Why Praise God When He's The One Who Brought Coronavirus To Us?

[capumetu]

Free will is not torn apart because we choose to do what God knows we will do.
We have to do what God knows we will do because an All-Knowing God knows what we will do.
This is not brain science.

[]Plenty of things happen that God did not intend to happen because people make choices and cause things to happen.
God does not necessarily approve of those things but God allows them to happen because God honors our free will.

Doin a little practice here Trail, I agree with what you said.

In short, humans are not programmed robots that God programmed; we are free agents.

That is true

If God had programmed humans to do things God would not program humans to break His laws.

Makes perfect sense to me
This is logic 101 stuff.[/QUOTE]

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Maybe it isn't Gods fault, when humans begin to do evil actions toward self or others, that is going against the law of the universe, and it create a reaction toward the one who did something wrong (called sin or karma) you may ask, yes but the person who died was so lovely and good. It may have seen like that to us as humans, but Gods standard for good or bad is different than how humans think.

According to the bible humans have done sinfull action words and thoughts since the time of Adam and Eve.

So maybe not God is the bad one afterall

I'll never be convinced that all this death and misery resulted from what God perceives as sins against Him. That'd make God a psychotic murderer. "Kiss another women, will you, harlot? I'll smite you with a disease so horrible you'll never kiss another woman again!" That is so Old Testament craziness I can't even begin to consider it.

 

[1213]

Glad to hear. Lots of long haulers are suffering more 5 months later than they were when they had it.

That is sad, I hope they get better soon and I actually pray God that He disposes the whole Covid-19, because I think it is wrongly used to increase fascism and totalitarianism.

Luckily it seems most people get over it without that bad situation. It would be really nice to know, why in some cases there is almost nothing, and in some cases, it can be very bad.

 

[Trailblazer]

By the way

That's exactly what it means ─ no choice is in fact present, only one outcome is possible.

By the way, that is called fate, so we are on a slightly different subject now. Below is what I believe about fate. God can alter the impending fate or the irrevocable fate. God 'sometimes' alters the impending fate if He chooses to. God could alter our irrevocable fate but He never does because to do so would cause more harm than good.

“Know thou, O fruit of My Tree, that the decrees of the Sovereign Ordainer, as related to fate and predestination, are of two kinds. Both are to be obeyed and accepted. The one is irrevocable, the other is, as termed by men, impending. To the former all must unreservedly submit, inasmuch as it is fixed and settled. God, however, is able to alter or repeal it. As the harm that must result from such a change will be greater than if the decree had remained unaltered, all, therefore, should willingly acquiesce in what God hath willed and confidently abide by the same.

The decree that is impending, however, is such that prayer and entreaty can succeed in averting it.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 133

What that means is that only our irrevocable fate is cast in marble. God can and sometimes does alter our impending fate (what He knew from the beginning) according to what we do. In other words, God can have a 'change of plans.' After all, God is omnipotent so He can do anything He chooses to do! Why wouldn't God be able to change His original plans? Give me one good reason.

I believe that God can have a change of plans and alter what would have been our fate (what He knew from the beginning) and that it is our free will decisions and ensuing actions can change God's mind.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'll never be convinced that all this death and misery resulted from what God perceives as sins against Him.

I sure hope you are not convinced because that is not the truth.
Do you really think God cares if people sin against Him?

God only cares if we sin because because it is not good for us to sin, it hurts us, but if we sin it does not hurt God in any way because God is impervious to hurt!

“Regard thou the one true God as One Who is apart from, and immeasurably exalted above, all created things. The whole universe reflecteth His glory, while He is Himself independent of, and transcendeth His creatures.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 166

 

[blü 2]

You cannot take God by surprise and you cannot do other than what God knows you will do. If it is not God forcing us then it is just God knowing the future.

That can't be correct for a god who's omnipotent, omniscient and perfect. Such a god made the universe and chose to make it THIS way, where all these things MUST happen, whereas had there been anything, any large or tiny detail that didn't meet with [his] approval, [he] was entirely capable of making the universe without any such details. Thus nothing has ever happened, nothing is happening, nothing will ever happen except what God intended would happen before [he] made the universe. All human freedom of choice is an illusion ─ where there can only be one outcome, there can be no choice.

Real freedom of choice would allow each of us to take God by surprise. But that can't happen.

