A God Problem

[A Vestigial Mote]

The only things we know about God's attributes are what the ancient Hebrews said they were.

If we accept this, then this is simply bad business. Why would God not allow our knowledge of Him or His realm, etc. to increase over time? Why would we be forced to look at the same, outdated bodies of evidence and be subject to only the same old tired and worn-out methods of trying to convince people for ALL TIME? If God exists, and wants humanity to know and love Him, and this is how He chooses to operate... then shame on Him. Seriously. Shame.

 

[sooda]

I cannot figure out why people believe this.
Why would primitive people know anything more about God than I do?

It's not that they were stupid or evil. They were just ignorant. They thought that the earth was bigger than the sun. They didn't really know where babies came from, believing that men planted their seed in a woman(much like planting a grain seed). They thought that war and slavery was just "how things are done".

What possible reasons for believing that they knew anything important about God?
Tom

That's all people had to go on.

 

[columbus]

That's all people had to go on.

OK, realize that they were ethically and scientifically primitive. They couldn't know better.

But the question was "Why would they know any more about God than I do, or any other modern person, when they were so ignorant about almost everything else?"
Tom

 

[sooda]

OK, realize that they were ethically and scientifically primitive. They couldn't know better.

But the question was "Why would they know any more about God than I do, or any other modern person, when they were so ignorant about almost everything else?"
Tom

Well there haven't been any new scriptures since the first century or so.

 

[columbus]

Well there haven't been any new scriptures since the first century or so.

Most people know better.
Including me.
Tom

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well there haven't been any new scriptures since the first century or so.

There haven't been?

So much for the Qur'an, then.

And the Book of Mormon.

And big chunks of the New Testament.

And the Guru Granth Sahib.

And all the Baha'i scriptures.

And Dianetics.

... etc., etc.

 

[sooda]

There haven't been?

So much for the Qur'an, then.

And the Book of Mormon.

And big chunks of the New Testament.

And the Guru Granth Sahib.

And all the Baha'i scriptures.

And Dianetics.

... etc., etc.

I don't read Arabic. The Koran was for the people of the Arabian peninsula to get them to return to the God of Abraham. I don't consider the Book of the Mormon or Dianetics as inspired or God breathed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't read Arabic.

So then the Qur'an doesn't exist?

The Koran was for the people of the Arabian peninsula to get them to return to the God of Abraham. I don't consider the Book of the Mormon or Dianetics as inspired or God breathed.

And yet they're still scripture of various religions.

 

[sooda]

So then the Qur'an doesn't exist?


And yet they're still scripture of various religions.

I have read the Koran.. Nothing has changed in Christian scripture or Jewish scripture.. Isn't that the discussion we're having?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have read the Koran.. Nothing has changed in Christian scripture or Jewish scripture.. Isn't that the discussion we're having?

At this point, I have no idea what discussion you're having. The one I'm having is about scripture, which I'd define as "any text held up as authoritative by a religion." It sounds like you meant something different by the word.

 

[columbus]

I don't read Arabic. The Koran was for the people of the Arabian peninsula to get them to return to the God of Abraham. I don't consider the Book of the Mormon or Dianetics as inspired or God breathed.

I don't think any of them are.

I see all of them as fiction, created by humans for human purposes. Unfortunately, the older they are the more primitive they are. People were creating God in their own image. If you read the Bible, you can see this happen. The character called God changes dramatically from Genesis to Exodus through the New Testament. To me, that's solid proof that it's all fiction.
People creating God in their own image.
Tom

 

[Hawkins]

The OP is a strawman argument. If your mayor knows a crime deed, shall he send the criminal to jail right away? Is he sinning if he's not?

God knows your deeds, but that's not how Law works. Your deeds need to be openly witnessed for Law to have you destroyed in an open judgment, once and for all.

 

[Curious George]

I can't even remember what this is all about . . . but I'm going to respond to what you are saying here, now. I don't get it. First of all, how do you determine what a god can and cannot do,

By logic. If you would hold gods as exempt from logic, then I would agree: gods and belief in them are not logical.

second is there some law on this. Some divine legislature?

