Without God there is no hope

[Trailblazer]

Clearly, there is not a single solution to all these things.

No, there certainly isn't, and there is even more to it than I have told you about.

I still have a pending malpractice lawsuit because of the circumstances surrounding his death, so this is not a simple grief and loss situation.
If I understand you correctly, this sounds like something you could get help with from a lawyer, so you at least get it handed correctly and by someone that is into these things. And hopefully will make you more ease of mind knowing and having to spend less time on it.

Yes, of course I will turn it over to a lawyer, since I could never do it myself. I have called several law firms but so far I have not found one to take the case. Although they said I have a legitimate case, they were to busy to take it on. I am going to get back to it as soon as I have time. Right now I am busy with other things and I have three years to file a suit although I am not going to wait that long.

The way I understand your situation might obviously be wrong. But to me, this seems like one of the main issues and rather to find a suitable or working solution, you seem to want to try to restore what was lost rather than adapt to a new situation. The reason I get this impression is due to what you have told me before even when your husband was alive, and that you weren't really happy with that situation either.
So it seems to me, again with limited knowledge, that you don't really know what you want, but out of "desperation" you are basically just trying to recreate what was there, thinking that a man would solve it and things would basically be the same as before.

There might be some truth to the fact that I would rather be married than adapt to being single, but I certainly don't want to recreate the nightmare I was living in while I was married, just so I can be married. At first, I was living under the illusion that I could find a man and live happily ever after but I am no longer under that illusion. Quite the contrary, I now realize that it would be a miracle of God if I even found a man I am compatible with, and I would much rather be single than with a man I am not compatible with.

It does not matter what I have to offer the man, if he is not interested in what I have, nor does it matter if he is a nice man with good qualities, if he doesn't have what I want in a man. I have not met any men on dating sites that share my values and interests, as most men in my age bracket are retired and want to enjoy life and they want sex before marriage. That is not going to work for me as I don't even want sex in marriage. My only real hope is finding a Baha'i who has the same values and interests I have. I could benefit from a man who likes to engage in Baha'i activities since I have not attended those for a long time.

To me, it seems like you need more of a change than you are doing. You work and then you have 12-16 cats or how many you have? That is basically like owning a pet store and could imagine that it is almost a full-time job on its own. So a solution might be to consider getting rid of a few of them and to get more time for yourself.

No, I only have 8 cats now. That seems like a lot to most people, but that is the least number I have had in 20 years, so it is really not a lot to me. It is a lot to work full time and take care of that many cats and the big house, but I there is nothing I love more than the cats, and since I am living alone they are really good company. They are always there for me, no matter what I am doing. If I wanted to travel the cats could be a problem but if I really wanted to travel I could afford to hire a pet sitter. I used to do that in the past when I had many more cats and went on vacation, but now that I have no husband I am not going on any vacations.

Maybe even moving to a new community where people live closer together so you have neighbours and rather than actively seeking someone to fill the gap, start by making your situation work without one, and simply let life play out on its own and not actively trying to find one. But as I told you earlier, get involved with a hobby or some sort of community where you can meet people, whether that is charity work or whatever. You don't need a huge house I assume? I know you are from the US so all houses there are huge but it also makes things seem empty and more difficult to maintain etc.

I have contacted some Baha'is in my community and found out what activities are going on and there are many activities, although I am not that interested in most of them since they are religious activities and I am not much for those. However, there is one Baha'i woman who wants to do some outdoor activities with me, and I would like that. I am also attending some grief groups, although I would not consider that fun socializing, as it is more serious. I sure wish the local seniors had something more than Bingo for activities. Even square dancing would be better than that!

The reason I keep this house is because half the house that is downstairs can be turned into a two bedroom apartment at some future date, if I ever need a caretaker to help me when I am older. I have no children so it would either be that or going to assisted living, and I don't want to do that. My mother lived to age 93 and she stayed in her rented condo till the end of her life.

(Continued on next post)

 

[Trailblazer]

My point is that you, seem to have put yourself in a situation where you have gotten your hands tied on the back, because of all the cats. You probably ain't willing to get rid of any of them? But the truth is that maintaining that many animals is rough, it was something else if it was fish

The cats are a lot of work, but as I said above, I love them and I get a lot in return. I am in very good physical condition so scooping 8 litter boxes is a piece of cake and it does not take that long. What takes the most time is the grooming since they are Persians but I need to get a groomer to help me with that since some of them need to be held down.

So my best advice is to try to get yourself in a situation where you have time to yourself, where you feel that your life is working according to your needs and where you feel you have full control over it, and not one based on cats or the requirement of a "random" husband etc.

Make sure you get enough time for yourself, so you can do other things than work and look out for cats. That you can go on vacations, join a hobby or community and spend time on that together with other people. But most importantly you should do things that you want to do, not what you feel others need from you, whether that is cats or Bahai community or whatever.

I don't have a lot of time for myself when I am working full time but I have been off on leave since February 1 and I notice that I have a lot of time when I don't have to work, in spite of the cats. The thing is that I like to stay busy so I find ways to fill up my time. I always exercise two hours a day but I still have time if there ere things I wanted to do, but right now I am not in the mood to go out. I like writing and I like people so I spend a lot of time on this forum.

I don't know who your counsellor is what profession or background? But a lot of the stuff, like grief etc. might be worth talking to a psychologist about. Just make sure that it is not one with a religious motivation. But one that is impartial and where religion is irrelevant. I'm not saying that it has to be an atheist, simply that it is a person with the correct intentions, because there are cases, where some of these will try to use religion in treatment and that is a huge red flag.

My counselor is a licensed clinical social worker and she never talks about God or religion. She knows that is important to me, but she keeps the sessions steered towards my psychological issues and what I am going to do with my life. We don't talk about grief much, I can talk about that in the grief groups.

Hope is just what we "wish" for. So yes it is the same, you hope there is a man on the dating site that lives up to your expectations and given what you have said there weren't. So maybe the dating site is not the right approach and as I said, maybe it would be best to get things working without one and maybe a husband is to be found in joining a community or a place where you share a hobby with others and it might occur all on its own or natural as you start meeting people there. And even if you don't, at least you have a functional life that you are happy with on your own, so a husband might be a bonus, but not a requirement for being happy because you spent the time getting that working first.

