Questions for God

[Dimi95]

It depends what you accuse them of, like critical that they have accepted evolution. Or that they don't torture anyone for being infidels anymore. In any event you are as Christian as you say you are. There is no ethical or moral standard. Those who committed the Holocaust were Lutheran and Catholic, and their Christian beliefs were not an influence for their conscience while murdering Jews.

Can you provide evidence to justify what you said?

I don't know what they belived , and i want to know, so where is the evidence?

Your first words were "Bring me the head of Alfredo Garcia." Kinda freaked out your parents, but they did it.

Please avoid using my parents in any argument, thank you.

I say that because it is observation of reality, and offsets the idealisms many Christians hold about humans having free will.

But you reason with me , not with them.
I don't argue your objection.

Humans do not have the idealized free will that most theists refer to. Humans make many subconscious decisions that are not deliberate.

I have free will , i choose wheter it will be idealized or not.

What do you think is unfair? I notice you don't really finish your thoughts. I can't read your mind. Don't be afraid of using words.

I read some of your posts on other topics.
In one of them you described how you viewed church community when you were young.It was something like that , i don't recall(if i made a mistake or confused you with someone else , i apologize)
But if it is , i liked that.

So that staff is pretty unfair to me.
To forget those kinds of communities.[/QUOTE]

 

[F1fan]

Can you provide evidence to justify what you said?

I don't know what they belived , and i want to know, so where is the evidence?

Are you denying the Holocaust happened? Are you not aware that Germans of the 20th century were mostly Lutheran and Catholic?

Please avoid using my parents in any argument, thank you.

You can lighten up. Your question was vague so I made a joke. Besides, your parents love me.

But you reason with me , not with them.
I don't argue your objection.

What? You are being vague again. What are you trying to say?

I have free will , i choose wheter it will be idealized or not.

Humans have limited free will. We make decisions, but much of why we decide what the do is subconscious.

Decision-making May Be Surprisingly Unconscious Activity

Contrary to what most of us would like to believe, decision-making may be a process handled to a large extent by unconscious mental activity. A team of scientists has unraveled how the brain actually unconsciously prepares our decisions. "Many processes in the brain occur automatically and...

www.sciencedaily.com

I read some of your posts on other topics.
In one of them you described how you viewed church community when you were young.It was something like that , i don't recall(if i made a mistake or confused you with someone else , i apologize)
But if it is , i liked that.

So that staff is pretty unfair to me.
To forget those kinds of communities.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. What is unfair?

 

[blü 2]

But you have that.

Are you forced to accept God? Yes or No , please.

You haven't been specific as to which of the two kinds of "free will" you're talking about. So I assume you're talking about the first kind I mentioned, freedom from external pressures.

I was raised a Pisco, so I was acculturated (as is usual) when I was too young to question or argue.

I'd say that acculturation is far and away the most common reason for identifying with any particular religion. And the thing about acculturation is that the subject is forced to accept God because the subject is never offered a choice, but rather taught that the particular belief is "natural".

Fortunately for me, in my family religion was regarded as part of good manners, not as something independently important, so there was no sense that I'd be sanctioned with any severity if I ducked out. In the end I didn't duck out, I softly and naturally drifted away. (The plus side of this is that now when church occasions arise I still know the words of the hymns.)

You have a choice.

Then do you accept that God created the universe not knowing what would happen, or only knowing it imperfectly?

Grateful for your clarification of the relationship between omnipotence and omniscience on the one hand and responsibility on the other.


As to the more general question, let me put it this way. Do you think no one should be acculturated or coerced in any way to learn any religious beliefs before they're mature enough to consider for themselves what's being offered?

 

[Trailblazer]

No humans answer to any actual God. No God is known to exist.

Whether God is 'known to exist' is unrelated to whether humans answer to God.
We answer to a God 'we believe' exists.

Knock yourself out with what you imagine, or have read and believe. Whatever you think God is it's not factual.

Of course what I believe about God is not factual. If it was factual it would be a fact, not a belief.

Even though you recite your Baha'i beliefs they are not backed by fact, so they lack credibility in an open forum that relies on fact.

Of course my Baha'i 'beliefs' are not factual. The existence of God is not a fact, so how could the existence of Messengers be a fact?
In case you never noticed, this is called Religious Forums, and religions do not rely upon facts, they rely upon beliefs.
Whether my beliefs are credible or not is another matter.

