• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why did God send Messenger to convey His message instead of directly coming to speak?

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Baha’u’llah also said that it was Ishmael that Abraham was asked to offer up not Isaac. As He is a Manifestation I believe it to be true. The essence of the Bible is thr Word of God but not every word was divinely revealed by God so scribes might have erred and that is understandable comsidering the antiquity of these ancient documents.
So the scribes pulled the old switcharoo. Another place where the Bible gives false information. But, so does the NT in Hebrews chapter 11.
17 By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son,
18 even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”
19 Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death.​
Or, the Baha'i Faith is wrong.
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
You guys and gals are getting into some interesting stuff here. But really, The Bible and the NT are unclear. People after Jesus was killed were left in confusion. He gets them out of confusion by coming back to life and talking to them, but Baha'is say that never really happened. The Church went on to decide on which books get put into the NT. They go on to decide on controversial issues, one of them was whether Jesus was part of a Godhead. Baha'is say they were wrong. Jesus is not God. Baha'is say the physical body of Jesus is dead and gone. So God left nothing but confusion.
the Bahai view is that, the whole humanity may be likened to one person. This person had a birth, which occored million years ago, or as when the science says its time. Then this new born grew and grew, developed more and more capacity to comprehand more of the truth. Now, humanity have come to an age, it can be told more truth. Therefore Bahai revelation came at a time, when humanity was ready to be told explicitly, Jesus was cruicified was not literally resurrected. We can now be told there is no physical resurrection. We can be told, jesus spiritually cured the blind or resurrected the dead, not literally. We can be told, there was no literal flood...and more to come when we develop more capacity.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
If 'faith' is required then it definitely says you need to abandon logic and rational thinking.

Respectfully, the two are not mutually exclusive.

Having faith does not require abandon of logic and rational thinking.

Faith is the result of a lack of absolute proof.
Logic and rational thinking support conclusions, but do not guarantee absolute proof.

Logic and rational thinking can support faith.

Faith isn't all bad.

Examples: The President of the United States is sworn to faithfully protect and defend the Constitution. Most sales contracts for home purchases in America include a clause that both parties work in good faith.

I feel like maybe we are talking past each other and speaking about different versions of the word faith.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
That's very interesting. So another story in the Bible that Baha'is don't believe is "authentic". So Samuel never told Saul those things about the Amalekites? Or, God never told Samuel to tell Saul those things about killing everybody?

Are you absolutely sure about the things that Jesus affirmed about stories in the Bible? Or, since the NT is not wholly "authentic" either, would those things be the gospel writers putting words in Jesus' mouth?

Know ye that the Torah is that which was revealed in the Tablets to Moses, may peace be upon Him, or that to which He was bidden. But the stories are historical narratives and were written after Moses, may peace be upon Him.
(From a previously untranslated Tablet)

The Four Gospels were written after Him [Christ]. John, Luke, Mark and Matthew - these four wrote after Christ what they remembered of His utterances.

We have no way of substantiating the stories of the Old Testament other than references to them in our own teachings, so we cannot say exactly what happened at the battle of Jericho.
(25 November 1950 to an individual believer

We cannot be sure of the authenticity of any of the phrases in the Old or the New Testament. What we can be sure of is when such references or words are cited or quoted in either the Quran or the Bahá'í writings.
(4 July 1947 to an individual believer)

When 'Abdu'l-Bahá states we believe what is in the Bible, He means in substance. Not that we believe every word of it to be taken literally or that every word is the authentic saying of the Prophet.
(11 February 1944 to an individual believer)

The Bahá'ís believe that God's Revelation is under His care and protection and that the essence, or essential elements, of what His Manifestations intended to convey has been recorded and preserved in Their Holy Books. However, as the sayings of the ancient Prophets were written down some time later, we cannot categorically state, as we do in the case of the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, that the words and phrases attributed to Them are Their exact words
(9 August 1984 to an individual believer)



The Bible
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
Respectfully, the two are not mutually exclusive.

Having faith does not require abandon of logic and rational thinking.

Faith is the result of a lack of absolute proof.
Logic and rational thinking support conclusions, but do not guarantee absolute proof.

Logic and rational thinking can support faith.

Faith isn't all bad.

Examples: The President of the United States is sworn to faithfully protect and defend the Constitution. Most sales contracts for home purchases in America include a clause that both parties work in good faith.

I feel like maybe we are talking past each other and speaking about different versions of the word faith.

