The Problem with Belief in God

[Trailblazer]

Ergo humanity itself is not evil, but good.

Humansare born good but as we go through life we have the propensity to do good or evil because we have a higher spiritual nature and a lower material nature, and we have free will to choose to act according to one or the other.

Contradistinguish the teaching of Christ "no one is good except God."

Do you mean we can never be good because of original sin?

Of course, no one is as good as God, but humans have the potential to reflect the attributes of God if we turn our souls upwards towards God rather than downwards towards the material world of dust.

 

[Trailblazer]

You're absolutely right... this is exactly what I conclude from the things you say. "God is unknowable", "God is unsearchable", "God cannot be defined". Um... then what's the point of searching again? What is the point of "knowing"? What is the point of defining? It is theists who grasp at straws and pretend their explanations are sufficient, and then when the going gets tough have to turn to statements like these, which they strangely don't seem to understand only shake their position to pieces.

We cannot know the essence of God (God’s intrinsic nature) but the Attributes and the Will of God are known through what the Messengers of God reveal. That’s good enough for me.

And this is where you make a slight error in judgment about me... and you do it again later in your post. I do not "want to believe in God." I don't need this whatsoever. Unfortunately, no matter how many times I assert this, and no matter my sincerity, I am pegged as a "God lover" regardless, because theists can't seem to help themselves but to want to believe that everyone is at least as goofy over Him as they are.

Note that I said -- what a rational person might do if they wanted to believe in God. I was not referring to you. Only you can determine if YOU want to believe in God. If not, no need to ask any questions about god.

I will divulge something personal, Truthseeker9 is my best friend so he already knows this. I am anything but goofy over God; in fact most of the time I am angry at God and I even tell my husband I wish God did not exist, at least on a weekly basis... that and the proverbial afterlife I don’t want to go to.

The only reason I believe in God is because of the evidence. Now, knowing God exists, I have no way out... I am stuck trying to do what God has enjoined me to do through Baha’u’llah. For the first 42 years after I became a Baha’i I pretty much ignored God and the Baha’i Faith and lived like a good atheist. Only for the last five years have I decided to give God and the religion a chance.

I make these points and ask these questions because, to me, it is glaringly obvious that He's not there. So the "why this?" and "why not this?" questions I pose are NOT because I expect God to do anything! Nothing could be further from the truth of my intent with those questions. I don't need God to prove His existence... I am 100% positive He never will... and not because He's supporting some great mystery... not because He's "testing" us... not because He simply doesn't have the time, or has better things to do... not because his hands are tied. There is simply nothing there to provide such proof.

Well good. That is a rational approach to take. As I always say, there are three logical possibilities given the empirical evidence:

1. God exists and communicates via Messengers, or
2. God exists and does not communicate at all, or
3. God does not exist

Any one of these is as logical as another.

Do I know this with 100% certainty? I have no choice but to admit that I don't. However, the more excuses (for this is ALL that they are, especially if God cannot be searched, cannot be known, or some similar "works in mysterious ways" attribution) I hear from theists, the more I am made keenly aware that I have made the right choice.

Do you mean excuses as to why God does not prove He exists? If that is what you mean then that means that if God did exist you would expect proof. So now we are back to square one with my question: So what a rational person might do (if they wanted to believe in God) would be to ask themselves why God does not provide proof.

What if God cannot be searched, cannot be known, or some similar "works in mysterious ways" (or some variation of that) is actually the truth? Did you ever think of that?

Okay, then at least prove to me this immaterial world. Is there evidence for that? It certainly sounds like a pretty big place... being a whole "world" and all. No evidence for that either? Or just none that I would accept? And there's the rub, isn't it? The fact that any "evidence" - NDE's, ghost-sightings, creepy or other-worldly "feelings", people being "miraculously" healed - these are believed only in a very spotty manner... even by theists themselves. There is far less support for those ideas individually than there are theists - and this is because none of those ideas are sufficient as proof, most of them are completely subjective, and none are verifiable or reproduceable. Anybody you know not believe in gravity? I'm sure YOU would assert to me that God is as prevalent as gravity is in the universe... and yet?

I am not a big fan of NDEs because they are highly subjective and they are not representative of a person who was fully dead. I believe that spirit communications through some mediums lend more credence to the spiritual world (afterlife) although I do not consider them proof. The bottom line for me is what Baha’u’llah wrote about the soul and the spiritual world (afterlife) because I believe everything He wrote but also because it makes complete sense to me. For the first time in religious history, we have a window into the soul and its eternal destination, although we do not have details about the accommodations or the itinerary. What He wrote concurs with NDEs and spirit communications and lend credence to those.

