Why would God's ultimate power come with ultimate responsibility?

[Nimos]

I would consider your action a a morally bad one, because humans are subject to morality, but God is not a human so God is not subject to requirements and expectations to 'do things' that humans are expected to do for other humans.

God is not a human so God is not subject to morality. Only humans are subject to morality, to acting good or bad.

Morality is the belief that some behaviour is right and acceptable and that other behaviour is wrong. ... A morality is a system of principles and values concerning people's behaviour, which is generally accepted by a society or by a particular group of people.
Morality definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Whenever you use human analogies to compare God to a human and expect God to behave like a human that is the fallacy of false equivalence since God is not a human.

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1] A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".

This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.[2] False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear scrutiny because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.
False equivalence - Wikipedia

The Meaning of Comparing Apples to Oranges When you're comparing apples to oranges, you're comparing two things that are fundamentally different and, therefore, shouldn't be compared.
Comparing Apples to Oranges - Idiom, Meaning & Origin

This is not true, because im not comparing humans to God. But moral actions from the perspective of a human. We can perfectly conclude that both humans and God are intelligent beings capable of understanding what morality is.

Also, God created the morality by which we are judged, which also means that he would know what is right and what is wrong, according to these moral rules.

Besides that, this works both ways, if God is not subject to moral rules, then any statement claiming God to be good would be false.

What reason do we have to believe that birth would stop? That is certainly not in the Bible. in Genesis God said to be fruitful and multiply, God never said to stop multiplying at a certain time. Because there is death that makes room for more life. I don't like death any more than the next person, especially if I lose a loved one, but death is part of life.

Im not saying that birth would stop, simply that it is not stated in the bible that birth in the new Earth would be required.

Indeed, atheists are a lot more objective when it comes to the Bible. That is both good and bad, good because you see it for what it is rather than what you want it to be to support a belief, but bad if you take it at face value ans don't look for the metaphorical meanings of many of the Bible stories.

Agree, this is a fine line.

See, that is what I meant above. You are taking the story of Adam and Eve at face value, as if it is a true story of something that happened, with God as a character in that story. That is not how Baha'is interpret it. We interpret it as an allegory. I have probably posted this to you in the past but here it is again, as a refresher.

Even if we were to not consider the story true at all, the moral message of it is equally evil. So it doesn't matter, whether it actually happened or not, it shows the nature of God.

God knows who will become good and evil. You will be exactly as God foresaw because God knows what you will become, but God's foreknowledge is not the cause of what you will become. You will become what you become by your own choices and actions. Put another way, God's foreknowledge does not hold us back from making choices and thereby becoming what He knows we will become.

This is why I specifically asked you to make an example. Because it doesn't make sense, according to the premises I listed. So just repeating the same explanation, doesn't help make it easier to understand why you think this is logical.

No more sea does not mean there will be no more oceans. The seas are is symbolic for the divisions between people on earth, what divides us as humans.
No more sea means there will be no more division because humanity will be united.

This might be true, I could buy that meaning.

You are interpreting that verse literally but it was not intended to be interpreted literally.
No more mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away means that on the new earth (after the earth has been transformed as noted above) people will be happy because the former things (painful and sorrowful things that used to exist on the old earth) will no longer exist.

No, this doesn't make sense. Because people will have entered this new Earth with whatever trauma they had from the "current" one. If you have experienced your whole family slaughtered and for some reason these didn't get into the new Earth, then this experience will be equally horrible. Assuming that people will simply forget such experiences, seems extremely unlikely.

Baha'is have a completely different interpretation of those verses from ow Christians. interpret them, and different from what you said.

We do not believe that the new Jerusalem descending to Earth from Heaven is a physical city that descends from heaven.
We believe that the New Jerusalem is the promises of God which were fulfilled when Baha'u'llah came with His new Revelation from God.
The Law of God is the Revelation of Baha'u'llah, including His teachings but particularly the Laws that He revealed to us.

Obviously, I can't argue against that. The only thing I can say is that Revelation is extremely specific in regard to what this new Jerusalem will look like, its size etc. It seems unlikely that this should not be understood as an actual city.

That is good logic on your part because we can never know if we are spiritual enough in God's eyes so we need to do all we can do to make ourselves better. However, we are mortal beings so we have to eat and sleep and go to work, so we cannot spend every single second trying to become more spiritual. That said, I spend all of my time on these efforts, whenever I am not eating, sleeping, working, exercising, or taking care of the cats and other business such as my rental houses.

That is what I think is interesting because you seem to agree, that this is the logic of a scam, yet less worried that you are doing exactly as such a scam would expect you to do.

I guess that is where faith gets into the picture, I don't really know what other explanation there could be.

 

[Trailblazer]

This is not true, because im not comparing humans to God. But moral actions from the perspective of a human. We can perfectly conclude that both humans and God are intelligent beings capable of understanding what morality is.

Also, God created the morality by which we are judged, which also means that he would know what is right and what is wrong, according to these moral rules.

Besides that, this works both ways, if God is not subject to moral rules, then any statement claiming God to be good would be false.

God knows what is moral for humans since God set the standards for human morality, but God is not subject to morality because God is not a human.
That is why I said you are committing the fallacy of false equivalence if you are expecting God to behave like a human.

Morality is the belief that some behaviour is right and acceptable and that other behaviour is wrong. ... A morality is a system of principles and values concerning people's behaviour, which is generally accepted by a society or by a particular group of people.
Morality definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

God does not have behavior since God is not a human being.
God reveals principles and values concerning people's behavior when God sends Messengers.
God is not subject to His own rules because God is God, and God is not answerable to anyone.

It does not work both ways. God is good by His nature. That is based upon what is revealed in scripture and that is why believers believe that God is good.

Im not saying that birth would stop, simply that it is not stated in the bible that birth in the new Earth would be required.

Nor does the Bible say that birth will not be required on the new Earth, so we just need to try to use our common sense.

Even if we were to not consider the story true at all, the moral message of it is equally evil. So it doesn't matter, whether it actually happened or not, it shows the nature of God.

What do you think is evil about the message? You may well be misinterpreting the message. The other thing is that if it is just a story and it is not necessarily what God actually said or did. I think both are true.

This is why I specifically asked you to make an example. Because it doesn't make sense, according to the premises I listed. So just repeating the same explanation, doesn't help make it easier to understand why you think this is logical.

I said: God knows who will become good and evil. You will be exactly as God foresaw because God knows what you will become, but God's foreknowledge is not the cause of what you will become. You will become what you become by your own choices and actions. Put another way, God's foreknowledge does not hold us back from making choices and thereby becoming what He knows we will become.

Why doesn't it make sense based upon these premises?

1. We are born as a blank slate
2. God knows who will become good or evil since God is all-knowing and God has foreknowledge
3. We do not actually become good or evil until we commit good or evil actions.

No, this doesn't make sense. Because people will have entered this new Earth with whatever trauma they had from the "current" one. If you have experienced your whole family slaughtered and for some reason these didn't get into the new Earth, then this experience will be equally horrible. Assuming that people will simply forget such experiences, seems extremely unlikely.

When I said: "After the earth has been transformed people will be happy because the former things (painful and sorrowful things that used to exist on the old earth) will no longer exist" I was referring to people who will be living on Earth at that time. By the time the new Earth is established there won't be such things as while families being slaughtered so there won't be anything to forget.

Obviously, I can't argue against that. The only thing I can say is that Revelation is extremely specific in regard to what this new Jerusalem will look like, its size etc. It seems unlikely that this should not be understood as an actual city.

What seems absurd to be is ht people would interpret that as a real city coming down from heaven.
I believe that those descriptions are symbolic, not literal, as is much of Revelation. I don't understand what it all means, but there are Baha'is who have interpreted it and written books. For example:

Apocalypse Secrets: Baha'i Interpretation of the Book of Revelation

That is what I think is interesting because you seem to agree, that this is the logic of a scam, yet less worried that you are doing exactly as such a scam would expect you to do.

I guess that is where faith gets into the picture, I don't really know what other explanation there could be.

The other explanation is that it is reality, not a scam, and that my friend is why I am concerned. I am not really worried though because even of if did not do one more thing in my life to try to be more spiritual, I have already put in my time.

 

[Nimos]

God knows what is moral for humans since God set the standards for human morality, but God is not subject to morality because God is not a human.
That is why I said you are committing the fallacy of false equivalence if you are expecting God to behave like a human.

That doesn't work.

That is like saying that a parent teaching their child moral behaviors, isn't subject to them themselves. Morality is not something that applies based on the subject, meaning that you can just individually point to different things and say they are moral and that is not. We based it upon the actions.