The only way to avoid this is to have a god who is NOT omniscient, omnipotent, perfect.

even if God did not know what we would choose and did not know the future, there still would only be one outcome and one choice that would happen. In that way the future is set but we still choose what it will be.

There are two levels to this argument. The one we're discussing is theological free will when you have a god who's omnipotent, omniscient and perfect. The other, in the physical world, is whether will can be free when humans are subject to their biology and can only make decisions in accordance with the evolved decision-making processes of the brain, which are complex enough to give unforeseeable results much of the time, but are nonetheless complex interacting chains of biochemical and bioelectrical cause+effect, possibly affected now and then by QM events that are genuinely random in terms of classical physics.

God knows the future and we cannot deviate from it just as we cannot deviate from what will be.

But God set it up that way, and the individual NEVER has a choice to do otherwise. Where's there's no possibility of genuine choice, there's no possibility of will being genuinely free.

 

[blü 2]

God 'sometimes' alters the impending fate if He chooses to.

Then God is not perfect. not omniscient, not omnipotent. Instead [he] doesn't get it right all the time, [he] can be racked by doubts and second thoughts, indeed be taken by surprise, and then [he] has to go back and fix things.

 

[samtonga43]

And there, my friend, is your problem.

With 30,000 different denominations and near as many different interpretations of the scriptures I say the problem is clearly yours.[/QUOTE]

Since you seem to lean towards literalism, of course you would say this.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then God is not perfect. not omniscient, not omnipotent. Instead [he] doesn't get it right all the time, [he] can be racked by doubts and second thoughts, indeed be taken by surprise, and then [he] has to go back and fix things.

Get it right? get what right? Racked by doubts and second thoughts? Go back and fix things?
God does not get it right for humans because God does not control humans since God gave man free will to control themselves. God does not have to 'go back' and fix things because God did not set it up to be a certain way. Everything that happens or will happen is contingent upon what God and humans choose to do. God knows what that will be but God does not determine everything that happens since humans have a part in that.

God cannot be racked by doubts and second thoughts because God can change any fate He chooses to change, not because He made a mistake, but because of something humans did to change God's original plan.

God has all power but God does not use His power to control humans and determine 'all' of their fate.
God is omnipotent so God can have a change of plans according to what humans choose to do.

“We have a fixed time for you, O peoples. If ye fail, at the appointed hour, to turn towards God, He, verily, will lay violent hold on you, and will cause grievous afflictions to assail you from every direction. How severe, indeed, is the chastisement with which your Lord will then chastise you!” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 214

That passage indicates that if we do not fail to turn towards God at the appointed hour we can avert the chastisement, but if we do fail we will be chastised.

God's plan is not set in marble because it can be altered depending upon what people choose to do. God knows what people will choose to do but God does not intervene in those free will decisions.

God knows what will happen before during and after it happens because God's essential knowledge surrounds the realities of all things simultaneously, so God is never caught by surprise. In other words, God has always known that there will be a change in what might have happened if humans had not done certain things to alter what their fate would have otherwise been.

 

[blü 2]

Get it right? get what right? Racked by doubts and second thoughts? Go back and fix things?
God does not get it right for humans because God does not control humans since God gave man free will to control themselves.

That could only be true, indeed that could only be meaningful, if it meant God didn't know the future and could be taken by surprise ─ the not-omni god. The omni god and the idea of theological free will can't be reconciled.

God does not have to 'go back' and fix things

You said that, I didn't. You said God changes [his] mind, intervenes in reality. Therefore [he] did NOT get it right first time.

God cannot be racked by doubts and second thoughts because God can change any fate He chooses to change, not because He made a mistake, but because of something humans did to change God's original plan.

That's the imperfect God failing to foresee. It's only the omni God we're talking about here.

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: Get it right? get what right? Racked by doubts and second thoughts? Go back and fix things?
God does not get it right for humans because God does not control humans since God gave man free will to control themselves.

That could only be true, indeed that could only be meaningful, if it meant God didn't know the future and could be taken by surprise ─ the not-omni god. The omni god and the idea of theological free will can't be reconciled.

God does know the past present and future all at once by virtue of His omniscience, so God is never taken by surprise. What you fail to understand is that what God knows can change at any time according to what humans do. I know this is a hard concept to grasp and none of the nonbelievers I have ever posted to over the years have even understood it. What is necessary in order to understand it is the nature of God and what it means to be omniscient and omnipotent.