Yes, that is what I finally figured out and what I am trying to do now. Online dating works well for some people but not for everyone. I would rather meet a man in person.

I do not want having a husband to be a requirement for being happy, but I cannot even think in terms of being happy since I have not been happy for 20 years. My life has all been work and responsibilities and my late husband did not do anything to help. Many cats have been sick and died, tenants were not paying rent, and then the final straw was when my husband got terminally ill. My life is actually a lot easier right now since I have fewer cats and none are sick, and tenants are paying rent. Although one of them is a month behind, that is nothing compared to the way it was before when he owed me thousands of dollars.

I'm not a counsellor, but I think that person is wrong. Because I don't see how your situation as such is solved simply by adding a man to your life. You say that you are not 100% into it being the solution and it comes off again more like you are trying to just fill a gap rather than solving the underlining problems.

No, my counselor was not saying that getting married is a solution to my problems, she only said I should look for a husband if I want to get married. She said that I deserve to be happy after all I have been through and that is all she wants for me. She is only three years younger than me and she has been married about as long as I was. She said she would not remarry if her husband died and that gave me something to think about. Statistics show that about half of widows over 60 choose to remain single because they don't want the headaches of being married. I am starting to see that perspective.

So in my opinion, I would calm down and work on getting more time for myself and simply reduce the amount of stress that it must be, working and taking care of that many cats and dealing with the grief etc. And in many cases adding another person to your life, especially if you are not "truly" in love with them is not going to help, but could make things even worse as you then have another thing to deal with. You need to be egoistic in that sense, that you come first and that is what you want to solve and not rely on others, animals or a "random" husband to get there.

I am trying to keep my stress to a minimum and that is why I don't want to overextend myself with outside social activities that I am not really interested in. I am going to keep working until I have a good reason to retire, and I am keeping the cats because they and my religion are the most important things in my life. I would not get married unless I found a man I was in love with, a man who loved me and wanted to get married. I don't see much chance of that happening, although I believe all things are possible if it is God's will.

 

[Nimos]

It does not matter what I have to offer the man, if he is not interested in what I have, nor does it matter if he is a nice man with good qualities, if he doesn't have what I want in a man. I have not met any men on dating sites that share my values and interests, as most men in my age bracket are retired and want to enjoy life and they want sex before marriage. That is not going to work for me as I don't even want sex in marriage. My only real hope is finding a Baha'i who has the same values and interests I have. I could benefit from a man who likes to engage in Baha'i activities since I have not attended those for a long time.

But what you are basically describing here, could just as well be a good friend. That is what I mean, that you might be jumping ahead too fast when you are turning to dating sites. If you had a good friend regardless of gender that you could just hang out with and share interests with etc. Wouldn't that fulfil what you are looking for?

I have contacted some Baha'is in my community and found out what activities are going on and there are many activities, although I am not that interested in most of them since they are religious activities and I am not much for those. However, there is one Baha'i woman who wants to do some outdoor activities with me, and I would like that. I am also attending some grief groups, although I would not consider that fun socializing, as it is more serious. I sure wish the local seniors had something more than Bingo for activities. Even square dancing would be better than that!

The reason I keep this house is because half the house that is downstairs can be turned into a two bedroom apartment at some future date, if I ever need a caretaker to help me when I am older. I have no children so it would either be that or going to assisted living, and I don't want to do that. My mother lived to age 93 and she stayed in her rented condo till the end of her life.

It's good that you have someone to hang out with from the Bahai community and if you are happy in the house obviously you should keep it.

I don't have a lot of time for myself when I am working full time but I have been off on leave since February 1 and I notice that I have a lot of time when I don't have to work, in spite of the cats. The thing is that I like to stay busy so I find ways to fill up my time. I always exercise two hours a day but I still have time if there ere things I wanted to do, but right now I am not in the mood to go out. I like writing and I like people so I spend a lot of time on this forum.

And that is good, so for instance, you could sign up for a writing class if what you mean by writing is like books and stuff and maybe meet some people there.

I do not want having a husband to be a requirement for being happy, but I cannot even think in terms of being happy since I have not been happy for 20 years. My life has all been work and responsibilities and my late husband did not do anything to help. Many cats have been sick and died, tenants were not paying rent, and then the final straw was when my husband got terminally ill. My life is actually a lot easier right now since I have fewer cats and none are sick, and tenants are paying rent. Although one of them is a month behind, that is nothing compared to the way it was before when he owed me thousands of dollars.

At least that is a step in the right direction

No, my counselor was not saying that getting married is a solution to my problems, she only said I should look for a husband if I want to get married. She said that I deserve to be happy after all I have been through and that is all she wants for me. She is only three years younger than me and she has been married about as long as I was. She said she would not remarry if her husband died and that gave me something to think about. Statistics show that about half of widows over 60 choose to remain single because they don't want the headaches of being married. I am starting to see that perspective.

Again I'm speaking with limited knowledge, so I'm not trying to say that she is doing something wrong, but to me, it seems that a good friend is what you seem to be looking for. If such a friend eventually turns out to be a future husband that might be a bonus, but it shouldn't be a goal in itself.

The fact is, from what you describe that you are in a situation where you don't think you are very happy and that the things you have tried are not working as you thought they would.

A good approach might be to write down a list of how things are now and how you would like them to be and then how to reach or fulfil them. So you have sort of like a plan of what to aim for, even if you don't manage to reach the goals, it might make the whole thing more transparent simply having spent the time creating a such list and given it a lot of thoughts.

You are a person that seems very capable of thinking rationally and not getting completely knocked out because of rough times, which is a huge strength. So many taking a step back and approaching it more structurally might help, just a guess.

 

[Trailblazer]

But what you are basically describing here, could just as well be a good friend. That is what I mean, that you might be jumping ahead too fast when you are turning to dating sites. If you had a good friend regardless of gender that you could just hang out with and share interests with etc. Wouldn't that fulfil what you are looking for?

