Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Yes you have and yet you are incapable of comprehending that tye very history you deny is the same place where you get that history from!
Outter space being anything beyond Planet Earth
People convert at the sight of an ancient burial cloth with an image on it, just because someone claimed it to be the burial cloth of Jesus even though no empirical evidence was provided. A voice from the clouds or hijacked media would be far more convincing. However if you want to believe such a miracle would not work; that's fine believe whatever you want; I guess we can just agree to disagree.
but God is not a creature.
A voice from the sky certainly would be more convincing to me than the sight of an ancient burial cloth with an image on it, just because someone claimed it to be the burial cloth of Jesus. It'd also be more convincing to be than the Bible.
So is your God a plant, or some type of inanimate object?
So you agree a lot more people would convert if a voice came from the clouds?
I don't know. The Essence of God, God's intrinsic nature, is completely unknowable.
I don't know. I would only know if it actually happened.
Well...... we both know it will never happen and why, so I guess you will never know.
I cannot say it will never happen because only God knows if it will ever happen.
No, you are based on miracles and contradicting fairy tale reports, in the same book. There is no question that none of the Jerusalem Church liked Paul. His claim of Jesus telling him different things during his supposed "encounter", his companions who saw the light (but weren't blinded) and didn't hear the voice, whilst later described as hearing the voice but not seeing the light, his later unilateral teachings, his lies, his arrogant style going against Peter, and especially his cursing of the disciples who were teaching Mosaic Law, were the reasons that it was the Church which changed the Ephesians attitude towards Paul. It's no coincidence that one by one, most of his companions left him and at the very end of his life, he admitted that all had deserted him (not only the Ephesians). The Acts were written by someone close to Paul, therefore would never judge him unfavorably and would find all kind of excuses to make him look good.
I didn't read all of your post; I stopped at " There is no question that none of the Jerusalem Church liked Paul". Clearly you are wrong. The Bible says "On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter making him an apostle to the circumcised also worked through me in sending me to the gentiles), and when James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we should go to the gentiles and they to the circumcised. They asked only one thing, that we remember the poor, which was actually what I was eager to do." Galatians 2:7-10No, you are based on miracles and contradicting fairy tale reports, in the same book. There is no question that none of the Jerusalem Church liked Paul. His claim of Jesus telling him different things during his supposed "encounter", his companions who saw the light (but weren't blinded) and didn't hear the voice, whilst later described as hearing the voice but not seeing the light, his later unilateral teachings, his lies, his arrogant style going against Peter, and especially his cursing of the disciples who were teaching Mosaic Law, were the reasons that it was the Church which changed the Ephesians attitude towards Paul. It's no coincidence that one by one, most of his companions left him and at the very end of his life, he admitted that all had deserted him (not only the Ephesians). The Acts were written by someone close to Paul, therefore would never judge him unfavorably and would find all kind of excuses to make him look good.
You must move on... because Revelation clearly and indisputably calls Paul a false apostle.
Romans 3:7 "But if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?"
Agreed.
Just because God is "Not from Earth" that does not mean that God is an alien, according to the definition of alien that I posted.
Where is Paul called a false apostle? Are you referring to the Book of Revelation?
No, God did not do that.... That is only what Christians would have you believe.
Whether the events in the Bible are Godly or only human remains an open question.
Well I grew up with a Bible believing family. It was a dominating influence in the house. I still have a brother who tries to coerce me into being a believer because he cares about me.No, God did not do that.... That is only what Christians would have you believe.
Whether the events in the Bible are Godly or only human remains an open question.
The Bible is rubbish actually, exactly what we would expect to see in a book written by fallible men.
The hundred-dollar question is why a nonbeliever would pay any attention to the Bible.
Well, then that explains it, although lots of people who grew up in a Bible believing family have flat out rejected Christianity and the Bible.
As I said above, we humans are all different in how we see things, so not all Baha'is view the Bible in the same way.
The problem with your logic 101 is in order to see the logic, you are required to make the leap that God actually exists. You are willing to make that leap, I'm not; this is the crux of our disagreement.
It all depends on your description of God. If you claim your God is fair and wise, then logic dictates if your God does exist, he is neither fair nor wise, because if he were, he would behave in a way that was fair and wise so for him to depend on unreliable messengers indicates he is either unfair to his creation by remaining hidden from them, then punishing them for going against his will, or he is unwise and too foolish to understand that if you want something done, it is better to do it yourself rather than depending on messengers that can easily be impersonated by the criminal element giving the wrong message leading innocent truth seekers astray.
My conscience forbids me from accepting the Abrahamic God. Not to mention that it has no divine inspiration.Well, then that explains it, although lots of people who grew up in a Bible believing family have flat out rejected Christianity and the Bible.
We humans are all different in how we see things.
As I said above, we humans are all different in how we see things, so not all Baha'is view the Bible in the same way.
Baha'i views of the Bible vary widely. My views lie in the middle area, although more and more I am leaning towards the liberal, scholarly view.
Introduction
Although Bahá'ís universally share a great respect for the Bible, and acknowledge its status as sacred literature, their individual views about its authoritative status range along the full spectrum of possibilities. At one end there are those who assume the uncritical evangelical or fundamentalist-Christian view that the Bible is wholly and indisputably the word of God. At the other end are Bahá'ís attracted to the liberal, scholarly conclusion that the Bible is no more than a product of complex historical and human forces. Between these extremes is the possibility that the Bible contains the Word of God, but only in a particular sense of the phrase 'Word of God' or in particular texts. I hope to show that a Bahá'í view must lie in this middle area, and can be defined to some degree.
Conclusion
The Bahá'í viewpoint proposed by this essay has been established as follows: The Bible is a reliable source of Divine guidance and salvation, and rightly regarded as a sacred and holy book. However, as a collection of the writings of independent and human authors, it is not necessarily historically accurate. Nor can the words of its writers, although inspired, be strictly defined as 'The Word of God' in the way the original words of Moses and Jesus could have been. Instead there is an area of continuing interest for Bahá'í scholars, possibly involving the creation of new categories for defining authoritative religious literature.
A Baháí View of the Bible
I agree with his conclusion, although I am not sure I believe that the words of the Bible writers were divinely inspired. Moreover, I believe that some of what is written in the Bible is patently false, so in my mind that could not have been divinely inspired, since God does not inspire falsehoods, only truth.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As for the Qur'an Baha'is universally view it as authentic and accurate.
From Letters Written on Behalf of the Guardian:
When 'Abdu'l-Bahá states we believe what is in the Bible, He means in substance. Not that we believe every word of it to be taken literally or that every word is the authentic saying of the Prophet.
(11 February 1944 to an individual believer)
We cannot be sure of the authenticity of any of the phrases in the Old or the New Testament. What we can be sure of is when such references or words are cited or quoted in either the Quran or the Bahá'í writings.
(4 July 1947 to an individual believer)
From letters written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice:
...The Bahá'ís believe that God's Revelation is under His care and protection and that the essence, or essential elements, of what His Manifestations intended to convey has been recorded and preserved in Their Holy Books. However, as the sayings of the ancient Prophets were written down some time later, we cannot categorically state, as we do in the case of the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, that the words and phrases attributed to Them are Their exact words.
(9 August 1984 to an individual believer)
The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments
I would never accept the Abrahamic God based upon the Bible. I only accept that God based upon what Baha'u'llah wrote.
God is largely unknown, except for some of His attributes, but I prefer not to slap attributes on God, the way other Abrahamic believers do.
If God is the Truth why would there be other Gods that are equal?
I can certainly agree with that, which is why I question the Christian and Baha'i belief that God is all-loving.