You sure you want to claim that 93% as people who genuinely believe in God? Not so sure I would. I wouldn't even claim all atheists as true non-believers. And this obviously ignores that there are a great many faiths, not all of which believe in "God" as a single, all-encompassing entity. The numbers don't matter. I'll admit that it is ingrained in us to look outward for the answers to the big questions, so what? We've found that the answers to the big questions aren't intrinsically within us... so of course people are primed to look elsewhere. History is filled with the rise and fall of hundreds of belief systems. People MADE THINGS UP to explain everything because everyone kept asking... so how do you quell such unrest? Well... if you're a clever person, you devise a clever story. Why is that so hard to admit to? It is literally what you would say happened with all other religions you choose not to believe in. What makes yours so special? I believe the answer to be nothing.

You are no doubt correct that not all of those 93% really believe God exists, as some people only play lip service to God and their religion. Many of those believers believe in more than one god. It is also true that within atheism there are gradations of non-belief and many different reasons for it, although lack of evidence is the primary reason.

I never said anything about special. All religions are special but they are all only suited to the times in which they were revealed, they were never intended to last forever. What makes my religion different is that it is the fulfillment of all the religions of the past since Baha’u’llah was the Promised One of all ages who was prophesied in all those religions. It is the religion that God wants us to follow in this new age since Baha’u’llah revealed what humanity needs NOW and into the future, until another messenger comes. The older religions have all exceeded their shelf life because they no longer address the needs of the times. They have thus been abrogated by the Revelation of Baha’u’llah just as every successive revelation from God abrogates all the previous ones. God is the All-Knowing Physician who knows what humanity needs at every stage of its development.

“The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and center your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 213

Why in the world would I find human testimony on this subject convincing? Especially with statements made like "God is unsearchable?" You don't accept MY testimony! Aren't I a human, like you? Why do my ideas about the spiritual realm have no merit? Because they conflict with those of "believers?" Because I don't meet a sufficient quota of "mystery" or "spiritual-ness?" Seriously... what makes your testimony on the subject more important than mine? Please tell me, I am very interested to know.

A Messenger of God is not an ordinary human being, He is a higher order to creation, a God-man, for lack of a better word. Without understanding that, nobody can understand why He alone is capable of receiving revelations from God whereas other humans are not capable.

A Messenger of God is a subtle, mysterious and ethereal Being that has been assigned a twofold nature; the physical, pertaining to the world of matter, and the spiritual, which is born of the substance of God Himself. His body is human but His Soul was not conceived at conception like ours, but was rather pre-existent. In that preexistence His Soul was given the capacity to receive direct revelations from God. Although the Messenger had to translate that Revelation into a form we could understand, His Words are endowed with an invisible spiritual force.

(Continued on next post...)

 

[Trailblazer]

I didn't ask for evidence... I asserted that there is none. What "evidence" you do have wouldn't stand up in court... not even if the cross-examiner of your testimony were a 5 year old. And are you serious? Calling "ridiculous" the reasons why your brand of "evidence" for this stuff is insufficient? Then you're calling "logic" and "reason" ridiculous. You're also calling even the fairest and most balanced justice systems we humans have "ridiculous." In fact, I would have to say that based on this assertion, humanity could not devise a justice system that would appease your qualifications that would also be anywhere near "fair." It would be a "court of the witch-hunts."

I did not say that YOU asked for evidence; I said nonbelievers keep asking me for evidence. They have been doing so on forums for four years. I have heard the court analogy from other atheists but as I told them, religion is not a court of law so the comparison is invalid. There is no forensic evidence for God because God is immaterial. When there is no forensic evidence, circumstantial evidence has to be sufficient to get a verdict. Messengers of God are evidence that God has made an appearance on earth. That is logical and reasonable but for some odd reason nonbelievers cannot SEE that.

So... no direct contact whatsoever and you expect people to what? What is it you expect people to do with that? I also don't get any direct contact with leprechauns. I mean... rainbows exists... and so does gold... and I have seen green clothing, so I know that's plausible. Should I believe in leprechauns based on the testimony of other people's stories, even though I get no direct contact with them? It's about the same premise as what you're proposing... your idea is just bigger, with more people buying in, and supposedly answers more questions... that is literally all it has that is different than the idea of leprechauns.

And of course during the last four years of posting to atheists 24/7 I have heard about the leprechauns and other such imaginary beings. What atheists need to understand is that God cannot make direct contact with human beings! God cannot even make direct contact with the Messengers and they are God-men! Of course the only way we know this is from what Baha’u’llah revealed since there is NO WAY to know anything about God without a messenger. This is hard cold logic, but for some odd reason atheists cannot grasp the concept. Messengers are mediators between an ineffable God and humanity. To make an analogy, they have special receptors that can tune into the “God wavelength” through the Holy Spirit.

God >>> Messenger >>> Humanity.... It is as simple as that.

Again... don't pretend like I want God to give me anything. That is completely unfair.

Again, I was not referring to YOU... I said “they.” There are so many atheists I have posted to in the last four years it would make your head spin. As such, I know what the bulk of them say and there is little variation on the theme. But I have made a lot of friends, so no harm done. People do not have to agree to be friends.

This is hilarious, and so untrue it makes my brain hurt.

How can you know that it is untrue that no reasoned arguments were ever forthcoming unless you were on the forums where the arguments were put forth?

