• 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!

If humans can't unite on religion, is there a purpose to religion?

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Is God changing the message to suit the times, or are people creating an image of God that meets their needs and fits in with their societal structure, culture, norms? Given the disparity of messages and characterizations of God (or Gods for that matter), it is much more probable that all these explanations concerning God come from Man not God.
That makes no sense to me because that is the same as saying that all the scriptures of religions were written by humans and had nothing to do with God. Obviously, if one is an atheist that is what they are going to believe, and maybe that makes sense from an atheist perspective but it makes no sense from a believer perspective.

The different messages and characterizations of God (or Gods for that matter) are easily explained by the Baha'i Faith. The different messages in every age are owing to the fact that humanity needs a new and different message in every new age, and the different characterizations of God are because of the way people have interpreted their scriptures. There was always only one God, but people believed in many Gods because they misinterpreted their scriptures. Also, please bear in mind that there are no authentic scriptures for the older religions such as Hinduism so we cannot know was was originally taught by Krishna.
We can't choose a prophet or spiritual message simply because it feels right, wouldn't you agree?
I fully agree. I think we should only believe in a prophet or a religion because it is true. That is all that matters.
Choosing a religion should not be like choosing a new pair of shoes that are pretty and fit well, it is a serious matter.
If our wants and desires hold sway over belief and understanding of God, then there is a unique and different God for each of us. God becomes whatever we want God to be.
You are very astute, as that is exactly what has happened with most believers. People have chosen what they like and what feels comfortable. If for example Christians cared what is the actual truth they would be willing to look at the religions that came after them, Islam and the Bahai Faith; but they do not want to look because they are comfortable with Christianity. Much is this is going in at a subconscious level of course, on a conscious level they just "believe" that Christianity is the one true religion and because of that "belief" Christians are unwilling to look at any other religions that might also be true. The same applied to Jews, who believe that their religion is the only true religion.
As we have agreed that we human beings are fallible, we need a way to evaluate conflicting messages about God or Gods that does not rely solely on our fallibility or the fallibility of prospective Prophets or Messengers of God.
I do not know how that could be done. Humans have to rely upon our fallibility because we are all fallible.
There are ways we can try to avoid making a mistake, and that is by careful and serious research, and by wanting to know the truth.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
................ I don't consider the search for truth to be greed, or if it is greed, it is greed used in the right way. Most people don't really look for the truth. Regards!
I find Acts of the Apostles 17:27 informs us that God is Not far off from us.
That being the case, then ' God is only a prayer away ' - Deuteronomy 4:29; Psalms 145:18; Isaiah 55:6.
Besides prayer, God gives us His written Word (aka Bible) and provides good association for us if we want it.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
Yes, people like those of Luke 22:28-30 are the ones called to heavenly life - Revelation 20:6; 2:10; 5:9-10.
Whereas the majority of people are offered the same opportunity as Adam had before his downfall.
The opportunity to live forever right here on a beautiful paradisical Earth as Eden was.

If Adam had Not broken God's Law then Adam would still be alive on Earth today, and so would his descendants.
The problem is that Adam and Eve were set up to fail in the Garden by the Creator, so they never had a chance. So we have to wonder if we can trust a God like this.

How'd they get set up? If the Creator was going to create rules for beings it created, and it wanted them to follow those rules, don't you think it would have created them with the wisdom to obey the rules? It didn't. The Creator made them foolish and naive, and even sent the serpent to tempt them. That's mean.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
The problem is that Adam and Eve were set up to fail in the Garden by the Creator, so they never had a chance. So we have to wonder if we can trust a God like this.

How'd they get set up? If the Creator was going to create rules for beings it created, and it wanted them to follow those rules, don't you think it would have created them with the wisdom to obey the rules? It didn't. The Creator made them foolish and naive, and even sent the serpent to tempt them. That's mean.
You actually believe that the "story" of Adam and Eve was a true story?
The real sin is that so many people believed in original sin as a result of this story.

I believe that the story of Adam and Eve is an allegory, not a true story.
I believe that the story of Adam and Eve who ate from the tree, and their expulsion from Paradise is a symbol. The story contains divine mysteries and universal meanings, and it is capable of many explanations.

The full explanation of what I believe about the allegory is in this chapter: 30: ADAM AND EVE
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
I find we have various truths such as secular truth, general truth and religious truth.
Jesus found religious truth in the old Hebrew Scriptures.
Being so well educated in them Jesus would base his teachings on them as religious truth.
Kinda makes you wonder why the Hebrew Scriptures were so deficient that Jesus needed to upgrade them. If they were from God in the first place it should have gotten the message right the first time, eh?

