What would you expect people to do if a real God sent a real Messenger to earth?

[ChristineM]

If someone thinks herself out of pain, is that not proof that thoughts are things? Just because p,scebos don’t have a 100% success rate is no reason to claim that thought cannot affect us physically. Thoughts can cause adrenaline to flow and seratonin to cascade. That’s real enough. And measurable, FWIW. There is an energy to thought. Otherwise, there could be no effect from it.

It is proof that that person can think, it is not a proof that thoughts arw things

who said placebos font effect us, once again i was specific in what i said

The mind an trigger chemical reactions

Thought is generated by electro chemical energy which can cause other electro chemical reactions in the brain. What thought is is little understood by neuroscience, amazing how you know whast is ius asnd they dont

 

[sojourner]

I am not arguing symantics, love is an emotion and far from unconditional depending on the person.
Also not arguing straw men

No, i expect nothing, you are the one making claims about faith that i find unsubstantiated.

Like 95% of the world's population I am not American

Oh i don't, there are some good Christians, there must be. I was quite specific in not including all Christians. However it is common for selfish hypocrisy and bigotry to be rife among Christian groups

If there are conditions, it ain’t love; it’s ... something else.

I’m not aware that I made a faith claim that Xtians are anything other than human beings, like everyone else.

IDK enough about other countries to comment, but the US is individualistic to a pathological degree, and that informs how people put their faith into practice, because it flies under their awareness radar.

 

[sojourner]

It is proof that that person can think, it is not a proof that thoughts arw things

who said placebos font effect us, once again i was specific in what i said

The mind an trigger chemical reactions

Thought is generated by electro chemical energy which can cause other electro chemical reactions in the brain. What thought is is little understood by neuroscience, amazing how you know whast is ius asnd they dont

Thought is thought, no matter how it’s generated, and thoughts can help things come into being. And there is a certain energy in that creative process. You’re splitting hairs. If thinking can change a person’s physiology, then thinking is “thoughts.” And if those those thoughts bring about a measurable physical change, then that change is a “thing.” Hence, thoughts are things.

 

[ChristineM]

If there are conditions, it ain’t love; it’s ... something else.

I’m not aware that I made a faith claim that Xtians are anything other than human beings, like everyone else.

IDK enough about other countries to comment, but the US is individualistic to a pathological degree, and that informs how people put their faith into practice, because it flies under their awareness radar.

Love is an emotion and like all emotions, is subject to brain chemistry.

Quote " That goes beyond what another poster dismissed as simply “wishful thinking.” but if you didnt mean Christianity is superior then i apologise.

Actually as an outsider, far from being individualistic i generally see the us as very clannish

 

[Trailblazer]

As i have said before, you have a low threshold for evidence. I wonder, would you ad easily be convinced on the argument that isis is right in what they do, or anti balaka?

If you do not know what my evidence is then you cannot know I have a low threshold for evidence.
If you have decided point blank that a messenger is not evidence for God then there is no point discussing that further.

I was not easily convinced of my messenger. I judged him by his life and his teachings. As Jesus said:

Matthew 7:15-20 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

I would not be convinced ISIS is right because it has bad fruits.

 

[ChristineM]

Thought is thought, no matter how it’s generated, and thoughts can help things come into being. And there is a certain energy in that creative process. You’re splitting hairs. If thinking can change a person’s physiology, then thinking is “thoughts.” And if those those thoughts bring about a measurable physical change, then that change is a “thing.” Hence, thoughts are things.

Thoughts can offer directions, an individual is free to ignore thoughts.

A mechanical press can make things come into being, a landslide or volcano or earthquake can (and does) make changes

No i am not splitting hairs, i am being factual. The result may be a thing, the thought itself a process

 

[sojourner]

Thoughts can offer directions, an individual is free to ignore thoughts.

A mechanical press can make things come into being, a landslide or volcano or earthquake can (and does) make changes

No i am not splitting hairs, i am being factual. The result may be a thing, the thought itself a process

Obtuse. I believe we’re done here.

 

[ChristineM]

If you do not know what my evidence is then you cannot know I have a low threshold for evidence.
If you have decided point blank that a messenger is not evidence for God then there is no point discussing that further.

I was not easily convinced of my messenger. I judged him by his life and his teachings. As Jesus said:

Matthew 7:15-20 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

I would not be convinced ISIS is right because it has bad fruits.

You have previously offered what you claim as evidence, which turned out to be opinion based on faith and hearsay.

I thought you had offered your arguments but if you have anything new to put forward please feel free.