I am not saying that YOU could not come up with a reasoned argument. That would not be fair to say until I gave you a chance.

I'll just say it again... I don't need God's "candy." The fit I throw is for the benefit of the believers of this world, who I can't help but believe are not only wasting their time, but are also damaging their ability to more-objectively discern what is true versus what is not.

I never said that YOU need God’s candy; I said that those who insist on their own private message direct from God are like children who want candy because they throw a fit because God won’t communicate directly with them... Oh I have posts, hundreds of them from atheists like this, all saved in Word documents where I write all my longer posts. Evidence is my middle name, I would not state this if I had no evidence to back it up.

You mean "convenient atheists," don't you? Because they let you go about your business of belief without having to confront the really tough ideas and questions. I can take your questions to me day in and day out, without a single scratch to my resolve. But with the way you tend to respond to some things... like casting me as a temper-tantrum throwing child... it only makes me think I've struck a chord somewhere. And don't feel awkward about it... it isn't just you this happens to. It is nearly all theists/believers. There are very few I have met who can maintain their composure when these types of questions and ideas are put in front of them. I, myself, think this speaks volumes more than their words. But what do I know?

Please note that I never said that I never cast YOU as a temper-tantrum throwing child. I only said there are some atheists who do this. I do not cast people as anything, they cast themselves.

I can take your questions to me day in and day out, without a single scratch to my resolve, or to my beliefs. I have complete composure. I will never accuse anyone of doing anything they have not done because that is unjust, but I call it like I see it. Certain atheists have put me through the ringer but I do not blame them because I was a willing participant, given I have free will.

Then you're defeated. I understand that there are always others who need refreshed on the ideas I bring to the table. I don't think I'll ever back down. Maybe some day the ideas like mine will out-pace all the others, specifically because people like you will have given up. Well... a man can hope, can't he?

Don’t count on me ever giving up.

No, I am not defeated just because I refuse to keep talking about the exact same things over and over and over. Moreover, since I am not trying to win an argument I cannot be defeated. I just share my beliefs, answer questions and impart information. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything.

I don’t ever back down either. That is why I am still posting to this one atheist after about three years of going around in circles. I just keep imparting new information and he just keeps coming back with the exact same arguments. I even started a thread on this forum for this man entitled “What would you expect people to do if a real God sent a real Messenger to earth?” in order to prove my point that most people would reject the messenger, at least for a long time after he appeared.

I told my atheist friend how people responded but he still insisted it was “a conspicuous failure in communication” on the part of god because the Baha’i Faith is still relatively small. He is like a broken record. He refuses to use his rational mid to figure out why a religion is small in the beginning. It HAS to be god that failed. Yet it is the humans that reject the messenger causing the number so believers to be small. He won’t ever admit that; he just keeps saying I am making excuses, like a mantra.

You see, if he admitted that he might have to give due consideration to the possibility that Baha’u’llah was a real messenger of a real God. He cannot do that because he insists that if God exists God has to communicate directly with each and every one of 7.4 billion people on earth. No matter that an omnipotent God can do whatever He wants to, and no matter that an omniscient God knows how to communicate a message better than any human being, since no human is omniscient, let alone more than omniscient. This is logic 101 stuff.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I did not say that YOU asked for evidence; I said nonbelievers keep asking me for evidence. They have been doing so on forums for four years. I have heard the court analogy from other atheists but as I told them, religion is not a court of law so the comparison is invalid. There is no forensic evidence for God because God is immaterial. When there is no forensic evidence, circumstantial evidence has to be sufficient to get a verdict. Messengers of God are evidence that God has made an appearance on earth. That is logical and reasonable but for some odd reason nonbelievers cannot SEE that.

I don't often see atheists outright ask for evidence... and when they do it is often facetious... because they know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you have none.

And of course during the last four years of posting to atheists 24/7 I have heard about the leprechauns and other such imaginary beings. What atheists need to understand is that God cannot make direct contact with human beings! God cannot even make direct contact with the Messengers and they are God-men! Of course the only way we know this is from what Baha’u’llah revealed since there is NO WAY to know anything about God without a messenger. This is hard cold logic, but for some odd reason atheists cannot grasp the concept.

This is actually quite comical... "logic?" So you're telling me that it's "logical" that God cannot directly interact with humanity but needs an intercessor? How is that "cold hard logic?" So... because you can't possibly know the attributes of God directly, some people (messengers) that God sent told you some things and you believed them. And who was it that indicated to you that this was logical? Probably the same people who told you the "messages" in the first place. I would definitely argue that it is far more ILLOGICAL that a supremely-powerful being remains unable to communicate directly with His own creation. Your "logic" sounds like no more than an excuse, and I am 100% positive you can't spell out WHY it is logical to any sufficient/acceptable degree.

God >>> Messenger >>> Humanity.... It is as simple as that.

And why is that? Because you say so? Because you were told that? Not buying it. Never will.