Even if we are talking about objective morality, even God would have to adhere to them, in this case, because he would be the creator of them. But that doesn't change that we as humans can apply our morality to actions and judge whether they are moral or not. We make a distinction, between intelligent beings capable of such things and those unable or that we deem to be governed by instincts, such as animals. Likewise, we wouldn't point at a car that has run over a person saying that it is immoral, because we know that there is no intelligence behind it, therefore we blame the human for having done it.

So when God says that it is wrong to kill, then he might mean that it is wrong for humans to kill, but that doesn't change that we can judge him based on his own moral standard and decide whether we agree or not, just in the same way we could do it with an animal or an intelligent alien.

Nor does the Bible say that birth will not be required on the new Earth, so we just need to try to use our common sense.

I don't think it is particularly important whether it is one way or the other. If no one dies, there is going to be a massive population increase. Besides that, I don't get why newborn people on this new Earth, would automatically be considered worthy of it when we today aren't?

That seems to raise some questions about why this Earth is even needed if it wasn't to improve ourselves to live up to what God already knows, it seems pretty pointless?

What do you think is evil about the message? You may well be misinterpreting the message. The other thing is that if it is just a story and it is not necessarily what God actually said or did. I think both are true.

Because God is blaming Adam and Eve (humanity) for something that they couldn't know since they didn't have the ability to know. So even if we run with it being a story, it is morally wrong.

Why doesn't it make sense based upon these premises?

1. We are born as a blank slate
2. God knows who will become good or evil since God is all-knowing and God has foreknowledge
3. We do not actually become good or evil until we commit good or evil actions.

This was in regard to how you could improve on something when the result/outcome is already known.

When I said: "After the earth has been transformed people will be happy because the former things (painful and sorrowful things that used to exist on the old earth) will no longer exist" I was referring to people who will be living on Earth at that time. By the time the new Earth is established there won't be such things as while families being slaughtered so there won't be anything to forget.

But that is not what the bible says, the bible says that these things won't be there anymore. But those people going from this Earth to the next would know it, unless their memories are wiped. That is the only way you can get around there being no more pain and suffering.

What seems absurd to be is ht people would interpret that as a real city coming down from heaven.

Maybe, maybe not. It is equally absurd to think that Moses parted the waters, or Jesus rose from the dead. If God can create a Universe, creating a city should be pretty easy I would think

The other explanation is that it is reality, not a scam, and that my friend is why I am concerned. I am not really worried though because even of if did not do one more thing in my life to try to be more spiritual, I have already put in my time.

I have no doubt that you have. The question based on the logic, is if God thinks you have, but you have no clue whether that is the case or not.

 

[Trailblazer]

That doesn't work.

That is like saying that a parent teaching their child moral behaviors, isn't subject to them themselves. Morality is not something that applies based on the subject, meaning that you can just individually point to different things and say they are moral and that is not. We based it upon the actions.

That doesn't work for reason I already explained. Parents and children are both humans so they are both responsible to be moral, but God is not a human so God is not responsible to be moral. Morality only applies to humans, not to God, as per the definition. Moreover, God has no behaviors, so God cannot have moral or immoral behaviors.

Morality is the belief that some behaviour is right and acceptable and that other behaviour is wrong. ... A morality is a system of principles and values concerning people's behaviour, which is generally accepted by a society or by a particular group of people.
Morality definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Even if we are talking about objective morality, even God would have to adhere to them, in this case, because he would be the creator of them.

There is no logical reason to believe that God would have to adhere to what He revealed for humans. God cannot adhere to anything because God does not have behavior. God has a will and wills things that happen, and from God's will things happen.

But that doesn't change that we as humans can apply our morality to actions and judge whether they are moral or not. We make a distinction, between intelligent beings capable of such things and those unable or that we deem to be governed by instincts, such as animals. Likewise, we wouldn't point at a car that has run over a person saying that it is immoral, because we know that there is no intelligence behind it, therefore we blame the human for having done it.

So when God says that it is wrong to kill, then he might mean that it is wrong for humans to kill, but that doesn't change that we can judge him based on his own moral standard and decide whether we agree or not, just in the same way we could do it with an animal or an intelligent alien.

Fair enough, since God and humans are both intelligent beings.

Humans can judge God if they want to, but if they do they should be judging God according to what God actually does, and since you cannot know what God does, how can you judge God? Forget citing the Bible since that is no representation of what God ever did. God does not have behaviors as the OT would suggest.

I don't think it is particularly important whether it is one way or the other. If no one dies, there is going to be a massive population increase. Besides that, I don't get why newborn people on this new Earth, would automatically be considered worthy of it when we today aren't?

That seems to raise some questions about why this Earth is even needed if it wasn't to improve ourselves to live up to what God already knows, it seems pretty pointless?

This Earth was needed to give humans the opportunity to improve themselves and to live up to what God already knows they will do.
As I have said before, it doesn't matter that God already knows what we will do. God's knowledge does not make us who we are, so we still have to do x, y, and z for our own character development.

Because God is blaming Adam and Eve (humanity) for something that they couldn't know since they didn't have the ability to know. So even if we run with it being a story, it is morally wrong.

It cannot be morally wrong if it is just a story and it is not what God actually said or did. The story can sound morally wrong but thaht is not the same as being morally wrong.

This was in regard to how you could improve on something when the result/outcome is already known.

Why can't you improve on something when the result/outcome is already known?
That is the hundred-dollar question that nobody has given me an answer to yet.
Nobody seems to understand that God's knowledge is independent of what humans do. This is not that difficult.

But that is not what the bible says, the bible says that these things won't be there anymore. But those people going from this Earth to the next would know it, unless their memories are wiped. That is the only way you can get around there being no more pain and suffering.

We don't know much about what will happen when we go to the next world, so we don't know if our memories will go with us, and even if they do, maybe we will be able to choose whether or not to think of the past, just as we can do here.

I was wondering about this just yesterday. I was wondering if my late husband knows the pain he caused me by the way he acted towards me towards the end of his life, not caring about living, not caring that he was going to leave me all alone, only caring about himself and his own pain. I was saying to myself that I hope he knows. Maybe that is not very nice, but what he did to me was not very nice either, and I think he should be aware of it and regret it. There are indications from the Baha'i Writings that he would have realized this after he died, even if he did not think about it after that:

“It is clear and evident that all men shall, after their physical death, estimate the worth of their deeds, and realize all that their hands have wrought.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 171

By the way, many years ago my late husband posted to you here and he was a big fan of your posts, just as I am. We agreed on many things, but not on others. Neither one of us liked life in this world very much, but I was not in a hurry to get to the afterlife as he was. He just could not wait to get out of this world and he's in another world now, so I hope he is happy.

Maybe, maybe not. It is equally absurd to think that Moses parted the waters, or Jesus rose from the dead. If God can create a Universe, creating a city should be pretty easy I would think

Of course God could create a city that comes down from heaven. God could also part the waters and raise Jesus from the dead if He wanted to, but there is no reason to believe that God did or will do any of these things.

I have no doubt that you have. The question based on the logic, is if God thinks you have, but you have no clue whether that is the case or not.

No, I do not know what God thinks of what I have done so far, which is why I choose to keep plugging away. One cannot be too spiritual.

 

[Nimos]

That doesn't work for reason I already explained. Parents and children are both humans so they are both responsible to be moral, but God is not a human so God is not responsible to be moral. Morality only applies to humans, not to God, as per the definition. Moreover, God has no behaviors, so God cannot have moral or immoral behaviors.

Can we judge the moral action of an alien being? Let's say a clearly intelligent alien came to Earth and you could speak to it etc. And then it chose to drown five children for fun. Could you point to that alien and say that what it did was immoral? or is it above moral judgment, meaning that it didn't do anything wrong?

There is no logical reason to believe that God would have to adhere to what He revealed for humans. God cannot adhere to anything because God does not have behavior. God has a will and wills things that happen, and from God's will things happen.

For you to even reach a conclusion that something is wrong, you need to be aware of why that is. If you think it is morally wrong for your child to curse at God, then you need to be aware of God and why cursing at him could be so.

If you isn't aware of something, you can't have a moral opinion about it. So God would also have to have thought about why killing is wrong and why it is not wrong for him. The reason he doesn't think it is wrong, is because his morality say otherwise, but he still need to be aware of moral rules that applies, both when he throws them at humans or whatever rules he follows himself.

So just as God can judge human moral choices, so can we judge his.

What do you mean God doesn't have behavior?

Humans can judge God if they want to, but if they do they should be judging God according to what God actually does, and since you cannot know what God does, how can you judge God? Forget citing the Bible since that is no representation of what God ever did. God does not have behaviors as the OT would suggest.