God does not exist in the material world so God is not subject to time as it is measured on earth. God’s knowledge surrounds the realities of all things simultaneously, so whatever humans do is something God has always known they would do.

Trailblazer said: God does not have to 'go back' and fix things.

You said that, I didn't. You said God changes [his] mind, intervenes in reality. Therefore [he] did NOT get it right first time.

I never said that. I said that God can alter what would have been our fate according to what we choose to do.
This has nothing to do with whether God got it ‘right the first time’ since God did not have His mind made up.

It is not God who got anything wrong since God does not determine our fate. Humans determine their own fate by their choices and actions. Some things that happen to us are outside our control but they still happen as a result of things we do since God is not doing anything.

Some of our fate is predetermined by God but even that fate can be altered by God because God is omnipotent. In other words, humans act out the script that God knows we will act out, but since God is omnipotent God can alter that script.

 

[Brian2]

Yes, but we have nothing definitive to say they were written any earlier. It's tradition that Mark wrote around 70 CE simply because the prophecy of Jerusalem's destruction in Mark had to come after the destruction. Secular scholars will never acknowledge that Mark had foreknowledge of what was coming. On the other hand the earliest fragment of any gospel is dated to somewhere between 125 at the earliest and 200 CE at the latest. the evidence slants in a much later dating for John than 90 CE.

The earliest fragments found would mean the original was earlier of course.
There are plenty of quotes from the gospels and epistles from the Apostolic Father, the ones who knew an apostles or 2.
Early Christian NT References
What sort of evidence put John much later than 90AD? John was known by some Apostolic Fathers and this would be why the gospel bearing his name was accepted so readily and circulating in Egypt so early after his death. It the gospel was written much later and by some other person then there is a shorter time for acceptance and less evidence that the gospel was authentic enough to be accepted.
It almost seems to be an assumption is that the church just chose some stories that were floating without regard for authorship etc and if the stories were authentic.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

The earliest fragments found would mean the original was earlier of course.
There are plenty of quotes from the gospels and epistles from the Apostolic Father, the ones who knew an apostles or 2.
Early Christian NT Reference
What sort of evidence put John much later than 90AD? John was known by some Apostolic Fathers and this would be why the gospel bearing his name was accepted so readily and circulating in Egypt so early after his death. If the gospel was written much later and by some other person then there is a shorter time for acceptance and less evidence that the gospel was authentic enough to be accepted.
It almost seems to be an assumption is that the church just chose some stories that were floating without regard for authorship etc and if the stories were authentic.

let's unpack your post, Brian:
>>>>>The earliest fragments found would mean the original was earlier of course.

Nooo, it would mean the earliest that fragment could be dated to was 125 CE. maybe that fragment is the original. We have nothing earlier than the P52--incidentally here it is:

Just a few words that sound like they come from John's gospel, though we don't know if other gospels using the same words were in existence at the time. So trying to get it back to the very latest John could have reasonably lived to (90 years old, assuming he was born in 0 like Jesus) is just pure speculation.

>>>>>>There are plenty of quotes from the gospels and epistles from the Apostolic Father, the ones who knew an apostles or 2.

These all date from the 2nd century. Christianity was growing slowly over the next 100 years or so, so the quotes you have from Clement and Hippolytus, etc are all a century after the facts.

>>>>>What sort of evidence put John much later than 90AD? John was known by some Apostolic Fathers and this would be why the gospel bearing his name was accepted so readily and circulating in Egypt so early after his death.

This is ALL church tradition, Brian. There isn't a nickle's worth of evidence to back any of this. The earliest piece of evidence for anything related to Jesus is Ryland's p52. Everything else is pure speculation.

>>>>>If the gospel was written much later and by some other person then there is a shorter time for acceptance and less evidence that the gospel was authentic enough to be accepted.

There is no doubt among secular scholars that John is a group effort, Brian. Several different writing styles have been isolated in it. Read this:

Early Christian tradition, first attested by Irenaeus (c. 130 – c. 202 AD), identified this disciple with John the Apostle, but most scholars have abandoned this hypothesis. the gospel is written in good Greek and displays sophisticated theology, and is therefore unlikely to have been the work of a simple fisherman.