 

[Trailblazer]

Humans have limited free will. We make decisions, but much of why we decide what the do is subconscious.

That is true, because 95% of what is in the human mind is subconscious.
However we are still making decisions.

 

[F1fan]

Whether God is 'known to exist' is unrelated to whether humans answer to God.

No one can answer to something not known to exist, sorry.

But if you decide to answer to religious middlemen who claim they speak for a God that you can't determine is real or not, then be honest about that. Following mortal men is vastly different than following a God that might not exist, because not knowing the God exists means you are defaulting to following what men claim about a God, whether you like it or not.

We answer to a God 'we believe' exists.

Yeah, an imaginary being that is derived from religious writings and cliams, and you decide is true and real. That isn't the same as interaction with an actual God. paul Hill and Scott Roeder murdered abortion doctors because God told them to. That doesn't impress the courts, and these men were convicted. Do you find that disrespectful of the law?

Of course what I believe about God is not factual. If it was factual it would be a fact, not a belief.

Then why believe in non-factual ideas? How can you "answer" to a non-factual being? Do you not understand the absurdity in this? You are conflating God with religious dogma.

Of course my Baha'i 'beliefs' are not factual. The existence of God is not a fact, so how could the existence of Messengers be a fact?

Who says the messengers are authentic? They do, so that's reason to doubt right there given all the related lore is not fact-based.

You are admitting to living in an illusion that you create for yourself. That you use a Baha'i framework doesn't add credibility to your belief and actions.

In case you never noticed, this is called Religious Forums, and religions do not rely upon facts, they rely upon beliefs.

We are discussing religion. What a coincidence.

And atheists point out the baseless foundation for religious beliefs. Even theists disagree with other theists in what they believe, so a lot of religious discussion going on.

Whether my beliefs are credible or not is another matter.

It's a matter for discussion when you introduce them. No one get's a "hand's off" unless they are in select areas. Got to have some thick skin around here.

That is true, because 95% of what is in the human mind is subconscious.
However we are still making decisions.

Could it be that your attraction to Baha'i is due to some subconscious activity? Could it be you get some sort of reward, and you feel good believing in ideas that you admit are not factual, so suffer through the confusion?

 

[Trailblazer]

No one can answer to something not known to exist, sorry.

God is known to exist by some, but not all people.
I answer to God because "I know" that God exists.

But if you decide to answer to religious middlemen who claim they speak for a God that you can't determine is real or not, then be honest about that. Following mortal men is vastly different than following a God that might not exist, because not knowing the God exists means you are defaulting to following what men claim about a God, whether you like it or not.

I know that God is real because of the middlemen. There is no other way to know anything about God.
I am following a man who was more than a man. Yes, he was human, but He was also divine, since He had a twofold nature.
I am defaulting to following what the Messengers claim about a God, whether you like it or not.

Yeah, an imaginary being that is derived from religious writings and claims, and you decide is true and real. That isn't the same as interaction with an actual God.

Of course not, but nobody can ever have an 'interaction' with God. The Messengers do not even have an interaction with God, they only hear His voice through the Holy Spirit.

Paul Hill and Scott Roeder murdered abortion doctors because God told them to. That doesn't impress the courts, and these men were convicted. Do you find that disrespectful of the law?

No, they should have been convicted. God does not speak to anyone except His Messengers, much as some people claim He does.
But hypothetically speaking, even if God told a Messenger to murder someone, that person who committed the murder should be convicted.

Then why believe in non-factual ideas? How can you "answer" to a non-factual being? Do you not understand the absurdity in this? You are conflating God with religious dogma.

I see nothing absurd about believing in a God who can never be proven to exist, if there is a good reason to believe in such a God.
Knowing that God can never be proven to exist is the key, and knowing that we look for evidence, not proof.

What is the full meaning of factual?

based in fact

Something factual is real. It is based in fact, meaning it can be proven, repeated or observed.

Factual - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms - Vocabulary.com​

Fact: something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information:
fact

Fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true.
what is a fact - Google Search

God is not and never will be a fact, meaning that God's existence can never be proven or observed.
The ONLY WAY we can ever know anything about God is through what the Messengers of God reveal about God.

Religious dogmas are the core assumptions of a religion that are accepted as true. They are created by man from reading scriptures.
Scriptures are not religious dogma, they are revelations from God.

