Questions for Atheists and Agnostics

[Vinayaka]

But the hundred-dollar question is whether God actually communicates to anyone directly, and if so what does it mean for God to communicate directly with someone. The bigger question is how someone would know it was actually God communicating with them rather than their own imaginings... It is a nice thought but....

I think that God might communicate with people by placing ideas in their minds that act as guidance but that is not the same thing as a Manifestation of God getting a direct revelation from God that He proceeds to write down as the revelation streams forth, as Baha'is believe happened to the Bab and Baha'u'llah.

Also, it is kind of a gray area which Prophets were actually Manifestations of God. I read recently that it is a Bahai belief that some of the lesser Prophets in the Bible like Isaiah got communication from God... How else could they know what was revealed in their prophecies?

Baha'u'llah wrote that "there can be no tie of direct intercourse to bind the one true God with His creation" (Gleanings, p. 66) and by creation He is referring to ordinary humans. Then He goes on to explain the nature of the Manifestations of God and how they are not ordinary men but rather they have a double station; the human station and the divine station, representing the Voice of God. The Bahai belief is that they are not ordinary men, they are born of the substance of God and have a universal divine mind, and that is why they an act as Mediators between God and man.

Certainly Hindus believe in direct communion. From the words and results of many of the so called manifestations, it's a pretty dumb God communicating through them, sorry to say. The more recent ones (and there are at least a thousand claimants) can easily be explained in psychological terms called 'God delusion'. We have a couple here on these forums. I've spoken to my psychiatrist friend about it. I personally don't believe in manifestations at all.

 

[Trailblazer]

Certainly Hindus believe in direct communion. From the words and results of many of the so called manifestations, it's a pretty dumb God communicating through them, sorry to say. The more recent ones (and there are at least a thousand claimants) can easily be explained in psychological terms called 'God delusion'. We have a couple here on these forums. I've spoken to my psychiatrist friend about it. I personally don't believe in manifestations at all.

I do not know who all these people are who claim to be manifestations of God. Anyhow, according to my beliefs such people would be considered delusional.

 

[Vinayaka]

I do not know who all these people are who claim to be manifestations of God. Anyhow, according to my beliefs such people would be considered delusional.

Yes ... except for 1, of course. That is the Baha'i belief. Out of a couple thousand people saying the same thing, only one is correct?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_messiah_claimants

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes ... except for 1, of course. That is the Baha'i belief. Out of a couple thousand people saying the same thing, only one is correct?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_messiah_claimants

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

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.

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.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, that is probably what a self-proclaimed false messenger would do.
However, logically speaking, that does not mean that a real Messenger of God would not do the same thing.

Irrelevant. A messenger who is indistinguishable from a fake messenger can’t be relied upon to be a real messenger, even if we can’t completely reject the possibility that he might be genuine.

I vehemently disagree because no mere man could do what Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab or Baha’u’llah did.

You’re putting the cart before the horse. First establish that whatever story of their purported actions is true; the time to discuss implications of those actions is after it’s been established that they even happened.

Here is one example:

“But in the day of the Manifestation the people with insight see that all the conditions of the Manifestation are miracles, for They are superior to all others, and this alone is an absolute miracle. Recollect that Christ, solitary and alone, without a helper or protector, without armies and legions, and under the greatest oppression, uplifted the standard of God before all the people of the world, and withstood them, and finally conquered all, although outwardly He was crucified. Now this is a veritable miracle which can never be denied. There is no need of any other proof of the truth of Christ." Some Answered Questions, p. 101

Utterly unimpressive empty words.

Clear and simple, I would look at the evidence that supports his claim to be a Messenger of God.

But what sort of evidence would that be? That’s what I’m getting at. What signs would a true Messenger of God exhibit that a false one wouldn’t?

I would look under every rock. If I really wanted to know if he was a Messenger of God I would leave no stone unturned. I would not listen to the opinions of anyone else. I would do my own individual investigation. This is exactly what Baha’u’llah has enjoined us to do.

“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

Do you think that a false messenger of god such as Jim Jones would make his life story available to everyone and never hide anything about himself? Do you think that Jim Jones would enjoin you to research his claim?

I have to admit I’m only passingly familiar with the story of Jim Jones and the People’s Temple, but I’ve never heard anyone suggest that he tried to hide his past from his congregation. I’m not even sure what you think was in his past that you believe he would have wanted to hide.