Gospel of John - Wikipedia

>>>>>It almost seems to be an assumption is that the church just chose some stories that were floating without regard for authorship etc and if the stories were authentic.

Nooo, I'm just going with what the secular experts say and trying to stay away from the Christian scholars like Craig Evans and NT Wright who have skin in the game and would therefore want the gospels to be dated to 30 CE if they thought they could away with it.

I realize none of this is going to sway you, Brian. I'm writing all this for the benefit of the lurkers who are on the fence about all this and reading this thread. I want to give them some non-biased information so they can make a better decision about whether to believe this stuff or not.

 

[blü 2]

What you fail to understand is that what God knows can change at any time according to what humans do.

That's the imperfect God, as I keep pointing out. The omni God knows, indeed is omnipresent in, the past present and future. All of these are the immutable past to the omni God.

It's only the non-omni God who's stuck in time.

I never said that. I said that God can alter what would have been our fate according to what we choose to do.

But the omni-God is perfect and NEVER needs to do that.

Only the non-omni needs to change [his] mind, adjust this, revise that, act on the spur of what for [him] isn't a moment anyway.

It is not God who got anything wrong since God does not determine our fate.

The omni God knew exactly what [he] was doing and exactly what all the consequences in perfect detail would be when [he] made the universe. Anything [he] didn't want to happen was not going to happen, and everything that ever happens is only and exactly what [he] then intended. As I said on a previous occasion, once the omni God has made the universe, [he] NEVER has occasion to revisit it.

Only the non-omni God would need to do that.

Humans determine their own fate by their choices and actions.

They have NO real choices. Ever. They only have the one groove to roll down, with no side paths anywhere, the one God perfectly foresaw and intended for them before [he] made the universe.

Only the non-omni God might allow choices, be taken by surprise, be trapped in time and ignorant of what happens next.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

You do not know his agenda because you are not him. Only SeekingAllTruth (and the All-Knowing God) know his agenda so unless he tells us what his agenda is we cannot know what it is.

66: O EMIGRANTS! The tongue I have designed for the mention of Me, defile it not with detraction. If the fire of self overcome you, remember your own faults and not the faults of My creatures, inasmuch as every one of you knoweth his own self better than he knoweth others. The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 45

Just because someone is against the Bible that does not mean they have an ‘anti-Bible agenda.’ You have not been in this forum long so I will fill you in. Many people on this forum are anti-Bible or anti-Christianity but that does not mean they have an ‘anti-Bible agenda.’ One does not follow from the other. In my opinion he is just trying to find people to talk to about the Bible and other things, and n as I said before I think he is a true seeker so he wants to know the truth about God and Jesus, whatever it is.

But even if @ SeekingAllTruth does have such an agenda it is his right to post whatever he wants to as long as he follows the forum rules. One of those rules is not to insult other people and he is posting well within that rule, but you are hovering in the edge with your off-handed remarks.

You have a right to revere the Bible but don’t expect other people to share your views. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink. This is a religious forum and everyone has a right to their own opinions. If you do not like people talking about the Bible that way perhaps this is not the forum for you, or perhaps you need to post on threads where nobody is challenging the Bible.

Nobody needs to expose the Bible for what it is as everyone on this forum knows all about the Bible, both Christians and atheists, and especially those ex-Christians who were Christians for most of their lives.

I defend @ SeekingAllTruth because I consider my friend and also because justice is very important to me. Justice is just as important as love and it was the primary teaching of Baha’u’llah.

2: O SON OF SPIRIT! The best beloved of all things in My sight is Justice; turn not away therefrom if thou desirest Me, and neglect it not that I may confide in thee. By its aid thou shalt see with thine own eyes and not through the eyes of others, and shalt know of thine own knowledge and not through the knowledge of thy neighbor. Ponder this in thy heart; how it behooveth thee to be. Verily justice is My gift to thee and the sign of My loving-kindness. Set it then before thine eyes.
The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 3-4

“Say: Observe equity in your judgment, ye men of understanding heart! He that is unjust in his judgment is destitute of the characteristics that distinguish man’s station.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 204

Justice means punishing actions or words that are wrong and upholding things that are good. This helps ensure that wrongs will be ended and rights will be upheld thereby leading to a safer society for everyone. It would seem sometimes that children have a keen internal sense of justice.
What is justice and why is it important? - Quora

It is an injustice to judge someone unfairly and that is why I stand up for people when I see that they are being judged unfairly. Jesus said to judge not lest ye be judged, not only because you will be judged in return. That is a selfish reason not to judge people. The most important reason not to judge is because it is unjust to judge others.

