Questions that believers cannot answer

[YoursTrue]

Yes. This is the problem. For example seeing helpless children and letting them suffer is sadistic.

So you believe it's God's fault and not mankind's fault? Is it God's fault that men and women pick up arms to kill national enemies, including men, women and children?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Why am I even bothering? Well, maybe something said here, will reach your heart….
And others may be interested…

So only people who have been tutored by god can understand the Bible, and you are one of those lucky people.

No, not “tutored by god”, per se, but taught by those who worship Him, and Him alone, as Exodus 20 says. Coupled with John 14:6 & John 3:16.

it’s quite simple, really. The difficult part is keeping obedient to them, while living in this world.

But I believe that the Bible exists, so I can read it and analyse what it says, on the basis of the meanings of the words used and the context of history.
And how do you know that god hasn't been guiding me? He does move in mysterious ways, after all.

OK, then… what Jesus said at Matthew 25:33-40; he mentioned “sheep” & his “brethren”. Who are these two groups? If God ‘guides’ you, you should know.

But really, I answered that already… Hebrews 11:6. Your statements aver that you don’t.

 

[Trailblazer]

Can you provide an example?

I will give you two examples.

If God is loving, why did God ‘intentionally’ create a world that He knew would engender so much human and animal suffering?

Religious apologetic: Suffering is good for people because it helps them grow spiritually, so God the loving God is really doing people a favor by creating a world that is a storehouse of suffering.

If God is just, why did God create a world in which He knew some people would suffer so much more than others, many people hardly suffering at all? How is that fair?

Religious apologetic: The people who suffer most are really better off than the people who suffer little because the people who suffer most will become more spiritual than the people who suffer little.

 

[Trailblazer]

None of that really addresses the issue raised by tier original statement, "evil is acts committed by man because man does not adhere to God's Laws."

God has rules against homosexuality. Homosexuals do not adhere to god's law. Therefore homosexuality is an evil committed by man.

I already explained this.
What you said is illogical because all of God's laws do not pertain to evil acts.
Sex is not an evil act, so breaking the Law pertaining to homosexuality does not make one evil.

Are they Bahai's laws or god's laws? Who made them up?

They are God's Laws that pertain to Baha'is.

Is god only god to Bahais?

God is God to everyone but only Baha'is are 'under the Baha'i Laws' because only Baha'is have recognized Baha'u'llah as speaking with God's authority..

So, does each individual version of god have their own heaven, with their own entry criteria?
Or does everyone go to Bahai heaven, but using their own standards of entry?

There is only one heaven but different religions have different beliefs about heaven and the entry criteria.

Don't think anyone does, do they?

Christians and Muslims believe that heaven is a physical place so it must be a geographical location.

Oh, so only Bahais can go to Bahai heaven.
But you just claimed that non-Bahai go to heaven. Were you talking about a non-Bahai heaven?

There is no non-Baha'i heaven, there is only a heaven.
Only Baha'is go to the Crimson Ark, because that is a place that is reserved for Baha'is.

“And now concerning thy question whether human souls continue to be conscious one of another after their separation from the body. Know thou that the souls of the people of Bahá, who have entered and been established within the Crimson Ark, shall associate and commune intimately one with another, and shall be so closely associated in their lives, their aspirations, their aims and strivings as to be even as one soul.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 169-170

“How great the blessedness that awaiteth the king who will arise to aid My Cause in My Kingdom, who will detach himself from all else but Me! Such a king is numbered with the companions of the Crimson Ark—the Ark which God hath prepared for the people of Bahá.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 212

So in Bahaism, homosexuality and sex outside marriage are not sins? That's good to know.

It is a sin for a Baha'i because it is disobedience to God since it is breaking a Baha'i Law.

The Baháʼí Faith teaches that sin is disobedience to God and that sinning separates a person from God. Examples of sins in the Baháʼí Faith include anger, jealousy, hypocrisy, prejudice, and failure to follow the Baháʼí laws.