The law of non contradiction

Third, can law itself intervene and change?

Laws are not conscious, laws do not intervene. That doesn't mean some laws do not change.

Fourth, what constitutes change?

Difference in time.

If, lets say, man has no permission from a god to eat the flesh of a living animal, and then there's a flood where man saves all animals from destruction is the god then changing should he, hypothetically, grant permission to eat animals?

Yes. At one time he did not grant permission. At another he did grant permission. This constitutes a change.

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: I do not understand what is irrational about God using Messengers to communicate?

Penguin said:
- it creates the possibility for the messenger to alter the message.

That is possible but what motive would a “real” Messenger of God have to alter the message? It would seem to me that any so-called messenger who did that would be a fraud, not a Messenger sent by God.

- a messenger would have no real way to demonstrate that they're authentic.

It is true that there is no way they can prove they got a message from God.

- humans aren't perfect, so errors, distortions, and misunderstandings will creep into the message as it's propagated and translated.

It has never been the “job” of the Messengers of God to spread the message He received from God. It was always the job entrusted to His followers. Messengers of God are both human and divine by nature. They are inerrant in the way they receive and reveal messages from God.

Humans who receive the messages might misunderstand or distort the meaning of the message but if the message is clearly written it is unlikely to be misconstrued. Translations into different languages can be done carefully so as not to lose the original meaning.

- one-way communication from God allows no opportunity for confirmation that the message is still correct.

That is where faith comes in. We either believe that the message is from God (thus correct) or not. That is based upon our trust in the Messenger, and that is why it is so important to check Him out carefully before we choose to believe He is a Messenger.

There can be no two-way communication from God because God only communicates one way – to the Messenger. The Messenger dos not talk back to God to verify that it was God speaking to Him.

Trailblazer said: How else could we have any knowledge of God?
Penguin said: Well, what else is your god capable of?

It is not about what God is capable of doing; it is about what humans are capable of understanding. There is no way any human could ever understand direct communication from God because no human has that capacity since no human has a divine mind. Thus there is no way for God to communicate with humans without using a Messenger who acts as a “mediator” between God and man. He alone can bridge the gap because He has qualities of both God and man.

It would seem strange to me if the best method that God could come up with to spread his preferred religion were no better than the methods that would be used to spread religions that are complete fabrications by humans.

I understand that concern, but the task that God has entrusted humans with is to differentiate between the true Messengers of God and the false messengers. Jesus put it very succinctly:

Matthew 7:15-20 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.​

Fruits: the pleasant or successful result of work or actions: FRUIT | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

 

[Trailblazer]

What God wants, He wants for us... so it has nothing to do with Him wanting anything from us? Seriously? That's what you're going with? You say God loves us, and everything He wants is what He wants for us... but that is still God wanting. And it is still God wanting something that involves us. Even if He only wants it "for us." If He truly had no wants, then He wouldn't care. And if He truly did not need to involve us, and had no wants or needs, then He wouldn't involve us. But you would obviously state that He does want, and He does want us involved. You would even say that He does "care." I don't understand how you can have tripped your own mind up this badly.

Wanting is the wrong choice of words. God wills things for us. You can see that if you read what Baha’u’llah wrote:

“The one true God, exalted be His glory, hath wished nothing for Himself. The allegiance of mankind profiteth Him not, neither doth its perversity harm Him. The Bird of the Realm of Utterance voiceth continually this call: “All things have I willed for thee, and thee, too, for thine own sake.” Gleanings, p. 260​

The caveat is that God loves us so God wills things for us. It is that simple. Loving us does not mean God wants or needs anything for Himself. God loves unconditionally.

Assertion. Baseless.

Those were excerpts from scriptures. I do not assert them, I believe them.

All I read are specious, feel-good statements and proclamations that cannot, in any way, be correlated with the reality we are able to experience.

Maybe not a reality that YOU experience, but many of us do experience it, which means it is possible to experience.

Then why don't you just stop trying to talk for Him?

I do not talk for Him; I quote what he wrote and try to explain it because many people do not understand what it means.