Not exactly. A good friend might fulfill some of my needs but not all of them. If I had a good friend I would have somebody to hang out with, but if they are married or in a romantic relationship they are not going to have much time to hang out with me. Even if there are some single people in my situation who don't have anyone and have a lot of time to spend with me, it would be just as difficult to find a friend like that as it would be to find a husband.

But no matter how close a friend is, having a friend is not like having a husband. Ideally, a husband should be a friend, a best friend, but a husband is more than a friend since there is a commitment to live together and share in the responsibilities of everyday living. I am not going to ask a friend for help cleaning my house or doing home repairs or taking care of my car or my yard or helping with the cats. Maybe if I had a good friend who was a man I might ask for help with home repairs, car repairs, or yard work, but I would feel obligated to pay him for the help.

Just because I do not want sex that does not mean I do not want the companionship of marriage. Not all older couples have sex.

And that is good, so for instance, you could sign up for a writing class if what you mean by writing is like books and stuff and maybe meet some people there.

That is not a bad idea. I once wanted to write a book but that got lost in the shuffle of life. Maybe I could take some college classes if I ever retire.

Again I'm speaking with limited knowledge, so I'm not trying to say that she is doing something wrong, but to me, it seems that a good friend is what you seem to be looking for. If such a friend eventually turns out to be a future husband that might be a bonus, but it shouldn't be a goal in itself.

I have a best friend in @Truthseeker but he lives in a distant state and I never met him in person, but even if he lived here he is married and has obligations to his wife and he also has a lot of Baha'i activities that take a lot of time.

It would be nice to have a good friend who is local. A Baha'i woman who lives near me considers herself my friend but she also has a husband and children and grandchildren, as well as Baha'i activities, so she does not have much time for other activities.

The fact is, from what you describe that you are in a situation where you don't think you are very happy and that the things you have tried are not working as you thought they would.

I would rather say they are not working as I hoped they would with the dating sites, but it has been obvious for a while that is a wash, which is why I started to think about another game plan.

A good approach might be to write down a list of how things are now and how you would like them to be and then how to reach or fulfil them. So you have sort of like a plan of what to aim for, even if you don't manage to reach the goals, it might make the whole thing more transparent simply having spent the time creating a such list and given it a lot of thoughts.

You are a person that seems very capable of thinking rationally and not getting completely knocked out because of rough times, which is a huge strength. So many taking a step back and approaching it more structurally might help, just a guess.

That is a good idea. I can write down what I want, and hope for, but that doesn't mean I am going to get it. However, it is good to put things on a list, and that will help my counselor since she has to set therapy goals for her job. Putting it down in words helps me to think about what I want. I am always doing that on this forum, and it helps me think about what I want.

 

[Truthseeker]

Yes, of course I will turn it over to a lawyer, since I could never do it myself. I have called several law firms but so far I have not found one to take the case. Although they said I have a legitimate case, they were to busy to take it on. I am going to get back to it as soon as I have time. Right now I am busy with other things and I have three years to file a suit although I am not going to wait that long.

What could be the reason for that? It is not enough of a money maker for that, compared to other cases?

 

[Trailblazer]

What could be the reason for that? It is not enough of a money maker for that, compared to other cases?

One attorney said that an 80-year-old man does not have as much 'value' as a man who was younger and died under the same circumstances, since they look at it in terms of how much money he would have brought in if he was younger and supporting a family. I thought that was atrocious but such is the way the world works. He said he would look the case over though but I did not get back to him because I was busy with other things. I will get back yo him and also call other law firms, since I think someone will take the case. I also have to have an internal investigation conducted at Kaiser, and I am not sure if I should do this first. I need to consult with an attorney on that. I can get free legal advice from Legal Shield and Just Answer attorneys since I am a member of both.

 

[PearlSeeker]

I now realize that it would be a miracle of God if I even found a man I am compatible with, and I would much rather be single than with a man I am not compatible with.

Yes, it would take a miracle (or luck) but there is still hope. The older one gets the harder it is to find a partner. Middle-aged and older men that are suitable for marriage are usually already married. I guess the best option would most probably be a widower who also wants to marry again.

I don't know if I understand you. At first you said that loneliness is not the problem but later you said you would rather be married than single. Is it only because of distribution of tasks/work/costs or is it because of companionship? Or both?

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, it would take a miracle (or luck) but there is still hope. The older one gets the harder it is to find a partner. Middle-aged and older men that are suitable for marriage are usually already married. I guess the best option would most probably be a widower who also wants to marry again.

Older men who are suitable for marriage are usually married unless their wife died. It happens all the time. I am in a grief-share group and there are several men and women whose spouses have died, and most of them are older.

My best option is a widower or a man who is divorced, or even a man who was never married. I would prefer a widower because he would understand what it is like to lose a spouse and if he was married a long time that would show commitment.

There are also many older men who are divorced, you'd be surprised how many. I would prefer not to marry a divorced man because if he was divorced I would wonder why he got divorced and worry he might not be stable and committed if I married him. There are a few older men who were never married, but if he was never married I would wonder why. It could be that he never found the right woman, but more likely he did not want the commitment of marriage, and I would worry that he had been living with women or sleeping around. I can't seem to win for losing.

I don't know if I understand you. At first you said that loneliness is not the problem but later you said you would rather be married than single. Is it only because of distribution of tasks/work/costs or is it because of companionship? Or both?

No, I am not really lonely, or at least I do not feel lonely, and part of the reason is because I have 8 cats who are all around me, waking or sleeping. I also have people to talk to on this forum whenever I need to talk to someone. Also, I am an introvert so I have always spent most of my time alone, even when I was married.

That said, I would like the companionship that marriage offers, but only if I am in love with the man and we have the same values and some shared interests. I would rather remain single if such is not the case. It would be a bonus if he liked cats and liked working around the house and yard. I don't need anyone to share costs as I am financially independent and set for life with more money than I could ever spend, even if I went for trips around the world. Of course, I cannot tell a man that unless I really got to know him since there are so men who would try to take advantage of me, especially on dating sites.