Of course that is a good reason. Because you do not believe in God, why would you believe a religion was revealed by God to a messenger?

Right: you’re putting the cart before the horse. It makes no sense to try to establish that someone is the messenger of a god until the existence of the god who supposedly sent the messenger has been established.

We can never be more certain that someone is a Messenger of God than our certainty of God’s existence, because if God doesn’t exist, we have to conclude that a purported Messenger is false regardless of any evidence supporting the claim.

Yet there are inconsistencies... How can you explain how Jesus was able to do what Jesus did, as noted above? How do you explain the fact that one third of the world population still follows Jesus after over 2000 years? 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?

What do you think Jesus did? Everything in the story of his life is either unremarkable or unverifiable.

As for Christianity’s longevity... that has more to do with Constantine than Jesus (assuming for argument’s sake that Jesus really was a historical figure - something I don’t necessarily accept) or even Paul. If Christianity hadn’t been adopted by the ruler of the Roman Empire, we wouldn’t be talking about it in the 21st Century. When it comes right down to it, that’s the only reason that Jesus is better known to us than, say, Simon Bar Kokhba.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not what the Messengers does, as they know the Message they give is not in any way self based. In fact it leads to persecution and death at the hands of those that have self interests at heart.

Peace be upon you and all.

Do you accept Joseph Smith as a Messenger of God?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Don't you think it is rather odd that an atheist would know all these things about what god could do and what god should do if god existed?

That depends; what did you tell him about God that he could have made inferences from?

I mean, did you tell him that God was trying to communicate a message clearly to all of humanity? If so, then it was reasonable for him to tell you that such a God would not use Messengers.

... assuming that this God is rational and competent, of course, which I agree might not be good assumptions.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Do you accept Joseph Smith as a Messenger of God?

Me personally, no. He was also confused as to what he had seen and how he felt.

To me he was in tune with the age he lived in. I do beleive he dreamed of the advent of Christs return and I do beleive he may have been assassinated in the year of that happening, which was 1844.

William Miller also was inspired by the age he lived in and foretold of the event!

All quite remarkable.

Peace be with you and all Mormons, indeed all people.

 

[Vinayaka]

Why would there need to be more than one Messiah?

Why would there be any messiah? A God that needs that kind of delusional help isn't much of a God. I've read some of Baha'u'llah's incoherent rambling egomaniac rants. He's good at hyperbole, I'll admit. Many of the people in the long list of claimants make far more sense, and actually write coherently.

 

[Trailblazer]

“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.”

The problem is: What is best for me is a matter of opinion up to a certain degree.
Consider this: Is it better for me to die young but do absolutely everything I feel like doing, or is it better to do some of the things I want to do ( not all ) and live a lot longer ?
This is the sort of thing that is a matter of opinion because there is no inherent value in those things, there is only the value we give to them. I don't have to share God's values just because God is God.

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.

Those are distinct matters.
One can believe in God ( any god ), and yet not worship him.

That is certainly true. I am not sure how valuable it is just to believe in God and not worship God, although believing at least leaves that possibility open. But as I said, God does not need your belief or your worship because God is fully self-sufficient. It is only for your benefit that you believe in and worship God.

“So why should we love God?We should love God because it is in our best interest. That is a big subject.”

That sounds really really weird to me.
Do you love people just because it is in your best interest ?
I can't relate to that at all.

I said it was a big subject, but in brief, the primary reason you would want to love God is so you would serve God by serving other people,instead of being selfish. If you love people for the sake of God that is unconditional love instead of the selfish love many people have, when they are hoping to get something in return. If you love God you see God reflected in all of creation and you love God’s creation and want to take care of it; not only other people, but animals and all of nature, the environment.

I find it intriguing that one would label it as 'material nature'.
Where does one find untruth in nature ?

Words can have more than one meaning and one needs to understand what they mean in context. I was not talking about nature as I plants and animals, I was talking about the nature of man, his characteristics. The material nature of man is the opposite of the spiritual nature. If we live according to our material nature we will be selfish and can thus be dishonest, cruel and unjust. By contrast, if we live according to our spiritual nature, we show forth love, mercy, kindness, truth and justice towards others.

 

[Trailblazer]

“Evidence is not proof. Only of there is proof is there no need for faith.”

Evidence is key to proof. If you can not proof X you lack the evidence supporting the claim.