This is why Jesus often prefaced his statements with the words, " It is written...." meaning already written down in the old Hebrew Scriptures, thus Jesus could explain and expound Scriptures for us.
Of course he changed things enough that a whole new religion came of it.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Hell no. But those who do take it literally don't understand that it was a set up. They are better off interpreting the Bible symbolically.
That's good to hear. Often the way atheists talk, I think they actually believe the story was true.

No, they don't know it was a setup and they believe it because they have been brainwashed by the Christian doctrine. Moreover, if they relinquished the belief of the original sin of Adam and Eve then they would have to change all their other beliefs about Jesus and why He died on the cross. Then they'd also have to face the fact that humans were created as mortal beings so Adam and Eve would have died eventually even if they had not eaten the fruit from the tree. Then they'd also have to realize that Jesus did not reverse the process of physical death so they are not going to be resurrected from graves someday when Jesus returns. It would basically change Christianity as it is commonly believed.

It is such a mess, too big of a mess to clean up, and it all started with the belief that Adam and Eve ate some fruit from a tree.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
That's good to hear. Often the way atheists talk, I think they actually believe the story was true.
Like in my example atheists will offer a more accurate interpretation of whatever text is being debated. That doesn't mean we believe it.

No, they don't know it was a setup and they believe it because they have been brainwashed by the Christian doctrine. Moreover, if they relinquished the belief of the original sin of Adam and Eve then they would have to change all their other beliefs about Jesus and why He died on the cross. Then they'd also have to face the fact that humans were created as mortal beings so Adam and Eve would have died eventually even if they had not eaten the fruit from the tree. Then they'd also have to realize that Jesus did not reverse the process of physical death so they are not going to be resurrected from graves someday when Jesus returns. It would basically change Christianity as it is commonly believed.

It is such a mess, too big of a mess to clean up, and it all started with the belief that Adam and Eve ate some fruit from a tree.
Religion as a whole is a mess.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Like in my example atheists will offer a more accurate interpretation of whatever text is being debated. That doesn't mean we believe it.

Religion as a whole is a mess.
Agreed, and it really is no wonder why atheists don't believe it.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Why is that?
- Establishing that something is a miracle is, by necessity, an appeal to ignorance. How could someone establish that something can't be explained naturally without knowing everything about nature? Not just humanity's current knowledge, but also everything that humanity will ever learn, plus all natural things that will always be beyond our understanding.

- if you somehow did manage to resolve the logical fallacy and establish that the thing doesn't have a natural cause, then you'd have snookered yourself for the next step: "this event has no cause that I can identify, but I now identify the cause as God"? It's self-contradicting nonsense.

But all this is mostly beside the point: we were talking about purported prophets, not about purported gods. Yes, the non-existence of gods would mean that all prophets of gods are necessarily false, but even if we were to assume - for reasons that escape me - that some god does exist, establishing that any purported prophet is genuine would have its own set of insurmountable problems.
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I fully agree. I think we should only believe in a prophet or a religion because it is true. That is all that matters.
And here is the crux of the problem! What is true? How do you know? How is one to evaluate any claim?
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I like how you say ' holding pattern ' because all who died before Jesus died (John 3:13) are still: dead asleep.
Jesus (and the OT) both teach 'sleep in death' - John 11:11-14; Psalms 115:17; Isaiah 38:18; Ecclesiastes 9:5.
Even King David did Not ascend - Acts of the Apostles 2:34-35 - so David is in that 'holding pattern of sleep'.
Like the others, David has to be awakened from death's deep sleep at the coming the time of Psalms 110.

Yes, people like those of Luke 22:28-30 are the ones called to heavenly life - Revelation 20:6; 2:10; 5:9-10.
Whereas the majority of people are offered the same opportunity as Adam had before his downfall.
The opportunity to live forever right here on a beautiful paradisical Earth as Eden was.

If Adam had Not broken God's Law then Adam would still be alive on Earth today, and so would his descendants.
It's kind of like if you were working in your garden and someone came along and interrupted you.
Would you say because I was interrupted I am never going back to the garden, or rather, one the interruption was over you'd go back to your garden_______ Satan and Adam threw a monkey wrench into Eden's garden but that does Not mean God abandoned His garden, so once the ' sin issue ' is settled we can go back to the garden.
A beautiful paradisical Earth as described in Isaiah 35th chapter.
Even ' enemy death ' will be No more on Earth - 1 Corinthians 15:24-26; Isaiah 25:8
But why? Why would God do things this way? Why allow millennia of animisim and polytheism to flourish before Jesus was introduced? It doesn't make sense.
 