Baháʼí views on sin - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Baháʼí_views_on_sin

 

[Trailblazer]

That wasn't my point. I said...
"would it be fair to blame him for what he does do? And to criticise or condemn where appropriate?
So anything arising from the messages of his messengers is god's responsibility?

The message is from God, so it is God's responsibility, but what people do with it is their own responsibility since we all have free will.

So your argument that proof of god speaking to them is necessary before accepting their claims fails.

I never made such an argument. I fact, I said we have to accept their claims on faith since there is no proof.

Indeed. And you have admitted that it is not possible to prove any of their claims.

I have also said I do not need proof because I have evidence.

Because they claimed god spoke to them. You have no proof they did. You don't even have any proof that god exists in the first place. A pretty flimsy house of cards, I'm sure you will agree.

NO, I do not believe the claims because 'they claimed' God spoke to them. I believe because of the evidence.

The claims of Baha’u’llah and the evidence that supports the claims of Baha’u’llah are in this post:

Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah

So you accept that the messengers are fallible and what they say and do may not be with god's authority.

No, that is not what I said. You twisted what I said and made a straw man.

I said we could blame the Messengers if they had bad actions since they should know better. Since they do not have bad actions we cannot blame them.

 

[Trailblazer]

I need to know it.

That’s your problem, not mine.

How do you know it is different? You just admitted that you know nothing about it and couldn't understand it anyway.

I know it is so different because Baha’u’llah wrote that.

“The world beyond is as different from this world as this world is different from that of the child while still in the womb of its mother. When the soul attaineth the Presence of God, it will assume the form that best befitteth its immortality and is worthy of its celestial habitation.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 157

Again, you are making qualitative claims about something you also claim to know nothing about.

I know something as I know it will be different from this world.

It is the minds of the messengers we are talking about, not the range of entertainment available in heaven. Are you suggesting that their minds are kept in some sort of suspended animation before being downloaded into a human body?

I have no idea.

What reason do Bahais have to believe what Bahaullah says?

We FIRST believe that He was a Messenger of God, and then e believe what He says.

A lot of vague platitudes there.

No, just passages.

The same old "don't worry if god is making your life hell here on earth, he will make up for it in heaven" nonsense. Why make a person's life bad here in the first place? It can't be "a test" because he has told them it will get better later. That's like a torturer telling his victim not to worry about the pain because he is going to stop in a minute and give them some morphine and ice cream, so don't give in and reveal your secrets.

I cannot argue with that because that is essentially what it is, hell on earth with promises of heaven.

How much have you suffered? From what you have said it is not much. I am the one who should be complaining.

This also shows a negation of free will because the things that happen in our lives "have been ordained and manifested by God" and therefore we have no ability to alter those events or outcomes.

No, that is not true because not everything has been ordained and manifested by God. Some things tat happen are subject to free will.

 

[Trailblazer]

So we are just subject to god's whim, no matter how irrational. We are just his playthings.

That is not what I said, that is just what you twisted what I said to mean....
I said God only does what He chooses to do, and He can do whatever He chooses to do.

Once again, that key question - why did god create humanity at all? What was the point?

That is easy to answer. God created us out of His love for us.

3: O SON OF MAN! Veiled in My immemorial being and in the ancient eternity of My essence, I knew My love for thee; therefore I created thee, have engraved on thee Mine image and revealed to thee My beauty.

4: O SON OF MAN! I loved thy creation, hence I created thee. Wherefore, do thou love Me, that I may name thy name and fill thy soul with the spirit of life.
The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 4

He didn't need us. We didn't need to exist. Non-existence would be preferable to the suffering experienced by many through what god "has ordained and manifested".

That is correct. God does not need us to exist because God has no needs at all..
That is correct. Non-existence would be preferable to the suffering experienced by many through what God "has ordained and manifested".

Never experiencing god/ heaven/whatever is not an issue for those who never exist.