Well, we can also judge God for what he doesn't do. For instance, preventing animal suffering, natural disasters etc. These fall under the sphere of God, he decided that things should be like this.

It cannot be morally wrong if it is just a story and it is not what God actually said or did. The story can sound morally wrong but thaht is not the same as being morally wrong.

This doesn't fly, then we might as well throw the whole foundation of Judaism out the window. Because then there is no reason to assume that any of the creation story is even remotely true.

If our assumption is that it is just a story, then surely we can't morally judge God, but then again, there is no foundation for even thinking God is real, if it is clearly just a story. You can't cherry-pick like this

By that I mean, it would be like saying that the creation story of how God created the Universe clearly didn't happen like that, but he DEFINITELY did it!! But the story of Adam and Eve is just made up, nothing like it happened and we don't accept the moral implications. That is cherry-picking.

That is the hundred-dollar question that nobody has given me an answer to yet.

I thought my example with the basketball was very clear?

If you are destined to miss, then it doesn't matter how much you "improve" you will still ultimately miss. Doesn't matter if all your "improvements" got you to barely missing or not, you still missed. And that is what you are judged on, you are not judged on how close you got to not missing.

We don't know much about what will happen when we go to the next world, so we don't know if our memories will go with us, and even if they do, maybe we will be able to choose whether or not to think of the past, just as we can do here.

I was wondering about this just yesterday. I was wondering if my late husband knows the pain he caused me by the way he acted towards me towards the end of his life, not caring about living, not caring that he was going to leave me all alone, only caring about himself and his own pain. I was saying to myself that I hope he knows. Maybe that is not very nice, but what he did to me was not very nice either, and I think he should be aware of it and regret it. There are indications from the Baha'i Writings that he would have realized this after he died, even if he did not think about it after that:

“It is clear and evident that all men shall, after their physical death, estimate the worth of their deeds, and realize all that their hands have wrought.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 171

I agree, as we both agreed on, Revelation is a huge mess. So even if I was a believer, I would probably be extremely skeptical about it. So I wouldn't put too much into it personally

By the way, many years ago my late husband posted to you here and he was a big fan of your posts, just as I am. We agreed on many things, but not on others. Neither one of us liked life in this world very much, but I was not in a hurry to get to the afterlife as he was. He just could not wait to get out of this world and he's in another world now, so I hope he is happy.

Even if the afterlife isn't real, he might not be happy, but at least is not at risk of suffering either

I don't think I have ever written with him? or maybe he wrote on your account and I simply wasn't aware? I don't recall anything like that at least.

But that good with the posts, I think that is the most important thing with all this, to be able to share ideas and thoughts between people.

Of course God could create a city that comes down from heaven. God could also part the waters and raise Jesus from the dead if He wanted to, but there is no reason to believe that God did or will do any of these things.

I agree, again, Revelation
Also, a huge part of the bible is about Jerusalem, so obviously they wanted a glorious ending to the story. Streets with gold etc. the whole bling bling is through the roof.

No, I do not know what God thinks of what I have done so far, which is why I choose to keep plugging away. One cannot be too spiritual.

I understand people find value in it, but there are also personal reasons for it. I only arguing against the logical side of the argument. Not that people shouldn't find meaning in spirituality whatever that is for them. The same way as some do meditation etc.

 

[Trailblazer]

Can we judge the moral action of an alien being? Let's say a clearly intelligent alien came to Earth and you could speak to it etc. And then it chose to drown five children for fun. Could you point to that alien and say that what it did was immoral? or is it above moral judgment, meaning that it didn't do anything wrong?

Yes, you could judge the moral action of an intelligent alien being if that being acted. If that alien being chose to drown five children for fun you point to that alien and say that what it did was immoral.

For you to even reach a conclusion that something is wrong, you need to be aware of why that is. If you think it is morally wrong for your child to curse at God, then you need to be aware of God and why cursing at him could be so.

If you isn't aware of something, you can't have a moral opinion about it. So God would also have to have thought about why killing is wrong and why it is not wrong for him. The reason he doesn't think it is wrong, is because his morality say otherwise, but he still need to be aware of moral rules that applies, both when he throws them at humans or whatever rules he follows himself.

God is all-knowing so God does not have to think about why something is wrong, God just knows.
God is not subject to morality because God doesn't have behaviors.

Morality is the belief that some behaviour is right and acceptable and that other behaviour is wrong. ... A morality is a system of principles and values concerning people's behaviour, which is generally accepted by a society or by a particular group of people.
Morality definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

So just as God can judge human moral choices, so can we judge his.

You can judge God if you want to, but you won't be judging God by His behaviors, since God has no behaviors...
You could judge God by what God has willed though, if you don't like what God has willed..

What do you mean God doesn't have behavior?

Behavior is defined as the way in which an animal or person acts in response to a particular situation or stimulus.
Since God is not an animal or a person God cannot have behavior.

Well, we can also judge God for what he doesn't do. For instance, preventing animal suffering, natural disasters etc. These fall under the sphere of God, he decided that things should be like this.

Yes, you can judge God for that if you want to. I used to judge God for allowing me to suffer so much, but I try not to do that anymore.

I still wonder why God created a world with so much suffering but I don't wonder why God does not prevent suffering, because it makes no sense that God would do an about face and prevent the suffering that happens in a world that He created, knowing suffering would exist.

This doesn't fly, then we might as well throw the whole foundation of Judaism out the window. Because then there is no reason to assume that any of the creation story is even remotely true.

Yes, let's throw it out, because the world would be much better off if we did. Talk about suffering, the OT has caused so much suffering to people who read and believe it is true!

If our assumption is that it is just a story, then surely we can't morally judge God, but then again, there is no foundation for even thinking God is real, if it is clearly just a story. You can't cherry-pick like this

OMG! So, if Genesis is not literally true that means there is no God? I can hardly believe my ears.
So what about people of other religions who believe in God based upon their own scriptures? Hinduism predates Judaism.
I did not know you were so biased.

By that I mean, it would be like saying that the creation story of how God created the Universe clearly didn't happen like that, but he DEFINITELY did it!! But the story of Adam and Eve is just made up, nothing like it happened and we don't accept the moral implications. That is cherry-picking.

No, that is not cherry-picking, that is just being reasonable and rational. I can hardly believe that you as an atheist would believe in the creation story. Not even all Christians nowadays believe that the world was created in six days or that there was a Garden of Eden with a snake and a trees and people called Adam and Eve.

Seems to me like we need to continue talking.

I thought my example with the basketball was very clear?

If you are destined to miss, then it doesn't matter how much you "improve" you will still ultimately miss. Doesn't matter if all your "improvements" got you to barely missing or not, you still missed. And that is what you are judged on, you are not judged on how close you got to not missing.

You would be right, if you were destined to miss, but everything that happens in this life is not predestined. Most of what happens is chosen by humans via free will.

God does not judge us on what He predestined for us since we have no control over that. God only judges us on the choices we make and the ensuing actions.

I agree, as we both agreed on, Revelation is a huge mess. So even if I was a believer, I would probably be extremely skeptical about it. So I wouldn't put too much into it personally

I certainly don't rely upon it.

Even if the afterlife isn't real, he might not be happy, but at least is not at risk of suffering either

Well, obviously if there is no afterlife he cannot be suffering.

I don't think I have ever written with him? or maybe he wrote on your account and I simply wasn't aware? I don't recall anything like that at least.

But that good with the posts, I think that is the most important thing with all this, to be able to share ideas and thoughts between people.

I looked up his Username in a Word document where I save all Usernames and Passwords, and I found it. That was painful because it triggered memories, but I did it just for you. His Username is @Unity of Mankind. I saw that he had posted posts but I could not see who they were to because I could not look at them, since I cannot look at anything that triggers the memories of the way things used to be, sorry.

I agree, again, Revelation
Also, a huge part of the bible is about Jerusalem, so obviously they wanted a glorious ending to the story. Streets with gold etc. the whole bling bling is through the roof.

Hey, I never thought of it that way, the glorious ending I mean. Aren't you glad you are an atheist?

I understand people find value in it, but there are also personal reasons for it. I only arguing against the logical side of the argument. Not that people shouldn't find meaning in spirituality whatever that is for them. The same way as some do meditation etc.

Yes, there are personal reasons for wanting to be more spiritual, not only logical reasons, Mr. Logic.

 

[CG Didymus]

If our assumption is that it is just a story, then surely we can't morally judge God, but then again, there is no foundation for even thinking God is real, if it is clearly just a story. You can't cherry-pick like this

I've asked Baha'is that question also. The stories in the Bible make God have human qualities and do human things, but Baha'is, or least TB, doesn't believe those things. Then why is the God of the Bible real? Those human-like things aren't real, the stories aren't real, so why is this God described in the Bible real? Because he isn't. The God that Baha'is say is real is way different.

