Questions that believers cannot answer

[KWED]

In the first place, Adam and Eve were created with healthy human perfection with the opportunity to live forever in perfect health right here on Earth.
Adam's sin introduced sin which leads to sickness and death into our world.
So, the blame rests on: sinners Satan and Adam.
God sent Jesus to undo all the damage Satan and Adam brought upon us.

1. Is god unable to prevent people being born deformed?
2. Why should an innocent child have to physically pay for a mistake made by someone in the distant past that they have no control over? That is fundamentally unjust and irrational.

 

[KWED]

In the Bible it is Satan and Adam causing the suffering - Job 2:4-5
Once the 'Issue of Sovereignty' is settled then pain and suffering will be No more caused by Satan and Adam.
If Adam and Eve would Not have been allowed to have children we simply would Not be here.
The passing of time has allowed for us to be born that otherwise we would Not exist.
Through God's benevolence it is Jesus who will undo mankind's suffering, so suffering is temporary.
Temporary because of the trouble Satan and Adam caused us, Not God.

You're not actually responding to any points or questions, are you?
You are simply repeating the same meaningless platitudes.

 

[Trailblazer]

Bahaullah called homosexuality an "evil passion".
Shoghi Effendi called it "one of the evils affecting society"
Abdulbaha said giving in to your "evil passions" makes you no better than an animal (just in case you missed that, he is calling practicing homosexuals "animals")

Ready to change your position now?

Please provide the actual quotes that refer specifically to homosexuality that say what you are claiming, not what you think they mean.

 

[Trailblazer]

You have that the wrong way round.
Their argument was that if evil did not exist, then we would have no free will. (They added the "less good" in an unsuccessful attempt to move the goalposts).
Not "if we have no free will, then we cannot choose between good and evil". That is an entirely different argument. Not sure how you managed to get that from what they said.

The argument is not if evil did not exist, then we would have no free will.
The argument is without (possibility of) evil we will have no options.

PearlSeeker said: ↑
Without (possibility of) evil we will have no options. We would be programmed to always take action and we would always have one option - the most good action. That's puppets with no freedom.

In other words, if evil was not 'possible' then that would mean we have no free will to choose either evil or good.
We would merely be programmed robots who could only do good.
It is because we have free will (rather than being programmed robots) that we can choose between good and evil.

 

[Trailblazer]

I thought you believed that "hell" is "separation from god and not a painful punishment.

That is what I believe, and separation from God is the painful punishment we inflict upon ourselves when we reject God.

You just said...
"I follow God because I am afraid of Him"
*flip*

No flip, because I worship God for more than one reason.
I fear God but I also worship God because God has created me to know Him and worship Him.

As the short obligatory prayer says:
"Thou hast created me to know Thee and to worship Thee."

So you worship god because god tells you that it is your job to worship him.
More blindly following dogma then.

There is nothing blind about it. I worship God with my eyes wide open and it is a choice.
Baha'u'llah wrote that I was created for, to know and worship God.
It is not a "job" but rather the purpose of my existence.

So despite making you suffer and you not really liking him, you feel obliged to love him to avoid punishment.
Sounds like quite an abusive relationship you have with god.

There you go again with the fallacy of false equivalence.
God is not a man so I don't have a relationship like I would have with a man.

So despite making me suffer and me sometimes not really liking him, I worship Him because I know that that is what I was created for, to know and worship God.

I am well aware of my feelings but I can separate my feelings from my thoughts and try to do the right thing despite how I feel.

 

[Trailblazer]

Wrong.
It is both the people committing the atrocity, and the people who ordered it.

"If the messenger says that god says that some people should be tortured to death, and believers torture some people to death, who is responsible for those people being tortured to death?"

No, only the people who do the torturing to death are responsible since they have free will to choose to commit it or not.

You earlier said that you would need proof that someone had spoken with god before accepting their claims.

Why do you keep misrepresenting me. NO, I never said that I would need proof that someone had spoken with God before accepting their claims. I said the exact opposite, that I would not need proof of that.

How convenient.
Also, Muhammad said he was the last of god's messengers, which makes Bahullah a lying imposter.

NO, Muhammad never said that he was the last if God's messsengers.

HI @Link
Its great you speak Arabic. I don't speak Arabic and rely on the English translations of which I include several for Quran 33:40:

Sahih International: Muhammad is not the father of [any] one of your men, but [he is] the Messenger of Allah and last of the prophets. And ever is Allah , of all things, Knowing.