That is your opinion that I need context but given the point I was trying to make I did not need the context. I did not need to go on about why Jesus said that because I was only pointing out that we should not judge other people.

I believe that Jesus was telling us not to judge other people and then he told us some of the consequences of judging other people: 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

It might be true that if we use righteous judgment we are more likely to be judged righteously and if we use unfair judgment then we are more likely to be judged unfairly, but Jesus did not give that as a reason not to judge so that is your addition to the text.

Matthew 7:1-2 King James Version (KJV)

7 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Matthew 7:3-5 King James Version (KJV)

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

In my opinion, what Jesus said in Matthew 7:3-5 is more important than what He said in Matthew 7:1-2. Judging other people in the context of these verses is looking at their faults so what Jesus is saying is not to look at the faults of others but rather look at your own faults. Baha’u’llah said the same thing.

26: O SON OF BEING! How couldst thou forget thine own faults and busy thyself with the faults of others? Whoso doeth this is accursed of Me. The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 10

I feel very strongly about people finding fault with other people because my religion teaches not to find fault with others. The Baha'i Faith teaches that if a man has nine bad qualities and only one good quality we should only look at the one good quality and ignore the other nine qualities. It also teaches us not to offend other people.

“The most hateful characteristic of man is fault-finding.” (‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Star of the West, Vol. IV, No.11, p. 192)

“Beware lest ye offend the feelings of anyone, or sadden the heart of any person, or move the tongue in reproach of and finding fault with anybody, whether he is friend or stranger, believer or enemy . . . Beware, beware that any one rebuke or reproach a soul, though he may be an ill-wisher and an ill-doer.” (Abdu’l-Bahá, Tablets of Abdu’l-Bahá v1, p. 44)

“All religions teach that we should love one another; that we should seek out our own shortcomings before we presume to condemn the faults of others, that we must not consider ourselves superior to our neighbours! We must be careful not to exalt ourselves lest we be humiliated.” (Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks, p. 147)

I was not appealing to any authority, I have no authority. I was only replying to your questions regarding conjoined twins and why I was defending SeekingAllTruth.

Making such snide comments about me is insulting other people. Insulting people only makes you look like a bad Christian. Moreover, Christians on this forum do not normally insult other people just because they disagree with them, and since people on this forum do not normally insult other people those who do that stick out like a sore thumb.

How do you know what good my education did for me? You do not know me. Who are you to judge me? Judging others is going against what Jesus taught, and maybe you do not even realize that. Jesus said “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” Jesus did not say it is okay to judge people under certain circumstances.

My education did me a lot of good, as it helped me see the patterns of human behavior and why people do what they do. It also helped me recognize when people are projecting their own thoughts and feelings onto other people which is a very common human behavior.

Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It incorporates blame shifting.
Psychological projection - Wikipedia

Anyone can go on wikipedia - no need to waste time and money on that.

If you only read parts of what people say you are gonna miss the context and teach falsehoods.

I noticed that you quoted entire sentences of Baha'u'llah.

Would you appreciate it if I quoted only portions of what you shared in order to change their meaning and try to make him look bad?

You'd just ignore it if I did that?

And what if you corrected me and I stubbornly claimed that your attempts to correct me and my misunderstandings were just you using "context as an excuse" to explain away how awful Baha'u'llah actually was?

You'd ignore it? That I was just "sharing my opinion" based on willfully changing the words of Baha'u'llah? You wouldn't think I had an agenda against Baha'u'llah?

No motive at all for why I decided to quote only parts of his words in order to try and make him look bad?

 

[Fallen Prophet]

I consider criticizing and insulting other people wrong, according to the Bible as well as the Baha’i teachings.

Jesus did it often in the New Testament.

If you are insulted by the truth - that just means you are wrong.

So do you think you are teaching ignorant people about the Bible? Don’t you think that people can read the Bible for themselves and come to their own conclusions about what it means?

I believe honest people can - which is why I am criticizing the OP for lack of honesty.