Again, I was not referring to YOU... I said “they.” There are so many atheists I have posted to in the last four years it would make your head spin. As such, I know what the bulk of them say and there is little variation on the theme.

Just as you don't have any variation on theme with talk about your own, chosen religion? You literally CAN'T... because it has all been spelled out to you and told to you, etc. Last I checked with contemporary theists, God's word and directives don't change (at least not anymore). And you accuse atheists of being stale. My goodness. Having a little trouble seeing the forest for the trees I see...

How can you know that it is untrue that no reasoned arguments were ever forthcoming unless you were on the forums where the arguments were put forth?

Because you also have nothing new to offer, just as I stated in response to the point above this.

I never said that YOU need God’s candy; I said that those who insist on their own private message direct from God are like children who want candy because they throw a fit because God won’t communicate directly with them... Oh I have posts, hundreds of them from atheists like this, all saved in Word documents where I write all my longer posts. Evidence is my middle name, I would not state this if I had no evidence to back it up.

It seems you have a little trouble understanding when someone is being sarcastic, or facetious. I know you didn't say I wanted "God's candy". Geez. And again, those atheists who "asked for evidence," very (extremely) likely only did so to point out the glaringly obvious truth to you that you do not have anything sufficient to share with them.

Please note

that I never said that I never cast YOU as a temper-tantrum throwing child. I only said there are some atheists who do this. I do not cast people as anything, they cast themselves.

I see how this is going to go. People who do this sort of thing I find extremely annoying. They insinuate until it is pouring out of their noses... but when you call them on it that backpedal and say you misunderstood. Just call me a temper-tantrum throwing child and be done with it. Do you honestly think it matters what you think of me or my philosophy?

Don’t count on me ever giving up.

Yeah... that's not what you said a few posts ago, but nice try.

No, I am not defeated just because I refuse to keep talking about the exact same things over and over and over. Moreover, since I am not trying to win an argument I cannot be defeated. I just share my beliefs, answer questions and impart information. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything.

I see a lot of people saying this lately - "I'm not trying to convince." If you're not trying to convince, then why ever claim to have evidence or to present it? What purpose does it serve except in an attempt to convince someone of something? Even if it is only in response to questions they have about your faith, your presentation of any "evidence" you think you have is an attempt to convince. Now... if you do not posit it as "evidence" and are merely content with relating your information as "a story" about you and your experiences, then I could see claiming that you are not making an attempt to "convince." But as soon as you say anything you are presenting is a form of evidence it's a done deal. You are trying to convince someone of the truth of something, plain and simple. You may not be trying to "convert", necessarily... but you are trying to prove that something is true... whatever that "something" is.

I don’t ever back down either. That is why I am still posting to this one atheist after about three years of going around in circles. I just keep imparting new information and he just keeps coming back with the exact same arguments. I even started a thread on this forum for this man entitled “What would you expect people to do if a real God sent a real Messenger to earth?” in order to prove my point that most people would reject the messenger, at least for a long time after he appeared.

I told my atheist friend how people responded but he still insisted it was “a conspicuous failure in communication” on the part of god because the Baha’i Faith is still relatively small. He is like a broken record. He refuses to use his rational mid to figure out why a religion is small in the beginning. It HAS to be god that failed. Yet it is the humans that reject the messenger causing the number so believers to be small. He won’t ever admit that; he just keeps saying I am making excuses, like a mantra.

You see, if he admitted that he might have to give due consideration to the possibility that Baha’u’llah was a real messenger of a real God. He cannot do that because he insists that if God exists God has to communicate directly with each and every one of 7.4 billion people on earth. No matter that an omnipotent God can do whatever He wants to, and no matter that an omniscient God knows how to communicate a message better than any human being, since no human is omniscient, let alone more than omniscient. This is logic 101 stuff.

You are deploying no logic whatsoever. Calling it "logic" doesn't make it so... but it seems like you think it does. I have to side with your atheist friend on this one. You DO make excuses for God... He needs you to, as a matter of fact, because there is literally nothing He can do on His own. If God has proven anything over time it is that He can't do a single thing without the intervention of humans. I wonder why that is?

 

[outlawState]

Humansare born good but as we go through life we have the propensity to do good or evil because we have a higher spiritual nature and a lower material nature, and we have free will to choose to act according to one or the other.

Sorry I did not make it clear that I was synopsizing someone else's argument. I don't believe humans are born good, only that they have the capacity for good.

Do you mean we can never be good because of original sin?

We can only reflect the goodness of God. Of ourselves we have no innate capacity for goodness independently of God.

Of course, no one is as good as God, but humans have the potential to reflect the attributes of God if we turn our souls upwards towards God rather than downwards towards the material world of dust.

I agree.

 

[Muffled]

from the OP: "I don't deny the possibility that such a being exists, but I am confident that all the iterations of such a being that humans have talked about, those that we have documentation and stories about and those lost in our relatively short history are wrong"

I believe your confidence is misplaced and most likely sits on sinking sand.

 

[Muffled]

Why would anyone want to find evidence for something non-existent?