And why are you urged to share if you are not ultimately messengers of God? Are you messengers for your religion? Are you messengers for "faith?" Why do you bring the "news" and who do you bring it on behalf of? I think you are very confused. Once again - unable to keep your story straight. This is all I can see in your words. I almost feel compelled to apologize, because for me there is nothing more than this from you.

Baha’is are not Messengers of God because we get no messages from God. Only Baha’u’llah got messages from God. We bring the news that Baha’u’llah has come on behalf of Baha’u’llah because He told us to. As you must know, Jesus enjoined His disciples go out to spread the “good news.” How else are people going to know?

This, at least, is good advice. But Bahá’u’lláh is not nearly the only one who gives such advice. And if someone comes to different conclusions than Bahá’u’lláh about God, once they have concluded their own investigations? As has happened countless billions of times? What then? I'll tell you what then... it must be admitted that NONE of us have it quite right. Not one. This is the only respectable understanding to be reached with respect to theological ideas. I am more than willing to admit this of myself. I'm wrong. Either in part or in whole. But so is everyone else. This is because I understand why I can't know... and no one's stories are compelling in the slightest.

You are right; Moses and Jesus also gave similar advice.

“Moses said:— When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.—Deut. xviii, 22.

Christ put His test just as plainly, and appealed to it in proof of His own claim. He said:— Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. … Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.—Matt. vii, 15–17, 20.”
Proofs of Prophethood, Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, p. 8​

You are free to believe that if you want to, but I have what “I consider” good reasons to believe that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God, the Messiah and the Promised One of all ages. He was one of many Messengers who have come throughout the ages, but He is the one who has the message for this age in history, just as the previous Messengers had messages that were pertinent to the age in which they appeared.

It makes no sense to me that NO ONE ever had it right; it makes more sense to me that everyone had it right, but that there is only one particular message that applies to this age in history. The spiritual teachings of all religions are the same, so they all had that right. It is the message for this day – the oneness of mankind – and the social teachings and laws that needed to change to accommodate the changing times.

And yet everything Abdu’l-Baha or Bahá’u’lláh has ever said or asserted about God is hearsay. Nothing more.

I am so sick of hearing that hearsay argument. God does not communicate to humans directly, so the only way we can get a message from God is through a Messenger who acts as a mediator between God and man. If some people don’t like that they don’t have to believe in God or get His message. God gives us all that choice since we all have free will to choose.

I believe these sorts of "investigate for yourself" statements are intended to espouse these men and their views to the wisdom that those types of statements impart... and then they feel that perhaps their bald, baseless assertions about God and the "spiritual realm" that follow might be taken more seriously. In my investigations of reality... this is another of the conclusions I come to. This is what I have found in examining the truth for myself.

Whatever you found, you found. We do not all find the same things and that quote did not imply that we should. We won’t all come to the same conclusions because we are all different.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

It makes no sense to me that NO ONE ever had it right; it makes more sense to me that everyone had it right, but that there is only one particular message that applies to this age in history. The spiritual teachings of all religions are the same, so they all had that right. It is the message for this day – the oneness of mankind – and the social teachings and laws that needed to change to accommodate the changing times.

This is a stance/belief that I simply can't understand. "Everyone" had it right? That can only be pure delusion. Religion is an unarguably fractured and messy thing. Differing beliefs abound, and it is nowhere near true that "The spiritual teachings of all religions are the same." To be able to say/believe that is to admit that you are walking through the world with blinders on.

I think this conversation is over. Seriously... your words hold nothing of use for me. Much of your position I consider naive and so far from what I would consider correct (or even in the ballpark) that it is a complete waste of time discussing further. Take care.

 

[Katzpur]

I have read the Koran.. Nothing has changed in Christian scripture or Jewish scripture.. Isn't that the discussion we're having?

Basically, I think you're saying that your problem with The Book of Mormon is primarily the fact that it exists. Am I right about that?

 

[sooda]

Basically, I think you're saying that your problem with The Book of Mormon is primarily the fact that it exists. Am I right about that?

I don't care about the Book of Mormon one way or another. I read it years ago. I don't believe that Jesus visited America ..