Evidence does not always lead to proof. You can have evidence that “indicates” something is true but be unable to prove it as a fact. For example, a broken window is evidence that a burglary was committed but there is not proof of that unless we can find the burglar and prove he was guilty of the crime.

So, evidence might lead to proof later, or it might not. There will never be proof of God’s existence, so we have to accept the best evidence that indicates God exists, if we want to believe in God.

“I cannot say how God will judge nonbelievers. The Baha’i Writings are not clear on that.”

Earlier you said the person judged themselves. Now you are saying God does. Which is it?

We will judge ourselves by estimating the worth of our deeds, but I think God will also judge us. So it is both. I meant that I am not sure how God will judge nonbelievers, what His judgment will be. I do not even know how God will judge believers. We just do the best we can to live according to our faith but we cannot know exactly how God will view that.

“It is not dogma, it is based upon historical facts and currently observable phenomena.”

It is dogma as it is confined to monotheist and a brand which has messengers which your religion happens to be part of. You ignored polytheism completely. More so it is slanted toward your religion as per blaming the lack of converts on other facts. This is treating your religion as a fact which history does not do at all. History points out people claim to be messengers.

Fair enough, no religion is a fact since it cannot be proven to be true. It is a fact that the religion exists but it is not a fact that the Messenger who established the religion was from God.

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.

“It will be too late to flip after we enter the afterlife because we will no longer have free will.”

Then the person no longer exists leaving only an organic robot.

I have no idea how we will do things without free will, but I believe we will continue to progress throughout all of eternity because that is what Baha’u’llah wrote. We will progress by the prayers of others and the bounty of God but there might be more to it than that. The afterlife is a mystery we cannot comprehend while still in this life.

“Our character goes with us. We will be whoever we were when we died. We will only be able to change if other people pray for us or by the bounty of God.”

This is nonsensical as human develop as a person is in the hands of the individual not prayers.

It is true that in this mortal life we have free will to make choices and we develop as a person according to the choices we make which help us grow and develop and become who we are. However, we will not be able to make those choices after we die and that is why it is so important to make them here. The primary purpose of this mortal life is to, so we can grow and develop spiritually so we will be ready to enter the spiritual world when we die.

“The Prophets and Messengers of God have been sent down for the sole purpose of guiding mankind to the straight Path of Truth. The purpose underlying Their revelation hath been to educate all men, that they may, at the hour of death, ascend, in the utmost purity and sanctity and with absolute detachment, to the throne of the Most High.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 156-157

You are backtracking now. You claimed Baha'i was the fastest growing and cited a number within 2010 column.

The growth rates of the Abrahamic religions from 1910-2010 were as follows: Judaism .11%, Christianity 1.32%, Islam 1.97%, and Baha’i Faith 3.54%.

From 2000-2010 Islam became the fastest growing religion (1.86 %) and the Baha’i Faith was the second fastest growing religion (1.72%).
Statistics from: Growth of religion - Wikipedia

The growth rates of the Baha’i Faith were higher than Islam from 1910 to 2010 because it includes the “formative age” of the Baha’i Faith (1921-1944) FOURTH PERIOD: THE INCEPTION OF THE FORMATIVE AGE OF THE BAHÁ’Í FAITH 1921–1944

Growth has slowed down since 2000 because the new goal of the Baha’i Faith is consolidation and community building so the emphasis is not expansion of the Faith.

“Excuse for what?”

You are using dogma based on the future to excuse my present criticism.

You are attributing a motive to me I do not have. I just explained what I believe about the future. I did not do it to deflect your criticism.

“Most people are closed-minded because they won’t even look at anything other than their own religion.”

Pot meet Kettle

And you do you know that I have never looked at any other religions?

You are dismissing genuine belief. You point can be used against your own religion. Ahmadiyya Islam could claim the same as it is a few years younger than your own.

They can claim anything they want to and they might be right.

Self-serving and injection of dogma again. You are treating Jesus' claims as true then attempting to use Jesus as a form of credibility for Baha’u’llah. I am not a Christian. Bringing up Jesus with me does nothing to help your argument.

Again, you are attributing a motive to me I do not have. I was not treating Jesus' claims as true then attempting to use Jesus as a form of credibility for Baha’u’llah. I was just explaining how history repeats itself. All new Messengers are rejected by the religious clerics of the older religions they appear to.

