The truth, the path to God

[Sand Dancer]

I underhand why. Taking time for that, defeats naive beliefs. However, I think It defeats all beliefs. For no religious belief can possibly sustain the power of elementary logic.

In that respect, all beliefs are logically equivalent. There is not such a think as "progressive modern belief" Vs. "Primitive modern Belief". They both equally believe in things that have not the slightest shred of evidence. People who believe the earth is 6000 years old, and people who believe that God used many more years to develop His creations, are both creationists. And they should be therefore treated with the same intellectual respect that creationists deserve. If any.

Ciao

- viole

I agree. After having a biblical inerrancy belief for decades, I am starting to come back to faith, but knowing full well that belief is not fact, it's just a way to understand the unknowables or to be comforted. I am using my new faith as a way to be comforted, therefore, I will not say it in any way reflects reality. It works for me and that's good enough. I just wish people wouldn't be such bullies about something that is pertinent to only their own minds.

 

[ElishaElijah]

I agree. After having a biblical inerrancy belief for decades, I am starting to come back to faith, but knowing full well that belief is not fact, it's just a way to understand the unknowables or to be comforted. I am using my new faith as a way to be comforted, therefore, I will not say it in any way reflects reality. It works for me and that's good enough. I just wish people wouldn't be such bullies about something that is pertinent to only their own minds.

Both of you ladies are incorrect… This story is similar to what it is, you both are questioning the man who was blind (me) but now healed by Jesus Christ. I don’t need some deeper so called secret knowledge. I know by an encounter with Jesus Christ. I’m eating from the tree of life not the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

“Now as Jesus passed by, He saw a man who was blind from birth. And His disciples asked Him, saying, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him. I must work the works of Him who sent Me while it is day; the night is coming when no one can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.” When He had said these things, He spat on the ground and made clay with the saliva; and He anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay. And He said to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam” (which is translated, Sent). So he went and washed, and came back seeing. Therefore the neighbors and those who previously had seen that he was blind said, “Is not this he who sat and begged?” Some said, “This is he.” Others said, “He is like him.” He said, “I am he.” Therefore they said to him, “How were your eyes opened?” He answered and said, “A Man called Jesus made clay and anointed my eyes and said to me, ‘Go to the pool of Siloam and wash.’ So I went and washed, and I received sight.” Then they said to him, “Where is He?” He said, “I do not know.” They brought him who formerly was blind to the Pharisees. Now it was a Sabbath when Jesus made the clay and opened his eyes. Then the Pharisees also asked him again how he had received his sight. He said to them, “He put clay on my eyes, and I washed, and I see.” Therefore some of the Pharisees said, “This Man is not from God, because He does not keep the Sabbath.” Others said, “How can a man who is a sinner do such signs?” And there was a division among them. They said to the blind man again, “What do you say about Him because He opened your eyes?” He said, “He is a prophet.” But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind and received his sight, until they called the parents of him who had received his sight. And they asked them, saying, “Is this your son, who you say was born blind? How then does he now see?” His parents answered them and said, “We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind; but by what means he now sees we do not know, or who opened his eyes we do not know. He is of age; ask him. He will speak for himself.” His parents said these things because they feared the Jews, for the Jews had agreed already that if anyone confessed that He was Christ, he would be put out of the synagogue. Therefore his parents said, “He is of age; ask him.” So they again called the man who was blind, and said to him, “Give God the glory! We know that this Man is a sinner.” He answered and said, “Whether He is a sinner or not I do not know. One thing I know: that though I was blind, now I see.” Then they said to him again, “What did He do to you? How did He open your eyes?” He answered them, “I told you already, and you did not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you also want to become His disciples?””
‭‭John‬ ‭9:1-27‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

 

[Trailblazer]

Because there is no logical law that says: God must be good. Or God is into sending messengers which gives good fruits. This has nothing to do with logic.

Conversely, there is no logical law that says that God is bad. That is just a personal opinion you hold.

For what you know God rejoices at our misery, and makes sure to talk only to evil people. You don't believe that just because you assume the properties of God, and therefore of His messages.

I don't believe that because I believe what scriptures say and what they say makes logical sense to me.

And you use that belief to measure the reliability of a self declared prophet.

No, I do not use my belief to measure the reliability of Baha'u'llah. I base my belief upon the *evidence* that indicates that He was a Messenger of God.

Well, that does not hold water, logically. Do you think kids cancer is good? What about devastating earthquakes? Famine. Etc.

It is, de-facto, a theological problem called the problem of evil, that believers in good God must address.

