow the shepherd. The characteristics of sheep as animals did not enter into the analogy.

I think the fishers of men analogy was also very simple. All it meant was that his disciples were fishing for the individual souls of men.

I was talking about actual shepherds and actual sheep. I would much rather be lost in the wilderness left to my own devices than follow some glad-handing crocodile smile to my death.

So would I. I do not tend to be a follower; I think for myself and blaze new trails. I am a trailblazer. If I was a follower, I would have a religion that has a lot of followers.

First you would have to believe that Baha’u’llah was actually a Messenger of God, before you would believe a thing He said. That entails looking at the evidence that supports His claim to be a Messenger.

That evidence is YOU. And I don't take your word for it. Hence, I do not believe he is a messenger at all.

I am certainly not the evidence that Baha’u’llah was who He claimed to be, not at all. I am just a follower of Baha’u’llah. You should never take my word for it. Baha’u’llah said we all have the capacity to recognize the Beauty of God in the Person of his Messenger:

“.... I have perfected in every one of you My creation, so that the excellence of My handiwork may be fully revealed unto men. It follows, therefore, that every man hath been, and will continue to be, able of himself to appreciate the Beauty of God, the Glorified. Had he not been endowed with such a capacity, how could he be called to account for his failure?” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 143

You don't seem to get it. I will not be trusting any person whatsoever that claims to speak for god. Not you, not your messenger, not any prophet in the Bible, Quran, or any other holy book ever written. Those words are from people attempting to get something. Not people speaking for God. People speaking for their own self-interest (and sometimes in the interest of peace and prosperity).

I understand that you just won’t trust anyone speaking for God, in which case you will never know anything about God. You are dead wrong if you think any real Messengers of God were attempting to get something for themselves. There is absolutely no evidence to support this in the history of their missions on earth. All the Messengers suffered at the hands of their enemies and those who were in power (government and clergy) persecuted them when they appeared on earth and made their claims. Some were even put to death (Jesus and the Bab). No real Messenger of God had anything to gain for Himself.

In other words, it is not true just because Baha’u’llah claimed it is true; it is only true if Baha’u’llah is actually a Messenger of God.

This is a gigantic problem for me. It should be true regardless of who he is.

How could we know it is true (that God only communicates using Messengers) if that someone did not know anything about God? How could they know anything about God if they never heard from God?

For some strange reason you think that I will read about this man and come to a different conclusion than I have. Why is that? Did you?

How could you come to a conclusion about someone if you do not even know anything about him? I only came to a conclusion after I read a lot about him and about the religion he established, because it is all related.

If so, why are you incapable of telling me what he has told you? Does the message change coming from you? If so, did you really learn anything from the messenger or are you interpreting on your own after the fact? If not, then why can't I trust you to be the messenger now that he is gone? Did the truth get lost between him to you to me? If so, it was never the truth to begin with.

I learned by reading what he wrote. If I explained that to you, I would just be paraphrasing what he wrote, and he wrote 15,000 Tablets, so how would I be able to tell you all of that? If you had a specific question I could answer it though.

If his revelation from God was so private and so for his eyes only, then why is it so important that I know about it? Could he not just speak what God told him and let the rest of us follow him out of pure righteousness instead of 'selling' it to me with this esoteric revelation?

He wrote what God told Him and His Revelation is not private:
The Works of Bahá'u'lláh is online and fully downloadable:

I didn't say I assume he's a liar, I just don't care what he has to say anymore than I care what you have to say. Except that I can discuss with you. I can't discuss with him. Its that simple.

That does not make sense. If you do not care what I have to say, why would you discuss anything with me?

The good act doesn't wash out the bad, nor does the bad wash out the good. In other words, It makes no difference.

I have no idea what you mean by good act and bad act.

You don't seem to understand the term empirical. No evidence of the kind exists.

I beg to differ with you. The Bible is evidence. The Qur’an is evidence. All scriptures are evidence. Moreover, the religions that were established by the Prophets are clear evidence that they were more than just ordinary men.

