• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What would be evidence that God exists?

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
So a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Jew and whatever other religions that you believe were from God could not, through their own religious beliefs, know God, or get saved or whatever you want to call it?
Yeah, After Mohammad, all had to be Muslims, and after Bahaollah, all had to be Bahais. But after Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, all do not have to be Ahmadiyyas!
Bahais, you are refusing a Mahdi sent by Allah. You are doomed. You are blasphemers, you are heretics. You are not doing what Bahaollah asked you to do. Refusing a man of Allah! There cannot be a sin greater than that.

Bahaollah said, "His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed."

Bahais, your 19th Century Iranian preacher did not start a new religion. Your religion is the religion of the God of Abraham, right from Adam to Noah to Krishna to Zoroaster to Moses to Buddha to Jesus to Mohammad to Bahaollah. Even Mirza Ghulam Ahmad did not establish a new religion. It is the same, the religion of the God of Abraham. Do not say that you are anything other than that.
Accept Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and the testimony of his Revelation lest you incur the wrath of Allah.
 
Last edited:

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I hope those are close enough, but still, why take anything written by the followers of Jesus literally, right? If we're going to take some of it symbolically, meaning things like the resurrection, then let's take it all symbolically.
I do not see any reason why it has to be an all or nothing. I believe that some is literal and some is symbolic.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
So for 600 years, the only way to God was through Jesus? So a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Jew and whatever other religions that you believe were from God could not, through their own religious beliefs, know God, or get saved or whatever you want to call it? You don't really think that do you? Salvation for Christians included that they were hopelessly lost in their sins and could not save themselves. The only way to reach God was to accept Jesus' sacrificing and atoning death.
I said "according to the Bible." I do not believe in salvation the way Christians believe in it since I do not believe in original sin, so there is nothing to be saved from except out\r own lower nature.

I believe that other believers can "know God" through their own Messenger and religion although some might know God better than others, depending upon the authenticity of their scriptures and when they were revealed..
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Is there a full moon tonight. This is a strange night in RF land.

Sensationalism in one thread, anti religion in another, and mentally ill people squaring off somewhere else.

So now I'm wondering if we established admissible evidence here in this room?

Or is this going around in circles too?

Revelation of God is not evidence! At best you can look at scriptures as proof. Although I don't see any scriptures prove yet anything.

However I'm better understanding Ba'hai faith.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
I'm sure Christians have told you how they interpret those verses... he was speaking from his human side. Jesus was fully human and fully God at the same time. Or, what if we make God symbolic. God is not real. He is symbolic of pure love. And then God being Jesus' father? We can make that symbolic. Jesus was born out of that pure spiritual essence of divine love. And, when Jesus left his physical body behind, his pure spirit was reunited with that divine love from which he came. I hope those are close enough, but still, why take anything written by the followers of Jesus literally, right? If we're going to take some of it symbolically, meaning things like the resurrection, then let's take it all symbolically.

Where did the name Jesus come from, the male self who first and in origin of life owned NO NAMES.

I can remember some form of Thoth or Emerald tablet statement that said the same quote, words did not exist until the human quoting information via the use of words expressed worded evaluations for self motivated human purpose.

Originally no one was using words or naming. Actually.

For isn't science about quoting rational male thoughts first in actual scientific quota?

When you first apply the ability to think, you see and look first without names applied to what you are looking at.

Might be why a message about Holy See existing first before Holy word that just named natural but did not own the ability to change natural. How the word is first described as owning holy qualities.

For WORDS never changed anything, a designed machine mass of the ONE GOD, O body, stone, was used as string to machine and all theories God STONE and STONE MASS....as a string history/theory...from God to machine.

Male human theist then quotes....I am living only inside of the heavenly body, changing the mass beneath my feet cannot harm me. And he was proven wrong.

The radiation mass that he quotes is just for a machine reaction, yet the cold radiation fusion belongs to the whole O planet. God O released that seal and burnt his life/converted it as it arose out of the stone into cold water mass oxygenated microbial living heaven only owned by the Nature.

If you used common sense and human rationality.

If you make a correct science quote about a human life attacked as a human. You would say a human male quoted that God, the stone is thought about on one side, whilst he lived in the heavenly cold water/mass oxygenated body, his side.