I do not have to address that. Suffering exists, and it exists for a good reason. I do not have to think it is good or bad. When people look around and they do not like what they see and blame God, that is just ego projection.

God alone ordereth all things and is all-powerful. Why then does He send trials to His servants?

The trials of man are of two kinds. (a) The consequences of his own actions. If a man eats too much, he ruins his digestion; if he takes poison he becomes 50 ill or dies. If a person gambles he will lose his money; if he drinks too much he will lose his equilibrium. All these sufferings are caused by the man himself, it is quite clear therefore that certain sorrows are the result of our own deeds. (b) Other sufferings there are, which come upon the Faithful of God. Consider the great sorrows endured by Christ and by His apostles!

Those who suffer most, attain to the greatest perfection.

Those who declare a wish to suffer much for Christ’s sake must prove their sincerity; those who proclaim their longing to make great sacrifices can only prove their truth by their deeds. Job proved the fidelity of his love for God by being faithful through his great adversity, as well as during the prosperity of his life. The apostles of Christ who steadfastly bore all their trials and sufferings—did they not prove their faithfulness? Was not their endurance the best proof?

These griefs are now ended.

Caiaphas lived a comfortable and happy life while Peter’s life was full of sorrow and trial; which of these two is the more enviable? Assuredly we should choose the present state of Peter, for he possesses immortal life whilst Caiaphas has won eternal shame. The trials of Peter tested his fidelity. Tests are benefits from God, for which we should thank Him. Grief and sorrow do not come to us by chance, they are sent to us by the Divine Mercy for our own perfecting.

While a man is happy he may forget his God; but when grief comes and sorrows overwhelm him, then will he remember his Father who is in Heaven, and who is able to deliver him from his humiliations.

Men who suffer not, attain no perfection. The plant most pruned by the gardeners is that one which, when the summer comes, will have the most beautiful blossoms and the most abundant fruit.

The labourer cuts up the earth with his plough, and from that earth comes the rich and plentiful harvest. The more a man is chastened, the greater is the harvest of spiritual virtues shown forth by him. A soldier is no good General until he has been in the front of the fiercest battle and has received the deepest wounds.

The prayer of the prophets of God has always been, and still is: Oh God, I long to lay down my life in the path to Thee! I desire to shed my blood for Thee, and to make the supreme sacrifice.

Paris Talks, pp. 49-51

 

[Sand Dancer]

Both of you ladies are incorrect… This story is similar to what it is, you both are questioning the man who was blind (me) but now healed by Jesus Christ. I don’t need some deeper so called secret knowledge. I know by an encounter with Jesus Christ. I’m eating from the tree of life not the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

“Now as Jesus passed by, He saw a man who was blind from birth. And His disciples asked Him, saying, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him. I must work the works of Him who sent Me while it is day; the night is coming when no one can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.” When He had said these things, He spat on the ground and made clay with the saliva; and He anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay. And He said to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam” (which is translated, Sent). So he went and washed, and came back seeing. Therefore the neighbors and those who previously had seen that he was blind said, “Is not this he who sat and begged?” Some said, “This is he.” Others said, “He is like him.” He said, “I am he.” Therefore they said to him, “How were your eyes opened?” He answered and said, “A Man called Jesus made clay and anointed my eyes and said to me, ‘Go to the pool of Siloam and wash.’ So I went and washed, and I received sight.” Then they said to him, “Where is He?” He said, “I do not know.” They brought him who formerly was blind to the Pharisees. Now it was a Sabbath when Jesus made the clay and opened his eyes. Then the Pharisees also asked him again how he had received his sight. He said to them, “He put clay on my eyes, and I washed, and I see.” Therefore some of the Pharisees said, “This Man is not from God, because He does not keep the Sabbath.” Others said, “How can a man who is a sinner do such signs?” And there was a division among them. They said to the blind man again, “What do you say about Him because He opened your eyes?” He said, “He is a prophet.” But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind and received his sight, until they called the parents of him who had received his sight. And they asked them, saying, “Is this your son, who you say was born blind? How then does he now see?” His parents answered them and said, “We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind; but by what means he now sees we do not know, or who opened his eyes we do not know. He is of age; ask him. He will speak for himself.” His parents said these things because they feared the Jews, for the Jews had agreed already that if anyone confessed that He was Christ, he would be put out of the synagogue. Therefore his parents said, “He is of age; ask him.” So they again called the man who was blind, and said to him, “Give God the glory! We know that this Man is a sinner.” He answered and said, “Whether He is a sinner or not I do not know. One thing I know: that though I was blind, now I see.” Then they said to him again, “What did He do to you? How did He open your eyes?” He answered them, “I told you already, and you did not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you also want to become His disciples?””
‭‭John‬ ‭9:1-27‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

