God’s Method of delivering messages, is it flawed?

[PAUL MARKHAM]

I have my own ego sometimes too, did i at any point in my reply say i did not?

That you see every religious text as false or made up is your own opinion, and i know from reading other things you written that no matter what i chose to answer you, you will not see it as an answer.

The messages many do not hear is exactly the same as in the teachings of the religions. But i know you will laugh of this too.

I kind of see no reason to try to answer your replies, because we see things very differently.

Not everything in the bible is false or made up you assumed that. The Ten Commandments are great rules to live one's life by, pity god can't keep them. LOL Love thy neighbour, be a good person, etc.

I'm saying nature is no evidence of any god existing. And science backs me up.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Not everything in the bible is false or made up you assumed that. The Ten Commandments are great rules to live one's life by, pity god can't keep them. LOL Love thy neighbour, be a good person, etc.

I'm saying nature is no evidence of any god existing. And science backs me up.

Did i assume that?

 

[PAUL MARKHAM]

Did i assume that?

Yes and I can quote what you said.

"That you see every religious text as false or made up"

Is or isn't that an assumption?

 

[Trailblazer]

You have just displayed your own over-inflated ego. Well done. LOL

No, that is what you just did, Imo.

Psychological projection

 

[Spirit of Light]

Yes and I can quote what you said.

"That you see every religious text as false or made up"

Is or isn't that an assumption?

You have said it your self, so no i did not assume

 

[stvdv]

I picked too long to bother reading.

I came to the 5th line and replied. I felt the same "too long for me".

 

[PAUL MARKHAM]

You have said it your self, so no i did not assume

I quoted what you wrote.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I quoted what you wrote.

So you do not stand behind your own words about, religion being false, man made, made by ignorant people?
Or that if God exist he is evil because he "let" people suffer?

 

[PAUL MARKHAM]

So you do not stand behind your own words about, religion being false, man made, made by ignorant people?
Or that if God exist he is evil because he "let" people suffer?

Religions are manmade by clever people who use them to rule over their people.

If god exists, he doesn't but for this let's say he does, he is as responsible for all the bad things as well as the good things in nature.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Religions are manmade by clever people who use them to rule over their people.

If god exists, he doesn't but for this let's say he does, he is as responsible for all the bad things as well as the good things in nature.

Your assumption of what a God would be.....

 

[Trailblazer]

Of course it's an opinion. It's kind of hard to have facts about imaginary entities, or actual entities that are indistinguishable from imaginary ones.

But it's quite a reasonable opinion.
An all knowing entity would know better then to rely on human story telling to spread his message.

You do not KNOW that, and besides, all scripture is not storytelling like the Bible. Do you think the Bible is that only scripture that ever existed?

WE HUMANS even know better then that. WE KNOW that such a method is GUARANTEED to warp the message with every single re-telling. We KNOW that copies of copies of translations of copies of translations will do the exact same to a message.

It's rather reasonable to assume that an all knowing entity would know that too. It's rather reasonable that an all knowing entity who knows this and who also wants his actual message to reach all humans, will NOT be relying on such flawed and error prone methods.

No, it is not reasonable to assume that God would not use Messengers to communicate just because some things went wrong after that, since what went wrong can be attributed to humans, owing to their free will choices and actions.

Also, you are missing parts if the picture. God knew that would happen, because God is all knowing, but God had a PLAN to clear up all the misunderstandings in the Bible in the future, and God did clear it up. But even before God cleared it up, the message that is in the Bible got through to people, as can be seen by all the Jews and Christians in the world.

Then this god is stupid as f***. OR he doesn't care one bit about us and deliberately set it all up knowing how it would lead to major conflict and suffering.

God did know because God is all knowing, and God allowed the conflict and suffering to take place because God had a purpose for it, as it was leading up to something much bigger.

“God’s purpose is none other than to usher in, in ways He alone can bring about, and the full significance of which He alone can fathom, the Great, the Golden Age of a long-divided, a long-afflicted humanity. Its present state, indeed even its immediate future, is dark, distressingly dark. Its distant future, however, is radiant, gloriously radiant—so radiant that no eye can visualize it......”
The Promised Day is Come, p. 116

God’s Purpose

That could be the case off course, but then you can't say that this god "loves us" and "wants the best for us" and "wants us to know him". A god with such attributes, wouldn't set us up for guaranteed failure. Such a god, would not choose such methods of communication.

But it was not a failure, because God is accomplishing His purpose for humanity, and humans will be better off in the end. Besides that, 84 percent of the world population has a faith so where is the failure? Most faiths have a religious Founder or what I call a Messenger so that means that God’s Method of communication has been successful.