 

[Trailblazer]

You have said and I quote: "Besides that, Baha’u’llah wrote 15,000 Tablets. How is all that information to be conveyed in some “other way?”". I gave you an answer on the basis of what is possible to God, in principle. An answer based on what is possible, given enough power.

But it seems like your question was more along the lines of: "How is all that information to be conveyed in some other way if we take into consideration that God didn't want to do anything else?". The answer then would be a simple: There was no other way for God to communicate with humans if God didn't want to do anything else.

I am sure glad that you understand that because I do not know any other nonbelievers who understand that. In short, God does what God wants to do, not what we want Him to do or what we think He should do. There is no way to circumvent that because God is All-Powerful and we are not. So however God chooses to communicate is how God will communicate. If some people do not like it then they will just have to forfeit the information God has communicated.

 

[Trailblazer]

Okay, then you should understand very well why those statistics do not cause me to arrive at the conclusion you arrived at, that God communicates through messengers. This will conclude my object lesson on confirmation bias. You (whether you admit it or not) are simply believing what you want and finding a statistic to support that as opposed to examining data to arrive at whatever logical conclusion is available. Putting the cart before the horse.

The statistics do not prove that God communicates through Messengers but they do prove that most people believe in one of those Messengers. Whether all those people could be wrong is another question. It is highly unlikely that many people could ALL be wrong.

“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?”

I'm pretty sure I've answered that question numerous times. It's awfully apparent what the answer is. I will admit we've strayed from the core of your thread but, it is WE doing that, not me.

The answer that I got is that you question the use of Messengers because you are suspicious of them for all kinds of reasons, since there have been many false messengers claiming to speak for God. However, the fact that there have been many false messengers in no way proves that there cannot be a true Messenger of God. It is not that difficult to distinguish between a true messenger and a false one. You shall know them by their fruits.

 

[Trailblazer]

“Do you have any idea what their peers did to them? Baha’u’llah was betrayed by almost all the members of His family and they gathered followers to try to bring Him down so they could take over the religion.”

You are his peer. Is that what you did? Besides, failure doesn't indicate intention. Again I ask, do you honestly see no inherent gain to speaking with divine authority?

I meant His peers who were alive during His lifetime. There was no personal gain but a lot of personal loss. Baha’u’llah lost all His possessions and property and he was thrown in prison, exiled and banished from place to place for 40 years. He came from a wealthy family and He sacrificed an easy life He could have had for the Cause of God, to bring a message to humanity.

“Unless He really did speak on behalf of God.”

And if that were the case it wouldn't make a difference if I knew that or not. His instruction would stand on it's own merits regardless of my acceptance of him as a messenger, thus the unnecessary insistence on my acceptance of this 'fact' serves only to call his motivation for saying so into question which in turn calls everything he says into question as well.

That is true. You could follow His instructions without believing in Him. Many people are doing that right now.

There is no “insistence” that you or anyone accept Baha’u’llah as a Messenger of God. He had nothing to gain by having people believe in Him. He did what He did for the sake of God.

“Who can ever believe that this Servant of God hath at any time cherished in His heart a desire for any earthly honor or benefit? The Cause associated with His Name is far above the transitory things of this world. Behold Him, an exile, a victim of tyranny, in this Most Great Prison. His enemies have assailed Him on every side, and will continue to do so till the end of His life. Whatever, therefore, He saith unto you is wholly for the sake of God, that haply the peoples of the earth may cleanse their hearts from the stain of evil desire, may rend its veil asunder, and attain unto the knowledge of the one true God—the most exalted station to which any man can aspire. Their belief or disbelief in My Cause can neither profit nor harm Me. We summon them wholly for the sake of God. He, verily, can afford to dispense with all creatures.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 85

It is only for your own benefit that you would believe in Him.

“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. Your evil doings can never harm Us, neither can your good works profit Us. We summon you wholly for the sake of God. To this every man of understanding and insight will testify.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 140

“By private do you mean that He was the only one who got the revelation from God, privately?”

Yes. Exactly.

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

“It is good to be skeptical, suspicious. Otherwise you could get duped by a false messenger.”

Quite aware of how useful it is. My point however, is that his 'honest' life does not demonstrate that he isn't lying about this one thing (or anything else for that matter).

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.

I have plenty of evidence. It all tells me that people who speak for God do so to trick me into believing them. I have seen enough evidence to put your messenger (and yourself) into that same category.