Maybe you're the one who is incorrect. But seriously, one's spirituality is one's business. People are tired of dogma. Even Jesus put people before dogma. I was a Christian for 28 years, but now I follow Jesus' positive teachings and believe in a loving god. My post mentioned people with your views in it and it's divisive and bigoted.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Maybe you're the one who is incorrect. But seriously, one's spirituality is one's business. People are tired of dogma. Even Jesus put people before dogma. I was a Christian for 28 years, but now I follow Jesus' positive teachings and believe in a loving god. My post mentioned people with your views in it and it's divisive and bigoted.

What’s dogmatic about Jesus healing me when I called out to Him for help?
Jesus is a unifier for those who believe and divisive for those who reject Him. No one is turned away, they reject His offer. Not sure what you want other than to be in charge instead of Him.

 

[Sand Dancer]

What’s dogma about Jesus healing me when I called out to Him for help?
Jesus is a unifier for those who believe and divisive for those who reject Him. No one is turned away, they reject His offer. Not sure what you want other than to be in charge instead of Him.

Jesus was a unifier, but many "Christians" are New Pharisees. I will let Jesus' positive teachings lead me the right way.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Jesus was a unifier, but many "Christians" are New Pharisees. I will let Jesus' positive teachings lead me the right way.

A Pharisee is a person who adheres to a set of laws without a relationship to God. They believe obeying these laws are what makes them righteous. Isn’t that what you’re doing when you say I’m just following Jesus’ teachings and a God made in your own mind and not how He really is? That’s idolatry

 

[Sand Dancer]

Gods are all up to belief, and I am using the positive aspects of Yahweh, because if you pretend the Bible is inerrant, it's hard to go by a god that is supposedly loving yet bloodthirsty, jealous and violent. God is love, period, is what I believe. I don't like the authors who have made him out of be horrible. Pharisees were into law without grace. Jesus was about grace, in spite of the laws.

 

[Viker]

What is the true religion?

The one a person may follow.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Gods are all up to belief, and I am using the positive aspects of Yahweh, because if you pretend the Bible is inerrant, it's hard to go by a god that is supposedly loving yet bloodthirsty, jealous and violent. God is love, period, is what I believe. I don't like the authors who have made him out of be horrible. Pharisees were into law without grace. Jesus was about grace, in spite of the laws.

Well, God is love and also a consuming fire that is going to judge His Creation. Grace comes through Jesus Christ otherwise it’s the wrath of God. That’s just how it is.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Well, God is love and also a consuming fire that is going to judge His Creation. Grace comes through Jesus Christ otherwise it’s the wrath of God. That’s just how it is.

And you are certainly entitled to this belief.

 

[ElishaElijah]

And you are certainly entitled to this belief.

Yes because that’s the Truth of the matter.

 

[ElishaElijah]

And you are certainly entitled to this belief.

I think you’ll like this verse, I sure did when I read it. It was funny cause I hadn’t heard it growing up.
“Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.”
‭‭James‬ ‭1:27‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

 

[Sand Dancer]

I think you’ll like this verse, I sure did when I read it. It was funny cause I hadn’t heard it growing up.
“Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.”
‭‭James‬ ‭1:27‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

I love this one.

 

[paarsurrey]

It is an easy answer. What is the true religion? The answer is in my opinion:

‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’e 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments". Matthew 22:37-40

If you do this, you are saved no matter which religion you believe in (in my opinion)

Originally the above is from Torah of Moses to whom Jesus followed:
Devarim - Deuteronomy - Chapter 6
4Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God; the Lord is one.
5And you shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul, and with all your means.
https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9970/jewish/Chapter-6.htm

Right, please?

Regards

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

It is, de-facto, a theological problem called the problem of evil, that believers in good God must address. Now, if God is evil, where does love, compassion, etc. comes from? We would have a problem of good, instead.

To think that something breaks that symmetry between good God/problem of evil, Evil God/problem of good, by saying: it is obvious that only the first case obtains, since it is obvious that God must be good, is, again, begging the question.

I think it's obvious that a being capable of creating all existence can be described as neither 'good' nor 'evil', as it is the cause of both ends of that spectrum.