 

[viole]

In short, God wants character to be earned rather than given away as a free gift.

And I would like to challenge the purpose of it, considering the collateral damage that it causes.

So, why does He want that?

I think that this defense is an anthropomorphisation of God. A sort of good parent, who committed mistakes in the past, and would like his kids free to do the same mistakes so that they can build their characters, with all associated risks.

However, God is perfect, and therefore we can assume that He never needed to build His character. Actually, that must be one of the attributes contributing to His perfection. Ergo, being such that the right character is given without need to earn it, must be a positive characteristic.

For sure, giving us that, would not violate the "in His image requirement". On the contrary, it would make us more like in His image.

He gave us a lot of other useful things that we did not need to learn. Like breathing, sleeping, reaching for our mother milk, screaming when we are hungry, feel pain for things dangerous for us as an effective defense, and so on.

So, why not doing the same for sins? Why that special treatment, considering how expensive it is?

Second, according to most Christians, most people go to heaven without any chance to build the necessary character, anyway. For instance, aborted blastocysts.
I would not be surprised if heaven has much more of those, than people who had the time to build that character.

Which begs the question: why not making it equally simpler, and safer, for everyone, under the obvious consequences that this free choice for evil causes, without any apparent offsetting advantage?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Trailblazer]

And I would like to challenge the purpose of it, considering the collateral damage that it causes.

So, why does He want that?

I think that this defense is an anthropomorphisation of God. A sort of good parent, who committed mistakes in the past, and would like his kids free to do the same mistakes so that they can build their characters, with all associated risks.

However, God is perfect, and therefore we can assume that He never needed to build His character. Actually, that must be one of the attributes contributing to His perfection. Ergo, being such that the right character is given without need to earn it, must be a positive characteristic.

For sure, giving us that, would not violate the "in His image requirement". On the contrary, it would make us more like in His image.

He gave us a lot of other useful things that we did not need to learn. Like breathing, sleeping, reaching for our mother milk, screaming when we are hungry, feel pain for things dangerous for us as an effective defense, and so on.

So, why not doing the same for sins? Why that special treatment, considering how expensive it is?

Second, according to most Christians, most people go to heaven without any chance to build the necessary character, anyway. For instance, aborted blastocysts.
I would not be surprised if heaven has much more of those, than people who had the time to build that character.

Which begs the question: why not making it equally simpler, and safer, for everyone, under the obvious consequences that this free choice for evil causes, without any apparent offsetting advantage?

Ciao

- viole

If there was no need to build our character would we all be born with a good character?

I do not believe we are put on this earth just to work, enjoy life, eat drink and be merry, and then die.
I believe that the purpose of this life is to build our character, which is the same as acquiring spiritual attributes.

We build our character by meeting the challenges of everyday living and making choices. Not everything is a choice, sometimes things happen that are beyond our control, and then we have to deal with it. I believe that people who are evil will have to suffer the consequences in the next world, even if they are properly punished in this world.

You said: "However, God is perfect, and therefore we can assume that He never needed to build His character. Actually, that must be one of the attributes contributing to His perfection. Ergo, being such that the right character is given without need to earn it, must be a positive characteristic."

God is perfect by nature.
Baha'is believe that all humans are made in the image of God so we al have the potential to be good, although we can never be perfect like God.

Baha'is do not believe that we are all born with the inherited sin of Adam and Eve. We believe that all humans are born good and then as we go through life we make choices and become who we are - build our character - by living and learning.

 

[viole]

If there was no need to build our character would we all be born with a good character?

Yes, why not? I can see only advantages in it.

I do not believe we are put on this earth just to work, enjoy life, eat drink and be merry, and then die.
I believe that the purpose of this life is to build our character, which is the same as acquiring spiritual attributes.

Well, and what happened when you have acquired it? You die. So, what is the point? What is the real advantage of building one, vs. having the correct one already? Looks like a pointless exercise. Not only that, I think the exercise is useless anyway, for how do you know you have the right character now, if you didn't know in advance what a good character looks like?

And again, many souls died before having any possibility to form anything. What is their existential purpose, then?

We build our character by meeting the challenges of everyday living and making choices. Not everything is a choice, sometimes things happen that are beyond our control, and then we have to deal with it. I believe that people who are evil will have to suffer the consequences in the next world, even if they are properly punished in this world.

Of course you do need that sort of justice, for injustice is intolerable. That is one of the main reasons people make up religions.

You said: "However, God is perfect, and therefore we can assume that He never needed to build His character. Actually, that must be one of the attributes contributing to His perfection. Ergo, being such that the right character is given without need to earn it, must be a positive characteristic."

God is perfect by nature.
Baha'is believe that all humans are made in the image of God so we al have the potential to be good, although we can never be perfect like God.

God does not have the potential to be good. God does not need to learn, in the same way we do not need to learn how to breathe. God is good by default. It cannot possibly be evil. That is beyond His control, or even His free will, in the same way He probably cannot undo Himself.

Ergo, if we have that choice, with all risks associated, we are not in the image of God, for what concerns that property. God decided to give us properties that we do not need to learn, like breathing, and properties that we need to learn, like moral behaviors, despite Him not having to learn it. I simply ask: why?

And let's be honest. How could we ever learn what is good if we do not already know that from the beginning? So, why is morality treated so different than, say, food? I have natural defenses against eating things that are bad for me, but I have no natural defenses against doing something wrong, despite needing to know what is good and bad in order to make a difference anyway. Especially in case of Christianity, where bad (sins) causes things that are vastly worse than some stomach pain.

It doesn't make much sense really. Apart as a rationalization of why people do "evil" under the premise of a good God who create them.

So, the only logical consequence that solves the riddle is that no God created any human, really.

Baha'is do not believe that we are all born with the inherited sin of Adam and Eve. We believe that all humans are born good and then as we go through life we make choices and become who we are - build our character - by living and learning.

Apart from the obvious absurdity of inheriting sins without believing in reincarnation, I am not sure what you mean, in case of your belief.