Last edited:

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Yes, the non-existence of gods would mean that all prophets of gods are necessarily false,
Conversely, the existence of God would mean the some Prophets might be true and some might be false.
but even if we were to assume - for reasons that escape me - that some god does exist, establishing that any purported prophet is genuine would have its own set of insurmountable problems.
It is not necessarily easy - for everyone - but it is not impossible for anyone. However, a prerequisite is being open to the possibility.

“If a man were to declare, ‘There is a lamp in the next room which gives no light’, one hearer might be satisfied with his report, but a wiser man goes into the room to judge for himself, and behold, when he finds the light shining brilliantly in the lamp, he knows the truth!”
Paris Talks, p. 103
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Conversely, the existence of God would mean the some Prophets might be true and some might be false.
No, the existence of God doesn't necessarily imply that any prophets' claims might be true.

It is not necessarily easy - for everyone - but it is not impossible for anyone. However, a prerequisite is being open to the possibility.
No, it really isn't necessary.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
No, the existence of God doesn't necessarily imply that any prophets' claims might be true.
I did not say that it did. I said that the existence of God would mean the some Prophets might be true and some might be false.
No, it really isn't necessary.
I did not say it is necessary. I said it is not necessarily easy for everyone to establish that any purported prophet is genuine, if they want to.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I did not say that it did. I said that the existence of God would mean the some Prophets might be true and some might be false.
You did say it, and you just said it again.

I did not say it is necessary. I said it is not necessarily easy for everyone to establish that any purported prophet is genuine, if they want to.
I think I misunderstood your last post. I thought you were saying that being open to the possibility of prophets was necessary (a "prerequisite").

On re-reading it, it seems like you're saying that someone has to be predisposed to believe in prophets for any "prophet" to be believiable. If so, then I agree.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
And here is the crux of the problem! What is true? How do you know? How is one to evaluate any claim?
You have to investigate for yourself.

“The first principle Baha’u’llah urged was the independent investigation of truth. “Each individual,” He said, “is following the faith of his ancestors who themselves are lost in the maze of tradition. Reality is steeped in dogmas and doctrines. If each investigate for himself, he will find that Reality is one; does not admit of multiplicity; is not divisible. All will find the same foundation and all will be at peace.” – Abdu’l-Baha, Star of the West, Volume 3, p. 5.

“Bahá’u’lláh asked no one to accept His statements and His tokens blindly. On the contrary, He put in the very forefront of His teachings emphatic warnings against blind acceptance of authority, and urged all to open their eyes and ears, and use their own judgement, independently and fearlessly, in order to ascertain the truth. He enjoined the fullest investigation and never concealed Himself, offering, as the supreme proofs of His Prophethood, His words and works and their effects in transforming the lives and characters of men.”Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, p. 8

“What does it mean to investigate reality? It means that man must forget all hearsay and examine truth himself, for he does not know whether statements he hears are in accordance with reality or not. Wherever he finds truth or reality, he must hold to it, forsaking, discarding all else; for outside of reality there is naught but superstition and imagination.” – Abdu’l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 62.

If you want to know HOW to independently investigate the Truth, you can watch this short video.

 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
You did say it, and you just said it again.
I said that the existence of God would mean the some Prophets might be true and some might be false.
But you are correct in saying that the existence of God doesn't necessarily imply that any prophets' claims might be true. The reason why that is correct is because a God could exist and not send any prophets, and if God never sent any prophets that would mean no prophets' claims are true.
I think I misunderstood your last post. I thought you were saying that being open to the possibility of prophets was necessary (a "prerequisite").

On re-reading it, it seems like you're saying that someone has to be predisposed to believe in prophets for any "prophet" to be believiable. If so, then I agree.
Yes, that is what I was saying. One has to be being open to the possibility (predisposed to believing) that prophets exist, even if they don't believe that prophets are necessary.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
But why? Why would God do things this way? Why allow millennia of animisim and polytheism to flourish before Jesus was introduced? It doesn't make sense.
God allowed it because that was what was necessary for the people living in those times to believe.

In other words, those people were not yet 'ready' to believe in the one true God of Abraham.
God only reveals what people are ready (able) to understand at any given time in history, according to their spiritual capacities.
 
Top