I have offered my counter based on definition, reality and fact that you seem unable of unwilling to understanding. As i have said, if you can provide valid evidence, i e. Evidence that will stand up to scrutiny then i will happily look at it.


Yet isis basically follows a book/thoughts based on the old treatimenr
as other abrahamic religions do.

 

[ChristineM]

Obtuse. I believe we’re done here.

It happens a lot when comparing reality to philosophy, opposing viewpoints that can never meet.

I thank thank you for your views... been interesting

 

[Trailblazer]

You have previously offered what you claim as evidence, which turned out to be opinion based on faith and hearsay.

What I believe about Baha’u’llah is not based upon faith or hearsay. It is based on facts about Him that are verifiable.
To be clear, the evidence that Baha’u’llah was who He claimed to be is not that Baha’u’llah claimed to receive a message from God because that would be circular reasoning.

The evidence that Baha’u’llah was who He claimed to be is everything that surrounds the Revelation of Baha’u’llah, including who He was as a Person (His character); His mission on earth; the history of His Cause, from the time He appeared moving forward; the scriptures that He wrote; what His authorized interpreters wrote; what others have written about the Baha’i Faith; the Bible prophecies that He fulfilled, as well as prophecies of other religions that He fulfilled; predictions He made that have come to pass; the religion that He established (followers) all over the world and what they have done and are doing now.

 

[Trailblazer]

But what we call 'evidence' is subjective, and selective, and must therefor be treated with skepticism if we are to maintain honesty. What 'works for us' as being true, should never be presumed to be true absolutely or universally. To presume so would position ourselves as demigods. A position that when adopted, has resulted time and time again in great human suffering and disaster.

I believe that Truth from God is relative to the times in which it was revealed so truth can never be considered absolute. That said, I believe that what has been revealed for this age is the Truth for this age. That does not mean it is the only truth, many other things are also true, it is just the closest we can approximate God’s Truth for this age.

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

What that means is that the Comforter will teach us all things that we need and are ready to hear during the age in which He appears; He will not teach us all things that God knows. Truth is always relative to what we can understand.

What clerics of old, or now, tell us is of no particular consequence. No human knows any more or any less about "God" than you or I. And the fact that they think they do tells me that they are not being honest with themselves, or with me, about who and what they are.

I agree that no human knows any more about God than any other human, but I believe that a messenger of God knows more, because He is more than human. He is a 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 and translate that Revelation into a form we can understand, Words that are endowed with an invisible spiritual force.

There are other, more probable, and more universal conceptions of "God", and of how God is manifested in our own lives. (1.) God does not need to "communicate" with humans because everything that exists, including humans, exists as an expression of the divine. And therefor of 'divine will'. (2.) Nothing can or does exist apart from it. And therefor nothing and no one can exist or act contrary to it. (3.) "God" thereby being defined as the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is, was, and ever will be.

Those seem to be variations on my 2. God exists and does not communicate with humanity (deist).

I believe God exists and sends messengers who reveal God’s will in every age, because God knows what mankind needs, individually and collectively. Without these messengers, these great teachers coming from time to time, mankind would not evolve spiritually and the human race would go extinct.

Of course, those who do not believe in messengers of God might think that this ship is staying afloat all by itself, and humans do not need any guidance from God. This belief is highly subjective because nobody can trace human progress back to the messengers and make the direct link between the two.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

God is not subject to morality (see below).

Wrong. Might Does Not Make Right. That is what you are claiming, above.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

If God shows more mercy to differently people, that just makes Him merciful, it does not make Him unjust. If you are going to go through eternity calling God evil, you will never get anywhere.

Nope. That absolutely makes him EVIL. It is playing Special Favorites-- it is picking a Teacher's Pet, to Lord it over everyone else.

That is patently UNFAIR--- studies in the concept of "fair" show that by age 3, humans have a very strong sense of Fair and Not Fair.

Since this god supposedly has INFINITE MERCY? There ought to be PLENTY enough to give everyone an equal share.

And dude! There is no such thing as "eternity"-- but if there is? I'd rather spend time AS FAR AWAY from this Plays-Favorite god as it's possible to be--- because I would NOT want to be around ANY of the special favorites in the first place!

 

[Trailblazer]

I didn’t say “born knowing everything;” I said “born knowing whatever God wants us to know,” i.e. whatever message God would have his messenger give in your hypothetical scenario.

That would be impossible since that message changes from age to age.

So God created us to be less than good?

No, God allows us to be less than good, because we have the free will to choose between good and bad actions.

An example: if God knew that, at a particular point in time, one person would stab another if a knife was available, he could arrange things so that the knife wasn’t available.

