Oral Sex

[Trailblazer]

I question your assumption that God has made his wishes known at all.

God has not made His wishes known to all, only to those who believe in the Messenger.

Then you have a pretty sorry God.

What do you think would be a better method for God to communicate to humans?
I ask atheists this all the time, but after seven years of asking I still have no answer.

I have also been asking atheists why they object so much to a Messenger.
The only answer they give me is that they would never be able to differentiate a true Messenger from a false Messenger.
I tell them there is a way and I explain what that way is, but they do not accept that way. They never have a good reason.

 

[Valjean]

God has not made His wishes known to all, only to those who believe in the Messenger.

What do you think would be a better method for God to communicate to humans?
I ask atheists this all the time, but after seven years of asking I still have no answer.

I have also been asking atheists why they object so much to a Messenger.
The only answer they give me is that they would never be able to differentiate a true Messenger from a false Messenger.
I tell them there is a way and I explain what that way is, but they do not accept that way. They never have a good reason.

But we do.

 

[Trailblazer]

But we do.

Okay then, what is the reason you do not accept the way of differentiating a true Messenger from a false Messenger?

 

[Valjean]

Can the messenger authenticate the source of the message? Can the message itself be authenticated? Can it be tested?

Even given an authentic true messenger, is the message desirable, useful and practicable? We should be free to reject the message without negative consequences, if we don't like it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God has not made His wishes known to all, only to those who believe in the Messenger.

Then this chain of posts has been a long, pointless journey.

Seems strange that you would expect people to live by "God's wishes" when you believe that God hasn't revealed his wishes to them, but I don't care enough to ask why you do.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What do you think would be a better method for God to communicate to humans?
I ask atheists this all the time, but after seven years of asking I still have no answer.

I've seen them answer you many times. Maybe you just aren't paying attention.

I have also been asking atheists why they object so much to a Messenger.
The only answer they give me is that they would never be able to differentiate a true Messenger from a false Messenger.
I tell them there is a way and I explain what that way is, but they do not accept that way. They never have a good reason.

That's because this way of yours is nonsense.

 

[BilliardsBall]

In order to be compatible with the other verses I posted on this, one must persist within the faith, and persisting involves having it as a lifestyle, not just a few p.c. beliefs. .

I understand your perspective re: other verses. Perhaps, though, you would please explain why once saved, always saved isn't stated/implied by "Whoever places their trust in me will NEVER PERISH"? Let's start with that statement you've made about John 3:16, then when can address the rest.

If you need a parallel verse, consider John 5:24, "He who hears my Word, and trusts God who sent me, HAS ETERNAL LIFE, and SHALL NOT COME INTO JUDGMENT, but has passed out of death, into life."

I think you have the perspective re: other verses backwards. THOSE have to concur with THESE.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then this chain of posts has been a long, pointless journey.

I have no point, no goal in mind.

Seems strange that you would expect people to live by "God's wishes" when you believe that God hasn't revealed his wishes to them, but I don't care enough to ask why you do.

(a) I do not expect anyone to live by God's wishes.
(b) God has made His wishes known, and those who read what the Messenger wrote will know what those wishes are.

 

[Muffled]

Well that settles that then.

I believe it only settles it for me and those willing to believe that I heard from God.

 

[Trailblazer]

I've seen them answer you many times. Maybe you just aren't paying attention.

If you mean that God should communicate directly to everyone, I have explained many times why that would accomplish nothing at all, since nobody except the Messengers can understand communication from God. That is besides the fact that God does not want to communicate with everyone and an omnipotent God only does what He wants to do. We know God does not want to do that because an omnipotent God could do it if He wanted to.

If direct communication to everyone was a better way an All-Knowing and All-Wise God would have employed it by now, so that is how we know it is not a better way.

Then we have to ask -- better way for what?
Better way from what atheists want or better way for what God is trying to achieve?
Guess who wins. The omnipotent God.

That's because this way of yours is nonsense.

It is not my way, it is God's way.
And you still have not given me any reasons why it is nonsense.

 

[Muffled]

So should I take as accurate/proscriptive both the Sermon on the Mount and John 3:3, 3:7 and 3:16, I MUST be born again to get to Heaven, to even see it?

I believe the verses do not refer to Heaven. One must be born again to see the Kingdom of God/Heaven and inherit eternal life. For instance I have been born again and am in the Kingdom of God but I am not in Heaven and I expect to receive eternal life when Jesus returns.

 

[Muffled]

If I stopped trusting Him? Stopped being faithful? "If we are faithless, He remains faithful, as He cannot deny Himself . . . "

If my daughter turns her back on me, is she no longer my daughter? I was adopted by God when I trusted Him. I cannot be un-adopted.