How would you know what people take seriously? Sure, Writings of Baha'u'llah are not as well-known as the Bible, as the Baha’i Faith has only been around for a little over 150 years. How many people do you think took Christianity seriously in the first centuries?

“Just how small was the Christian movement in the first century is clear from the calculations of the sociologist R Stark (1996:5-7; so too Hopkins 1998:192-193).Stark begins his analysis with a rough estimation of six million Christians in the Roman Empire (or about ten percent of the total population) at the start of the fourth century... 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.”

How many Jews became Christians in the first century?

Surely more people read the Bible than the Baha’i Writings but the Bible because the Bible has been around for 2000 years. However, the Bible is taken less and less seriously every day, and eventually the Bible will be a relic of the past, since the Christian dispensation has been unconditionally abrogated by the Revelation of Baha’u’llah. You do not have to agree with that but that is what I believe and I have a right to share it on a religious forum.

I often do have to defend my Baha’i beliefs and Baha’u’llah because many people attack them voraciously; they are just not doing that presently on this forum because they are taking a break.

OK. So I should defend those who spread misinformation about your books of scripture and beliefs - even when what they claim is demonstrably false - because that is what you have done here?

I should claim that you are being unreasonable for defending those things? That any attempt you make to defend it is just you making excuses?

 

[Trailblazer]

That's the imperfect God, as I keep pointing out. The omni God knows, indeed is omnipresent in, the past present and future. All of these are the immutable past to the omni God.

That’s right. What God knows does not change because God always knew everything, start to finish.
God is not subject to time as we know it and measure it.

Trailblazer said: I never said that. I said that God can alter what would have been our fate according to what we choose to do.

But the omni-God is perfect and NEVER needs to do that.

God does not need to do that, God chooses to do that. This has nothing to do with God being perfect.
A perfect omnipotent God can do anything He chooses to do at any time.

“Say: O people! Let not this life and its deceits deceive you, for the world and all that is therein is held firmly in the grasp of His Will. He bestoweth His favor on whom He willeth, and from whom He willeth He taketh it away. He doth whatsoever He chooseth.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 209

Only the non-omni needs to change [his] mind, adjust this, revise that, act on the spur of what for [him] isn't a moment anyway.

God does not need to revise or adjust His mind because His mind was not made up. God makes up His mind as things unfold in this world. Everything was known to God from the beginning but everything was not predetermined.

The omni God knew exactly what [he] was doing and exactly what all the consequences in perfect detail would be when [he] made the universe. Anything [he] didn't want to happen was not going to happen, and everything that ever happens is only and exactly what [he] then intended. As I said on a previous occasion, once the omni God has made the universe, [he] NEVER has occasion to revisit it.

No everything that ever happens is only and exactly what God allows to happen. God does not intend for people to commit heinous crimes, He allows them to do it because we have free will.

God made the universe and He revisits it every time He sends a new Messenger of God. When God sends a new Messenger that Messenger reveals a new message to humanity, a message that is pertinent to the times in which people are living. It is all part of God’s Plan that He knew would unfold from the beginning, sending a new Messenger in every age.

Trailblazer said: Humans determine their own fate by their choices and actions.

They have NO real choices. Ever. They only have the one groove to roll down, with no side paths anywhere, the one God perfectly foresaw and intended for them before [he] made the universe.

God’s will for humans is revealed through His Messengers in every age. After the Messenger reveals His message and teachings and laws, people can choose whether or not to believe in that Messenger. If they choose to believe in Him, then they believe in His message and they follow His teachings and laws.

Only the non-omni God might allow choices, be taken by surprise, be trapped in time and ignorant of what happens next.

The real omnipotent God allows choices because He created man with free will.
God is never taken by surprise because God has always known the choices man would make, start to finish.

 

[blü 2]

God does not need to do that, God chooses to do that. This has nothing to do with God being perfect.

It has everything to do with God's perfection ─ the perfect God will never have an occasion to change [his] mind, revisit [his] decision.

A perfect omnipotent God can do anything He chooses to do at any time.

In the case of our universe, [he]'s already done it, from Big Bang to however it ends.