If we are all born good, how can evil possibly arise? What is there to learn, if we already know that? And how can someone who is good, do evil things, without relinquishing her goodness, which defeats her being good to start with.

Again, I think this is logically untenable.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, why not? I can see only advantages in it.

We cannot be 'born' with a character since character has to develop over time.
A newborn baby has inherited characteristics but does not have a character.

Britannica Dictionary definition of CHARACTER. 1. [count] : the way someone thinks, feels, and behaves : someone's personality — usually singular. He rarely shows his true character—that of a kind and sensitive person. This is a side of her character that few people have seen.

Character Definition & Meaning | Britannica Dictionary

Well, and what happened when you have acquired it? You die. So, what is the point?

The point is that when we die we take our character with us and that is the main reason we want to develop a good character in THIS life.

What is the real advantage of building one, vs. having the correct one already? Looks like a pointless exercise. Not only that, I think the exercise is useless anyway, for how do you know you have the right character now, if you didn't know in advance what a good character looks like?

As I said above, we can't have a correct character already, since we cannot be born with a character.
The way we know what a good character is is by reading what the great religions have to say about character.

The Baha'i Faith teaches that we are all born with two natures, a spiritual or higher nature and a material or lower nature. We all have free will, so we all choose to act according to one of these two natures. By our choices and ensuing behavior, we build our character.

Signs of both these natures are to be found in men. In his material aspect man expresses untruth, cruelty and injustice; all these are the outcome of his lower nature. The attributes of his spiritual nature (a good character) are shown forth in love, mercy, kindness, truth and justice, one and all being expressions of his higher nature. Every good habit, every noble quality belongs to man’s spiritual nature, whereas all his imperfections and sinful actions are born of his material nature.

And again, many souls died before having any possibility to form anything. What is their existential purpose, then?

Souls who dies as babies or children get recompensed by God in the spiritual world and they can continue building their character in that world. In short, these souls are not accountable for their character since they had no opportunity to build it in this life.

God does not have the potential to be good. God does not need to learn, in the same way we do not need to learn how to breathe. God is good by default. It cannot possibly be evil. That is beyond His control, or even His free will, in the same way He probably cannot undo Himself.

Ergo, if we have that choice, with all risks associated, we are not in the image of God, for what concerns that property. God decided to give us properties that we do not need to learn, like breathing, and properties that we need to learn, like moral behaviors, despite Him not having to learn it. I simply ask: why?

Humans are made in the image of God since we all have the 'potential' to express all the attributes of God such as Good, Loving, Gracious, Merciful, Just, Righteous, Forgiving, Patient, and we reflect them to a greater of lesser degree, depending upon how spiritual we are.

And let's be honest. How could we ever learn what is good if we do not already know that from the beginning? So, why is morality treated so different than, say, food? I have natural defenses against eating things that are bad for me, but I have no natural defenses against doing something wrong, despite needing to know what is good and bad in order to make a difference anyway. Especially in case of Christianity, where bad (sins) causes things that are vastly worse than some stomach pain.

Everyone has a natural defense against doing something wrong - if they follow their conscience. The problem is that not all people do not follow their conscience.

It doesn't make much sense really. Apart as a rationalization of why people do "evil" under the premise of a good God who create them.

So, the only logical consequence that solves the riddle is that no God created any human, really.

The logical conclusion is that all humans have free will so some humans choose to do good and some humans choose to do evil. How people were raised by their parents and what they learned later in life factors into their decisions.

Apart from the obvious absurdity of inheriting sins without believing in reincarnation, I am not sure what you mean, in case of your belief.

If we are all born good, how can evil possibly arise? What is there to learn, if we already know that? And how can someone who is good, do evil things, without relinquishing her goodness, which defeats her being good to start with.

Again, I think this is logically untenable.

We are not born good but we are all made in the image of God so we all have the 'potential' for good behavior.
Evil arises because we all have free will and some people choose evil over good. If they do evil things they can still choose to do good things after that and that is what rehabilitation in prisons is all about.

 

[viole]

We cannot be 'born' with a character since character has to develop over time.

Therefore God has no (moral) character.

The point is that when we die we take our character with us and that is the main reason we want to develop a good character in THIS life.

Does that include aborted human embryos? Or kids who died of cancer after a few months? There must be billions of them.

Will they eternally suffer any consequence for not having been able to finish cooking their character?

As I said above, we can't have a correct character already, since we cannot be born with a character.

Why not? What is the purpose of needing to build one?

The Baha'i Faith teaches that we are all born with two natures, a spiritual or higher nature and a material or lower nature. We all have free will, so we all choose to act according to one of these two natures. By our choices and ensuing behavior, we build our character.

What is a lower nature? And why not create us directly into a higher nature, then? What is the purpose of that intermediate step, then?

Signs of both these natures are to be found in men. In his material aspect man expresses untruth, cruelty and injustice; all these are the outcome of his lower nature. The attributes of his spiritual nature (a good character) are shown forth in love, mercy, kindness, truth and justice, one and all being expressions of his higher nature. Every good habit, every noble quality belongs to man’s spiritual nature, whereas all his imperfections and sinful actions are born of his material nature.

More reasons to create us directly into a good nature mode only. Like God Himself has.
What is the purpose of going through a lower nature, apart from providing a rationalization for theists to exploit?

Souls who dies as babies or children get recompensed by God in the spiritual world and they can continue building their character in that world. In short, these souls are not accountable for their character since they had no opportunity to build it in this life.

Why not create all of us directly in the spiritual world, then, if we can build our character equally well there? What is the purpose of the physical world, if all it can do is cause those kids to die of possibly very painful cancer without any advantage whatsoever? Sure your God knows what He is doing?

Humans are made in the image of God since we all have the 'potential' to express all the attributes of God such as Good, Loving, Gracious, Merciful, Just, Righteous, Forgiving, Patient, and we reflect them to a greater of lesser degree, depending upon how spiritual we are.

Nope. I am not in the image of God if I have the potential to express the attributes of God. I am in the image of God if I have those attributes from the start. So, why did He create us with the potential only?