Why should God do that? If God intervened every time someone was about to do something bad then God would be interfering with human free will all the time. The whole point of having free will is so people can choose between good and bad actions and thereby learn and grow spiritually.

If God’s plan isn’t off track, why send a messenger? Why make a course correction if you’re on course?

It was God’s plan to send a new messenger when people had gotten off track and needed a new message. That is exactly what God did, and now there has been a course correction. Unfortunately, because humans have free will, most people have chosen to hang onto their old messengers and religions so the new ship is sailing with only a few passengers; but that won’t stop it from getting to its destination, it will just take a little longer.

You talk about God’s wants and hopes as if he doesn’t already know what’s going to happen. This seems to contradict what you said before.

“We” refers to God and all His messengers. The passage says “We have a fixed time for you, O peoples” which indicates that God knew what that time would be. When Baha’u’llah said “If ye fail, at the appointed hour...” that is just an admonition given to the people so they will try harder not to fail.

If humans were created by a creator, then our failures are the failures of our creator.

No, that does not compute. Humans were created good, but as they went through life they failed to live up to the purpose that God intended for them. They used their free will to make bad choices and they became bad people. Had they followed the teachings and laws that the messengers revealed that would not have happened.

So God intentionally introduced evil?

No, God created us with two natures, so we could choose between good and evil. It is our choice.

What I’m saying has nothing to do with Christianity. What I’m saying has everything to do with the idea that if someone - anyone, god, human, or other - sets out to achieve some objective but doesn’t achieve it, then that person has failed.

Only humans can fail. God cannot fail because God is infallible. God set it up so we could achieve our objectives, He gave us everything we need to succeed, but people have free will so many people did not use what God gave them, but rather went their own way and failed to meet the objectives set forth.

In any case, none of this started specific to Baha’i theology, and while I appreciate you want to do the proselytize-without-calling-it-proselytizing thing that I’ve seen from other Baha’is here, I think we should take things back to your original questions:

I would appreciate it if you would not lump me together with other Baha’is. I do not know what they did here or are doing here. I just share my beliefs if it is related to a conversation and I answer questions posed to me.

I said in my OP that I had a specific reason for asking what I posted but I wanted to leave it open-ended for now. The reason I wanted to leave it open-ended was so I would not bias the responses I got, but now that I have gotten many responses, I will explain why I posted this thread.

I started this thread because an atheist on another forum said god and the messenger are responsible for the fact that the Baha’i Faith is still a miniscule portion of the world population (.1%). He thinks that everyone in the world would be a Baha’i after 165 years if god was competent in his communication. I told him that humans are the ones responsible for those numbers, not God or the messenger, because humans are the ones who choose to believe or not believe in Baha’u’llah. How anyone with a logical mind could blame the failure on God or Baha’u’llah is beyond me. History demonstrates that all religions have grown slowly in the beginning, but he completely ignores me when I present actual facts from history. The consensus in the answers I got here is that few people would believe if a real god sent a real messenger, so that supports what history demonstrates.

The idea that any god would give a message to a human messenger is unbelievable to me. All the scenarios I’ve ever heard for why some god might decide to use a messenger strike me as ridiculous and contrived.

Why does it strike you as ridiculous and contrived? There are two issues to address here.

1. Messengers of god are not only human. They are higher older of creation, in between a man and a God. They have a human nature and a God nature, which is precisely why they can mediate in between God and man. This makes logical sense.

2. ‘How else could God communicate to humanity in such a way that he could get the message and understand it? Bahaullah wrote over 15,000 Tablets. The most important Writings have been translated into English and 800 other languages, but there are many more yet to translate. These Writings are available in books and on the internet.

I have been posting to atheists on other forums for about four years now. None of them like the “idea” of God using these messengers but when I ask them what other way God could communicate all that information, not one atheist has come up with an answer. Many atheists think that God should communicate directly with everyone but I have explained dozens of times why God does not do that and why it would not work. I am ignored.

The only conclusion I can come to is that some atheists just want what they want, like a little child wants a lollipop from mommy; they refuse to use their reason to figure out why that won’t work and why God does not do it that way – they just want what they want. But logically speaking, an omnipotent God is under no obligation to give people what they want just because they want it, and an omniscient God knows better than they do about how to communicate to humanity.

 

[Trailblazer]

Wrong. Might Does Not Make Right. That is what you are claiming, above.

I did not say that. I said God doeth whatsoever He willeth because God is omnipotent.
I also said God is not a human so God is not subject to morality.

Omniscience makes right.

 

[Trailblazer]

You think that Moses was a real person? I lean toward “probably fictional” myself... or at best “mostly fictional wrapped around a composite character of several real people.”

