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

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So you are calling me a liar.

I’m saying that you used Baha’i-specific terminology from the outset, that you couldn’t get through two posts before mentioning Bahá’u’lláh, and that you certainly pushed our conversation in a Baha’i-specific direction.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God does not have to communicate with everyone just because they want a private message.

No, but we can infer God’s intent from his purported actions. If the message you say comes from God is unconvincing to most people who hear it and completely unheard by even more people, then we can infer that God isn’t interested in it being widely known or accepted.

 

[Trailblazer]

No. This is a very fair and just forum. If people can't adhere to the rules, that's their choice.

'Injustice' is just a word to describe the situation when people have a different POV than you.

Injustice exists. For example, it is well known in the legal system that a person can be unjustly convicted.
It is unjust to blame people for what they are not doing or to speak for them as if you know their intentions.

It's really well known outside of Baha'i circles that Baha'i really exaggerates their numbers. But of course anyone is free to believe what they wish. My research would show no more than a million, if that. And it's definitely declining, not growing. We can blame the internet. People can research the other side now.

All statistics show that the Baha'i Faith is about seven million and its growth rate is second only to Islam, a close second.

You mean people can read the lies that are posted on the internet. But that won't stop the Baha'i Faith from moving forward. Nothing will, because it is the Cause of God.

“And I say unto you that no calumny is able to prevail against the Light of God; it can only result in causing it to be more universally recognized. If a cause were of no significance, who would take the trouble to work against it!

But always the greater the cause the more do enemies arise in larger and larger numbers to attempt its overthrow! The brighter the light the darker the shadow! Our part it is to act in accordance with the teaching of Bahá’u’lláh in humility and firm steadfastness.” Paris Talks, p. 106

 

[Trailblazer]

I’m saying that you used Baha’i-specific terminology from the outset, that you couldn’t get through two posts before mentioning Bahá’u’lláh, and that you certainly pushed our conversation in a Baha’i-specific direction.

I would like to see the evidence of my pushing anything but I do not have the time to look for it right now.
If I mentioned it that is because that was relevant to the post I was answering.

That is not what we were talking about anyway. We were talking about why I posted this thread. I did not post it to talk about my religion or my messenger. I posted it for the reason I stated.

 

[Trailblazer]

No, but we can infer God’s intent from his purported actions. If the message you say comes from God is unconvincing to most people who hear it and completely unheard by even more people, then we can infer that God isn’t interested in it being widely known or accepted.

No, we cannot infer that. We can only infer that thus far not that many people know about and/or choose to believe in Baha'u'llah, for the various reasons I already stated. Most people have a religion and they are attached to their religion. That is the primary reason they will not even look at let alone accept a new religion. All you have to do is read what people post on forums to know that.

Free will is the fly in the ointment. God does not interfere with human free will to make people beleive.

God does not need to be widely known or accepted but I assume He would like His Cause to be known and accepted. However, God is not in a hurry since He knows it will happen in due time.

 

[dfnj]

Free will is the fly in the ointment. God does not interfere with human free will to make people beleive.

God does interfere with free will because God creates the possible choices we can make. Do you really believe God did not know exactly what was going to happen to the apple in the garden with a naked woman prancing about? Of course He knew.

What is God's message and what is not is for each of us to decide. I can't prove to you my words are God's words. But sometimes the words just feel "right" in a divine way. It's purely subjective. If it were objective, there would be no need to have faith in a particular type of God.

 

[ChristineM]

Baha'u'llah has defined what my responsibilities are. My only responsibilities are to proclaim that Baha'u'llah has come and answer questions if people are interested in hearing more. Have you seen me ducking any specific questions posted to me?

I have no responsibility to present all the evidence for the Baha'i Faith on a public forum. That would be utterly impossible.

Evidence: Baha’i Reference Library online

No, life and respect for other human beings are what define your responsibility, if you refuse to abide by civilised mores then we are done here

 

[ChristineM]

Knowing everything makes right. God is omniscient.

Omniscience: the state of knowing everything. https://www.google.com

So he knew childhood leukemia would kill innocent children before he created leukemia?

He new religion's would be responsible for more wars and violent death than any other cause before religion?

He knew the lowly mosquito (not all, just a small subset of mosquitoes, anophele mosquito's, and only the female ones) would kill more people than religion has killed before he created the mosquito.

He knew that yesterday my friend who rushed to help out at a car accident would be critically injured by another passing car and have to be airlifted to a hospital 150 miles away to get the required treatment to (hopefully) save her life so she can continue going to church to thank god.

Cool this omniscience eh?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, we cannot infer that.

You don’t think that God does what he sets out to do?

We can only infer that thus far not that many people know about and/or choose to believe in Baha'u'llah, for the various reasons I already stated.