Everyone has a natural defense against doing something wrong - if they follow their conscience. The problem is that not all people do not follow their conscience.

Well, that depends. For instance, I would have no problem to abort if I wanted to. I know people in Scandinavia who abort their embryo if screened with, say, Down syndrome, without any issue whatsoever with their conscience. That is also why places like Iceland are Down Syndrome free.

Is that wrong? If yes, then why we have no problem to do that?

The logical conclusion is that all humans have free will so some humans choose to do good and some humans choose to do evil. How people were raised by their parents and what they learned later in life factors into their decisions.

Again, being born with the impossibility to do evil does not necessarily impinge on free will. Does God have free will?

If yes, then you can only be good without violating free will. If not, then we should really start asking ourselves in which sense we are in His image.

We are not born good but we are all made in the image of God so we all have the 'potential' for good behavior.
Evil arises because we all have free will and some people choose evil over good. If they do evil things they can still choose to do good things after that and that is what rehabilitation in prisons is all about.

Again, God doesn't have any potential. If a computer system has the potential to be as clever as me, then the computer system is not in my image. Being in my image means that the computer system is like me from the start.

So, the only logical conclusion is that it is not the case that God created us in His image. We created Him in our image instead. Don't you think that this is vastly more parsimonious in explaining the state of affairs in the religious world?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Trailblazer]

Therefore God has no (moral) character.

Only humans have character and only humans are subject to being moral or immoral.
Since God is not a human God has no character, and God is not either moral or immoral.

moral: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character. moral means - Google Search

God is all-good by nature so God cannot be bad.

Does that include aborted human embryos? Or kids who died of cancer after a few months? There must be billions of them.

Will they eternally suffer any consequence for not having been able to finish cooking their character?

No, aborted human embryos do not have a character, and kids who died of cancer after a few months did not have a chance to develop their character. They will receive a recompense from God for what they had no opportunity to develop.

Why not? What is the purpose of needing to build one?

We can't be born with a character since it takes 'time' to build a character.
The purpose of having a good character in this life is so we will have good behavior and treat others as they deserve to be treated.

Good character (spiritual qualities) that we develop by living in this world are vitally necessary to function in the spiritual world, just as eyes and ears and arms and legs that we develop in the womb world are vitally necessary to function in this world.

What is a lower nature? And why not create us directly into a higher nature, then? What is the purpose of that intermediate step, then?

“In man there are two natures; his spiritual or higher nature and his material or lower nature. In one he approaches God, in the other he lives for the world alone. Signs of both these natures are to be found in men. In his material aspect he expresses untruth, cruelty and injustice; all these are the outcome of his lower nature. The attributes of his Divine nature are shown forth in love, mercy, kindness, truth and justice, one and all being expressions of his higher nature. Every good habit, every noble quality belongs to man’s spiritual nature, whereas all his imperfections and sinful actions are born of his material nature. If a man’s Divine nature dominates his human nature, we have a saint.” Paris Talks, p. 60

To read more: THE TWO NATURES IN MAN

The purpose of the intermediate step is so we will be able to choose which nature we want to express, the higher nature or the lower nature. We all have free will to choose and we are responsible for what we choose and we will reap the rewards or punishments according to our choices.

More reasons to create us directly into a good nature mode only. Like God Himself has.
What is the purpose of going through a lower nature, apart from providing a rationalization for theists to exploit?

Why should God give us something we did not work for? Why do we deserve that? Is anything else in this life given to us for doing nothing?

The purpose of having to choose between the lower nature and the higher nature is that it separates the worthy from the unworthy.

Why not create all of us directly in the spiritual world, then, if we can build our character equally well there? What is the purpose of the physical world, if all it can do is cause those kids to die of possibly very painful cancer without any advantage whatsoever? Sure your God knows what He is doing?

The following book explains why we have to start our lives out in this world

Why do spiritual beings--human souls--begin their lives in the physical world? According to well-known Baha'i author, scholar, and educator John Hatcher, the world is a classroom designed by God to instigate and nurture mental and spiritual growth. The Purpose of Physical Reality examines the components of this classroom to show how everyday experience leads to spiritual insight. Viewing life in this way, we can learn to appreciate the overall justice of God's plan and the subtle interplay between human free will and divine assistance in unleashing human potential. The idea of physical reality as a divine teaching device not only prepares us for further progress in the life beyond, it also provides practical advice about how to attain spiritual and intellectual understanding while we are living on earth.
https://www.amazon.com/Purpose-Physical-Reality-John-Hatcher/dp/1931847231

Nope. I am not in the image of God if I have the potential to express the attributes of God. I am in the image of God if I have those attributes from the start. So, why did He create us with the potential only?

God created us with the potential only so we could strive to live up to our potential.

A man entering medical school has the potential to be a doctor, but until he undergoes the rigors of medical school he does not become a doctor.

Well, that depends. For instance, I would have no problem to abort if I wanted to. I know people in Scandinavia who abort their embryo if screened with, say, Down syndrome, without any issue whatsoever with their conscience. That is also why places like Iceland are Down Syndrome free.

Is that wrong? If yes, then why we have no problem to do that?

That is not immoral in my opinion. In such a situation, abortion is a decision that is made with the help of a competent physician and it is between the mother and her physician. That is the Baha'i stance.

Again, being born with the impossibility to do evil does not necessarily impinge on free will. Does God have free will?

If yes, then you can only be good without violating free will. If not, then we should really start asking ourselves in which sense we are in His image.

The impossibility of doing evil would mean we could not choose to do evil which would mean we have no free will.
Put another way, if we had free will to choose then we could choose evil.

If you could not choose to do evil then you would be like a programmed robot, not a sentient human.

Again, that we are made in God's image means we have the 'potential' to reflect God's attributes.

Again, God doesn't have any potential. If a computer system has the potential to be as clever as me, then the computer system is not in my image. Being in my image means that the computer system is like me from the start.

An image is not exactly the 'same' as what you see reflected. If you look in a mirror you see your image but you are not in the mirror. If we were exactly like God we would be God rather than human. We have the potential to reflect some but not all the attributes of God. For example, we can be Good, Loving, Gracious, Merciful, Just, Righteous, Forgiving, and Patient, but we can never be Omnipotent, Omniscient or Omnipresent.