Religious faith is belief without verifiable evidence. If you had verifiable evidence then faith would not be required. If you believe something without verifiable evidence then you are choosing to abandon logic and rational thinking in favor of this unverified belief. .
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
In the next world, do Baha'is believe we will still have free will? If so, then will some turn away from God? If not, then he only made this world a big test? But, he put people in different situations with different capacities and born into religions that didn't teach the truth about him? And, made people with a limited capacity to understand spiritual things? And made it appear that all the religions are so mixed up that it sometimes makes more sense to reject all of them? But, then he judges those that do reject him?

I believe God is just and His intentions with us is to share His gifts with us as He loves us all and wants what is best for us all.

With God it’s all about us, our comfort, our peace, our happiness.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
So the scribes pulled the old switcharoo. Another place where the Bible gives false information. But, so does the NT in Hebrews chapter 11.
17 By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son,
18 even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”
19 Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death.​
Or, the Baha'i Faith is wrong.

According to Baha’u’llah it was Ishmael which we unreservedly accept.

A striking example is given in the account of the sacrifice which Abraham was called upon to make. The Guardian of the Faith confirms that the record in the Qur'an and the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, namely that it was Ishmael, and not Isaac as stated in the Old Testament, whom Abraham was to sacrifice, is to be upheld. In one of His Tablets 'Abdu'l-Bahá refers to this discrepancy, and explains that, from a spiritual point of view, it is irrelevant which son was involved. The essential part of the story is that Abraham was willing to obey God's command to sacrifice His son. Thus, although the account in the Torah is inaccurate in detail, it is true in substance....

The Bible
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
Well, to be fair, Christianity and Hinduism - among other religions - would say that he came directly to speak in human forum, as well as sending prophets, saints or gurus to mediate on his behalf.

As the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews wrote in the New Testament:

oremus Bible Browser : Hebrews 1:1 - 2:12

Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds. He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being.

So, the Christian response would need to be that He has done both.
 

Remté

Active Member
Religious faith is belief without verifiable evidence. If you had verifiable evidence then faith would not be required. If you believe something without verifiable evidence then you are choosing to abandon logic and rational thinking in favor of this unverified belief. .
That really doesn't follow. Abandoning logic and rational thinking means a man becomes dumb or psychotic. But most people have faith in God - in many things actually. You have faith. In that God does not exist I presume. But you have no evidence of that. Do you consider by this faith you have abandoned logic and rational thinking?
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Religious faith is belief without verifiable evidence. If you had verifiable evidence then faith would not be required. If you believe something without verifiable evidence then you are choosing to abandon logic and rational thinking in favor of this unverified belief. .

No. I'm sorry. It's not that black and white. Your statement is a very broad generalization.

Aristotle believed in a "prime mover". The conclusion he came to was very similar to Abrahamic Monotheism. And Aristotle based his conclusion on logic and rational thinking.

Religious faith does not abandon logic and rational thinking.

That would be blind faith.

Aristotle's theology is described in wikipedia below:
Unmoved mover - Wikipedia
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
That really doesn't follow. Abandoning logic and rational thinking means a man becomes dumb or psychotic. But most people have faith in God - in many things actually. You have faith. In that God does not exist I presume. But you have no evidence of that. Do you consider by this faith you have abandoned logic and rational thinking?

No, I don't take it on 'faith' that no god exists. I simply have yet to be presented with any verifiable evidence that any god or gods exist. IF I claimed the there definitely is no God, without any verifiable evidence to back it up, then yes, I would be abandoning logic and rational thinking.

And when a person abandons logic and reasonable thought when it comes to the question of God, it opens the door for them to abandon it in other aspects of their lives. Sadly when that happens they DO tend to become dumb and mentally unstable... as in completely ignoring all of the verifiable evidence that says global warming is real and that vaccines do not cause any mental defects. Furthermore, abandoning logic and reasonable thought to believe in God clearly does make some religious folks dumb, because they insist that evolution is a myth and that the Earth is between 6 and 10 thousand years old.
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
No. I'm sorry. It's not that black and white. Your statement is a very broad generalization.

Aristotle believed in a "prime mover". The conclusion he came to was very similar to Abrahamic Monotheism. And Aristotle based his conclusion on logic and rational thinking.

Religious faith does not abandon logic and rational thinking.

That would be blind faith.

Aristotle's theology is described in wikipedia below:
Unmoved mover - Wikipedia

And if Aristotle believed in this 'prime mover' without any verifiable evidence that such a 'prime mover' actually exists, then that's the point where Aristotle abandoned logic and rational thought.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
And if Aristotle believed in this 'prime mover' without any verifiable evidence that such a 'prime mover' actually exists, then that's the point where Aristotle abandoned logic and rational thought.