So, maybe not the Baha'i God, but the God of the Bible and the Gods of Hinduism, as described and defined, are not real. So where did those false concepts of God come from? Why not from the people? Why can't it be that those people, in those cultures, invented what they believed to be true and came up with mythical stories about their Gods?

Of course, the Baha'i Faith needs a real God that was part of every single major religion.... even though each religion defines their God differently. And ironically, Baha'is say those differences are because the people did make up the stories. But, they say, "originally" God was the same and the essential truths of each religion were the same. But the people added in those made-up stories into their beliefs.

I'm enjoying your input on this subject.

 

[Nimos]

I've asked Baha'is that question also. The stories in the Bible make God have human qualities and do human things, but Baha'is, or least TB, doesn't believe those things. Then why is the God of the Bible real? Those human-like things aren't real, the stories aren't real, so why is this God described in the Bible real? Because he isn't. The God that Baha'is say is real is way different.

So, maybe not the Baha'i God, but the God of the Bible and the Gods of Hinduism, as described and defined, are not real. So where did those false concepts of God come from? Why not from the people? Why can't it be that those people, in those cultures, invented what they believed to be true and came up with mythical stories about their Gods?

That is a good question. God needs foundation in my opinion. Obviously the Bahai (from what I understand) get it primarily from Baha'u'llah and he gets them from God, because he is a messenger. I don't know why or if Baha'u'llah has corrected the other messengers? Because clearly whatever is said they have done in the other scriptures must be equally false or maybe those sections for whatever reason are reliable.

Of course, the Baha'i Faith needs a real God that was part of every single major religion.... even though each religion defines their God differently.

I understand that people have different views of their God, but for me, there needs to be a minimum of consistency for me to even consider that "version" of God to be plausible.

I have a difficult time with the Bahai version, he seems to shift characters as the wind blows, but maybe it is just because I haven't read a lot of the scriptures

 

[Trailblazer]

I understand that people have different views of their God, but for me, there needs to be a minimum of consistency for me to even consider that "version" of God to be plausible.

I understand why you would need consistency for plausibility and that is logical.

I have a difficult time with the Bahai version, he seems to shift characters as the wind blows, but maybe it is just because I haven't read a lot of the scriptures

Can you explain why you think that the Baha'i version of God seems to shift characters as the wind blows?

 

[Nimos]

God is all-knowing so God does not have to think about why something is wrong, God just knows.
God is not subject to morality because God doesn't have behaviors.

I don't understand what you mean God doesn't have behaviors?

Can you explain what the purpose of God is then, what does he do, that requires no behaviors? Because you say he is not bound by morality, but at the same time also only good.

You can judge God if you want to, but you won't be judging God by His behaviors, since God has no behaviors...

Didn't God create the Universe? Didn't he allow for children to die at birth? For animals to feed on each other often in horrible ways? Couldn't you make the argument that God is immoral for doing this or who would you blame for it?

Yes, let's throw it out, because the world would be much better off if we did. Talk about suffering, the OT has caused so much suffering to people who read and believe it is true!

There are Christians who think the OT should be removed. But if one did that, Christianity has no foundation at all, there wouldn't be a creation story, nothing that would even remotely make Christianity valid.

OMG! So, if Genesis is not literally true that means there is no God? I can hardly believe my ears.

You misunderstood what I said.

Imagine I gave you a book consisting of lots of small stories and you had to figure out whether it was true or not. So now you have read it and you have split the book into small sections and these are the conclusions you have reached for each of them:

[Story A] - No true
[Story B] - True
[Story C] - True
[Story D] - Not true

Now I ask you whether the book is true or not?

Based on that, your conclusion should be that the book is not true. Doesn't matter whether some stories are allegories if the message of the stories is considered true.

And this is the same with the Bible, assuming that Adam & Eve is not true, while others are, gives you no way to reach the conclusion that the book as a whole is true. Meaning there is no way for you to justify why one story is true while others are not. Keep in mind that these are stories that we can't verify, we can't go back and see if Adam and Eve did live and they spoke with a snake. But given what we know about snakes etc. a lot of people have reached the conclusion that the story of Adam and Eve is an allegory. Yet, something in this story has to be true, so the moral implications of it seem to be one of them, it is a moral story after all. But what you do, is also removing that, which means that nothing about Adam & Eve is true. And if that is the case, then I am perfectly justified in saying that the creation story isn't true either, using the same method as you do. Which means that I have just removed the foundation of God, since he didn't create anything.

Does that make sense?

God does not judge us on what He predestined for us since we have no control over that. God only judges us on the choices we make and the ensuing actions.

But this is what mean. Let's assume Hitler didn't get accepted into heaven.

When he was born, God knew that he would never be accepted into heaven because of the things he would do later. How could Hitler have improved himself? What difference would it make? When God knows that he won't go to heaven?

So it is impossible that God judges people on the choices they make, because in that case, Hitler could potentially have gone to heaven, had he simply become a painter and none of it had happened. But then God wouldn't have known that he would never go to heaven. Another option is, that Hitler would have become a painter, but had done something else which still wouldn't have made him go to heaven. But when there is a God that knows, nothing Hitler does matters, whether he did as he actually did, or he became a painter and for whatever reason murdered 10 people. Ultimately it doesn't matter, because the only thing that does matter, is the ultimate result, whether Hitler goes to heaven or not, which again God already knows.

There is no incentive for religious people to behave good It simply doesn't matter in this setup.

I looked up his Username in a Word document where I save all Usernames and Passwords, and I found it. That was painful because it triggered memories, but I did it just for you. His Username is @Unity of Mankind. I saw that he had posted posts but I could not see who they were to because I could not look at them, since I cannot look at anything that triggers the memories of the way things used to be, sorry.

I looked up some of them, to see if I could remember them. But I couldn't there are so many posts and can barely remember those from last week. But the profile does have a picture of one of your cats

 

[Nimos]

Can you explain why you think that the Baha'i version of God seems to shift characters as the wind blows?

Because it seems to draw on so many sources which are already extremely contradictive. Yet, from what I remember you telling me, Bahai thinks that the bible is highly "corrupted" by humans, which only makes it worse in my opinion because then you just pick whatever you think sounds reasonable and the rest is just "corrupted". But as I said in the last post, I don't see how you reach that conclusion, I assume that it is Baha'u'llah who has reached these conclusions?

 

[Trailblazer]

Because it seems to draw on so many sources which are already extremely contradictive. Yet, from what I remember you telling me, Bahai thinks that the bible is highly "corrupted" by humans, which only makes it worse in my opinion because then you just pick whatever you think sounds reasonable and the rest is just "corrupted". But as I said in the last post, I don't see how you reach that conclusion, I assume that it is Baha'u'llah who has reached these conclusions?

To be clear, the Baha'i Faith does not draw on any sources other than the Writings of Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha, and Shoghi Effendi.
The Baha'i Faith does not draw upon the Bible or the scriptures of any other religion.

If I talk about the Bible that is only because I am responding to people who talk about the Bible, and most people cite the Bible whether they are Christians or atheists, as if the Bible was the only scripture that exists. I also cite the Bible sometimes when I am discussing the return of Christ or the messiah, since Baha'is believe that Baha'u'llah fulfilled the Bible prophecies for the return of Christ and the messiah.

If I pick certain verses to discuss it is because someone I am posting to mentioned them or because those verses are relevant to the return of Christ and the messiah.

It is not the Bible that is corrupted, it is the "traditions" of the older religions such as Christianity that have been corrupted.
I hope the following passage clears this up.

“This is the Day when the loved ones of God should keep their eyes directed towards His Manifestation, and fasten them upon whatsoever that Manifestation may be pleased to reveal. Certain traditions of bygone ages rest on no foundations whatever, while the notions entertained by past generations, and which they have recorded in their books, have, for the most part, been influenced by the desires of a corrupt inclination. Thou dost witness how most of the commentaries and interpretations of the words of God, now current amongst men, are devoid of truth. Their falsity hath, in some cases, been exposed when the intervening veils were rent asunder. They themselves have acknowledged their failure in apprehending the meaning of any of the words of God.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 171-172

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't understand what you mean God doesn't have behaviors?

Can you explain what the purpose of God is then, what does he do, that requires no behaviors? Because you say he is not bound by morality, but at the same time also only good.

God does not behave, only humans and animals behave.

God wills things.
For example, God willed the Universe into existence. That is what it means to say that God is the creator. By virtue of God's will, the universe came into existence.

God also sends Messengers to guide humanity to the straight path.