That is also correct.

 

[Trailblazer]

I believe that Evil is a negative entity. Not an entity at all, in fact. I see it as the absence or privation of good. Evil has no substance; unlike good, it is insubstantial

Look at that! @samtonga43 is spouting Baha'i beliefs. Will miracles never cease.

74: THE NONEXISTENCE OF EVIL

 

[Trailblazer]

But that's the point. We do know.
An omnibenelovent god would never allow suffering to happen if it was within its power to prevent it. And an omnipotent god has that power.

No, you do not know that, you just believe that. It is only your personal opinion based upon what YOU consider benevolent.

God might prevent some suffering but only at His behest. God is not going to prevent all suffering.

However, this argument does not apply to your version of god because you acknowledge that it is not a most loving, caring god.

That is just my personal opinion that God is not loving, it is not my belief.

But this means that you reject better explanations for the observations because they do not fit with your pre-existing conclusion. (Question begging 101).

The only logical alternative is that there is no God.

It also assumes that god is a complete twat, but you worship him anyway, which is a bit odd.

I do not base my worship on whether I get what I ant. that is childish.

But why do you think it sucks? You just admitted that it is the best possible way to accomplish god's plan. You should celebrate it, because whatever god does must be perfect and who are you to second guess him?

I think it sucks because I am the one who has been suffering constantly, but that does not mean I cannot think logically and realize that it is the best possible way to accomplish God's plan.

If all your suffering is how god wants things to be in his best possible world, why do you even consider it to be "suffering"?

It is still suffering for me even if it is what God wants. I have the ability to separate those two things because I know that I have an emotional part and a logical part. I do not have to like what God wants just because I understand it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Words like "benevolent" and "most" and "suffering" have meaning. It's how we are able to communicate ideas to each other. An omni-benevolent god would not keep on giving babies cancer.
"But that's not god, that's just stuff happening" I hear you cry.
But an omnipotent, omniscient god would know it was happening, know it was causing terrible suffering, and would prevent it.

You do not know what God with those qualities would do, you just have ego projections about what you believe He would do if He has those qualities.

So how do you define "omni-benevolent"?

I do not define it. That word is not even in the Writings of Baha'u'llah and I do not know where it originated. The word benevolent is in the Writings, not omni-benevolent

But by your argument, that is just your ego talking. If god chooses to rip the limbs off every living creature, then there must be a good reason for it. Who are you to criticise it?

That is not my ego talking, it is my mind. i know God is not ripping the limbs off every living creature so it is a moot point if that would be benevolent.

 

[Trailblazer]

Indeed. So an omni-benevolent god is as kind and well-meaning as it is possible to be.
If I would never allow a child to die in agony from cancer, then an omni-benevolent god cannot either.
As children do die in agony from cancer, therefore I am more benevolent than god.

That is illogical since God did not cause anyone to GET cancer.

Looking forward to your explanation of how children dying in agony from cancer is "well-meaning and kind".

Cancer is not caused by God so that is irrelevant.

Why are children dying of cancer more important than adults dying of cancer? I am looking forward to your explanation.

No.

(BTW, the suffering isn't just an unhappy accident. It is "ordained and manifested by god".

That's right, and for a purpose.

Obviously not. Because god could have created us, the universe, and his goal in a way that didn't require suffering.

That's right, but He didn't, so why waste time talking about it?

In the context of an omnipotent, omniscient god - all suffering.

Just your personal opinion.

Under an omni-everything god, it makes no sense.

It also makes no sense to me so you are preaching to the choir.

Why would they?

The religious apologetic is that those who suffer most attain the most perfection.

People who have experienced trauma, psychological issues, abuse, etc certainly tend to be more likely to find religion than happy, well-educated, comfortable, well-adjusted people.

I do not believe that is true. Happy, well-educated, comfortable, well-adjusted people also have a religion, I know lots of them.