You could make that argument of "progressive revelation" for the abrahamic faiths. Judaism => christianity => islam.

You could NOT make it when you include all others. There is nothing "progressive" there, nor chronological.

Those faiths fit into the overall picture because they are part of humanity’s spiritual evolution, so there is a progression, even if it is not chronological.

And that claim is clearly contradicted by the actual evidence of reality, if one includes ALL religions, as noted above.

The teachings of all religions were tailored to suit the needs of the time and place of their appearance, and that is what progressive revelation is all about. Also, all these religions were part of mankind’s spiritual progression over time.

That can't be the case as the vast majority of religions are completely incompatible with one another.

You can make this argument for the 3 main abrahamic religions and make it sound somewhat sensible. But you can not make that argument if you also include all the religions from all corners of the world.

It would be expected that some religions were incompatible with other religions because they were revealed at different times and to different people in different places. But that does not mean they were not all moving humanity in the same general direction, towards a day in the future when mankind would be united and all would be on the same page, a day when there would be one common faith, as God has ordained.

“That which the Lord hath ordained as the sovereign remedy and mightiest instrument for the healing of all the world is the union of all its peoples in one universal Cause, one common Faith. This can in no wise be achieved except through the power of a skilled, an all-powerful and inspired Physician. This, verily, is the truth, and all else naught but error.”
The Summons of the Lord of Hosts, p. 91

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Obviously it's pretty flawed as the adherents of the revealed religions are all over the place in their beliefs and can't agree on the "revelation".

 

[Trailblazer]

Obviously it's pretty flawed as the adherents of the revealed religions are all over the place in their beliefs and can't agree on the "revelation".

What is pretty flawed are the adherents of the revealed religions who are all over the place in their beliefs and can't understand why they are all over the place.

 

[PAUL MARKHAM]

Obviously it's pretty flawed as the adherents of the revealed religions are all over the place in their beliefs and can't agree on the "revelation".

Quite true.
One only has to study the religions of isolated tribes to see they have been made up.
Then go back to the start of the Abrahamic religion to see it's been made out of various stories and compiled by men to control the Israelites in exile in Babylon.
Some of the stories aren't even Israelites.
Just another isolated tribe trying to stick together.

 

[Trailblazer]

I understand that that is one of your beliefs, but at the end of the day, it's neither based on evidence or logic. So it's nothing but a bald assertion.

I never said it is based upon logic, but it is based upon evidence. The evidence indicates that most people are steeped in religious tradition or attached to what they already believe; and that if they do not have a religion most people are suspicious of the new religion and the new Messenger; and that if they are atheists they do not like the idea of Messengers of God or they think they are all phonies.

That evidence can be found in the many posts that have been posted on this forum, what peoples say.

But I'll tell you the true main reason, most people don't believe that a "new" messenger exist(ed).

Trailblazer said: ↑
Thirdly, if they are atheists they do not like the idea of Messengers of God or they think they are all phonies. You are a case in point.

False statement. In fact, I like the idea of messengers of god, and I'm an atheist.

That post was not addressed to you, it was addressed to Jos, because he said he did not like the idea of Messengers.

Jos said: God's supposed way of doing things with the Messengers makes no sense, given all He knows about human nature, so once again, it's completely unreasonable for God to send Messengers knowing that people would be too fallible to recognize them. It's completely illogical for a supremely intelligent do something like that.

I like it because the idea alone help is a helper. In some discussions, whenever a theist brings it up and tries to defend it, he/she is doing of the work of providing the fallacies.

What does that mean, help is a helper?

And as for the second part, it's illogical. If atheists don't think that all the messengers exist(ed), then logic dictates that it's impossible for atheists to think that they are phonies.

When I said atheists think they are all phonies I meant that atheists do not believe there is any such thing as a real Messenger of God. Thus they believe that any men who make such claims are phonies.

 

[PAUL MARKHAM]

That evidence can be found in the many posts that have been posted on this forum, what peoples say.

Are you referring to the evidence of a god? What if we atheist prove that evidence is false?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

What is pretty flawed are the adherents of the revealed religions who are all over the place in their beliefs and can't understand why they are all over the place.

And your god could easily clear up the confusion it's responsible for but chooses not to. It's that deity's fault for playing games, not the fault of humans.

 

[Trailblazer]

I understand that you believe, but just because you believe that something is true, that doesn't mean that it's true. And I'm not talking about your religion here, I'm referring prophecies as evidence. It's not evidence. It does nothing to help make the religion any more right then if there wasn't any prophecies.

Obviously, just because I believe something is true that doesn't mean that it's true.

