What does God want from you?

[osgart]

Unfortunately, in some religions, including the Baha'i Faith, we get one chance at life. I don't see how most of us could ever reach anything close to perfection.

Now if reincarnation were true, then the soul or spirit, whichever it is, could experience life from many perspectives... From being rich or poor, from being male or female, from being famous or a nobody, to being good looking to being ugly and on and on. I don't know if it's true or not, but I think it is much more fair.

I don't see perfection as possible. To err is human. I think a lot of innocent people can have major errors in how they judge others for their own relationships. To me innocence is having no malice or abusiveness of character and no possibility of it.

I think in this world everyone can be wrong in major ways. I search out truth so I can apply it to myself and improve my judgment. What I post is mainly to bounce ideas off those who care to critique what I say constructively.

I think you are right and it is very fair to try to see life from all sides.

 

[InChrist]

The problem I have is that there are so few Christians that live like God's love is in them. Is it possible for a person to have that love in them and reflect every day and in every action? You know the big issue is that we all see professing Christians, big-name leaders included, failing. The say one thing and do something else. And not like other people aren't perfect, but worse when Christians do it, because they claim to know God and to have Jesus in their heart.

You are right, it is worse when professing Christians do not demonstrate the love of Christ. In some cases, the lives of some claiming the name of Christ seem to mock or blasphemy His name instead.
When I see this I have to remind myself, people fall short, mess up, or are outright hypocritical… but not Christ Himself. So it is on Jesus alone I keep my focus.

 

[Ella S.]

I think, if a creator God exists and she wants something from me, I would probably be inclined to believe that she wants me to appreciate the gift of life that she has given me and enjoy the creation she has placed me in.

I think she would have condemned me to the existential freedom to create my own meaning and values in life as a part of that gift. Looking around at how other people live, I think she would be as happy with me if I was a serial killer just as much as if I were the next Gandhi. The world she's designed is filled with an immense diversity, and both dispositions are often rewarded in nature.

So I think she would want me to be true to myself, because that's how she designed me to be. She might have even created me as a part of some greater plan or as an important detail in the margins of a larger art piece. The way that I would have to fulfill that role is to figure out who I am and try to be the best version of myself that I can be, whatever that might mean, without any predetermined one-size fits-all answer.

At the end of the day, I would only discover what God wants from me by deepening my personal relationship with my creator, perhaps indirectly through studying its creation. This would ultimately have to be between God and myself, regardless of what any man-made religious institution or scripture might claim, and I would be the most relevant part of creation to study through introspection and contemplation.

Given what I see as a deterministic undercurrent to the universe, I would hazard to say that, whatever it is God wants from me, she would get it. It's what she designed me for, after all. There's nothing I could do to violate that, because every moment of my life was fated before I was born, and I am powerless to fight against the forces of destiny.

Thus, all notions of divine law and sin would be reduced to over-generalizations, and all clerical traditions would be easily dismissed as wholly inauthentic.

 

[Bird123]

I believe He wants me to believe that He loves me.

Hmmm? Shouldn't He want you to know that He loves you instead of merely believe? It seems to me that merely believing someone loves comes up very lacking.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Bird123]

My thoughts… God wants to share His immense love and have an ongoing personal relationship with men and women He created in His image.

Ok, I would say that is already happening regardless of any choices or beliefs one has. Further, created in God's image has nothing to do with our physical bodies.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Bird123]

You asked me to speculate on what a hypthetical god would want from me. The answer is nothing. She has not communicated or made her wishes known to me. The most reasonable surmise is that he wants nothing from me. For all I know, the entire Earth is a a bit of junk; a by-product of their intended project.

OK, let's Speculate together a bit. Say a Being capable of creating you and the universe around you ,being very smart, is getting what she wanted of you. Look at your life in the broadest basic way. What are you doing? Why are you here? What is happening?

I'll take a simple answer, however think multi-angular in order to supply me with a larger view of the picture.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[ppp]

OK, let's Speculate together a bit. Say a Being capable of creating you and the universe around you ,being very smart, is getting what she wanted of you.

Which is nothing.

Look at your life in the broadest basic way.

In the broadest basic way? Really? Well, okay...

What are you doing?

Interacting with vector forces.

Why are you here?

Well, you see, it all began with a misunderstanding about a sofa, a curious incident with a cat, and a series of unlikely coincidences that have all conspired to place me precisely here, at this exact moment, in a manner that might seem utterly random but is, in fact, a product of the fundamental interconnectedness of all things.

What is happening?

Space. Time. Fields. Forces.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Except that they are.
What is the difference between a ball that doesn't exist and a ball without detectable manifestation?