So, the only logical conclusion is that it is not the case that God created us in His image. We created Him in our image instead. Don't you think that this is vastly more parsimonious in explaining the state of affairs in the religious world?

I understand what point you are trying to make but that is backwards, since we did not create God, God created us.

 

[Truthseeker]

The following book explains why we have to start our lives out in this world

Why do spiritual beings--human souls--begin their lives in the physical world? According to well-known Baha'i author, scholar, and educator John Hatcher, the world is a classroom designed by God to instigate and nurture mental and spiritual growth. The Purpose of Physical Reality examines the components of this classroom to show how everyday experience leads to spiritual insight. Viewing life in this way, we can learn to appreciate the overall justice of God's plan and the subtle interplay between human free will and divine assistance in unleashing human potential. The idea of physical reality as a divine teaching device not only prepares us for further progress in the life beyond, it also provides practical advice about how to attain spiritual and intellectual understanding while we are living on earth.
https://www.amazon.com/Purpose-Physical-Reality-John-Hatcher/dp/1931847231

Did I tell you about this book? I don't remember. My poor rotten brain. I read this long ago, and it would good to read this again sometime. I have this at home.

 

[Trailblazer]

Did I tell you about this book? I don't remember. My poor rotten brain. I read this long ago, and it would good to read this again sometime. I have this at home.

You might have mentioned the book to me, but I had the book and read it long before that. I have read it more than once.

 

[Truthseeker]

You might have mentioned the book to me, but I had the book and read it long before that. I have read it more than once.

Corrently out Thiursday "fireside" group has been discussing "God's Plan For Planet Earth" by the same John Hatcher written much more recently. (2018). John Hatcher is doing weekly firesides online:

https://www.youtube.com/@johnshatcher/videos

There are 89 of them, including #10,
A Baha'i Look at Christian beliefs about Christ, Salvation, Primal Sin, & Anti-feminism.

87 and 88 are "The Purpose of Physical Reality" part 1 and part 2.

We, of course, could only pick and choose from all these videos now. You can take a look and learn a few things perhaps, as could I. I've only seen a few of these. I think the three I mentioned above would be ones I'd like to look at.

 

[viole]

Only humans have character and only humans are subject to being moral or immoral.
Since God is not a human God has no character, and God is not either moral or immoral.

moral: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character. moral means - Google Search

God is all-good by nature so God cannot be bad.

My point. We are not even close to be in His image.

But if God is neither moral, nor immoral, why do we need to be moral? Why does He care? What breaks the symmetry between morality and immorality?

No, aborted human embryos do not have a character, and kids who died of cancer after a few months did not have a chance to develop their character. They will receive a recompense from God for what they had no opportunity to develop.

So, why don't we all do? What is the purpose of us living on earth, and in the physical world, then?

We can't be born with a character since it takes 'time' to build a character.
The purpose of having a good character in this life is so we will have good behavior and treat others as they deserve to be treated.

Good character (spiritual qualities) that we develop by living in this world are vitally necessary to function in the spiritual world, just as eyes and ears and arms and legs that we develop in the womb world are vitally necessary to function in this world.

That does not make much sense. if God is neither moral, nor immoral, as you claimed, then it should not make any difference what character we develop. as long as we develop one. I could develop a character that promotes chopping off the head of six years old kids, and that would be hunky dory. Wouldn't it?

Good character (spiritual qualities) that we develop by living in this world are vitally necessary to function in the spiritual world, just as eyes and ears and arms and legs that we develop in the womb world are vitally necessary to function in this world.

What is good if God is neither moral nor immoral?

The purpose of the intermediate step is so we will be able to choose which nature we want to express, the higher nature or the lower nature. We all have free will to choose and we are responsible for what we choose and we will reap the rewards or punishments according to our choices.

What is lower, when God is neither moral nor immoral?

I think you have a problem here. Postulating the amorality of God is bound to defeat anything you will say about the subject, So, your best call is to admit that God is moral, which will open a different can of worms.

Or you use the parsimonious naturalistic hypothesis. Namely that there is no God.

That is not immoral in my opinion. In such a situation, abortion is a decision that is made with the help of a competent physician and it is between the mother and her physician. That is the Baha'i stance

What physician? I am invoking here the termination of embryos that have Down Syndrome, for instance. That is neither a danger for the mother, not a danger for the kid. It is just that mothers, in this part of the world, would likely terminate, even if that looks like eugenics.

So, the question is: is that OK to terminate human embryos with genetic problems or not?

Why should God give us something we did not work for? Why do we deserve that? Is anything else in this life given to us for doing nothing?

Yes. As I said we are born with a lot of things that we did not need to build. There is really no reason why He should not have given us that character, too. There is no reason whatsoever why it should be developed, in order to have some value.

“In man there are two natures; his spiritual or higher nature and his material or lower nature. In one he approaches God, in the other he lives for the world alone. Signs of both these natures are to be found in men. In his material aspect he expresses untruth, cruelty and injustice; all these are the outcome of his lower nature. The attributes of his Divine nature are shown forth in love, mercy, kindness, truth and justice, one and all being expressions of his higher nature. Every good habit, every noble quality belongs to man’s spiritual nature, whereas all his imperfections and sinful actions are born of his material nature. If a man’s Divine nature dominates his human nature, we have a saint.” Paris Talks, p. 60

To read more: THE TWO NATURES IN MAN

The purpose of the intermediate step is so we will be able to choose which nature we want to express, the higher nature or the lower nature. We all have free will to choose and we are responsible for what we choose and we will reap the rewards or punishments according to our choices.

I wonder why all the effort if God is neither moral nor immoral. I don't know, this just looks like a complicated rationalization around something amazingly simple.

God created us with the potential only so we could strive to live up to our potential.

A man entering medical school has the potential to be a doctor, but until he undergoes the rigors of medical school he does not become a doctor.