Here's something to chew on: If life consisted of no 'bad' to contrast the 'good' would that life have any 'good' at all? Is 'bad' actually bad, when it is at least partially responsible for how good the 'good' feels on the occasions when 'goodness' brings light to your day?

 

[paarsurrey]

Starlight94 said: ↑
It is an easy answer. What is the true religion? The answer is in my opinion:

‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’e 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments". Matthew 22:37-40

If you do this, you are saved no matter which religion you believe in (in my opinion)

Originally the above is from Torah of Moses to whom Jesus followed:
Devarim - Deuteronomy - Chapter 6
4Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God; the Lord is one.
5And you shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul, and with all your means.
https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9970/jewish/Chapter-6.htm
Right, please?

The Jews of the time of Jesus (and even afterwards) while Jesus was appointed by G-d as a Prophet/Messenger of Him and sent Jesus to the Judaism people yet they :

1. Did not accept Jesus as Prophet/Messenger of G-d.
2. In stead of it they ,the Judaism people, persecuted Jesus and tried their utmost to kill him and for that purpose they conspired to put Jesus on the Cross and to kill him.

So, do the Judaism people by their above actions deserve to be saved?
Does their above action prove they fulfill the commandment of G-d :

" 4Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God; the Lord is one.
5And you shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul, and with all your means."

For being saved they, the Jews, have to accept Jesus as Prophet/Messenger of G-d and repent for those wrong actions.
Right?

Regards

 

[viole]

Conversely, there is no logical law that says that God is bad. That is just a personal opinion you hold.

Of course not. What I said is that He could be bad. Thinking otherwise, and using this to validate claims about God would beg the question.

I don't believe that because I believe what scriptures say and what they say makes logical sense to me.

Well, if your epistemology is based on faith, then logic cannot work. I agree. In other words: you think your messengers are true because you believe of a priori assumption about God. People with other assumptions will use other criteria to validate their prophets.

but please do not use the sentence “makes logical sense to me” because that has nothing to do with logic. an evil God would not break any law of logic, either. It is a mere emotion, an intuition, if not outright wishful thinking, to assume that God is good.

No, I do not use my belief to measure the reliability of Baha'u'llah. I base my belief upon the *evidence* that indicates that He was a Messenger of God

And, as I showed you, this evidence is simply self referential. And it’s based on circular reasoning. Or what Scriptures says. A believer in an evil God would show you a complete different form of evidence. But none of you will be able to show evidence that really makes a difference between the two different versions. Ergo, you have no evidence. Just faith based assertions. One as valid as its contrary.

do not have to address that. Suffering exists, and it exists for a good reason. I do not have to think it is good or bad. When people look around and they do not like what they see and blame God, that is just ego projection.

God alone ordereth all things and is all-powerful. Why then does He send trials to His servants?

The trials of man are of two kinds. (a) The consequences of his own actions. If a man eats too much, he ruins his digestion; if he takes poison he becomes 50 ill or dies. If a person gambles he will lose his money; if he drinks too much he will lose his equilibrium. All these sufferings are caused by the man himself, it is quite clear therefore that certain sorrows are the result of our own deeds. (b) Other sufferings there are, which come upon the Faithful of God. Consider the great sorrows endured by Christ and by His apostles!

according to your reasonings, bad fruits that cause suffering could also be there for a good reason. For, how can you say what bad things are for a good reason, and which ones are not? That would put messengers bringing bad fruits back in the game, for their bad fruits might be for a good reason. It could be that what looks bad, will ultimately turn out to cause a greater good. That will mess up your validation criteria even more, or, more likely, force you, again, to beg the question of what fruits are ultimately good and which ones are not.

but I am digressing.

Fact is, if God was evil, I am sure He has good reasons to allow good. So? You have no chance to exclude the evil God, on pure logic, because the same arguments can be used anti-symmetrically. Or, of course, to exclude a God who does not give a rip about us. Including sending messengers. Or writing Scriptures. Maybe God created the Universe because He likes black holes, and we are just some irrelevant by product of the laws who generate black holes.

You have to hit a bottom and believe in a good and caring God. Out of faith, not logic. Just because it makes sense to you. And the rest, including your epistemology to recognize messengers of God would be logically hopelessly tainted, and made unreliable, by that initial original logical sin.

ciao

- viole

 

[Trailblazer]

Of course not. What I said is that He could be bad. Thinking otherwise, and using this to validate claims about God would beg the question.