God is not bound by morality because God is all-good by His nature.
Only humans are subject to morality since only humans have behaviors that can be good or bad or evil

Didn't God create the Universe? Didn't he allow for children to die at birth? For animals to feed on each other often in horrible ways? Couldn't you make the argument that God is immoral for doing this or who would you blame for it?

As I just said, God did create the Universe.

God allows children to die at birth, just as God allows everyone to die at some point in time. God allow animals to feed on each other often in horrible ways because that is how animals evolved. Why do you have to blame God for this? Why do we have to blame anyone?

It is not a matter of morality, this is just how creation functions. The most you can say is that it seems cruel and you don't want to believe in a God who would create a world like this. I have said that many times, but I still believe in God.

There are Christians who think the OT should be removed. But if one did that, Christianity has no foundation at all, there wouldn't be a creation story, nothing that would even remotely make Christianity valid.

Thanks for telling me that. I never heard that before, but you are right in saying that if the OT would have no foundation if the creation story was removed. Also, since the real basis for Christianity is the alleged original sin of Adam of Eve, if we removed the OT the Christians could no longer say that Jesus died for that original sin. Then what purpose would Jesus serve for Christians?

Guess what? Bahais do not believe in original sin. We believe that Jesus sacrificed Himself for our sins and for other reasons, but NOT for any original sin committed by Adam and Eve, since we believe that story is only an allegory. One of the best things that could ever happen would be to toss Adam and Eve into the trash since they never existed, and then their alleged sins that cursed all of humanity would also be taken out with the trash.

What would be left for Christians to believe in if the OT was tossed out? It's called the New Testament, ever heard of it? There is this man called Jesus who the NT is based upon and that is all Christians really need. The OT messed up Christianity and it is not for Christians, it is for Jews! But Christians tried to appropriate the OT for their own purposes so they could claim that all the OT prophecies are referring to Jesus. Some of those are referring to Jesus but not ALL of them. Many of them are referring to the return of Christ, the end times messiah, who Baha'is believe was Baha'u'llah.

You misunderstood what I said.

Imagine I gave you a book consisting of lots of small stories and you had to figure out whether it was true or not. So now you have read it and you have split the book into small sections and these are the conclusions you have reached for each of them:

[Story A] - No true
[Story B] - True
[Story C] - True
[Story D] - Not true

Now I ask you whether the book is true or not?

Based on that, your conclusion should be that the book is not true. Doesn't matter whether some stories are allegories if the message of the stories is considered true.

And this is the same with the Bible, assuming that Adam & Eve is not true, while others are, gives you no way to reach the conclusion that the book as a whole is true. Meaning there is no way for you to justify why one story is true while others are not. Keep in mind that these are stories that we can't verify, we can't go back and see if Adam and Eve did live and they spoke with a snake. But given what we know about snakes etc. a lot of people have reached the conclusion that the story of Adam and Eve is an allegory. Yet, something in this story has to be true, so the moral implications of it seem to be one of them, it is a moral story after all. But what you do, is also removing that, which means that nothing about Adam & Eve is true. And if that is the case, then I am perfectly justified in saying that the creation story isn't true either, using the same method as you do. Which means that I have just removed the foundation of God, since he didn't create anything.

Does that make sense?

I agree that based upon your diagram of Story A-D, your conclusion should be that the book is not true.

I also agree that It doesn't matter whether some stories are allegories if the message of the stories is considered true.

I also agree that this is the same with the Bible. Assuming that Adam & Eve is not true, while others are, gives you no way to reach the conclusion that the book as a whole is true, meaning there is no way for you to justify why one story is true while others are not.

I also agree that something in the Adam & Eve story has to be true and the moral lesson, which I believe is not to disobey God, is one thing that is true.

I agree that if nothing about Adam & Eve is true you are perfectly justified in saying that the creation story isn't true either, which means that I have just removed the foundation of God according to the Bible, since he didn't create anything as the Bible says.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You said: If our assumption is that it is just a story, then surely we can't morally judge God, but then again, there is no foundation for even thinking God is real, if it is clearly just a story. You can't cherry-pick like this

Then I said: OMG! So, if Genesis is not literally true that means there is no God? I can hardly believe my ears.

The reason I said OMG is because many people who are not Christians believe God is real, so even if the entire Bible is false, God could still exist (be real).

But this is what mean. Let's assume Hitler didn't get accepted into heaven.

When he was born, God knew that he would never be accepted into heaven because of the things he would do later. How could Hitler have improved himself? What difference would it make? When God knows that he won't go to heaven?

So it is impossible that God judges people on the choices they make, because in that case, Hitler could potentially have gone to heaven, had he simply become a painter and none of it had happened. But then God wouldn't have known that he would never go to heaven. Another option is, that Hitler would have become a painter, but had done something else which still wouldn't have made him go to heaven. But when there is a God that knows, nothing Hitler does matters, whether he did as he actually did, or he became a painter and for whatever reason murdered 10 people. Ultimately it doesn't matter, because the only thing that does matter, is the ultimate result, whether Hitler goes to heaven or not, which again God already knows.

There is no incentive for religious people to behave good It simply doesn't matter in this setup.

I said: God does not judge us on what He predestined for us since we have no control over that. God only judges us on the choices we make and the ensuing actions.

When Hitler was born, God knew that he would never be accepted into heaven because of the things he would do later.
Unless Hitler had been predestined by God to go to hell, then Hitler could have chosen to make different choices and thereby go to heaven.

God knows (a) what He has predestined and (b) what choices everyone will make, because God has perfect foreknowledge, but God's foreknowledge is not what causes what happens to people. Everything that happens to people in this life is either (a) predestined by God or (b) chosen by people.

“Every act ye meditate is as clear to Him as is that act when already accomplished. There is none other God besides Him. His is all creation and its empire. All stands revealed before Him; all is recorded in His holy and hidden Tablets. This fore-knowledge of God, however, should not be regarded as having caused the actions of men, just as your own previous knowledge that a certain event is to occur, or your desire that it should happen, is not and can never be the reason for its occurrence.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 150

I looked up some of them, to see if I could remember them. But I couldn't there are so many posts and can barely remember those from last week. But the profile does have a picture of one of your cats

Yes, that is my cat named Carl. It is best that we just let sleeping cats lie now since I don't want to think about the past.

 

[Nimos]

God does not behave, only humans and animals behave.

God wills things.
For example, God willed the Universe into existence. That is what it means to say that God is the creator. By virtue of God's will, the universe came into existence.

It is still a behavior whether he "wills" it or not.

Behavior definition:
the way in which one acts or conducts oneself, especially towards others.

The only way this wouldn't be true is if God is a non-intervening God, which essentially makes God pointless. Because there would be no difference between a Universe with or without God. He would be irrelevant, except as a scare factor for the afterlife.

If God does perform miracles, whether he "wills" them or not, it is still a behavior. Imagine a superhero with the ability to mind-control people, and he is using this power in ways to do whatever superheroes do, then that would still count as the behavior of that person. Which means that whatever means you use to act on others is irrelevant.

God allows children to die at birth, just as God allows everyone to die at some point in time. God allow animals to feed on each other often in horrible ways because that is how animals evolved. Why do you have to blame God for this? Why do we have to blame anyone?

For the same reason that if I created some machines that fired a shot into the air at a random angle every second, then I would also be blamed for doing this when someone got hit and died, even though the machine is the one firing the shot because I am the creator of that machine. God is not above this, especially since he had the power to not do it.

He could have made all animals eat plants and need to eat less and if they had to die, they always did it in their sleep. There is nothing in the current setup that is required for anything to be as it is. It is simply because that is how things are now and therefore it "couldn't" be any other way. But it's rubbish, when you have a God with unlimited powers that could create it in whatever way he wanted, again, there is no pain and suffering in the New Earth apparently, so clearly it must be possible.

As an atheist, I don't blame anything or anyone (except occasionally humanity ), but then again I don't have to justify a creator that made it this way. I think looking at nature and how it is functioning seems rather logical as it is if there is no all-good God or God at all.

Imagine for a second that you were an atheist, I think you would agree with me, in an instant that it wouldn't make sense to blame anyone, it is purely nature at work.

Guess what? Bahais do not believe in original sin. We believe that Jesus sacrificed Himself for our sins and for other reasons, but NOT for any original sin committed by Adam and Eve, since we believe that story is only an allegory. One of the best things that could ever happen would be to toss Adam and Eve into the trash since they never existed, and then their alleged sins that cursed all of humanity would also be taken out with the trash.

But you don't get around the foundation, you face the same issues as all the other religions. Even if you believe Baha'u'llah, then his foundation rests on the same as the others. If these are not true, then clearly Baha'u'llah is just deluded or making up stuff.