What is the meaning of religion dogma?

Dogma means the doctrine of belief in a religion or a political system. The literal meaning of dogma in ancient Greek was "something that seems true." These days, in English, dogma is more absolute. If you believe in a certain religion or philosophy, you believe in its dogma, or core assumptions.
Dogma - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms - Vocabulary.com

Dogma is best described as an axiom or authoritative set of beliefs that are unconditionally and unquestionably accepted as true. A dogmatic person is someone who is unwilling to accept ideas or opinions contrary to their established beliefs. Dogma exists in all parts of society, including in both religious and non-religious contexts.

Dogma Definition, Types & Examples | Study.com

Learn about dogma as a stance on religion and various other topics. Discover dogmatic attitudes and beliefs and examples of dogmatism as a type of...

study.com

Who says the messengers are authentic? They do, so that's reason to doubt right there given all the related lore is not fact-based.

The Messenger claim to speak for God. How else could we know that?
That is not fact-based since it can never be proven (see above).

You are admitting to living in an illusion that you create for yourself. That you use a Baha'i framework doesn't add credibility to your belief and actions.

It is all a matter of perspective. We all have different perspectives.
To you it is an illusion, to me it is reality. I did not create reality, I only believe in it.

We are discussing religion. What a coincidence.

And atheists point out the baseless foundation for religious beliefs.

Atheists point out what they believe is a baseless foundation for religious beliefs. That does not mean it is baseless.

It's a matter for discussion when you introduce them. No one get's a "hand's off" unless they are in select areas. Got to have some thick skin around here.

I am not suggesting a "hands off" even though I did not introduce this thread.

Could it be that your attraction to Baha'i is due to some subconscious activity? Could it be you get some sort of reward, and you feel good believing in ideas that you admit are not factual, so suffer through the confusion?

Of course my attraction to Baha'i is 'partly' due to some subconscious activity, since 95% of what is in the human mind is subconscious.

Could it be that your attraction to atheism is due to some subconscious activity, including something that happened to you in the past that has caused you to be suspicious of all religions?

I was a blank slate before I became a Baha'i, so I did not join based upon anything I already believed from childhood. I was simply attracted to the spiritual teachings and the core tenets of the Baha'i Faith. Only much later did I connect Baha'u'llah with God. I have done a lot of questioning since that time but I always come up with the same answer.

 

[F1fan]

God is known to exist by some, but not all people.

False, some confuse their belief with knowledge, and make bad claims. More often than not they just don't understand the words and meanings, and trying to fool themselves. Those who clain to know a God exists (which you have done yourself) can never show that it is actually knowledge.

I answer to God because "I know" that God exists.

Here you go with your wishy washy antics, your contrary claim from last time you posted. You have a habit of going back and forth on claims when challenged.

I know that God is real because of the middlemen.

No, you bought into a sales pitch, and you are the deceived. Nothing you present indicates your judgment is sound.

There is no other way to know anything about God.

Because nothing indicates any exist. You learned about a religion's lore, and you decided it is credible for non-rational reasons. Other believers of other religions do the same thing.

I am following a man who was more than a man. Yes, he was human, but He was also divine, since He had a twofold nature.

Nothing suggests this is true in reality. It's your judgment, and from the evidence it is a flawed judgment.

I am defaulting to following what the Messengers claim about a God, whether you like it or not.

Blind faith. I prefer to make sound judgments so I can be confident in my decisions.

Of course not, but nobody can ever have an 'interaction' with God. The Messengers do not even have an interaction with God, they only hear His voice through the Holy Spirit.

It's irrelevant what your messengers claims since not only is there no evidence that their claims are true, but they are contrary to reality. The logical default is to not believe in such extraordinarily absurd ideas unless there is extraordinary evidence.

No, they should have been convicted. God does not speak to anyone except His Messengers, much as some people claim He does.

This is a claim that lacks evidence, so it is rejected.

But hypothetically speaking, even if God told a Messenger to murder someone, that person who committed the murder should be convicted.

Odd statement since you assume God exists and is the ultimate authority. So you think we moratls, and even messengers, can ignore God's commands?

I see nothing absurd about believing in a God who can never be proven to exist, if there is a good reason to believe in such a God.