Oh, what is that evidence? The fact that some false messengers tricked people into believing in them is not evidence that a true Messenger tried to trick anyone. It is illogical to make that assumption, called the fallacy of hasty generalization and the fallacy of jumping to conclusions.

You must be unfamiliar with the 'long con'.

What is that and how does it apply to Baha’u’llah? If He was trying to con people why did He say the following: “Their belief or disbelief in My Cause can neither profit nor harm Me. We summon them wholly for the sake of God.” Also, a con-man gets something for His con, money or temporal power. Baha’u’llah got neither.

Yes and his younger half brother fought him for succession. There was a lot of name calling and such. In the end, it splintered the Baha'i faith (albeit one is a small splinter by comparison).

Two brothers fighting for the right to speak for their dead father who spoke for God. And surprisingly enough, they both got what they wanted. I wonder how that works?

You are jumping to conclusions without having all the facts, which is fallacious. The Baha’i Faith remained intact. The brothers did not fight, nor did they get what they wanted. They got what Baha’u’llah wanted, according to His Will and Testament.

 

[Trailblazer]

Irrelevant. A messenger who is indistinguishable from a fake messenger can’t be relied upon to be a real messenger, even if we can’t completely reject the possibility that he might be genuine.

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’re putting the cart before the horse. First establish that whatever story of their purported actions is true; the time to discuss implications of those actions is after it’s been established that they even happened.

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

Utterly unimpressive empty words.

But the actions of Jesus were very impressive.

But what sort of evidence would that be? That’s what I’m getting at. What signs would a true Messenger of God exhibit that a false one wouldn’t?

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).

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. 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.

I have to admit I’m only passingly familiar with the story of Jim Jones and the People’s Temple, but I’ve never heard anyone suggest that he tried to hide his past from his congregation. I’m not even sure what you think was in his past that you believe he would have wanted to hide.

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.

Right: you’re putting the cart before the horse. It makes no sense to try to establish that someone is the messenger of a god until the existence of the god who supposedly sent the messenger has been established.

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.

We can never be more certain that someone is a Messenger of God than our certainty of God’s existence, because if God doesn’t exist, we have to conclude that a purported Messenger is false regardless of any evidence supporting the claim.

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.

Yet there are inconsistencies... How can you explain how Jesus was able to do what Jesus did, as noted above? How do you explain the fact that one third of the world population still follows Jesus after over 2000 years? 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?

What do you think Jesus did? Everything in the story of his life is either unremarkable or unverifiable.

As for Christianity’s longevity... that has more to do with Constantine than Jesus (assuming for argument’s sake that Jesus really was a historical figure - something I don’t necessarily accept) or even Paul. If Christianity hadn’t been adopted by the ruler of the Roman Empire, we wouldn’t be talking about it in the 21st Century. When it comes right down to it, that’s the only reason that Jesus is better known to us than, say, Simon Bar Kokhba.

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. 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.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why would there be any messiah? A God that needs that kind of delusional help isn't much of a God. I've read some of Baha'u'llah's incoherent rambling egomaniac rants. He's good at hyperbole, I'll admit. Many of the people in the long list of claimants make far more sense, and actually write coherently.

God is immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived. God does not “do” anything on earth. God appoints His Messengers (Prophets) to bring a message to humanity with instructions whereby humans can do the work God wants them to do on earth.

A Messiah/Promised One was prophesied by all the Prophets of the great religions, including Buddhism and Hinduism: Prophecy Fulfilled Webpage

What did any of those other claimants have to offer the world?

What did any of those other claimants write about?

What prophecies from past religions (including the Bible) did they fulfill?

If they did not fulfill the prophecies they could not be the Messiah/Return of Christ.

 

[Trailblazer]

“Don't you think it is rather odd that an atheist would know all these things about what god could do and what god should do if god existed?”

That depends; what did you tell him about God that he could have made inferences from?

I mean, did you tell him that God was trying to communicate a message clearly to all of humanity?

Yes, that is what I have been telling him.

If so, then it was reasonable for him to tell you that such a God would not use Messengers.

There is nothing reasonable for anyone to think they can know what God would use, since there is no way they could ever know that, without scriptures revealed by a Messenger. How could he know that God would not use Messengers?