You say it yourself, Jesus relies on the God of the OT, Baha'u'llah relies on these messengers to be true. So if you cast doubt about all the old scriptures being true, then the foundation for the Bahai is on extremely thin ice.

The reason I said OMG is because many people who are not Christians believe God is real, so even if the entire Bible is false, God could still exist (be real).

Yes, even if God of the bible is false, Odin might be true or Hinduism might be. Im obviously referring to the God we are currently speaking about and assuming that this is potentially the right one.

When Hitler was born, God knew that he would never be accepted into heaven because of the things he would do later.
Unless Hitler had been predestined by God to go to hell, then Hitler could have chosen to make different choices and thereby go to heaven.

God knows (a) what He has predestined and (b) what choices everyone will make, because God has perfect foreknowledge, but God's foreknowledge is not what causes what happens to people. Everything that happens to people in this life is either (a) predestined by God or (b) chosen by people.

It doesn't matter if God causes anything, it is irrelevant whether he does or not, if he has perfect foreknowledge, nothing will change.

Again, God might help you hit the basket 1000 out of 1000 times, but if God knows that it is the 1001 shot that counts and that you will miss it, then you will miss it because God knows this. The ONLY way this wouldn't be true is if God didn't have perfect foreknowledge, otherwise it is contradictive.

Therefore neither you nor God can't help you with the 1001 shot, you will miss it!!! otherwise, God can't be said to have foreknowledge.

So Hitler would never go to heaven, no matter what he did or changed or did differently. Otherwise, God would have been wrong.

 

[Trailblazer]

It is still a behavior whether he "wills" it or not.

Behavior definition:
the way in which one acts or conducts oneself, especially towards others.

The only way this wouldn't be true is if God is a non-intervening God, which essentially makes God pointless. Because there would be no difference between a Universe with or without God. He would be irrelevant, except as a scare factor for the afterlife.

If God does perform miracles, whether he "wills" them or not, it is still a behavior. Imagine a superhero with the ability to mind-control people, and he is using this power in ways to do whatever superheroes do, then that would still count as the behavior of that person. Which means that whatever means you use to act on others is irrelevant.

What is the best definition for behavior?

1. Behavior, conduct, deportment, comportment refer to one's actions before or toward others, especially on a particular occasion. Behavior refers to actions usually measured by commonly accepted standards: His behavior at the party was childish.

BEHAVIOR Definition & Usage Examples - Dictionary.com​

One's actions are referring to human actions, not God's actions. God does not act, God wills.

However, this is not worth arguing about. We are talking about the same thing and just using different words.

For the same reason that if I created some machines that fired a shot into the air at a random angle every second, then I would also be blamed for doing this when someone got hit and died, even though the machine is the one firing the shot because I am the creator of that machine. God is not above this, especially since he had the power to not do it.

But humans are not machines. God did not create machines.
God created sentient beings and gave them a brain and free will to make choices so humans are responsible for their own choices.

He could have made all animals eat plants and need to eat less and if they had to die, they always did it in their sleep. There is nothing in the current setup that is required for anything to be as it is. It is simply because that is how things are now and therefore it "couldn't" be any other way. But it's rubbish, when you have a God with unlimited powers that could create it in whatever way he wanted,

God could have created the world to function differently, but so what? God did not do that.

Atheists like to say that God is all-powerful so God could have done x, y, and z, in instead of a, b, and c, but they ignore the fact that God is all-knowing, which means that God knows more than they do since no human is all-knowing. That is simple logic.

again, there is no pain and suffering in the New Earth apparently, so clearly it must be possible.

There will still be some pain and suffering in the New Earth because what causes pain and suffering is living in a physical world.
The kind of pain and suffering that will be gone is the suffering we have now that is the result of man's choices to be selfish instead of caring about other people and the world.

As an atheist, I don't blame anything or anyone (except occasionally humanity ), but then again I don't have to justify a creator that made it this way. I think looking at nature and how it is functioning seems rather logical as it is if there is no all-good God or God at all.

As a believer, if I blame anyone I blame humanity because I don't have to justify a creator that made it this way. I think looking at nature and how it is functioning seems rather logical as it is if there is an all-knowing God who made it this way for a reason, a reason we are not privy to since we are not God.

Imagine for a second that you were an atheist, I think you would agree with me, in an instant that it wouldn't make sense to blame anyone, it is purely nature at work.

That is how I think as a believer. It is just nature at work.

But you don't get around the foundation, you face the same issues as all the other religions. Even if you believe Baha'u'llah, then his foundation rests on the same as the others. If these are not true, then clearly Baha'u'llah is just deluded or making up stuff.

Why does the foundation have to be Adam and Eve as the first man and woman the OT? It was not even written to apply to anyone except the Jews so why should it apply to everyone else? Do you think Hinduism and Buddhism have the Bible as the foundation for their religions?

You say it yourself, Jesus relies on the God of the OT, Baha'u'llah relies on these messengers to be true. So if you cast doubt about all the old scriptures being true, then the foundation for the Bahai is on extremely thin ice.

The Baha'i Faith does not rely upon the older scriptures being true. We believe in progressive revelation so we believe that Messengers of God have been sent by God throughout human history and religions were established by their followers, but that doesn't mean that everything in the scriptures of those religions is true. Those scriptures were written by men, not by the Messengers, so there is a lot of room for error.

Baha'is only rely upon our own scriptures being true, and since they were written by Baha'u'llah who was a Messenger of God, we believe they are inerrant.

Yes, even if God of the bible is false, Odin might be true or Hinduism might be. Im obviously referring to the God we are currently speaking about and assuming that this is potentially the right one.

Since no God can be proven to exist anything could be true, so it is only a matter of what people are willing to believe.

It doesn't matter if God causes anything, it is irrelevant whether he does or not, if he has perfect foreknowledge, nothing will change.

That is not logical because God's foreknowledge is not the cause of things that happen. Nothing is written in stone unless it is an irrevocable decree of God, but that is not the cause of most of what happens in this world. Most of what happens in this world is the result of human free will choices, which are subject to change and can change at any time. Whatever we choose God will have known that is what we were going to choose and it is written on the Tablet of Fate because God knows everyone's fate. But God's knowledge of our fate is not what causes our fate.

“Every act ye meditate is as clear to Him as is that act when already accomplished. There is none other God besides Him. His is all creation and its empire. All stands revealed before Him; all is recorded in His holy and hidden Tablets. This fore-knowledge of God, however, should not be regarded as having caused the actions of men, just as your own previous knowledge that a certain event is to occur, or your desire that it should happen, is not and can never be the reason for its occurrence.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 150

Question.—If God has knowledge of an action which will be performed by someone, and it has been written on the Tablet of Fate, is it possible to resist it?

Answer.—The foreknowledge of a thing is not the cause of its realization; for the essential knowledge of God surrounds, in the same way, the realities of things, before as well as after their existence, and it does not become the cause of their existence. It is a perfection of God.......

Therefore, the knowledge of God in the realm of contingency does not produce the forms of the things. On the contrary, it is purified from the past, present and future. It is identical with the reality of the things; it is not the cause of their occurrence........

The mathematicians by astronomical calculations know that at a certain time an eclipse of the moon or the sun will occur. Surely this discovery does not cause the eclipse to take place. This is, of course, only an analogy and not an exact image.” Some Answered Questions, pp. 138-139

Again, God might help you hit the basket 1000 out of 1000 times, but if God knows that it is the 1001 shot that counts and that you will miss it, then you will miss it because God knows this. The ONLY way this wouldn't be true is if God didn't have perfect foreknowledge, otherwise it is contradictive.

No, you will not miss the basket because God knows you will miss the basket. You will miss it because you just happened to miss it.

God's knowledge does not determine what anyone does, this is drop dead illogical!
There is no connection whatsoever between what God knows and what humans choose to do, NONE.

Therefore neither you nor God can't help you with the 1001 shot, you will miss it!!! otherwise, God can't be said to have foreknowledge.

What you fail to understand is that you won't miss it because God knew you would miss it. You will miss it because you missed it.

So Hitler would never go to heaven, no matter what he did or changed or did differently. Otherwise, God would have been wrong.

Hitler could have gone to heaven if he had made different choices. Whatever choices Hitler had made, God would have known Hitler would make those choice since God is all-knowing.

 

[Nimos]

But humans are not machines. God did not create machines.
God created sentient beings and gave them a brain and free will to make choices so humans are responsible for their own choices.

It's not about being machines, rather it is about being responsible for one's actions. If a human created the machine and intentionally made it so it could potentially harm others, then that human would be to blame for it. That is the same with God. If he created nature in such a way, that animals eat each other in the way they do, who else could you blame, if God is the creator?