“Say: O people! Let not this life and its deceits deceive you, for the world and all that is therein is held firmly in the grasp of His Will. He bestoweth His favor on whom He willeth, and from whom He willeth He taketh it away. He doth whatsoever He chooseth.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 209

Either he's talking about the not-omni model or he's mistaken. The perfect God never has occasion to to revisit [his] decisions.

No everything that ever happens is only and exactly what God allows to happen. God does not intend for people to commit heinous crimes, He allows them to do it because we have free will.

That's untenable. The omni-God created the universe in THIS exact form knowing and therefore intending and being directly responsible for everything that ever happens as a result of [his] action. [He]'s perfect so there isn't, there can't be, even one teensy exception.

God made the universe and He revisits it every time He sends a new Messenger of God. When God sends a new Messenger that Messenger reveals a new message to humanity, a message that is pertinent to the times in which people are living. It is all part of God’s Plan that He knew would unfold from the beginning, sending a new Messenger in every age.

There was nothing [he] didn't perfectly foresee, nothing that [he] didn't intend, nothing that isn't [his] direct and sole responsibility. As I said, ALL bucks stop at the desk of the omni-God, without a single exception.

 

[Trailblazer]

If you only read parts of what people say you are gonna miss the context and teach falsehoods.

I noticed that you quoted entire sentences of Baha'u'llah.

Would you appreciate it if I quoted only portions of what you shared in order to change their meaning and try to make him look bad?

You'd just ignore it if I did that?

I agree it can be misleading if a verse is not quoted in context, especially if part of a verse is omitted. If someone did that with the Writings of Baha'u'llah and I might reply and explain and fill in what was left out. Some people on this forum have quoted mistranslations (from Persian and Arabic into English) of the writings of Baha'u'llah that they found on non-Baha'i websites whose intention was to deliberately discredit Baha'u'llah. Those who post these websites are hoping the unsuspecting reader would not know they are incorrect translations because most people are unfamiliar with the official translations of the Baha'i Writings. That cannot happen with the Bible because everyone knows where to get the official translations of the Bible on the internet.

And what if you corrected me and I stubbornly claimed that your attempts to correct me and my misunderstandings were just you using "context as an excuse" to explain away how awful Baha'u'llah actually was?

You'd ignore it? That I was just "sharing my opinion" based on willfully changing the words of Baha'u'llah? You wouldn't think I had an agenda against Baha'u'llah?

No motive at all for why I decided to quote only parts of his words in order to try and make him look bad?

I might think it was a possible that you had a motive but I would only care if you were making Baha'u'llah look bad. In that case I would know how to fight back because I have had plenty of practice defending Baha'u'llah. Nobody gets away with attacking or misrepresenting Baha'u'llah on my watch. The big difference is that Christianity has existed for 2000 years so everyone is familiar with Jesus and has a conception of who He is and if they want more information they can refer to the New Testament. That is not so with Baha'u'llah because most people do not even know where to find the truth about Baha'u'llah.

 

[Trailblazer]

Jesus did it often in the New Testament.

If you are insulted by the truth - that just means you are wrong.

Jesus knew the truth because He was a Manifestation of God so if He criticized someone it was always warranted because Jesus was infallible. You are not infallible so you do not know the truth about other people. You can say what you believe is the truth about Jesus or the Bible and that is okay because it is not a personal insult.

OK. So I should defend those who spread misinformation about your books of scripture and beliefs - even when what they claim is demonstrably false - because that is what you have done here?

I defend people’s right to have a personal opinion and if I disagree with their opinion I might say something, so if I believe that what they are saying about Jesus or Baha’u’llah is false I might say what I believe is true. In case you have not noticed I never agreed with SeekingAllTruth that Jesus never existed or that if Jesus existed Jesus was just an ordinary man. I believe that Jesus was a Manifestation of God and a Messenger of God so that is what I tell people.

If you believe that people are posting things that are false you should defend Jesus and the Bible. That is what people do in religious debates.

I should claim that you are being unreasonable for defending those things? That any attempt you make to defend it is just you making excuses?

I take no issue with you defending Jesus or the Bible. You should do so if you believe they are being misrepresented by someone. If someone says I am making excuses and I know that is not what I am doing I will say so. You cannot even imagine how many times I have been told by atheists that I am making excuses for God who is not doing what they believe He should do, as if the Almighty God, the creator of the heavens and the earth, would ever need to make excuses to humans for anything He does! And they cannot even figure out why that is illogical.