And have the exact same role / impact / function as things that don't exist.




Just like my undetectable dragon and the undetectable pink graviton fairies who regulate gravity.

@Trailblazer you rated that post as "optimistic" and provided zero answers to my questions nor did you even bother to address the points raised.

Typical.

Again:
What is the difference between a ball that doesn't exist and a ball without detectable manifestation?

How is your god, the undetectable regulator of the universe, different from pink graviton fairies, the undetectable regulators of gravity?
How are both distinguishable from gods and fairies that don't exist?

 

[Trailblazer]

@Trailblazer you rated that post as "optimistic" and provided zero answers to my questions nor did you even bother to address the points raised.

Typical.

No, it is not typical. I usually respond to all posts posted to me. However, when I have covered the same ground with the poster over and over again and gotten nowhere, I see no reason to respond to the post. Moreover, I consider these posts to be mockery.

The Optimistic rating is because I think you are optimistic if you think God can be compared to pink gravitation fairies.

Again:
What is the difference between a ball that doesn't exist and a ball without detectable manifestation?

The first ball doesn't exist whereas the second ball cannot be detected.

How is your god, the undetectable regulator of the universe, different from pink gravitation fairies, the undetectable regulators of gravity?

1. My God exists whereas pink gravitation fairies don't exist.
2. My God can be detected via His Manifestation (Messenger). That is the only way my God can ever be detected because He set it up that way.

How are both distinguishable from gods and fairies that don't exist?

There is evidence for my God whereas there is no evidence for 'gods' or pink gravitation fairies...

But of course we have covered this old tired ground many times before.
I tell you want the evidence is for God and the response is always the same - "That's not evidence!"
Then I tell you that is the only evidence there is for God's existence since God set it up that way...
And the merry-go-round keeps going round and round and ends up in the same place as before.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The Optimistic rating is because I think you are optimistic if you think God can be compared to pink gravitation fairies.

How so? Note that I'm comparing the evidence for both in terms of distinguishing them from their non-existing counterparts.

The first ball doesn't exist whereas the second ball cannot be detected.

You are just repeating the set up.
I asked you how you can distinguish them.
How is a non-existing ball different from a ball without detectable manifestation? How can one be distinguished from the other?

1. My God exists whereas pink gravitation fairies don't exist.
2. My God can be detected via His Manifestation (Messenger). That is the only way my God can ever be detected because He set it up that way.

Still no answer to the question I actually asked. Just repeats of the claims.
Oh well. I didn't expect anything else off course

There is evidence for my God whereas there is no evidence for 'gods' or pink gravitation fairies...

The evidence you claim to have exists for ALL gods and fairies and other entities that exist in cultural lore around the world.
The only difference is that you believe lore X and not the others.

But of course we have covered this old tired ground many times before.
I tell you want the evidence is for God and the response is always the same - "That's not evidence!"
Then I tell you that is the only evidence there is for God's existence since God set it up that way...
And the merry-go-round keeps going round and round and ends up in the same place as before.

I'm not talking about that at all.

I'm talking about the difference between something that doesn't exist and the same something without detectable manifestation.
It seems you can't answer it or you would have done so already.

I say there is no difference at all. They can't be distinguished.

As the saying goes: the undetectable and the non-existent, look very much alike

 

[CG Didymus]

As the saying goes: the undetectable and the non-existent, look very much alike

The NT and Bible are filled with things God supposedly did... including speaking from heaven, parting the seas, sending fire and brimstone to destroy cities, writing on a wall, sending angels to speak to people and so on. But it's Baha'is themselves that reject this "evidence". Yet, their evidence is true and reliable? Unlike the "fairy tales" in the Bible?

It's the same type of stuff. "The Bible said so, therefore it's true, because the Bible is God's Word." "The Baha'i writings are true, because they were written by a manifestation of God. And we know this, because he said so."

 

[Trailblazer]

How so? Note that I'm comparing the evidence for both in terms of distinguishing them from their non-existing counterparts.

I think you are optimistic if you think that the evidence for God is the same as the evidence for pink gravitation fairies.
That is because there IS evidence for God whereas there ISN'T any evidence for pink gravitation fairies.

You are just repeating the set up.
I asked you how you can distinguish them.
How is a non-existing ball different from a ball without detectable manifestation? How can one be distinguished from the other?

The difference is that the first ball doesn't exist whereas the second ball exists but cannot be detected.
The first ball and the second ball cannot be distinguished from each other since neither ball can be detected.
The reason that the first ball cannot be detected is because it doesn't exist.
We don't know the reason why the second ball cannot be detected. It may or may not exist.