Pickthall: Muhammad is not the father of any man among you, but he is the messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets; and Allah is ever Aware of all things.

Yusuf Ali: Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets: and Allah has full knowledge of all things.

Shakir: Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of Allah and the Last of the prophets; and Allah is cognizant of all things.

Muhammad Sarwar: Muhammad is not the father of any of your males. He is the Messenger of God and the last Prophet. God has the knowledge of all things.

Mohsin Khan: Muhammad (SAW) is not the father of any man among you, but he is the Messenger of Allah and the last (end) of the Prophets. And Allah is Ever AllAware of everything.

Arberry: Muhammad is not the father of any one of your men, but the Messenger of God, and the Seal of the Prophets; God has knowledge of everything.

The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Translation

Of course there is not a single English translation that says Muhammad is the final Prophet for all time. In plain English 'Seal of the Prophets' does not mean Muhammad is the final Prophet for all time. So it comes down to the Arabic and meanings of words that are not captured well with translation into another language.

As you speak Arabic then you may appreciate the use of the words Rasool and Nabi in regards the Quran generally and specifically verse 33:40. The reference to these two Arabic words appears highly relevant and their juxtaposition crucial not just to each other but to the phrase "I am not the father of mankind". One analysis considering Sura 33 as a whole could be in regards to Muhammad being sonless and how his marriage to Zaynab is perceived. However, I believe the phrase is an allusion to the Prophet Adam who was the Father of all mankind. So when Muhammad speaks of being the seal of the Prophets, He speaks of being the last of the lineage of Prophets (Nabi) from Adam to Himself. That makes sense historically because there have been no more Prophets of that lineage. However He does not claim to be the seal of the Messengers or Rasools.

So Muhammad being the seal of the Prophets clearly alludes to a lineage of Prophets from Adam to Muhammad. Baha’is call this the Adamic cycle which we believe ended with the advent of the Madhi (the Bab) during 1844. Baha'u'llah in His work the Kitab-i-Iqan alludes to with the phrase 'seal of the Prophets' and how the phrase is applicable to other Messengers/Rasool. This concept is clearly supported by Christian scripture. For example in the Book of Revelation 22:13 we have reference to Christ being the ‘Alpha and the Omega’, or the first and last letters of the Greek Alphabet. In that sense Christ is also the beginning and end and the seal of the Prophets as with Muhammad.

#2 Dawnofhope, Jan 29, 2020

Your belief is based on claims, not evidence.

You cannot know what my belief is based upon because you are not me.
My belief is based upon evidence, not claims.

You are just going round in circles.
You cannot believe a person is a messenger of god unless you believe there is a god for them to be messenger of. It is water-tight logic.

I do believe that there is a God but the only way to know that is via the Messengers of God.

The only evidence that there is a God is the Messengers of God so we have to believe in the Messengers FIRST, before we can believe in God. That is water-tight logic.

That is the implication of the words used by Bahaullah.
Despite the flowery platitudes, everything he said has a meaning, and the meaning of the passage you quoted was basically, "You must believe I am god's messenger because I am god's messenger".

NO, that is absolutely false!
Baha'u'llah never said "You must believe I am god's messenger because I am God's messenger." That is you twisting what he said again and turning it into something else.

In fact, Baha'u'llah never said we MUST believe in Him, He said that we must not believe in Him unless we have looked at all the evidence.

“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

There is nothing there that even comes close to being "evidence" That there is a god or that Bahaullah was his messenger.

"The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self." - I mean, come on! This is the opening gambit?
"Next to this testimony is His Revelation" - Bahaullah's writings are just flowery platitudes, often rehashing earlier beliefs. Nothing even close to remarkable.

And then there is the silver bullet...
"He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth" - This is basically saying that his claims are the proof of his claims.

All that is the evidence

1. More question begging.
2. So things like execution by torture, killing prisoners and slavery, killing prisoners are considered acceptable by god.
3. By extension, you consider execution by torture, killing prisoners and slavery to be acceptable. Nice!

Capital punishment for 'some' criminals is acceptable by God, but life in prison is offered as an alternative. Baha'u'llah never condoned slavery, He abolished it.
I suggest you bone up on your reading.

 

[Koldo]

How many clergy have used the pulpit, as a contract for the political, as a recruiting station so parents would sacrifice their sons on the Altar of War as if that is the same as the Altar of God on the condition that their son dies he gets a free pass (contract) to heaven ___________

And therefore... ?