When I say that prophecies are evidence I mean evidence in the following sense:

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

So the prophecies that were fulfilled by Baha’u’llah indicate that He is who he claimed to be. They do not prove it but they indicate it.

Having evidence that proves the existence and life of Baháʼu'lláh are not evidence of your religion being right. It's just the same as Christians arguing that a historical jesus is evidence for christianity.

It is the same as what Christians say about Christianity, and the person, life, and mission of Jesus and Baha’u’llah are the best evidence we have that indicates that they were telling the truth and they were sent by God. What other kind if evidence can there be?

Here's the most important thing about proving a theistic religion being true, it's harder than proving that god exist. The reason for this is because it actually goes one step further. God is one step closer to your religion being true, but even the existence of a god is not evidence for it.

I agree that even if God exists that does not necessarily mean that my religion is true, or that any religion is true for that matter, because God could exist and not communicate to humans at all.

You always say that the messengers of God are the evidence for God. But you're wrong about that. So, Baháʼu'lláh being a messenger of God, is not the evidence for God. It's the evidence for your religion being true.

That is not how I see it. I believe that the Messengers of God are the evidence that God exists because they revealed God thus confirming that God exists.

Simply put, if Jesus and Baha’u’llah were sent by God to be Messengers, that means that God exists.

If Jesus was a Messenger of God that proves that God exists. Jesus is not evidence that Christianity (as it is commonly believed) is true but Jesus is evidence that God exists.

If Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God, that proves that God exists and that the Baha’i Faith is a true religion of God.

You said that Baháʼu'lláh being a Messenger of God is not the evidence for God but it is the evidence my religion is true; but my religion cannot possibly be true if Baha’u’llah was not a Messenger of God, since He makes the claim that He was a Messenger of God.

Even if we can prove the existence of God without a shadow of a doubt, that doesn't get us any closer to determining your religion as true. That God could exist and not having any messengers at all. Same as for Jesus. Proving his existence and miracles being genuine is not evidence for christianity being true, until he is proven to be a son of a god.

You are correct. Hypothetically speaking, if we could prove that God exists without a shadow of a doubt that would not get us any closer to determining that the Baha’i Faith or Christianity are true because God’s existence is not contingent upon any religions being true. God either exists or not and God could exist and not have any Messengers at all.

How do you think we could ever prove that God exists?

You are correct. Jesus is not evidence that or the miracles of Jesus are true, but if it could be proven that Jesus was the Son of God that would prove that God exists, although that would still not prove that Christianity (as it is commonly believed) is true.

Quantity of evidence is irrelevant, in the sense that, a one piece of evidence could be sufficient enough to prove a claim, or it might need ten pieces of evidence. "Strength" of an evidence is not dependent on the particular evidence itself. Something is either evidence or it's not. What a lot of people get confused with, resulting in misunderstanding what "evidence" actually is. Evidence is dependent on the claim. Like in that definition, it must help prove that something (the claim) to be true or not. If it cannot fit that standard, then it's not evidence.

I agree. Evidence is dependent on the claim, one piece of evidence could be sufficient enough to prove a claim, and it must help prove that the claim is true. However, a piece or pieces of evidence that helps to prove that a claim is true to one person will not necessarily help to prove the claim is true to another person, and that evidence will never help to prove that the claim is true to ALL people, no matter what the evidence is, and this is the essential problem. When I say what I think the evidence is for Baha’u’llah and atheists say “that is not evidence” all they are really saying is that is not evidence for them. That does not mean it is not evidence for me or for anyone else. There is no objective evidence that will mean the same thing to all people.

So back to the Baháʼu'lláh religion, prophecies regarding
does nothing to Baháʼu'lláh, does not, in any way, help "prove" the existence of God.
The existence of God must be proven before the evidence for Baháʼu'lláh being a messenger.

I disagree, because I believe that Baha’u’llah (and all the other Messengers of God) are the evidence that God exists. I also believe that the existence of God can never be proven without the Messengers, since that is what God offers as proof of His existence. It makes logical sense that if Messengers are the only proof that God offers there cannot be any other proof.

 

[Trailblazer]

And your god could easily clear up the confusion it's responsible for but chooses not to. It's that deity's fault for playing games, not the fault of humans.

God did clear it all up when He sent Baha'u'llah. It's all there in the Writings of the Baha'i Faith. It is not God's fault that most people have chosen to reject Baha'u'lah and what He wrote.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

God did clear it all up when He sent Baha'u'llah. It's all there in the Writings of the Baha'i Faith. It is not God's fault that most people have chosen to reject Baha'u'lah and what He wrote.

And the followers of the other revealed religions would say the same about their hero. None of you are special here. It's all the same.