Still no answer to the question I actually asked. Just repeats of the claims.
Oh well. I didn't expect anything else off course

You asked: How is your god, the undetectable regulator of the universe, different from pink gravitation fairies, the undetectable regulators of gravity?

And I did answer.

1. My God exists whereas pink gravitation fairies don't exist.
2. My God can be detected via His Manifestation (Messenger). That is the only way my God can ever be detected because He set it up that way.

You just don't LIKE my answer. Oh well. I didn't expect anything else of course.

The evidence you claim to have exists for ALL gods and fairies and other entities that exist in cultural lore around the world.
The only difference is that you believe lore X and not the others.

NO, the evidence that I have does not exist for ALL gods and fairies and other entities that exist in cultural lore around the world.
In fact, the evidence I have does not exist for any of them.

Never before, in the entire history of mankind, has there been any evidence like the evidence that exists for the Baha'i Faith being a true religion from God, which of course means that God exists.

I'm not talking about that at all.

I'm talking about the difference between something that doesn't exist and the same something without detectable manifestation.
It seems you can't answer it or you would have done so already.

I did answer that above.
The reason why pink gravitation fairies cannot be detected is because they do not exist.
The reason why God can be detected is because God exists.
God can be detected via His Manifestation (Messenger). That is the only way God can ever be detected because God set it up that way.

That is the difference between something that doesn't exist and the something without a detectable manifestation.

I say there is no difference at all. They can't be distinguished.

As the saying goes: the undetectable and the non-existent, look very much alike

That is true. The undetectable and the non-existent look very much alike, but God is not undetectable so He does not appear to be non-existent to those people who have detected Him. God only appears to be non-existent to those people who have not detected Him.

 

[Kenny]

What's the point of God creating the natural world then when it's so full of abhorrent suffering?

That's a good question. Maybe the answer is found in "Why do so many people decide to continue to have babies when it is so full of suffering"! Maybe that can help us understand.

 

[Bird123]

Which is nothing.

In the broadest basic way? Really? Well, okay...

Interacting with vector forces.

Well, you see, it all began with a misunderstanding about a sofa, a curious incident with a cat, and a series of unlikely coincidences that have all conspired to place me precisely here, at this exact moment, in a manner that might seem utterly random but is, in fact, a product of the fundamental interconnectedness of all things.

Space. Time. Fields. Forces.

So basically all you do is exist? Is existing all that you are doing? Have you no purpose? Look at your life. What are you doing? What is happening to you? Could you be changing? Look again. There is far more going on than simply existing and vector forces.

What are the results of you being interconnected with all things?

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[ppp]

So basically all you do is exist? Is existing all that you are doing? Have you no purpose? Look at your life. What are you doing? What is happening to you? Could you be changing? Look again. There is far more going on than simply existing and vector forces.

That is an incoherent and repetitive bog of Gish. I will be glad to discuss purpose when you put in the work, and bother to deliver a coherent thesis.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think you are optimistic if you think that the evidence for God is the same as the evidence for pink gravitation fairies.
That is because there IS evidence for God whereas there ISN'T any evidence for pink gravitation fairies.

Is it?
In both cases the "evidence" consists of people's mere beliefs / claims that they are real.
How is it different?

The difference is that the first ball doesn't exist whereas the second ball exists but cannot be detected.

/facepalm

You are again just repeating the setup and not answering the question.
How do you distinguish a non-existing ball from a ball that has no detectable manifestation?

The first ball and the second ball cannot be distinguished from each other since neither ball can be detected.

So you can't distinguish a non-detectable ball from a ball that doesn't exist.
Right. So what is then the actual difference between the two then?
What does it mean then "to exist", if you can't distinguish it from non-existence?

What would "purple" be if it looks exactly like "red"?

You asked: How is your god, the undetectable regulator of the universe, different from pink gravitation fairies, the undetectable regulators of gravity?

And I did answer.

1. My God exists whereas pink gravitation fairies don't exist.
2. My God can be detected via His Manifestation (Messenger). That is the only way my God can ever be detected because He set it up that way.

In other words: there is no difference.
You can treat both as existing and undetectable or you can treat both as non-existing and IT WOULD NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE

NO, the evidence that I have does not exist for ALL gods

Except that it does.
Your evidence consists of people making claims.
Every god is "evidenced" by people making claims.

In fact, the evidence I have does not exist for any of them.

It is the exact same kind of "evidence": people making claims / expressing beliefs.
Neither has anything else going for them.

There is no rational reason to believe one over the other.

Never before, in the entire history of mankind, has there been any evidence like the evidence that exists for the Baha'i Faith being a true religion from God, which of course means that God exists.

This is just wrong. Every god / religion has people believing / making claims.
This type of "evidence" exists in every religion.