I believe scientists do that. In physics we sucked all the air out of an object hopefully leaving us with nothing inside. Supposedly the collapse of the object indicated that nothing was inside because the air pressure outside the object was great but nothingness has no pressure.

 

[Muffled]

Love it! I'll stash it away for use later.

I like word whacked better because it has those nice "w" sounds.

 

[WalterTrull]

I like word whacked better because it has those nice "w" sounds.

Maybe. I've a fondness for "goo goo pated". Haven't used it much recently. Think I'll run it out of the barn.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I believe scientists do that. In physics we sucked all the air out of an object hopefully leaving us with nothing inside. Supposedly the collapse of the object indicated that nothing was inside because the air pressure outside the object was great but nothingness has no pressure.

Interesting. So basically, trying to see if they can produce a complete void of any thing at all?

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't often see atheists outright ask for evidence... and when they do it is often facetious... because they know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you have none.

They constantly ask me for evidence.... In the beginning I know they are serious hoping I might have something “new” that other theists did not have, but after they find out what I have – a Messenger -- then they degenerate into being facetious, which is in effect making fun of me.... After a while on one forum atheists asked me if I was a masochist because they projected that if it was them they would be suffering... It was water off a duck’s back for me because I knew what I had was the truth from God...

Why would I let a few atheists bother me? They are a lot of fun, except that one militant atheist I told you about. He is the most insulting person I have seen in my entire life, and he does it with subterfuge... I do not mind the direct approach; it is the condescending attitude I cannot take... He is on his own now; I blew him off last night. I won't talk to people who insult me and talk down to me. The other atheists who post there are my friends I can actually talk to...

There is no them and us as far as I am concerned. It is a Baha’i belief that we are all one people, and that means atheists and believers are equals. I think that atheists as a group are more intelligent than believers and more highly educated. But that does not give them an excuse to be haughty, and it only ruins everything for them when they act superior and if they talk down to believers and are rude and sarcastic, because courtesy, kindness and compassion are far more important qualities to have that intellectual prowess. Please note I am not complaining about you, but I have dealt with my share of atheists that are this way, although not on this forum. I have also dealt with my share of arrogant nasty Christians telling me I am not saved and I am going to hell if I do not believe in Jesus the same way they do... Mind you, Christians and Baha’is do not normally see eye to eye.

Back to the evidence, there is ample evidence, although there is no proof:

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:
Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement:

The Messengers of God are the evidence that indicates that God exists. I am sorry that atheists don’t like that evidence but that has been God’s Method of revealing Himself from the dawn of human history.

This is actually quite comical... "logic?" So you're telling me that it's "logical" that God cannot directly interact with humanity but needs an intercessor? How is that "cold hard logic?"

I am absolutely telling you that God cannot directly interact with humanity. If you understood why then you would know why it is logical. Here is one of the passages that explains it, a little high level but I think you will be able to at least get the gist. Speaking of God, Baha’u’llah wrote:

“Immeasurably exalted is He above the strivings of human mind to grasp His Essence, or of human tongue to describe His mystery. No tie of direct intercourse can ever bind Him to the things He hath created, nor can the most abstruse and most remote allusions of His creatures do justice to His being. Through His world-pervading Will He hath brought into being all created things. He is and hath ever been veiled in the ancient eternity of His own exalted and indivisible Essence, and will everlastingly continue to remain concealed in His inaccessible majesty and glory. All that is in heaven and all that is in the earth have come to exist at His bidding, and by His Will all have stepped out of utter nothingness into the realm of being. How can, therefore, the creature which the Word of God hath fashioned comprehend the nature of Him Who is the Ancient of Days?”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 317-318

We can never know God’s Essence, even the Messengers of God cannot know God’s Essence; but unlike us that have a dual nature, so they are able to receive and convey communication from God. In the following passage “pure and stainless Soul” refers to the Messenger of God.

“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, p. 66

So... because you can't possibly know the attributes of God directly, some people (messengers) that God sent told you some things and you believed them. And who was it that indicated to you that this was logical? Probably the same people who told you the "messages" in the first place. I would definitely argue that it is far more ILLOGICAL that a supremely-powerful being remains unable to communicate directly with His own creation. Your "logic" sounds like no more than an excuse, and I am 100% positive you can't spell out WHY it is logical to any sufficient/acceptable degree.

If I had “just believed” Baha’u’llah because He claimed to be a Messenger of God without doing the necessary research into His claim -- His Life, His character, His Mission, the history of His Cause, the prophecies that He fulfilled, etc. -- then I would be a fool and my faith would be blind faith. But I did all of the above, so I have a belief based upon reason.

The supremely-powerful being called God could communicate directly with His own creation but we could not receive that communication and understand it. So the limitations are OUR limitations, not God’s limitations. It is precisely because God is beyond the stretch of human conception that we could never understand God. The passages above explain that and there are many more passages that explain that.

Trailblazer said: God >>> Messenger >>> Humanity.... It is as simple as that.