“The greatest bestowal of God in the world of humanity is religion; for assuredly the divine teachings of religion are above all other sources of instruction and development to man. Religion confers upon man eternal life and guides his footsteps in the world of morality. It opens the doors of unending happiness and bestows everlasting honor upon the human kingdom. It has been the basis of all civilization and progress in the history of mankind.......

But when we speak of religion we mean the essential foundation or reality of religion, not the dogmas and blind imitations which have gradually encrusted it and which are the cause of the decline and effacement of a nation. These are inevitably destructive and a menace and hindrance to a nation’s life,—even as it is recorded in the Torah and confirmed in history that when the Jews became fettered by empty forms and imitations the wrath of God became manifest.......

What then is the mission of the divine prophets? Their mission is the education and advancement of the world of humanity. They are the real teachers and educators, the universal instructors of mankind. If we wish to discover whether any one of these great souls or messengers was in reality a prophet of God we must investigate the facts surrounding His life and history; and the first point of our investigation will be the education He bestowed upon mankind. If He has been an educator, if He has really trained a nation or people, causing it to rise from the lowest depths of ignorance to the highest station of knowledge, then we are sure that He was a prophet. This is a plain and clear method of procedure, proof that is irrefutable. We do not need to seek after other proofs.”
Bahá’í World Faith, pp. 270, 272, 273

Have you actually investigated the Life, Mission, and Writings of Baha’u’llah?

I read about his life a bit. He had an esoteric divine revelation. That's plenty to dismiss him as just another human who wished he was more than he was.

You are projecting your own thoughts and feelings onto Baha’u’llah and getting them all mixed up with who He was, attributing motives to him that were not there based upon your own thoughts and feelings. You also have a clear bias, a prejudice.

What really matters is the content of what He wrote and its usefulness for humanity. Some of it is mystical, and some of it is practical and both have their place. To uplift the souls of humanity a revelation has to have a mystical component. But what differs about the Revelation of Baha’u’llah is that it has new social teachings and laws that are needed in this new age, and it has a practical component in that it has a clearly laid out plan for the building of a new world order, the kingdom of God on earth.

Or they lied or they were mistaken or they were insane.

That is a possibility but the evidence does not support that. I mean if you read about the Life of Bahaullah it would become apparent that there would be no reason for Him to lie and there is no evidence that he was insane. An insane person could not do what He did or write what He wrote.

In a sense, yes. I was never truly open to hearing anything from anyone who claims to speak for God. I'm pretty sure I said that early on. You kept insisting that all I need to do is read about this man and I'll be convinced.

I did not say I thought you would be convinced. I was just explaining how we go about gathering information about a man who claims to be God’s Messenger. Some people are convinced by it and others are not. But if you are already convinced that no man can speak for God then there is no way you are going to be open to that possibility. I had no preconceptions before discovered the Baha’i Faith, no confirmation bias, so I had no issue with a man speaking for God. It just made sense to me that is how God communicates because there really is no other logical way.

I didn't even get into the details of the religion before his life demonstrated he is nothing more than a regular man. His sons even fought over the 'throne' when he died! Is that how God chooses the next messenger?

Why do you think they fought? They wanted to be famous and important. That is what arrogant ungodly people do, especially when they are jealous. That has nothing to do with Baha’u’llah.

 

[Trailblazer]

Your picking a president analogy isn't valid. Being able to predict what someone will do in the future is completely different from being able to verify what someone did in the past. In one case you're saying 'I THINK he MIGHT.' In the other you are saying 'I KNOW he DID."

We can verify what Baha’u’llah did in the past. There are records.

Yeah... HE says HE knows how god would communicate. You say YOU know how god would communicate. Your serious when YOU say you KNOW how god would communicate. Gosh, you both sound exactly the same to me. ONLY difference is that you accept what OTHER people made up and He accepts what HE made up. And I'm still not sure why you think it gives you the high ground because you didn't make up your beliefs yourself and simply accepted what someone else made up. I at least give this atheist credit for using his own imagination. Sadly, you've decided to rely on someone else's imagination.

Sorry to say, it is not made up. I accept reality, what I see in the world, not some fantasy about what god would do if god were real. God has already done it... The Baha’i Faith is a real religion that is fully functioning all over the world, in over 250 countries and territories. That hardly compares to what one atheist dreamed up in his imagination.