Of course you don't, you have a cognitive bias that you don't want to manage or minimize.

Knowing that God can never be proven to exist is the key, and knowing that we look for evidence, not proof.

We know Gods can't be shown to exist. Nor is there evidence that suggests they exist outside of human imagination.

God is not and never will be a fact, meaning that God's existence can never be proven or observed.
The ONLY WAY we can ever know anything about God is through what the Messengers of God reveal about God.

There is no difference because there is equally absent evidence that messengers are honest and truthful.

Scriptures are not religious dogma, they are revelations from God.

This is a baseless claim, so is rejected.

The Messenger claim to speak for God. How else could we know that?
That is not fact-based since it can never be proven (see above).

Yet you believe yours. You believe claims that are not fact-based. That is irrational.

It is all a matter of perspective. We all have different perspectives.
To you it is an illusion, to me it is reality. I did not create reality, I only believe in it.

It isn't a matter of "seeing it as illusion", it is a matter of theists having beliefs that not only lack evidence, but are also contrary to what we understand of reality. Theists have a deliberate bias so they can justify belief in irrational ideas, even though this error of judgment is pointed out to them.

Atheists point out what they believe is a baseless foundation for religious beliefs. That does not mean it is baseless.

False, atheists follow the rules of logic and apply the rules. This exposes the flaws in religious belief. Religious claims are notoriously flawed.

Could it be that your attraction to atheism is due to some subconscious activity, including something that happened to you in the past that has caused you to be suspicious of all religions?

I'm not attracted to atheism, as atheism is just a category rational minds fall into because they recognize religious claims are baseless.

I was a blank slate before I became a Baha'i, so I did not join based upon anything I already believed from childhood. I was simply attracted to the spiritual teachings and the core tenets of the Baha'i Faith. Only much later did I connect Baha'u'llah with God. I have done a lot of questioning since that time but I always come up with the same answer.

The data suggests most humans seek religious ideas to fill some sort of need for meaning. Atheists don't have this impulse.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I know that @We Never Know knows.

He just ain’t sayin’.

 

[Trailblazer]

Those who claim to know a God exists (which you have done yourself) can never show that it is actually knowledge.

All knowledge is not factual.

Nothing you present indicates your judgment is sound.

Nothing you present indicates your judgment is sound.

Because nothing indicates any exist.

Messengers of God are the evidence that God exists.

Blind faith. I prefer to make sound judgments so I can be confident in my decisions.

Evidence-based faith. I prefer to make sound judgments so I can be confident in my decisions.

We know Gods can't be shown to exist. Nor is there evidence that suggests they exist outside of human imagination.

God cannot be shown to exist but the Messengers of God are the evidence that God exists.

I'm not attracted to atheism, as atheism is just a category rational minds fall into because they recognize religious claims are baseless.

I'm not attracted to theism, as theism is just a category rational minds fall into because they recognize religious claims are true.

 

[F1fan]

All knowledge is not factual.

What do you mean?

Nothing you present indicates your judgment is sound.

According to your bias. Who cares what you think, the rational follow facts and evidence to valid conclusions, and believers don't do it. You don't have evidence that your beliefs are true, or even likely true.

Messengers of God are the evidence that God exists.

No they aren't. This illustrates your bias and need to believe in implausible claims by these religious performers, and the groups that promote the dogma.

Evidence-based faith. I prefer to make sound judgments so I can be confident in my decisions.

There is no such thing as "evidence-based faith". It's an oxymoron. Religious faith is used due to a lack of evidence.

God cannot be shown to exist but the Messengers of God are the evidence that God exists.

This is the second time you made this claim and it's still not true in any way.

I'm not attracted to theism, as theism is just a category rational minds fall into because they recognize religious claims are true.

Here you go again parroting what others say as if it magically makes your position true. No, it illustrates that you have no original skill to present a valid claim. That you parrot siggests that you recognize the validity in the criticisms against your claims and beliefs. You seem to panic and respond without thinking when you post these types of definitive and baseless replies. All you did here is post a series of claims, no argument, no evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

What do you mean?

By definition, all knowledge is not factual.

knowledge

1a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association

(2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique

b (1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something

(2) : the range of one's information or understanding

c : the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : cognition

d : the fact or condition of having information or of being learned
a person of unusual knowledge

2a : the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by humankind

Definition of KNOWLEDGE

According to your bias.