You said: And why is that? Because you say so? Because you were told that? Not buying it. Never will.

No, it is not because ** I ** say so. It is because Baha’u’llah said so.

Go ahead and don’t buy it. It is no skin of God’s nose because God is fully self-sufficient and thus does not need the belief of anyone.

But if you were as you probably claim to be, a rational person, then you would ask yourself WHY you don’t buy the concept before you toss it in the trash bin. There is a lot at stake here, more than you know.

Just as you don't have any variation on theme with talk about your own, chosen religion? You literally CAN'T... because it has all been spelled out to you and told to you, etc. Last I checked with contemporary theists, God's word and directives don't change (at least not anymore). And you accuse atheists of being stale. My goodness. Having a little trouble seeing the forest for the trees I see...

Getting a little defensive? I am not accusing atheists of anything. I am just reporting what I have heard from atheists. It is always the same old song and dance... “I don’t like these Messengers, why can’t God communicate directly with me, blah, blah, blah.” Dozens of Word documents I have as evidence of these posts, but these atheists refuse to listen to the LOGICAL REASONS why God uses Messengers instead of communicating directly... they just stomp their little feeties and repeat themselves over and over. I have asked the reason they object to Messengers but no answers have been forthcoming in four years. They just don’t like them. Now, if atheists want to claim to be rational I think they need to present more than a personal opinion; they at least need a good argument as to why Messengers are not a good way for God to communicate. That “God could do it differently” is not an answer, it is just a red herring.

Surprise, surprise! ~~ God's word and directives do change in every new age of history... the adherents to the older religions, especially the Jews and Christians, just don’t know that, or should I say they don’t want to face that, because theyare attached to their old religions and Messengers. In short, they do not accept the “new message” of Baha’u’llah because it abrogates all the former religions dispensations.

(Continued on next post...)

 

[Trailblazer]

Because you also have nothing new to offer, just as I stated in response to the point above this.

Oh, I have a lot of new stuff, I never run out of new stuff... Stay tuned to this channel and you will find out.

It seems you have a little trouble understanding when someone is being sarcastic, or facetious. I know you didn't say I wanted "God's candy". Geez. And again, those atheists who "asked for evidence," very (extremely) likely only did so to point out the glaringly obvious truth to you that you do not have anything sufficient to share with them.

WHAT would be sufficient communication from God besides a private message direct to you? No, they are not being sarcastic or facetious, they are dead serious. They cite Thomas Paine who says the only acceptable communication from God is DIRECT communication... but it ain’t happening, for the logical reasons I explained above.

So far no atheist has ideas about any kind of communication from God that would work better than a Messenger. Got any idea how else God could convey the information contained in the over 15,000 tablets that Baha’u’llah wrote such that everyone in the world would have access to it?

I see how this is going to go. People who do this sort of thing I find extremely annoying. They insinuate until it is pouring out of their noses... but when you call them on it that backpedal and say you misunderstood. Just call me a temper-tantrum throwing child and be done with it. Do you honestly think it matters what you think of me or my philosophy?

Do you even realize that is disrespectful to contradict me when I say I was NOT referring to YOU? More than once I said that I was not referring to YOU. So you are as much as calling me a liar by saying I am referring to you. I do not backpedal. I am a straight shooter and I am honest.

Yeah... that's not what you said a few posts ago, but nice try.

Have I given up yet? However, I will not respond anymore if people are rude or insulting or disrespectful or impugn motives to me I do not have, or if they keep repeating the same things over.

I see a lot of people saying this lately - "I'm not trying to convince." If you're not trying to convince, then why ever claim to have evidence or to present it? What purpose does it serve except in an attempt to convince someone of something?

I claim to have evidence because atheists keep telling me there is NO evidence. So I am just correcting their incorrect statement. Then after that, it is the atheists who keep asking me for the evidence. I tell them there IS evidence but I could not present all of it on a public forum and that is not my responsibility. I can show them where it is and they can look at the evidence for themselves.

Even if it is only in response to questions they have about your faith, your presentation of any "evidence" you think you have is an attempt to convince. Now... if you do not posit it as "evidence" and are merely content with relating your information as "a story" about you and your experiences, then I could see claiming that you are not making an attempt to "convince."

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I am just conversing with people and answering their questions. Presenting evidence does not imply an intent to convince. One has to look at WHY one is presenting that evidence, and in my case it is because people keep asking me for it.

But as soon as you say anything you are presenting is a form of evidence it's a done deal. You are trying to convince someone of the truth of something, plain and simple. You may not be trying to "convert", necessarily... but you are trying to prove that something is true... whatever that "something" is.

No, you are wrong. You don’t know me or my intent. I just do what people ask me to do, present the evidence they ask for, and I usually even decline to do that when they ask, in case you have not read many of my posts here.

You are deploying no logic whatsoever. Calling it "logic" doesn't make it so... but it seems like you think it does. I have to side with your atheist friend on this one. You DO make excuses for God... He needs you to, as a matter of fact, because there is literally nothing He can do on His own. If God has proven anything over time it is that He can't do a single thing without the intervention of humans. I wonder why that is?