That is true. The undetectable and the non-existent look very much alike, but God is not undetectable

Yet nobody can tell me how this god can be detected...
And no, people making claims does not constitute detectability.

 

[CG Didymus]

In other words: there is no difference.
You can treat both as existing and undetectable or you can treat both as non-existing and IT WOULD NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE

The claim... God can be detected because of his manifestations/messengers? Okay, which messengers is she talking about? Krishna and the incarnations that came before him? No. He was an incarnation not a manifestation of God like Baha'is believe. Plus, he was an incarnation of the God Vishnu. A God I doubt Baha'is believe in. So no, not Krishna.

Abraham? Why do Baha'is even make him a manifestation. There is nothing in the Bible that would indicate that he was anything more than an ordinary man. Plus, was he even an historical person? They can't use him.

Jesus? What did he prove about God? Nothing, because Baha'is don't take the gospel stories literally?

All they have is the word of their own prophet. Which, of course, is good enough for them. But to who else?

Except that it does.
Your evidence consists of people making claims.
Every god is "evidenced" by people making claims.

Is there evidence of the Sun God? Well yeah, how else does the Sun makes its journey across the sky? There must be an invisible God towing it, obviously.

The Creator God? Well, all this came from somewhere. It didn't just create itself. Therefore, there must be a Creator God.

The one true God that the Baha'is believe in? Well obviously, since there's been several manifestations of God throughout history, there must be a God. How can there be manifestations of God without there being a God?

What do we really know? Every religion had some explanation of why things are like they are and had their own version of a God or several Gods.

The Baha'i Faith is just one of the latest religions that has brought us an explanation of how all the other religions can be pieced together in a way that makes sense and shows how God has given bits and pieces of information to people throughout the ages to get them to be continually advancing and growing spiritually. But does it all make sense? To them, yes. Are there questions and reasons to doubt it? Yes. Do they have reasonable answers to all those questions that people may have? No. So, some of us, keep asking and questioning.

 

[Trailblazer]

Is it?
In both cases the "evidence" consists of people's mere beliefs / claims that they are real.
How is it different?

No, the "evidence" does not consists of people's mere beliefs / claims that they are real.
Beliefs are not evidence of any kind.

You are again just repeating the setup and not answering the question.
How do you distinguish a non-existing ball from a ball that has no detectable manifestation?

They cannot be distinguished from each other.

So you can't distinguish a non-detectable ball from a ball that doesn't exist.
Right. So what is then the actual difference between the two then?
What does it mean then "to exist", if you can't distinguish it from non-existence?

exist
a : to have real being whether material or spiritual
b : to have being in a specified place or with respect to understood limitations or conditions

Definition of EXIST

to have real being whether material or spiritual; to have being in a specified place or with respect to understood limitations or conditions; to continue to be… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

It does not 'matter' if it is detectable or not. If it exists, it exists.
For example, the planet Pluto existed before it as detected by astronomers in 1930.

In other words: there is no difference.
You can treat both as existing and undetectable or you can treat both as non-existing and IT WOULD NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE

There is a difference.
Pink gravitation fairies don't exist so they cannot ever be detected. God exists and He can be detected via His Manifestation (Messenger).

Except that it does.
Your evidence consists of people making claims.
Every god is "evidenced" by people making claims.

Claims are not evidence. Evidence is what supports the claims. How many times do I have to say that, hundreds, thousands?

It is the exact same kind of "evidence": people making claims / expressing beliefs.
Neither has anything else going for them.

There is no rational reason to believe one over the other.

The evidence is not people making claims. The evidence is what supports the claims.

No, the evidence for my religion is not the same as the evidence for other religions. It is different. It is different is because the Baha'i Faith has the original writings of Baha'u'llah and the history of His life and mission have been carefully documented.

This is just wrong. Every god / religion has people believing / making claims.
This type of "evidence" exists in every religion.

Every god / religion has people believing / making claims but the evidence is not people making claims. The evidence is what supports the claims.

Yet nobody can tell me how this god can be detected...
And no, people making claims does not constitute detectability.

God can be detected through His Manifestations (Messengers). They make claims and provide evidence that supports their claims.
Only the attributes of God can be detected via the Manifestations (Messengers) of God.
The essence of God can never be detected because God chooses not to make His essence detectable.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

OK. God creates the universe and God creates you. What does God want from you?

Micah 6:8
He has shown you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

 

[Bird123]

That is an incoherent and repetitive bog of Gish. I will be glad to discuss purpose when you put in the work, and bother to deliver a coherent thesis.

I understand. These questions are too hard for you to answer. I understand why you are running.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!