What about your bias?

Who cares what you think, the rational follow facts and evidence to valid conclusions, and believers don't do it. You don't have evidence that your beliefs are true, or even likely true.

Whether or not believers have evidence that leads to valid conclusions is only a matter of opinion, not a fact.

No they aren't. This illustrates your bias and need to believe in implausible claims by these religious performers, and the groups that promote the dogma.

This illustrates your bias against the Messengers and refusal to believe in plausible claims.

There is no such thing as "evidence-based faith". It's an oxymoron. Religious faith is used due to a lack of evidence.

Evidence-based faith is faith that is backed up with evidence. Faith is always required to believe in God or Messengers since neither one is subject to proof.

This is the second time you made this claim and it's still not true in any way.

That sounds like a claim, a claim you cannot prove is true. Can you prove that the Messengers of God are no evidence that God exists.

Here you go again parroting what others say as if it magically makes your position true. No, it illustrates that you have no original skill to present a valid claim. That you parrot siggests that you recognize the validity in the criticisms against your claims and beliefs. You seem to panic and respond without thinking when you post these types of definitive and baseless replies. All you did here is post a series of claims, no argument, no evidence.

I do not panic at all. I am as cool as a cucumber.
The reason I parrot is to show that you are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing, so you are projecting what you do onto me.
For example, all you did here is post a series of claims and personal opinions about believers -- no argument, no evidence.

My position is true for me. I'm not attracted to theism. Theism is what I believe because my rational mind leads me to believe that certain religious claims are true.

 

[Muffled]

Nope. God doesn't walk anywhere or eat anything because God is not a human.

I believe God can appear as himan as He did with Abraham and did in Jesus. Saying He didn't do it , is an assumption.

 

[Muffled]

So he's capable of convincing people to do what he wants when it suits him?

I believe people are not cats. No matter how many times I try to dissuafe my cat from doing something, he does it anyway. People may be pretty dumb but usually they figure out what is in their best interest eventually.

 

[Trailblazer]

I believe God can appear as himan as He did with Abraham and did in Jesus. Saying He didn't do it , is an assumption.

I believe God manifested Himself in Abraham and Jesus but that was not the same as God 'appearing as a human.'

 

[Muffled]

I believe God manifested Himself in Abraham and Jesus but that was not the same as God 'appearing as a human.'

Have you ever read a text without adjusting it to your own beliefs? My pastor says it is the pre=existing Jesus that appears before Abraham. The text does not support that view. He adjusts the text to his own beliefs.

 

[Trailblazer]

Have you ever read a text without adjusting it to your own beliefs? My pastor says it is the pre=existing Jesus that appears before Abraham. The text does not support that view. He adjusts the text to his own beliefs.

Texts I read are not always adjusted to my beliefs. I do think for myself.

I believe that the soul of Jesus was pre-existent in the spiritual world before He was born into this world although the physical body of Jesus did not exist before the physical body of Abraham. Maybe that is what your pastor meant.

 

[Muffled]

Texts I read are not always adjusted to my beliefs. I do think for myself.

I believe that the soul of Jesus was pre-existent in the spiritual world before He was born into this world although the physical body of Jesus did not exist before the physical body of Abraham. Maybe that is what your pastor meant.

I believe the concept of Jesus having a separate spirit is a two God concept and false. It is the Spirit of God that pre-exists.

 

[Trailblazer]

I believe the concept of Jesus having a separate spirit is a two God concept and false. It is the Spirit of God that pre-exists.

I believe that Jesus was the Spirit of God, but as the return of Christ Baha'u'llah was also the Spirit of God.

“This is, truly, that which the Spirit of God (Jesus Christ) hath announced, when He came with truth unto you, He with Whom the Jewish doctors disputed, till at last they perpetrated what hath made the Holy Spirit to lament, and the tears of them that have near access to God to flow….”
Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 19

 

[Muffled]

I believe that Jesus was the Spirit of God, but as the return of Christ Baha'u'llah was also the Spirit of God.

“This is, truly, that which the Spirit of God (Jesus Christ) hath announced, when He came with truth unto you, He with Whom the Jewish doctors disputed, till at last they perpetrated what hath made the Holy Spirit to lament, and the tears of them that have near access to God to flow….”
Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 19

I believe the evidence is that the B man is not The Spirit of God.