 

[Koldo]

God is Law Giver. God does Not go back on His Law.

That's his choice and his choice alone.

Disobedient Adam broke God's Law of Genesis 2:17.
Because of what Adam did is why we don't have the original human perfection Adam had before he broke the Law.
We, being imperfect as Adam became after breaking the Law, we can't undo what Adam did and passed down to us.

A law that God chose to create and a consequence for breaking the law that God himself chose.

Thus we needed someone who could undo the damage Adam brought upon us.

Like God, the father, himself?

Equal justice is: life for life.

Why? How is this just?

Our life can't equal an original sinless Adam,

Do you mean God is unable to do that?

...but Jesus being born without sin would be an equal.
Adam proved unfaithful to God under righteous conditions.
Jesus proved faithful to God even under adverse conditions to the point of dying a faithful death.
Thus, faithful-sinless Jesus balanced the Scales of Justice for us opening up the way for a resurrection for us.

Why did it have to be this way?
Why didn't God just make it happen?

As we know we can't resurrect oneself or another so we needed someone who could resurrect us.
Faithful Jesus can and will - Revelation 1:18

That's God's choice too. He could grant us the power to ressurect ourselves and others.

 

[Trailblazer]

Same applies to you. Just because you don't care, why should I be kept in the dark?
Surely the default position is one of informing those who want to know stuff, rather than not telling anyone because of a few who aren't interested.
Does the teacher start every morning with "Hands up all those who don't want to learn anything", and then sending the whole class home when half the room puts their hand up.

You are kept in the dark because God chooses to keep everyone in the dark.
Who are you to be telling God what He should do?

There you go again, speaking for me.
I want to know, and I might be able to understand it. I've got my head around some pretty complex physics in my postgrad studies.

You must think you are pretty smart.
Complex physics is not going to help anyone understand the spiritual world, it only helps you understand the material world.

But as you admitted earlier, the "evidence" is what he said (ie. "his claims").
So before you accepted that he was a messenger of god (by reading his claims), why did you believe his claims?

NO, I never said the "evidence" is what he said (ie. "his claims"). I had to read His claims to know what they were and then I had to look at the evidence that supported His claims.
Before I looked at the evidence that support His claims, I did not believe that He was a Messenger of God.

Because it's fun.

What is fun about it?

*sigh*
Yes, but why? So far all you have come up with basically amounts to "because he said it is".

NO, I presented the evidence that support the claim.
I did not believe in Baha'u'llah because He said so, I looked at the evidence that supports His claims.

And right on cue. There is Bahaullah saying that the book he wrote is from god. Why do you believe him?

Because of the evidence that establishes the truth of His claims..

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106

Why didn't he create a universe where suffering is not required for spiritual growth?
Why didn't he create a universe where spiritual growth is not necessary?

I don't know. Those are questions that only God can answer.

What even is "spiritual growth" and why is it necessary?

You will find out after you die why it was necessary if you don't have it.
You can live this life without spiritual growth but you will be handicapped in the spiritual world without it.

I will tell you now...
It is just chance and environment. There is no god making your life hard and mine easy for some unknown purpose.

You know, that might actually be true. I mean I do not believe that God is deliberately sending tests to me as some Baha'is believe.

So you admit that god removes our free will in come things.
Why does he do that? How is that just or fair?

God does not remove our free will, it is just that some things are not subject to free will since they are outside of our control. That would be true even if there was no God because that is just how this life is -- we cannot control everything.

Earthquakes? They have nothing to do with free will so must be caused by god, yes?
If they are not, why does he allow them to kill thousands (including little children), often through terrible pain and suffering?

They are not caused by God, they are just natural occurrences. Ask a geologist if you want to know what causes earthquakes.

Never said it was, but god's foreknowledge makes every event inevitable. If god knows your great-great grandson will assassinate the World President, then no one and nothing can stop him. The security services cannot prevent him, and no one can talk him out of it.

No, God's foreknowledge of what is going to happen does not cause anything to happen.
Foreknowledge is simply an ability God possesses.