It is utterly ridiculous for this atheist to think he could ever know what God would use to communicate to humanity. All we can know about what God would do is what we can see. We see Messengers, therefore we know that is what God uses to communicate to humanity. God wants to be known and He makes Himself known through His Messengers.

The only other logical possibilities are that God exists and does not communicate (deist) or that God does not exist (atheist). God is not suddenly going to start communicating differently just because a paltry number of atheists don’t “like” the Messengers He sends. An Almighty God is not obligated to kowtow to anyone. God does not need anyone’s belief. If atheists don’t like how God communicates then they can just be atheists.

... assuming that this God is rational and competent, of course, which I agree might not be good assumptions.

If God is not rational and competent God does not exist.

There is nothing more irrational than saying God is irrational and incompetent. The reason people say that is obvious. They think they are more rational and more competent than God, which is highly arrogant and logically impossible since God is All-Knowing and All-Wise.

If God would not use Messengers, what would God use?

How do you think you could ever know what God would use?

Do you think you know more than God about how to communicate to humanity?

You cannot know more than God because you are not more than omniscient.

There is no other “rational way” God could communicate to humanity and I assume that is why God uses Messengers.

 

[Sir Doom]

The statistics do not prove that God communicates through Messengers but they do prove that most people believe in one of those Messengers. Whether all those people could be wrong is another question. It is highly unlikely that many people could ALL be wrong.

And now we are back to the sheep.

The answer that I got is that you question the use of Messengers because you are suspicious of them for all kinds of reasons, since there have been many false messengers claiming to speak for God. However, the fact that there have been many false messengers in no way proves that there cannot be a true Messenger of God. It is not that difficult to distinguish between a true messenger and a false one. You shall know them by their fruits.

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.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It makes no sense to try to establish that someone is the messenger of a god until the existence of the god who supposedly sent the messenger has been established.

@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.

 

[Sir Doom]

I meant His peers who were alive during His lifetime. There was no personal gain but a lot of personal loss. Baha’u’llah lost all His possessions and property and he was thrown in prison, exiled and banished from place to place for 40 years. He came from a wealthy family and He sacrificed an easy life He could have had for the Cause of God, to bring a message to humanity.

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?

That is true. You could follow His instructions without believing in Him. Many people are doing that right now.

I'm sure I follow some of it inadvertently. I would guess those are the 'best parts' from my perspective. It's too bad it's launched with all that Maid of Heaven stuff.

There is no “insistence” that you or anyone accept Baha’u’llah as a Messenger of God. He had nothing to gain by having people believe in Him. He did what He did for the sake of God.

Have it your way. There is no personal gain to be had from speaking with the voice of the almighty to thousands of devotees.

“Who can ever believe that this Servant of God hath at any time cherished in His heart a desire for any earthly honor or benefit? The Cause associated with His Name is far above the transitory things of this world. Behold Him, an exile, a victim of tyranny, in this Most Great Prison. His enemies have assailed Him on every side, and will continue to do so till the end of His life. Whatever, therefore, He saith unto you is wholly for the sake of God, that haply the peoples of the earth may cleanse their hearts from the stain of evil desire, may rend its veil asunder, and attain unto the knowledge of the one true God—the most exalted station to which any man can aspire. Their belief or disbelief in My Cause can neither profit nor harm Me. We summon them wholly for the sake of God. He, verily, can afford to dispense with all creatures.”

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 85

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.

It is only for your own benefit that you would believe in Him.

I suppose things are working out properly then.

“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. Your evil doings can never harm Us, neither can your good works profit Us. We summon you wholly for the sake of God. To this every man of understanding and insight will testify.”

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 140

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

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

Only because it is unbelievable.

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.

Oh, what is that evidence? The fact that some false messengers tricked people into believing in them is not evidence that a true Messenger tried to trick anyone. It is illogical to make that assumption, called the fallacy of hasty generalization and the fallacy of jumping to conclusions.

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

What is that and how does it apply to Baha’u’llah? If He was trying to con people why did He say the following: “Their belief or disbelief in My Cause can neither profit nor harm Me. We summon them wholly for the sake of God.” Also, a con-man gets something for His con, money or temporal power. Baha’u’llah got neither.

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

You are jumping to conclusions without having all the facts, which is fallacious. The Baha’i Faith remained intact. The brothers did not fight, nor did they get what they wanted. They got what Baha’u’llah wanted, according to His Will and Testament.

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.