I rejected those reasons.

Most people have a religion and they are attached to their religion. That is the primary reason they will not even look at let alone accept a new religion. All you have to do is read what people post on forums to know that.

The same is true of any religious conversion, but conversions still happen all the time.

The LDS Church was founded around the same time as the Baha’i faith, but the Mormons have been more than twice as successful in getting people to accept their message than your religion has been.

The Pentecostal movement is even newer - it’s only about a century old - but it has been more than 40 times more successful than the Baha’i faith at getting people to accept its message.

Free will is the fly in the ointment. God does not interfere with human free will to make people beleive.

Do you think that Mormon missionaries or Pentecostal preachers violate people’s free will?

God does not need to be widely known or accepted but I assume He would like His Cause to be known and accepted. However, God is not in a hurry since He knows it will happen in due time.

He’d like it, but apparently not that much, right?

 

[sojourner]

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 as soon as he appeared or shortly afterward. 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 wanted to keep it open-ended because I did not want to bias the responses. What I was discussing with this atheist is why the Baha'i Faith is only .1% of the world population, after 165 years. He said that less than one tenth of one percent of the population getting or believing a message allegedly delivered by a messenger for a god can only be considered a truly terrible communication debacle, a result indicative, not of a real and a real messenger, but only of a phony messenger for an imaginary god.

In sum, this atheist insists it has to be failure in communication on the part of God, and that Baha'u'llah could not be a real messenger of God, because if he had been almost everyone in the world would be Baha'is by now. This is utterly ridiculous, given the FACT that all religions are very small in the beginning and grow very slowly over time.

“There were 1,000 Christians in the year 40, 1 400 Christians in 50, 1,960 Christians in 60, 2,744 Christians in 70, 3,842 Christians in 80, 5,378 Christians in 90 and 7,530 Christians at the end of the first century.

These figures are very suggestive, and reinforce the point that in its initial decades the Christian movement represented a tiny fraction of the ancient world.”
From: How many Jews became Christians in the first century?

There are many reasons for the slow growth of new religions. One reason people do not accept the new messenger because he brings new teachings that are diametrically opposed to the status quo, Baha'u'llah was a radical, just as was Jesus a radical to the Jews who were entrenched in their religious traditions. That is why the new messenger is not accepted by those he presented himself to initially, but even after that, for centuries, the followers of the older religions cling to their older religions and older messengers as being the only truth from God, making it impossible for them to recognize and accept a new messenger. The rest of the world population is nonbelievers and they already do not like the whole idea of messengers of God or that God should/would communicate that way.

So there you have it in a nutshell, the reasons why Baha'u'llah was rejected, explaining why the Baha'i Faith is not any larger than it might otherwise be.

The atheist assumes that all recipients are listening and paying attention. The atheist further assumes that there can be only one “correct” message. The atheist assumes, moreover, that God must give clear directives, instead of teaching in a way that allows us to discover for ourselves through reflection and self-examination.

 

[ChristineM]

The atheist assumes that all recipients are listening and paying attention. The atheist further assumes that there can be only one “correct” message. The atheist assumes, moreover, that God must give clear directives, instead of teaching in a way that allows us to discover for ourselves through reflection and self-examination.

You seem to be dictating an awful lot that is not atheism and attributing it to atheists.

Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Anything else is down to religious people trying to diss what they don't understand.

No assumptions required.

So please explain how you rationalise "God must" anything when they don't believe a god exists to "must" anything. A bit o a contradiction there eh?

But lets expand on your logic... A religious person must hate anyone not of their religion. Spreading misinformation is about your opponent is a sign of hatred... Ring any bells?

 

[Nakosis]

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

This is a hypothetical question and it is mostly directed at nonbelievers.
Believers can answer this too if they want to.

I have a specific reason for asking this but I want to leave it open-ended for now.

Declare this God to be a false God.

Since we know nothing about God except some random concept of God conjured by people's subconscious minds, I wouldn't expect a real God to have much in common with people's personal image of God. So it's doubtful that this real God would match up with anyone's expectations.

I'd expect atheists to be more open to examining this God's credentials since they have no expectation of a God.

 

[Nakosis]

The atheist assumes that all recipients are listening and paying attention. The atheist further assumes that there can be only one “correct” message. The atheist assumes, moreover, that God must give clear directives, instead of teaching in a way that allows us to discover for ourselves through reflection and self-examination.

This atheist assumes that since personal concepts of God can't be verified, God can be whatever you want God to be. There is no correct message since again there is no means to verify the message it can be whatever you imagine it to be. I do assume that if a message came from God it'd be a little more consistent. What you get instead is random thought sand ideas about God that have no verifiable connection to reality.