God could have created the world to function differently, but so what? God did not do that.

Atheists like to say that God is all-powerful so God could have done x, y, and z, in instead of a, b, and c, but they ignore the fact that God is all-knowing, which means that God knows more than they do since no human is all-knowing. That is simple logic.

That is irrelevant as we are still in our full right to question why God did it the way he did. That is basically a key element in the debate between theists and atheists.
We can't use that God knows so much more than us for anything, it doesn't offer an explanation, for a theist it might be perfectly acceptable that things function as they do, but that is not a sufficient explanation for an atheist. You could just as well have written "Don't question anything, just accept it, because God knows better"

There will still be some pain and suffering in the New Earth because what causes pain and suffering is living in a physical world.
The kind of pain and suffering that will be gone is the suffering we have now that is the result of man's choices to be selfish instead of caring about other people and the world.

What? That is an extremely unspecific type of pain and suffering. So the person that has gone to heaven and suffered terrible traumas will still suffer in heaven for an eternity? I don't think such a person cares too much about people being selfish, I would assume that would be the least of their problems.

That is how I think as a believer. It is just nature at work.

This relates to what I wrote above, you don't question why God needed animals to suffer? Because God created nature this way, whether he set it in motion or specifically designed it that way, makes no difference, since God would know the result either way.

Why does the foundation have to be Adam and Eve as the first man and woman the OT? It was not even written to apply to anyone except the Jews so why should it apply to everyone else? Do you think Hinduism and Buddhism have the Bible as the foundation for their religions?

I think you misunderstand what I mean.

By foundation, you could also say the teachings of the bible. The story of Adam and Eve is not just there for entertainment, whether the Jews actually thought they existed (Which I think they did) or whether the more modern take on it, is that it is just a story. Doesn't change that the story is crucial for teachings, just as the flood, the exodus etc. The latter parts of the bible, rely on these stories to hold some truth to them. Again, Adam and Eve didn't have to physically exist for this to be the case. But if you write off whole stories as being worthless, then the foundation of the rest of the bible falls apart, because if those stories are mere nonsense, why wouldn't all the others be that is built upon them?

If the foundation of the bible falls apart, then does Islam and so would the Bahai, because all of them reference or rely on the Bible to be true. If it isn't then clearly Muhammed, Jesus, Baha'u'llah etc. weren't who they claimed.

Baha'is only rely upon our own scriptures being true, and since they were written by Baha'u'llah who was a Messenger of God, we believe they are inerrant.

I strongly assume the Muslims and the Christians do as well

The mathematicians by astronomical calculations know that at a certain time an eclipse of the moon or the sun will occur. Surely this discovery does not cause the eclipse to take place. This is, of course, only an analogy and not an exact image.” Some Answered Questions, pp. 138-139

This is not even remotely the same.

The reason is that God is beyond the system. In this example, the mathematicians and the eclipse are in the same system, and everything in it happens according to what God (beyond the system) knows will happen. This means that God knows that the mathematicians will do the calculation just as he knows the eclipse will happen. Nothing inside the system matters or will surprise God because it happens according to how he knows it will.

No, you will not miss the basket because God knows you will miss the basket. You will miss it because you just happened to miss it.

That God knows is not the cause, like his "knowledge" physically pushing the ball off course. But if he knows something will happen, then it will, otherwise he is wrong, whatever causes it to occur is also irrelevant if the outcome is determined. Doesn't matter if a bird hits the ball as you throw it or the wind blows it away, it simply doesn't matter.

You can't get both things here, it's simply not possible, it is a contradiction.

What you fail to understand is that you won't miss it because God knew you would miss it. You will miss it because you missed it.

You are making the wrong associations here. It doesn't even matter if it is God that knows it or if it is me, or one of your cats, If they have perfect foreknowledge of the type you are speaking of.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Good point. You can bet your bottom dollar it is different! Human parents do not deliberately set things up so their children will suffer. They protect their children as much as possible, knowing that there will still be suffering given that is the way life is, thanks to God's design.

I also struggle to understand why things are this way, but I nevertheless understand how this can come from one God.
You see, I am not obligated to believe that God is always loving just because other believers, namely Christians and Baha'is, believe that.
A child thinks this way, but I am a grown up with a mind to think things thrusgh.

I do not see how that is possible that so much suffering can exist alongside a loving God so I cannot believe it just because scriptures say it.

I believe God is All Loving or as you put it always loving because Two Manifestations of God have conveyed that to humankind. Not being able, with our limited, finite minds to grasp it is quite understandable as we do not possess the wisdom and knowledge of God or His Manifestations. A couple of examples below but there’s many more. God created us out of love. Everything God does for us is out of love.

Some might ask why we need to learn virtues through suffering but so can a baby in the womb question why it needs limbs and eyes when they are of no use to him in the womb until it enters this world. This world too is as a womb for the next world and so we might not understand why until we are born there but until then, I place full trust and confidence as a Baha’i in what the Manifestations have told us.

Baha’u’llah

In the name of God, the All-Loving!

Additional Tablets and Extracts from Tablets Revealed by Bahá’u’lláh | Bahá’í Reference Library

www.bahai.org

The Bab

Thou art the Sovereign Ruler, the Mighty Doer, the Exalted, the All-Loving.

Selections from the Writings of the Báb | Bahá’í Reference Library

A collection of excerpts from books and Tablets revealed by the Báb, including the Qayyúmu’l-Asmá’ (Commentary on the Súrih of Joseph), the Persian Bayán, Dalá’il-i-Sab‘ih (the Seven Proofs), the Kitáb-i-Asmá’ (the Book of Names), and various other Writings. It was first published in an...

www.bahai.org

All Loving

Search – Authoritative Writings and Guidance | Bahá’í Reference Library

www.bahai.org

 

[Trailblazer]

I believe God is All Loving or as you put it always loving because Two Manifestations of God have conveyed that to humankind.

That sounds like a Christian who says "I believe it because the Bible says so."

I know full well what the Bab and Baha'u'llah wrote, but that does not override what I think and feel about all the suffering I see in the world and wondering why a 'loving God' would have created such a world. If God is loving it is not any kind of love that I can relate to.

Please skip the religious apologetic about how suffering is so beneficial, I have heard it all before.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's not about being machines, rather it is about being responsible for one's actions. If a human created the machine and intentionally made it so it could potentially harm others, then that human would be to blame for it. That is the same with God. If he created nature in such a way, that animals eat each other in the way they do, who else could you blame, if God is the creator?

Again, it is not the same because humans are not machines, so humans are not like programmed robots, programmed to harm others.
Rather, humans were created by God with free will so they can make moral choices. As such, humans can choose to harm others or not.

God created nature in such a way that animals eat each other in the way they do. Animals do not do that by choice but by instinct, so you can blame God for that if you want to. Moreover, you can blame God for anything that humans do that is not a choice.

That is irrelevant as we are still in our full right to question why God did it the way he did. That is basically a key element in the debate between theists and atheists.
We can't use that God knows so much more than us for anything, it doesn't offer an explanation, for a theist it might be perfectly acceptable that things function as they do, but that is not a sufficient explanation for an atheist.

You are free to question why why God did it the way He did it, if you want to, but logically speaking, if God is all-knowing then that means that God knew how to create the world from all the options that were available to Him.

There is no explanation as to why God created the world the way He did, only God knows why. Some believers believe that they know why, but they only know certain things that are in their scriptures, and those scriptures do not explain why there has to be so much suffering in this world.

You could just as well have written "Don't question anything, just accept it, because God knows better"

If God exists and is all-powerful we have to accept it, although it is okay to question. Even believers question God when something bad happens to them. I see that all the time on TV programs.

What? That is an extremely unspecific type of pain and suffering. So the person that has gone to heaven and suffered terrible traumas will still suffer in heaven for an eternity? I don't think such a person cares too much about people being selfish, I would assume that would be the least of their problems.

I said that there will still be some pain and suffering in the New Earth because what causes pain and suffering is living in a physical world.

Heaven is not a physical world, so the things that cause pain and suffering on Earth will not exist in Heaven. For example, there will be no natural disasters and no job losses or car accidents or diseases like we experience on Earth.

This relates to what I wrote above, you don't question why God needed animals to suffer? Because God created nature this way, whether he set it in motion or specifically designed it that way, makes no difference, since God would know the result either way.

Even though it is just nature at work I still question why it had to be this way because I love animals so much. I cannot even watch Planet Earth on TV when there are nature scenes where one animal is about to kill another.

Of course God knows that animals will kill and be killed, God is all-knowing. Some believers will say those animals did not suffer because they died instantly but that is not always the case. Some believers will do 'anything' to defend their God but you won't catch me doing that.