God does not need the intervention of humans. Messengers are human but they are another order of creation above ordinary humans. That is why they can act as mediators between God and humans. Messengers are the method God has chosen to communicate to humanity and God is omnipotent so God can choose whatever method He wants to. God is omniscient so God knows the best method. Logic 101.

God can DO anything God wants to do because God is omnipotent. God can communicate any way He wants to, but the thing is that the omnipotent God only does what it wants to do... It does not kowtow to the humans it created because it is in no way obligated to take orders from humans. In a nutshell, this is the logic 101 stuff that most atheists cannot understand or accept.

It is not as if God is unfair. God enters into a Covenant with man and promises certain blessings but man has to live up to his part of the Covenant. That means recognizing and following the teachings and laws of the Messengers God sends.

To state that I am making excuses for God is completely illogical right out the door. An Infallible/All-knowing/All-wise God cannot possibly need any excuses for ANYTHING IT DOES. Any other kind of god is imaginary so it is a waste of time to even talk about him.

 

[Trailblazer]

Sorry I did not make it clear that I was synopsizing someone else's argument. I don't believe humans are born good, only that they have the capacity for good.

So if humans are not born good, do you think they are born bad (in a sinful state), or are humans born as a blank slate?

I agree that humans have the capacity for good or evil.

We can only reflect the goodness of God. Of ourselves we have no innate capacity for goodness independently of God.

I agree, with the caveat that we have free will to choose to reflect the goodness of God or not do so.

Do you believe we have free will?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Back to the evidence, there is ample evidence, although there is no proof:

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:
Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement:

The Messengers of God are the evidence that indicates that God exists. I am sorry that atheists don’t like that evidence but that has been God’s Method of revealing Himself from the dawn of human history.

I understand this is what you put forth as evidence, however, I want to leave you with one last, simple thought.

If all of the evidence is witness testimony ("messengers" as you call them) and the witnesses can't keep their stories straight, then how are we to accept any of the evidence? Unfortunately for your purposes, with all the religions out there, all the denominations or sects WITHIN religions, and all the religions that came before that are no longer practiced and are simply dismissed as "myth" today, it is cold, hard FACT that the stories do not corroborate.

 

[Truthseeker]

I understand this is what you put forth as evidence, however, I want to leave you with one last, simple thought.

If all of the evidence is witness testimony ("messengers" as you call them) and the witnesses can't keep their stories straight, then how are we to accept any of the evidence? Unfortunately for your purposes, with all the religions out there, all the denominations or sects WITHIN religions, and all the religions that came before that are no longer practiced and are simply dismissed as "myth" today, it is cold, hard FACT that the stories do not corroborate.

There are reasons for the differences between religions. One is that the Messenger presents a religion suitable to the time and place that He appears. The laws are different because of that. Also He addresses the concerns of that time and place The symbols vary, but when interpreted correctly, they agree. Another thing, less important, is that the reported words of the Messenger may not be correct.

 

[sojourner]

God may have more than one Face....
I hope He will be smiling when my last hour arrives

but the meeting will be on His terms......no doubt

I disagree. This is a love relationship. It will be on mutual terms.

 

[sojourner]

I understand this is what you put forth as evidence, however, I want to leave you with one last, simple thought.

If all of the evidence is witness testimony ("messengers" as you call them) and the witnesses can't keep their stories straight, then how are we to accept any of the evidence? Unfortunately for your purposes, with all the religions out there, all the denominations or sects WITHIN religions, and all the religions that came before that are no longer practiced and are simply dismissed as "myth" today, it is cold, hard FACT that the stories do not corroborate.

I disagree. If you look beyond the particulars (mythic devices, doctrines, etc.), you find that religions — mythic systems— do share some basic tenets. One might be the hope of rising above our present circumstance. Another might be freedom from what does not serve us. Another might be the quest for something greater than ourselves, or the quest to make more out of ourselves or our life.

 

[Thief]

I disagree. This is a love relationship. It will be on mutual terms.

love is great....
God might very well turn a blind eye to spiritual faults

but if you have function problems after the last breath....
even love might fail to keep you going

I notice from a story of a falling out.....
even God's Favored......can fail

 

[Trailblazer]

I understand this is what you put forth as evidence, however, I want to leave you with one last, simple thought.

If all of the evidence is witness testimony ("messengers" as you call them) and the witnesses can't keep their stories straight, then how are we to accept any of the evidence? Unfortunately for your purposes, with all the religions out there, all the denominations or sects WITHIN religions, and all the religions that came before that are no longer practiced and are simply dismissed as "myth" today, it is cold, hard FACT that the stories do not corroborate.

I guess you mean the stories of the Messengers?

First, why would you expect the stories of all the Messengers to be the same? I mean why would God send a “new” Messenger unless the “new” Messenger had something new to say? The world has changed a lot since the Bible was written, so what is needed in the present day is much different from what we needed thousands of years ago.