Well, we can actually, on the basis of the meanings of words and concepts.

No you cannot, it is just ego projection. God would do x if God was benevolent.

I agree that the nature of people's lives can go some way to explain the beliefs they hold.

I do not think the beliefs have anything to do with this. We can get some answers as to whether suffering helped people grow stronger if we talk to people who have suffered a lot and look at their lives, and these people could be atheists or believers.

 

[Trailblazer]

Because god can do anything. He could have created the universe any way he wanted, including in a way that didn't require suffering.
The concept that something is "necessary" for god means that there is a force behind god that he is constrained by.

It does not matter what God could have done, it only matters what God did.
It is necessary because God created the world that way.

 

[Trailblazer]

If he knows it is going to happen that way, and he allows it to happen that way despite having the ability to effect a different outcome, then by definition he wants it to happen that way. If he didn't want it to happen that way, he would have changed the outcome.

God doesn't change the outcome because God honors free will.
That does not mean God wants that outcome.

want
have a desire to possess or do (something); wish for.
want means - Google Search

 

[Trailblazer]

Does this mean you are no longer a Bahai, or does it mean that you cannot understand why you still are one?

No, because not being able to understand how anyone can love God and have compassion for humans at the same time does not disqualify me from being a Baha'i.

The only requirement for being a Baha'i is that I believe Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God.

 

[Koldo]

If God would Not have allowed Adam and Eve to have children we would Not be here right now.

And therefore?

The passing of time has allowed for Genesis 1:28 to happen: for us to be born, to live.
The evil God warned about was: death - Genesis 2:17
We can't undo death that is why we needed someone who could undo death for us - Jesus can and will.
Sinless Jesus died a faithful death for us thus balancing the scales of justice for us.
To undo death is Not evil but our salvation.
Through Jesus 'enemy death' will be No more on Earth - 1 Corinthians 15:26; Isaiah 25:8

Why would Jesus need to die to balance anything?
Is God omnipotent or is it not?
If it is, why would Jesus need to die?

Find us a Scripture that says God made (forced) His Son to die for us _____________
On the other hand, think how false clergy in times of war have used the pulpit as a recruiting station so that parents will willingly allow their sons to die on the Altar of War as it that was the same as the Altar of God which it is not.

How many manufacturers give you a new contract on the condition their son dies?

 

[ppp]

It does not matter what God could have done, it only matters what God did.
It is necessary because God created the world that way.

You are basically saying that a system that allows suffering is good because you think God wants it to be that way.

 

[Trailblazer]

You are basically saying that a system that allows suffering is good because you think God wants it to be that way.

I never said I thought it was good, didn't you read by OP?
I believe God is cruel for creating a world with all this suffering, and I told Him so on my walk a little while ago.

It is not about what God 'allows', it is about what God created, a world that is a Storehouse of Suffering.

Why would God disallow suffering when He created the world this way knowing people would suffer?

When I said "It is necessary because God created the world that way" I meant it is necessary to endure suffering because we have no choice.

 

[ppp]

I never said I thought it was good, didn't you read by OP?
I believe God is cruel for creating a world with all this suffering, and I told Him so on my walk a little while ago.

It is not about what God 'allows', it is about what God created, a world that is a Storehouse of Suffering.

Why would God disallow suffering when He created the world this way knowing people would suffer?

When I said "It is necessary because God created the world that way" I meant it is necessary to endure suffering because we have no choice.

Then why are you arguing that suffering is necessary?

 

[Trailblazer]

Then why are you arguing that suffering is necessary?

I just explained that.
It is necessary to endure suffering because God created the world that way.
We do not have a choice since this world is what it is....
It does not matter if God could have created this world differently because He didn't.

 

[ppp]

I just explained that.
It is necessary to endure suffering because God created the world that way.
We do not have a choice since this world is what it is....
It does not matter if God could have created this world differently because He didn't.

Why follow the oughts and rules of such a being?