By foundation, you could also say the teachings of the bible. ....... Again, Adam and Eve didn't have to physically exist for this to be the case. But if you write off whole stories as being worthless, then the foundation of the rest of the bible falls apart, because if those stories are mere nonsense, why wouldn't all the others be that is built upon them?

My previous point was: Why does the Bible have to be the foundation for belief in God? If the Bible is totally false, just made up stories that men wrote (and I am not saying that is the case) there could still be a God. Please bear in mind that if God exists, God existed long before the Bible was written, and people believed in God before that. Why is the Bible considered the only scripture that matters? What about Hindu scriptures?

If the foundation of the bible falls apart, then does Islam and so would the Bahai, because all of them reference or rely on the Bible to be true. If it isn't then clearly Muhammed, Jesus, Baha'u'llah etc. weren't who they claimed.

That is true, but what Islam and the Baha'i Faith teach about the Bible is not the same as what Christianity teaches.

This is not even remotely the same.

The reason is that God is beyond the system. In this example, the mathematicians and the eclipse are in the same system, and everything in it happens according to what God (beyond the system) knows will happen. This means that God knows that the mathematicians will do the calculation just as he knows the eclipse will happen. Nothing inside the system matters or will surprise God because it happens according to how he knows it will.

You are correct in saying that God is beyond the system. Everything that happens inside the system (on earth) happens according to what God (beyond the system) knows will happen. This means that God knows that the mathematicians will do the calculation just as he knows the eclipse will happen. Nothing inside the system matters or will surprise God because it happens according to how he knows it will.

But that was not the point I was trying to make. My point was that what God knows will happen on earth is not caused by God's knowledge. It is caused by human choices and actions.

God knows that Johnny is going to run out into the street at a certain point in time and get killed. Surely, it is not God's knowledge that caused Johnny to run out into the street. Johnny might have lost his ball and gone chasing after it or Johnny might have been in a hurry to cross the street to catch the school bus. What happened to Johnny was caused by choices that Johnny made.

That God knows is not the cause, like his "knowledge" physically pushing the ball off course. But if he knows something will happen, then it will, otherwise he is wrong, whatever causes it to occur is also irrelevant if the outcome is determined. Doesn't matter if a bird hits the ball as you throw it or the wind blows it away, it simply doesn't matter.

You can't get both things here, it's simply not possible, it is a contradiction.

You are correct. Whatever happens is what God knows will happen because God cannot be wrong about what will happen.
But the outcome is not determined by God, it is only known by God. Let's say that Johnny got hit by a car when he ran out into the street. The circumstances surrounding that accident are not irrelevant because the cause of the accident needs to be determined to know who was at fault.

You are making the wrong associations here. It doesn't even matter if it is God that knows it or if it is me, or one of your cats, If they have perfect foreknowledge of the type you are speaking of.

Yes, if they have perfect foreknowledge then it will happen as it was foreseen, but it was not the foreknowledge that caused it to happen.

 

[Nimos]

Again, it is not the same because humans are not machines, so humans are not like programmed robots, programmed to harm others.
Rather, humans were created by God with free will so they can make moral choices. As such, humans can choose to harm others or not.

God created nature in such a way that animals eat each other in the way they do. Animals do not do that by choice but by instinct, so you can blame God for that if you want to. Moreover, you can blame God for anything that humans do that is not a choice.

I don't think you understand what I saying.

Let's imagine that humans create an AI, a self-reasoning "being". It might not be a biological lifeform but an artificial one. Now let's say that AI reaches the conclusion that humanity is an issue and destroys us.

It is equally a free-will thinking AI, but as the creators of it, one could make the argument that humans are ultimately responsible as the creators of it, even if it wasn't our intention that this was what it ended up doing. No one other than us could have chosen to not create it.

So it doesn't matter, whether animals eat each other due to instinct or not, it is beyond their control, God created them like that. And if God didn't like it, he could have made it differently.

The only difference here, between the AI example and that of God, is that God knows that animals will eat each other, he could see this before even setting it in motion. Whereas we as humans don't have foreknowledge and therefore would have no clue that the AI would kill us, we might have been aware of the risk etc. Had humans perfectly foreknowledge, we wouldn't have created the AI, because it obviously would be bad for us.

You are free to question why why God did it the way He did it, if you want to, but logically speaking, if God is all-knowing then that means that God knew how to create the world from all the options that were available to Him.

No, there is no "availability" here as long as we are not talking contradictive things. Like making a round square etc. Other than that God has the power to do or design things in whatever way he wants. This comes back to what I mentioned earlier in a former post, that believers will often use the excuse that things have to be this way because that is how things are or they lack the imagination to go beyond it, despite claiming that God could do anything.

It is these strange limitations that for some reason seem to apply to God whenever convenient.

There is no explanation as to why God created the world the way He did, only God knows why. Some believers believe that they know why, but they only know certain things that are in their scriptures, and those scriptures do not explain why there has to be so much suffering in this world.

I actually think they do in some cases, not in regard to animal suffering at least. But what they don't explain is why God needs it.

Some believers will say those animals did not suffer because they died instantly but that is not always the case. Some believers will do 'anything' to defend their God but you won't catch me doing that.

Those people claiming this must be deluded, if one has ever seen an animal getting eaten by a crocodile, it doesn't exactly happen instantly. And I guess that for 99% of the animals, this is the case. So agree, this is obviously rubbish.

My previous point was: Why does the Bible have to be the foundation for belief in God? If the Bible is totally false, just made up stories that men wrote (and I am not saying that is the case) there could still be a God. Please bear in mind that if God exists, God existed long before the Bible was written, and people believed in God before that. Why is the Bible considered the only scripture that matters? What about Hindu scriptures?

As I said earlier, if the biblical God is false, then surely the Hindu ones might not be, or even some of the ancient gods could be real. But the foundation of Hinduism is not based on the bible either. But all those religions that rely on Moses, Jesus, Adam and Eve and God creating the Universe being real their foundation is in the bible.

We are talking about different God(s) here, you seem to understand my use of foundation as meaning all of them, but im referring only to the God we are talking about.

That is true, but what Islam and the Baha'i Faith teach about the Bible is not the same as what Christianity teaches.

It doesn't matter if they rely on the bible being true. Let's assume we found an old text, explaining how the bible was a theatrical text compared to that of a Hollywood movie just in ancient times, and it was verified to the best of our knowledge that it was the case. Then clearly Jesus and Moses etc. were nothing more than actors in a "movie". Let's just assume that is true.

Then clearly Islam would be wrong, as it relies on Jesus etc as well. Bahai would also be wrong because Baha'u'llah would reference these "former" messengers, which they clearly weren't.

That is what I mean by the foundation of these religions, you remove the foundation for which they rely and they all crumble. That is why writing off the older stories as having no truth to them, shakes the foundation of these religions. Because there are no rules for which stories can be written off or not, it is purely based on what people prefer. Which tend to be all the things where God does things they don't like.

God knows that Johnny is going to run out into the street at a certain point in time and get killed. Surely, it is not God's knowledge that caused Johnny to run out into the street. Johnny might have lost his ball and gone chasing after it or Johnny might have been in a hurry to cross the street to catch the school bus. What happened to Johnny was caused by choices that Johnny made.

For some odd reason, you seem hooked up on this idea that I believe "knowledge" to be some kind of physical force, which is not the case. You are so close to making the connection, but for some reason stumble on this every time

Maybe im just not explaining it well enough.

Let's imagine we have a timeline of specific choices that Johnny's made in his life, just using different letters (Keep in mind that at each choice, Johnny can use his "free will" to "choose" between all the letters in the alphabet).

What God knows about Johnny's choices in life:
Born - A - B - V - G - M - T - Death

Johnny is born:

Born -

Johnny makes a "choice" in his life (A)

Born - A -

Makes another "choice" (B)

Born - A - B -

Johnny keeps making choices, at no point, is Johnny doing anything that will change what God knows. Meaning nothing Johnny does, will change the sequence of what God knows. Doesn't matter how much of a "free will" Johnny thinks he has, it is merely an illusion of free will.

Eventually, Johnny's life comes to an end and the sequence of it is exactly as God knew.

Born - A - B - V - G - M - T - Death

None of the choices that Johnny made changed anything from how it was always going to be. That God knows, doesn't matter. It doesn't matter who knows, if the sequence is determined before Johnny is even born, then there is no free will.

Again the "KNOWLEDGE" isn't a physical thing that changes anything. But as long as it is there and it can't be wrong, then there is only one option.

If you still disagree, as an "exercise" use the sequence of letters above and try to see if you can change anything about Johnny's life, without changing the sequence that God knows. It shouldn't take long, because it is impossible