Well, if your epistemology is based on faith, then logic cannot work. I agree. In other words: you think your messengers are true because you believe of a priori assumption about God. People with other assumptions will use other criteria to validate their prophets.

but please do not use the sentence “makes logical sense to me” because that has nothing to do with logic. an evil God would not break any law of logic, either. It is a mere emotion, an intuition, if not outright wishful thinking, to assume that God is good.

And, as I showed you, this evidence is simply self referential. And it’s based on circular reasoning. Or what Scriptures says. A believer in an evil God would show you a complete different form of evidence. But none of you will be able to show evidence that really makes a difference between the two different versions. Ergo, you have no evidence. Just faith based assertions. One as valid as its contrary.

according to your reasonings, bad fruits that cause suffering could also be there for a good reason. For, how can you say what bad things are for a good reason, and which ones are not? That would put messengers bringing bad fruits back in the game, for their bad fruits might be for a good reason. It could be that what looks bad, will ultimately turn out to cause a greater good. That will mess up your validation criteria even more, or, more likely, force you, again, to beg the question of what fruits are ultimately good and which ones are not.

but I am digressing.

Fact is, if God was evil, I am sure He has good reasons to allow good. So? You have no chance to exclude the evil God, on pure logic, because the same arguments can be used anti-symmetrically. Or, of course, to exclude a God who does not give a rip about us. Including sending messengers. Or writing Scriptures. Maybe God created the Universe because He likes black holes, and we are just some irrelevant by product of the laws who generate black holes.

You have to hit a bottom and believe in a good and caring God. Out of faith, not logic. Just because it makes sense to you. And the rest, including your epistemology to recognize messengers of God would be logically hopelessly tainted, and made unreliable, by that initial original logical sin.

ciao

- viole

If you choose to believe that God is bad or evil that is your choice.
I choose to believe that God is good, and that is my choice.

My choice is based upon Scriptures and your choice is based upon your own ego projections of what would be good for a God to do.

There is no way to know anything about God using logic because God is and has always been immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived, everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men. Such an entity can never be subject to piddly human logical analysis. That is totally illogical and irrational. What is absurd is to expect to be able to encapsulate an infinite God with logic.

You have to hit a bottom and believe in an evil God. Out of ego, not logic.

 

[viole]

If you choose to believe that God is bad or evil that is your choice.
I choose to believe that God is good, and that is my choice.

Well, I did not choose anything. I do not believe for a second that there is a god to start with, so choosing is not applicable. That would be like me choosing Pinocchio nose size when he lies.I am just pointing to you that, if there is a God, then there is no logical reason that She is not evil.

My choice is based upon Scriptures and your choice is based upon your own ego projections of what would be good for a God to do.

I know. But then do not please consider "evidence" messengers that are in tune with Scripture. Because in order to do that, you need first to show evidence that Scriptures is true. Theorems based on wrong premises cannot be considered true. So, why are your premises true?

So, I wonder how you can do that, without assuming a priori that Scriptures is true. For sure, you cannot trust whoever wrote it, without begging the question.

There is no way to know anything about God using logic because God is and has always been immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived, everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men. Such an entity can never be subject to piddly human logical analysis. That is totally illogical and irrational. What is absurd is to expect to be able to encapsulate an infinite God with logic.

I know. There is no way to infer God by logic
My point really. And that is why I always advise my believing friends to not think too much, if they cherish their faith. There is nothing more deadly for faith than unbiased logical thinking. That is what caused me leaving Christianity. Once you do that consistently and without emotions, faith will vanish in a few minutes.

I am not so cold as to deprive people from what comforts them. Unless they join an open debate forum, of course.

You have to hit a bottom and believe in an evil God. Out of ego, not logic.

Oh dear. Well, you still do not understand. I do not believe in an evil God. I do not believe in any God. I ask why you believe in a good one without getting circular. For, if a God existed, then She could be good, evil, indifferent, whatever. It could be that She created the Universe finely tuned for, say, caterpillars, or frogs, of blood sucking bugs, and we are just an uninteresting by-product thereof. Or maybe She likes supernovas and the bang they produce. And does not give a rip about what might come with stellar evolution, including great apes. As you say, we cannot logically pack God in a box. So how do you know?

So, either we believe in a God that created the Universe for us, and cares for us, with the associated risk of that being a packaging of God in a box, and the simple product of a psychological, and ultimately irrational need, or we believe in a God that does not necessarily cares for us, which would be pointless. And superfluous, since naturalism can account for that equally well.

IOW, what leads you to assume one quality over the other if not because of emotion, wishful thinking, and the obvious pointlessness of believing in a God that does not act like a loving parent?

Ciao

- viole