I think the word abandoned is being misused.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
And why exactly is believing in things without verifiable evidence a thing God wants people to engage in? I mean, if God wants us to abandon logic and rational thought when it comes to believing in Him, isn't there a danger that they'll also abandon logic and rational thinking when it comes to things like... global warming or the validity of vaccinations?
Ironically, Baha'is think it is wrong to believe that Jesus rising from the dead really happened, that Satan is real and many other things that most Christians take on "faith" because the Bible and the NT says so. So it's only irrational to believe in things in other people's religion.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
the Bahai view is that, the whole humanity may be likened to one person. This person had a birth, which occored million years ago, or as when the science says its time. Then this new born grew and grew, developed more and more capacity to comprehand more of the truth. Now, humanity have come to an age, it can be told more truth. Therefore Bahai revelation came at a time, when humanity was ready to be told explicitly, Jesus was cruicified was not literally resurrected. We can now be told there is no physical resurrection. We can be told, jesus spiritually cured the blind or resurrected the dead, not literally. We can be told, there was no literal flood...and more to come when we develop more capacity.
So like telling a child about Santa Claus? So God made up stories, because people weren't bright enough to understand the truth? What about the people that lived during those times? That knew those things didn't happen? Why did they fall for the make believe story? But worse, the apostles spread the stories as if true... #%$& liars! And that doggone Scribe that switched Isaac for Ishmael!
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
God does not come and go like a person. God is omnipresent, all pervading brahman.

mankind may not be here now because the mind is elsewhere. the prophet, medium, seer, is simply the vehicle through which God is revealed.


The Father revealed himself to jesus and jesus told you as a seer what he saw. see?


Jesus gave them this answer: "Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.


All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
...God's Revelation is under His care and protection and that the essence, or essential elements, of what His Manifestations intended to convey has been recorded and preserved in Their Holy Books. However, as the sayings of the ancient Prophets were written down some time later, we cannot categorically state, as we do in the case of the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, that the words and phrases attributed to Them are Their exact words...
"essential" elements? Like the "elements" that got Christians to believe in heaven and hell, the Flood and that Jesus came back to life. Is that what God "intended" to convey? No, and that's not what Baha'is believe. Baha'is tell us what Christians and all other religions should have believed, but didn't because they, for some unusual reason, took the words of their Scriptures as truthful and literal, (unless obviously a parable or something metaphorical).
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
I think the word abandoned is being misused.

Abandoned: having been deserted or cast off.

As soon as Aristotle chose to accept as real something for which he had no verifiable evidence, that's the point where he abandoned, deserted, or cast off logic and rational thinking.

No, I'm pretty sure it's being used exactly how I intended.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
No, I don't take it on 'faith' that no god exists. I simply have yet to be presented with any verifiable evidence that any god or gods exist. IF I claimed the there definitely is no God, without any verifiable evidence to back it up, then yes, I would be abandoning logic and rational thinking.

And when a person abandons logic and reasonable thought when it comes to the question of God, it opens the door for them to abandon it in other aspects of their lives. Sadly when that happens they DO tend to become dumb and mentally unstable... as in completely ignoring all of the verifiable evidence that says global warming is real and that vaccines do not cause any mental defects. Furthermore, abandoning logic and reasonable thought to believe in God clearly does make some religious folks dumb, because they insist that evolution is a myth and that the Earth is between 6 and 10 thousand years old.
I tried to be a Christian back in the 70's... and before that I hung out with Baha'is a couple of years. The "dumbing" didn't happen all at once. It was step by step. First step, believe in Jesus and confess that you're a sinner and ask Jesus to forgive you. The person feels God within. They are filled with love. All the Christians around them make them feel loved and part of God's family. Now, person starts to read the gospels. Then the rest of the NT. Then some of the "Old Testament". Along the way questions are answered with logic and reasoning... Christian logic and reasoning. God is real. Jesus is real. God's book, The Bible is The Real Truth and can be trusted.

After a slow brain washing, pretty soon the person talks, walks and looks like a zombie, no, just kidding, they look like a Christian, a child of God. They walk around town with their Bible in hand. Now the deeper stuff comes. The Flood really happened. The Earth was created a few thousand years ago. And they are told not to listen to anybody who says anything different, because they are being deceived by the Devil. And, if you ever, ever doubt... that's the Devil trying to deceive you too. So the proof is there. It's in the love they feel in their hearts for believing. And in how the Bible, somehow, makes logical sense.

I was "saved" only because I started hanging out with Pentecostals. They were so whacked out nuts with their speaking in tongues and with "healings", that I finally said, "No", this is a bunch of %&#$ and left.
 
Top