And then told everyone why human life and animal life got attacked, plus stated, and the bushes/trees burnt. Burst into flames at the same time and included by irradiated brain burning chemical status to hear voice/feed back speaking. So I knew my human brothers, who I titled referenced as Satanists who irradiate burn/sacrifice everyone to death did it. For I heard his scientific quotations evilly.

In AI feed back. Is the correct human living reasoning about causes of life changed.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Regarding Ishmael and Isaac, what reason would I have to believe the Bible is inerrant and both the Qur'an and the Baha'i Writings are wrong?
Yes, why would you. But me, I wonder. Why would the Jewish scribes change the story. It's their story. And probably a fictional story at that. So all scribes decides to make the change and destroyed all the copies of the Bible that had Ishmael? Then lobotomized all the Jews that had memorized the old version? Or, Baha'u'llah wanted a greater connection to the Jewish Scriptures, so he switched Ishmael for Isaac. Much easier for me to believe. But it puts a huge question mark on the validity on the Baha'i Faith, and on Islam and Muhammad too if they agree with him.

At what age do men stop thinking about sex?
When women stop being sexually attractive. Only some religious men try to stop, because they are taught that it is sinful. Is it?
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
God can do whatever He wants to do. God does not choose to keep most people in the dark, most people choose to keep themselves in the dark, can't blame God for that.

The past is gone, so I see no reason to keep talking about it.
To get out of the dark some of us learn a little about the religions of the past. Don't want to blindly believe in any old religion that comes along and says they have fulfilled all the prophecies of all the religions of the past.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Science, religious and just every day theism should all quote....in the life of the dinosaur heavens, the giant life, no human existed.

Science after the Ice age cooling effect of the heavenly body is where our life began/returned again. Which owns no origin out of space cosmological string of thinking to planet Earth or its Nature.

For either scientific theist.

And for the sake of being intelligent when you think tree or bush, no human being is living there or owning that form in Nature.

You can only discuss my human life in my human presence, that formed from a tiny one of sperm and a little ovary cell. But 2 fully formed humans owned the presence of either small life form. So our human parents our own owned Creator, in rational scientific statements as said as creative thinking in science itself.

Anyone want to own an argument would be a quote...the first 2 original actual human being parents are deceased. In a light burning radiating atmosphere, they died, natural day light. Died due to life irradiation bio survival conditions. Can only live for about 100 years.

If science in any quote radiation want of mass wants to eradicate our life, would be to spruik a string theory about radiating mass for a machine reaction to own more radiation than a 100 year x 12 hour a day radiating mass. And then instantly we would all be deceased like the first 2 human parents that science in either form of discuss as achievement.

Identification in natural history to self not existing. For a future is only lived daily, and from one day to the next suddenly Earth as a planet might not let us live itself.

Science as a statement feels most powerful and in control whilst discussing our non presence, which is historic past and looking back as fission and reactive status, when we never even existed.

Therefore I would ask any human today, would you ponder upon science reasoning to be notified that science always sought our instant destruction by defined Earth mass release of radiation mass for instant past life human origin parental death, actually.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Honestly, converting to any religion is very difficult for me. But I take an interest in the moral codes.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
They work for me. Show me where Sears made a mistake.
Equating an earthquake, a meteor shower and a smoke filled day as fulfillments of something that happened years later on the other side of the world. There is also a problem with William Miller using the year the decree went out to rebuild Jerusalem then adding 2300 years to it. Does Bill Sears use it? Because Daniel 8 says...
13 Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to him, “How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled—the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, the surrender of the sanctuary and the trampling underfoot of the LORD’s people?”​
14 He said to me, “It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be reconsecrated.”

So when did the daily sacrifice cease and the rebellion take place? From that year we can add 2300 mornings and evenings. There is one interpretation, a Jewish one, that says this is about the Maccabee Rebellion. What do you think?
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
To get out of the dark some of us learn a little about the religions of the past. Don't want to blindly believe in any old religion that comes along and says they have fulfilled all the prophecies of all the religions of the past.
Learning about them is one thing but continuing to talk about them over and over and over keeps you in the dark.
 
Top