Yes, I believe that Moses was a real person, a messenger of God just like Jesus and Muhammad and Baha'u'llah.

Alexander the Great? Julius Caesar? Napoleon? Socrates? Norman Borlaug? Francis Bacon? Simon Bolivar?

Did any of them do the following? I don't think so.

“What then is the mission of the divine prophets? Their mission is the education and advancement of the world of humanity. They are the real teachers and educators, the universal instructors of mankind. If we wish to discover whether any one of these great souls or messengers was in reality a prophet of God we must investigate the facts surrounding His life and history; and the first point of our investigation will be the education He bestowed upon mankind. If He has been an educator, if He has really trained a nation or people, causing it to rise from the lowest depths of ignorance to the highest station of knowledge, then we are sure that He was a prophet. This is a plain and clear method of procedure, proof that is irrefutable. We do not need to seek after other proofs.” Bahá’í World Faith, p. 273

 

[Vinayaka]

You have previously offered what you claim as evidence, which turned out to be opinion based on faith and hearsay.

'Evidence' in the Baha'i faith is only other stuff from Baha'i sources. Any other sources aren't allowed. If they are at all, its all done through the Bahai lens. One of the characteristics of threads like these is that they're meant as proselytizing, but it's disguised somewhat. (Unfortunately, I was in one of the longest running threads ever on RF, with 3 or 4 members of the Baha'i faith, very (eerily) similar to this one. I regret it now, as it wasn't debate at all, just proselytizing.) So the strategy goes like this (most likely in the proselytizing 'how to' manual, but I'm not privy to this): Post a reasonably sounding question that seems like it's a legitimate question, but one that can easily be answered by all things Baha'i'. It's a method that's used to get people talking about Baha'i. So the title of this thread could well read, "Real God sent a real messenger to earth, his name was Baha'u'llah, and I'll sooner or later get around to demonstrating that." So in and around 'debate' which really isn't debate at all, the adherents of the Bahai faith get their message across.

Now I wish everyone the best of luck in this 'debate', but I can already tell you the outcome, based totally on previous experiences. There will be no movement whatsoever, and people will talk past each other.

And oh yes ... in case you haven't noticed it already, there will be plenty of Baha'u'llah quotes thrown in for good measure. That IS in the handbook. (See post 276 right above this one for the evidence)

 

[Trailblazer]

What's the difference between faith and wishful thinking?

Faith can be based upon knowledge so it can be an informed faith.
Wishful thinking is just wishful thinking. It has no basis in any knowledge.

If you agree that there's no proof of God himself, I assume you agree there's no proof that "God's messengers" really were sent by God, right?

Yes, I agree with that. There is no proof, only evidence:

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:

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, I believe that Moses was a real person, a messenger of God just like Jesus and Muhammad and Baha'u'llah.

Why?

The evidence is against the Exodus literally happening, so why assume that the leader of the Exodus literally existed?

Did any of them do the following? I don't think so.

Kinda moving the goalposts there, but Socrstes was certainly a great educator.

 

[Trailblazer]

So the strategy goes like this (most likely in the proselytizing 'how to' manual, but I'm not privy to this): Post a reasonably sounding question that seems like it's a legitimate answer, but one that can easily be answered by all things Baha'i'. It's a method that's used to get people talking about Baha'i. So the title of this thread could well read, "Real God sent a real messenger to earth, his name was Baha'u'llah, and I'll sooner or later get around to demonstrating that." So in and around 'debate' which really isn't debate at all, the adherents of the Baha’i faith get their message across.

You have no right to misrepresent how the Baha’i Faith operates or what the motives of Baha’is are. That is disrespectful and unjust.

I have no method. Impugning my motives, speaking for me as if you could ever possibly know why I posted this thread, is disrespectful and unjust given you cannot possibly know why I posted this thread.

I did not start this thread to promote my religion. I started it because an atheist on another forum I post on kept insisting that if a real god sent a real messenger to earth almost everyone would believe in the messenger by now. I wanted to know what others thought would happen if a real god sent a real messenger to earth, and that is why I posted this thread.

I even said in my OP “I have a specific reason for asking this but I want to leave it open-ended for now.” The reason was for the atheist on the other forum. I left the reason open-ended so I would not bias the feedback I got.

I had no interest in talking about Baha’u’llah, and if the conversation led to that it was not intentional. I just respond to posts and answer questions posed to me. I cannot help it if people want to talk about messengers.

I have a right to discuss my religion on a religious forum without being accused of proselytizing. Proselytizing implies and intent to convert and I have no such intent.