What Jesus Christ’s Visit to the Americas Means for Us ...
https://www.mormon.org/blog/what-jesus-christs-visit-to-the...

Bible and Book of Mormon Prophets Foretold Jesus’s Birth. The Book of Mormon is a book of scripture that details God’s teachings to people who lived in the Americas from about 600 BC to AD 400. The Book of Mormon serves as a companion to the Bible’s teachings.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is possible but what motive would a “real” Messenger of God have to alter the message? It would seem to me that any so-called messenger who did that would be a fraud, not a Messenger sent by God.

What motive would an honest employee have to steal? Still, stores and banks have cameras over the tills.

Being able to verify means that a person can be above reproach. Which is stronger confirmation that a person is relaying a message faithfully?

- the fact that a messenger has good character, or
- the fact that he has good character AND the fact that he would have had no opportunity to lie.

Our judgement of a person's character can be wrong, so if your trust in the message is based entirely on your judgement of the character of the messenger, the message will always have some level of doubt.

It is true that there is no way they can prove they got a message from God.

So then this creates a barrier to acceptance of the message.

Why do you think God would want barriers to acceptance of his message?

It has never been the “job” of the Messengers of God to spread the message He received from God. It was always the job entrusted to His followers.

That makes the problem worse. Every set of hands the message goes through is another potential point for error to creep in. How much error? There's really no way to tell.

Messengers of God are both human and divine by nature. They are inerrant in the way they receive and reveal messages from God.

... you assume. With no real way to confirm.

Humans who receive the messages might misunderstand or distort the meaning of the message but if the message is clearly written it is unlikely to be misconstrued.

Clearly written... by the messenger, not by God, right?

Translations into different languages can be done carefully so as not to lose the original meaning.

That's impossible. Even with the best translation, nuance is lost: what rhymes or has a certain meter in one language won't have this in another. A pun in one language won't be a pun in another. Idioms vary from culture to culture (and from generation to generation within the same culture).

And translation often requires the translator to infer things that aren't in the original text: if you're translating the sentence "you look happy" into French, do you translate "you" as "tu" or "vous?" Depends on what we assume about the attitude the person speaking has toward the person they're addressing, which may or may not be clear from the text.

Translation is partly a creative endeavor on the part of the translator.

That is where faith comes in. We either believe that the message is from God (thus correct) or not. That is based upon our trust in the Messenger, and that is why it is so important to check Him out carefully before we choose to believe He is a Messenger.

How could you "check him out carefully?"

What set of things about a person could you check that could justify the conclusion "... therefore, we can trust anything that this guy says comes from God?"

There can be no two-way communication from God because God only communicates one way – to the Messenger. The Messenger dos not talk back to God to verify that it was God speaking to Him.

You realize that all you did here is beg the question, right?

It is not about what God is capable of doing; it is about what humans are capable of understanding.

So then it's about what capabilities God is capable of instilling in humans.

There is no way any human could ever understand direct communication from God because no human has that capacity since no human has a divine mind. Thus there is no way for God to communicate with humans without using a Messenger who acts as a “mediator” between God and man. He alone can bridge the gap because He has qualities of both God and man.

So regular humans don't have any way to confirm that a supposed message from God actually came from God?

I understand that concern, but the task that God has entrusted humans with is to differentiate between the true Messengers of God and the false messengers. Jesus put it very succinctly:

Matthew 7:15-20 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.​

Fruits: the pleasant or successful result of work or actions: FRUIT | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

So if someone seems good, this is a sign they're a messenger?

Even if - for reasons that you haven't really explained - God can't communicate with "non-messengers" directly, God could still do better than what you suggest he's doing now.

For instance: many messengers. If a thousand - or even a dozen - messengers all lived at the same time, all in total agreement with each other and all supporting what each other says, any one messenger who decided to change the message could be easily spotted. It wouldn't be completely foolproof, but it would address some of the inherent problems with having one messenger at a time.

 

[Katzpur]

I don't care about the Book of Mormon one way or another. I read it years ago. I don't believe that Jesus visited America ..

Fair enough. If you've actually read the book, then I'm fine with your opinion of it.