If a God ever does show up I expect most folks having a belief in God will likely have to admit everything they believed about God was completely wrong. They had no real knowledge about God and never did.

 

[sojourner]

You seem to be dictating an awful lot that is not atheism and attributing it to atheists.

Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Anything else is down to religious people trying to diss what they don't understand.

No assumptions required.

So please explain how you rationalise "God must" anything when they don't believe a god exists to "must" anything. A bit o a contradiction there eh?

But lets expand on your logic... A religious person must hate anyone not of their religion. Spreading misinformation is about your opponent is a sign of hatred... Ring any bells?

Plz go back and read the thread. I’m dictating nothing. “The Atheist” is a person with whom TB was deabating on another forum. That person claimed that, if a god had sent a messenger, then surely the god would have done a better job with both message and messenger. The fact that the message was not universally received exhibited evidence that no such god sent any such message.

My point was that communication is a multifaceted affair. It is possible that a perfectly good transmitter can send a perfectly clear signal that a faulty receiver will not hear. It’s also possible for the receiver to misinterpret the message. 40 years of experience with radio and CW code transmission have taught me that.

Perhaps the bulk of humanity is not ready for the message. It’s as possible as the assumption made by the atheist in question.

BTW: my best friend is a RABID atheist. He and I routinely discuss theology. I know more about atheism than you may realize. And I don’t simply dismiss it; it’s as valid a belief as any, so I hope you don’t take my comments personally.

 

[sojourner]

This atheist assumes that since personal concepts of God can't be verified, God can be whatever you want God to be. There is no correct message since again there is no means to verify the message it can be whatever you imagine it to be. I do assume that if a message came from God it'd be a little more consistent. What you get instead is random thought sand ideas about God that have no verifiable connection to reality.

If a God ever does show up I expect most folks having a belief in God will likely have to admit everything they believed about God was completely wrong. They had no real knowledge about God and never did.

I agree with your first statement. Theology deals mainly with metaphorical language and images. The “right” one is the one that jibes with the seeker. Truth is as it is perceived.

The message will only be as consistent as the receiver interpreting it. Human beings are not perfect receivers. I believe that if God does “show up,” It will be in a form that we can understand and digest. Like Jesus, for example.

 

[Nakosis]

The message will only be as consistent as the receiver interpreting it. Human beings are not perfect receivers. I believe that if God does “show up,” It will be in a form that we can understand and digest. Like Jesus, for example.

Ok, in the meantime I feel it's best to not invest in any belief. Therefore being an atheist seems the best position.

 

[sojourner]

Ok, in the meantime I feel it's best to not invest in any belief. Therefore being an atheist seems the best position.

Alrighty then. Investing in belief is a commitment of the self. Which it appears as though you’ve already done in some form. Does that investment make more of you? Does it help to define life and your place in it? Does it set you free to be you? Does it help you to define and voice your truth? If so, I’d say it’s a good investment.

 

[Nakosis]

Alrighty then. Investing in belief is a commitment of the self. Which it appears as though you’ve already done in some form. Does that investment make more of you? Does it help to define life and your place in it? Does it set you free to be you? Does it help you to define and voice your truth? If so, I’d say it’s a good investment.

I don't know, you'd have to tell me since my point was to NOT invest in a belief.

 

[ChristineM]

Plz go back and read the thread. I’m dictating nothing. “The Atheist” is a person with whom TB was deabating on another forum. That person claimed that, if a god had sent a messenger, then surely the god would have done a better job with both message and messenger. The fact that the message was not universally received exhibited evidence that no such god sent any such message.

My point was that communication is a multifaceted affair. It is possible that a perfectly good transmitter can send a perfectly clear signal that a faulty receiver will not hear. It’s also possible for the receiver to misinterpret the message. 40 years of experience with radio and CW code transmission have taught me that.

Perhaps the bulk of humanity is not ready for the message. It’s as possible as the assumption made by the atheist in question.

BTW: my best friend is a RABID atheist. He and I routinely discuss theology. I know more about atheism than you may realize. And I don’t simply dismiss it; it’s as valid a belief as any, so I hope you don’t take my comments personally.

So don't generalise, it can cause confusion and ill feeling.

Communication like "Send reinforcements we are going to advancement" become "send three and fourpence* wer are going to a dance"

* old british currency

Actually atheism is a disbelief. Even RABID atheism

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

God has Carte Blanche because God is God.
God is not subject to morality since God is not a human being.
God does not have to communicate with everyone just because they want a private message.

Might Makes Right again. You just cannot seem to get past that Failed Immoral Statement.

Sad.

You believe in a god who is absolutely irresponsible. Darn good thing this god doesn't exist.