In the following passage the Divine Physician is God and the Prophets of God (Messengers) are like a Physician’s Assistant.

“The Prophets of God should be regarded as physicians whose task is to foster the well-being of the world and its peoples, that, through the spirit of oneness, they may heal the sickness of a divided humanity. To none is given the right to question their words or disparage their conduct, for they are the only ones who can claim to have understood the patient and to have correctly diagnosed its ailments. No man, however acute his perception, can ever hope to reach the heights which the wisdom and understanding of the Divine Physician have attained. Little wonder, then, if the treatment prescribed by the physician in this day should not be found to be identical with that which he prescribed before. How could it be otherwise when the ills affecting the sufferer necessitate at every stage of his sickness a special remedy? In like manner, every time the Prophets of God have illumined the world with the resplendent radiance of the Day Star of Divine knowledge, they have invariably summoned its peoples to embrace the light of God through such means as best befitted the exigencies of the age in which they appeared.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 80

In the following passage, God is the All-Knowing Physician. The rest of the passage speaks for itself.

“The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and center your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 213

In the following passage, the Messengers (Prophets) are referred to as Manifestations of God (what Baha’is normally refer to them as). This is an excerpt from a longer passage that explains that we are not to prefer one Messenger over another because all of them that came in the past and all of them that will ever come in the future had a divinely ordained purpose, a mission from God to complete.

“Be ye assured, moreover, that the works and acts of each and every one of these Manifestations of God, nay whatever pertaineth unto them, and whatsoever they may manifest in the future, are all ordained by God, and are a reflection of His Will and Purpose.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 59-60

The belief that there is only one God and many Messengers have been sent by God from the dawn of human history and will continue to be sent for all eternity is the underpinning theology of the Baha’i Faith called Progressive Revelation. This is what makes Baha’i different from all other religions that teach that their religion is the only religion that is true and that it is the final revelation from God to man.

Secondly, all the religions out there, all the denominations or sects WITHIN religions, and all the religions that came before that are no longer practiced do not accurately represent what the Messengers revealed. The original scriptures (or as close as we can approximate those) represent when the Messengers revealed to humanity. Religions go stale over time and they become corrupted by man. Also, doctrines and dogmas are overlaid onto the scriptures and they do not represent what the Messenger revealed.

For example, Jesus never claimed to be God in the flesh and Jesus never said He was to be a sacrifice for original sin! The Church completely misconstrued the Bible and created doctrines to suit its purposes. This was so craftily performed it fooled everyone and to this day Christians adhere to these doctrines, unquestionably.

The following passage explains in brief one reason why we are enjoined by God to turn towards Baha’u’llah, referred to as “His Manifestation.” Of course the other most obvious reason is that He brought a “new” Revelation from God which is suited for the times we live in. For one of many examples, He taught that science is just as necessary for humanity to progress as is religion.

“This is the Day when the loved ones of God should keep their eyes directed towards His Manifestation, and fasten them upon whatsoever that Manifestation may be pleased to reveal. Certain traditions of bygone ages rest on no foundations whatever, while the notions entertained by past generations, and which they have recorded in their books, have, for the most part, been influenced by the desires of a corrupt inclination. Thou dost witness how most of the commentaries and interpretations of the words of God, now current amongst men, are devoid of truth. Their falsity hath, in some cases, been exposed when the intervening veils were rent asunder. They themselves have acknowledged their failure in apprehending the meaning of any of the words of God.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 171-172

Finally, because there was no written Covenant to provide for successorship after the Messenger died, religions such as Christianity could not agree on the scriptures meant, and as a result they divided up into thousands of sects, making it impossible to know which one is the “true religion of God.”

You said: “all the denominations or sects WITHIN religions, and all the religions that came before that are no longer practiced and are simply dismissed as "myth" today, it is cold, hard FACT that the stories do not corroborate.”

That is precisely why we needed a “new” religion, aside from the other reasons I stated above. And speaking of myths, here is what Baha’u’llah said about what we are to do with the stories in the Bible:

“Please God thou wilt turn thine eyes towards the Most Great Revelation, and entirely disregard these conflicting tales and traditions.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 174-175

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

@sojourner, @Truthseeker9, @Trailblazer -

If all of those reasons for why religions differ are true, and if the reasons why the stories and actions of the "messengers" differ are true, and God really is allowing multiple many people to tell wildly different stories (EVEN DURING THE SAME TIME-PERIOD AND IN THE SAME PLACE - let's not kid ourselves here), then He will forgive me if I can't take any of it seriously.

Last thought - if I told my wife (someone I love very much) to go to the bus station and await further instructions, which I would send to her through 5 different "messengers" (for whatever incomprehensible reason I might do this) and then when they each relayed their information to her from me, she noticed that some of it was conflicting, some of it didn't sound like instruction I would give, and some of it was possibly even completely against her own code of ethics. Do you honestly think I wouldn't get an earful the next time I saw her?! And I would completely deserve it!