I believe God will not force anyone to have eternal life if they don't want it. If one of my children wanted to go to Hells Gate, Arizona I may advise against it but I won't prevent it.

 

[metis]

Perhaps, though, you would please explain why once saved, always saved isn't stated/implied by "Whoever places their trust in me will NEVER PERISH"?

That doesn't go against what I posted as in order to comply with many other verses dealing with this, one must persist with their "trust". If they don't, then they could lose their salvation, which is mentioned numerous times in the NT.

If you need a parallel verse, consider John 5:24, "He who hears my Word, and trusts God who sent me, HAS ETERNAL LIFE, and SHALL NOT COME INTO JUDGMENT, but has passed out of death, into life."

Again, see above.

 

[CG Didymus]

Can the messenger authenticate the source of the message? Can the message itself be authenticated? Can it be tested?

Even given an authentic true messenger, is the message desirable, useful and practicable? We should be free to reject the message without negative consequences, if we don't like it.

Baha'is themselves downplay the NT, because the messenger, Jesus, didn't write it. We are dependent on what his followers said. So God gave a message to Jesus. He gave it to his followers. And some of them wrote some of the things that Jesus said and did. And, we are supposed to believe it is the very Word of God?

No, now we are supposed to believe what Baha'u'llah has said is the very Word of God. And, although he had three wives, he says that God wants men to have only one wife. And, not to have any sex with her until you marry her. And if you do, God will not be happy with you. But God has eased up over the years. He won't have you stoned to death for being a fornicator or an adulterer. And, even though he had Jesus tell you that he will cast you into hell for being a sinner, he had Baha'u'llah come clean and say... "There is no real place called hell." So sure we can "trust" what the messengers tell us.

 

[CG Didymus]

Then this chain of posts has been a long, pointless journey.

Seems strange that you would expect people to live by "God's wishes" when you believe that God hasn't revealed his wishes to them, but I don't care enough to ask why you do.

I'd imagine you've been around enough "religious" people to know that they don't always follow God's laws about morality. I was around Christians and Baha'is. Their was sex in and out of marriage, sex between married couples, but they weren't married to each other. So I could say, "clean up your own house before you go preaching to others... especially don't go preaching to others that aren't even part of your religion." But, I won't say that, because they are only people. People with needs and desires. Sometimes they give in to those desires. No big deal to me, except when some of them try and hide the things they're doing. Then those religious people can kiss my %&*. They aren't any better than anybody else.

But, the other ones, the ones trying to be so "pure". I knew some of them, and they carried a lot of guilt inside. I worry about them the most, because most of them, sooner or later, are going to do it. Or, they're going to have a "bad" thought. Or, look at something on the internet. Then what? They going to confess it? They going to be open about it? They going to repent? It don't matter, because, for most of them, it's going to happen again. And how many times are they going to repent?

 

[Trailblazer]

And, although he had three wives, he says that God wants men to have only one wife.

He had three wives because He was a Muslim and that was allowable under Islamic Law.
He married those wives before he revealed His new Book of Laws that stipulated that Baha'is are only to have one wife.

 

[CG Didymus]

He had three wives because He was a Muslim and that was allowable under Islamic Law.
He married those wives before he revealed His new Book of Laws that stipulated that Baha'is are only to have one wife.

How many wives were allowed in Judaism and Christianity? To be consistent the answer better be more than one, or else God is changing his mind a lot. Or, which I think is more likely, each people and culture made their own "God's laws" that reflected their culture.

 

[Trailblazer]

How many wives were allowed in Judaism and Christianity? To be consistent the answer better be more than one, or else God is changing his mind a lot. Or, which I think is more likely, each people and culture made their own "God's laws" that reflected their culture.

Yes, the Laws God revealed to the Messengers reflected the culture. What God reveals changes with the times and the people to which it was revealed, and it is according to the needs of the times. Having more than wife was prudent during the Dispensation of Muhammad.

“The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and center your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 213

 

[BilliardsBall]

I believe God will not force anyone to have eternal life if they don't want it. If one of my children wanted to go to Hells Gate, Arizona I may advise against it but I won't prevent it.

You are correct, but once one has accepted eternal life, one has ETERNAL life, not temporary eternal life, which is an oxymoron. See John 3:16.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That doesn't go against what I posted as in order to comply with many other verses dealing with this, one must persist with their "trust". If they don't, then they could lose their salvation, which is mentioned numerous times in the NT.

Again, see above.

John 3:16 does not say "persist in trust". It says in the original Greek "if you've trusted, will trust or trust now", that is, a one-time act, not an ongoing action (illogical action, I trust every waking moment? Who is that faithful?).

The problem with "persistent trust" is one saves oneself by action/obedience/faith. How is that the equivalent of accepting a gift (Romans 6:23)?