I get that. The question is why? Why not make a doctor right away? is a doctor born with all the knowledge worse than a doctor who spent years to learn it?

Why? What is the added value of it? Looks like a terrible waste of time with no advantage at all. Only risks.

The impossibility of doing evil would mean we could not choose to do evil which would mean we have no free will.
Put another way, if we had free will to choose then we could choose evil.

If you could not choose to do evil then you would be like a programmed robot, not a sentient human.

Again, that we are made in God's image means we have the 'potential' to reflect God's attributes.

Well, then God is a robot. That doesn't seem to cause Him any inconvenience. Actually, that even makes Him perfect. So, it cannot be that bad. And again, there are a lot of things that limit our free will, anyway.

Again, what is the purpose of learning this? What added value is there in going through the painstaking process of getting a character when we can get it immediately? Are you sure that this added value, if any, justifies the incredible price in suffering that results from that learning process?

An image is not exactly the 'same' as what you see reflected. If you look in a mirror you see your image but you are not in the mirror. If we were exactly like God we would be God rather than human. We have the potential to reflect some but not all the attributes of God. For example, we can be Good, Loving, Gracious, Merciful, Just, Righteous, Forgiving, and Patient, but we can never be Omnipotent, Omniscient or Omnipresent.

We do not need to be like God, but my impression is that we are not even close to God. My point is that He created us with some characteristics and properties, allegedly. With a lot of things that we did not have to learn and are effective in surviving and prosper. So, why not with that character too?

And what do you mean with "Good"? Is God good? I thought He was amoral. And if He is amoral, why does He care about us to learn about morality?

See? We are not even close to be in the image of God.

I understand what point you are trying to make but that is backwards, since we did not create God, God created us.

Are you sure? Don't you think that us creating (i.e. making up) God explains things in a much more obvious way?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Trailblazer]

My point. We are not even close to be in His image.

But if God is neither moral, nor immoral, why do we need to be moral? Why does He care? What breaks the symmetry between morality and immorality?

That's true, we are not even close to being in God's image, since most people follow their lower material nature rather than their higher spiritual nature.

God wants us to be moral since it is best for us and other people who we relate to if we act morally.
One reason God does not need to be moral is because God doesn't have relationships so God cannot hurt anyone. But God does not have behavior so God is not even subject to morality. Only humans can be moral or immoral.

So, why don't we all do? What is the purpose of us living on earth, and in the physical world, then?

The main purpose is to develop our character, our spiritual attributes. The longer we live the more time we have to develop them, although a longer life is no guarantee, since some people don't know what they are here for. They just think the purpose of life is to eat, drink, and be merry.

That does not make much sense. if God is neither moral, nor immoral, as you claimed, then it should not make any difference what character we develop. as long as we develop one. I could develop a character that promotes chopping off the head of six years old kids, and that would be hunky dory. Wouldn't it?

What we choose to do as humans has nothing to do with God's qualities, as we are responsible for our own choices. It makes a difference what kind of character we develop because people with a good character are happier and they treat other people well, so then those people are happier. Everyone is connected to other people and what comes around goes around. Chopping off the head of six years old kids is not hunky dory because it causes death and pain to the loved ones of that child. That is why it is against the law so the perpetrator will also suffer.

What is good if God is neither moral nor immoral?

God does not need to be moral because God is all-good by His nature. Only humans need to be moral; because they are not all-good, they have to choose to be good (moral).

What is lower, when God is neither moral nor immoral?

I think you have a problem here. Postulating the amorality of God is bound to defeat anything you will say about the subject, So, your best call is to admit that God is moral, which will open a different can of worms.

Or you use the parsimonious naturalistic hypothesis. Namely that there is no God.

God is not amoral or moral for the simple reason that God is not subject to morality. Only humans are subject to morality.

What physician? I am invoking here the termination of embryos that have Down Syndrome, for instance. That is neither a danger for the mother, not a danger for the kid. It is just that mothers, in this part of the world, would likely terminate, even if that looks like eugenics.

So, the question is: is that OK to terminate human embryos with genetic problems or not?

OK by according to who? There is no one answer. Everyone ill have different opinions on that. If it were me, I would terminate such a pregnancy, but many people have a different view, that a life is a life.

Yes. As I said we are born with a lot of things that we did not need to build. There is really no reason why He should not have given us that character, too. There is no reason whatsoever why it should be developed, in order to have some value.

If it was given to us that would make us into programmed robots, not humans who make their own decisions.

Everything in this life is based upon free will choices and actions, everything has to be worked for, although some people have to work harder than others depending upon what kind of hand they were dealt.

I wonder why all the effort if God is neither moral nor immoral. I don't know, this just looks like a complicated rationalization around something amazingly simple.

What God is has nothing to do with what humans should be or do.

I get that. The question is why? Why not make a doctor right away? is a doctor born with all the knowledge worse than a doctor who spent years to learn it?

Why? What is the added value of it? Looks like a terrible waste of time with no advantage at all. Only risks.

Nobody is born with knowledge. Knowledge is acquired. The more you work the further you get in life. People deserve what they work for, there is no free ride.

Well, then God is a robot. That doesn't seem to cause Him any inconvenience. Actually, that even makes Him perfect. So, it cannot be that bad. And again, there are a lot of things that limit our free will, anyway.

God was not created so God is not a robot.

Again, what is the purpose of learning this? What added value is there in going through the painstaking process of getting a character when we can get it immediately? Are you sure that this added value, if any, justifies the incredible price in suffering that results from that learning process?

You can't get it immediately. You have to work for it.

We do not need to be like God, but my impression is that we are not even close to God. My point is that He created us with some characteristics and properties, allegedly. With a lot of things that we did not have to learn and are effective in surviving and prosper. So, why not with that character too?

Because that's the way God set it up.

And what do you mean with "Good"? Is God good? I thought He was amoral. And if He is amoral, why does He care about us to learn about morality?

Amoral means lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something. God is not amoral because God is concerned about the rightness or wrongness of human behavior.

Are you sure? Don't you think that us creating (i.e. making up) God explains things in a much more obvious way?

No, it doesn't explain anything.