“Every act ye meditate is as clear to Him as is that act when already accomplished. There is none other God besides Him. His is all creation and its empire. All stands revealed before Him; all is recorded in His holy and hidden Tablets. This fore-knowledge of God, however, should not be regarded as having caused the actions of men, just as your own previous knowledge that a certain event is to occur, or your desire that it should happen, is not and can never be the reason for its occurrence.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 150

Question.—If God has knowledge of an action which will be performed by someone, and it has been written on the Tablet of Fate, is it possible to resist it?

Answer.—The foreknowledge of a thing is not the cause of its realization; for the essential knowledge of God surrounds, in the same way, the realities of things, before as well as after their existence, and it does not become the cause of their existence. It is a perfection of God.......
Some Answered Questions, p. 138

So humans cause earthquakes and droughts and infant cancer? How so?

Nobody causes earthquakes, they occur naturally. Cancer and droughts also occur naturally but sometimes the actions of men play into why they occur.

 

[Trailblazer]

But you consider Bahaullah infallible and accept everything he says, but you don't really seem to like god and don't agree with everything he does.

The former position comes from my rational soul, the latter comes from my feelings and my ego.

 

[samtonga43]

According to the definition love is an intense feeling of deep affection. I do not feel that way about God.

We can all see how much you rely on definitions, Tb, but there are times when definitions fail, and this is one of them. One would have to be very superficial to compare loving God with loving a human being.

Our love of another person is limited to natural abilities but our love of God surpasses our human ability. Personally I know I could not feel the love I have for God if I did not experience the amazing love He has for me. God’s love is unconditional and infinite in nature.

Fear of God involves a sense of awe, reverence, submission. It has nothing to do with feeling scared (extremely frightened).

A person can pray as much and as often as they like, but if there is no love, prayer is meaningless.

 

[samtonga43]

The former position comes from my rational soul, the latter comes from my feelings and my ego.

You think it is rational to consider Bahaullah infallible and accept everything he says. Surely God alone is infallible...?

 

[Trailblazer]

So where did infancy cancer come from? And why didn't god know about it? And if he did, why didn't he avoid it?

I don't know. Only God knows.

When god created the universe he created it with cancer as an inherent part, knowing that there would be infants who develop it and dies in agony. He could have created a universe without cancers that develop in infants. He chose not to. Therefore it is something he wants to happen. He is responsible.

Maybe so, but so what?

If a manufacturer knowingly produces a product that will result in children being killed from it being used as designed, they would be prosecuted for corporate manslaughter. So why do you want to let god off the hook so easily?

Who said I let God off the hook?

Obviously, because he wants a world where children die in agony from cancer. He made the choice to create cancers that develop in children for no apparent reason, when he equally had the option of creating a world where it did not happen.
The point is - what kind of a monster would do that in the first place?

No, it is not obvious that God wants a world where children die in agony from cancer just because cancer exists. You do not know what God wants and neither do I.

Good. But it still leaves you needing to explain why god deliberately creates so much unnecessary suffering.

God does not deliberately create unnecessary suffering. Suffering simply exists as part of the material world.

**** me! This just gets worse.
So god wants to make the parents suffer, and the way he decides to do it is to have their child die in agony from cancer.
Your god really is a raving psychopath!

No, it is a test for the parents but that does not mean God wants parents to suffer....
Some religious apologists might believe that but I don't.

Of course the source and purpose of suffering is a religious issue.
Without god there is no source or purpose of suffering (other than natural processes). The issue does not exist.

Sorry, but suffering would still exist even if God does not exist. There just would not be anyone to blame it on.

If there was no God and no purpose for suffering then people would suffer and not know why, and that would be even worse. At least the fact that there is a reason for suffering, spiritual growth, helps some people endure suffering.

No. The whole point of this is to examine why god made the universe the way he did.
You agree that the universe is a pretty ****ty place for many people. So what was god up to? If he doesn't want people to suffer so much, why does he make people suffer so much?

Again, God does not make people suffer, suffering is simply a by-product of living in a material world.

“If we suffer it is the outcome of material things, and all the trials and troubles come from this world of illusion.

For instance, a merchant may lose his trade and depression ensues. A workman is dismissed and starvation stares him in the face. A farmer has a bad harvest, anxiety fills his mind. A man builds a house which is burnt to the ground and he is straightway homeless, ruined, and in despair.

All these examples are to show you that the trials which beset our every step, all our sorrow, pain, shame and grief, are born in the world of matter; whereas the spiritual Kingdom never causes sadness. A man living with his thoughts in this Kingdom knows perpetual joy. The ills all flesh is heir to do not pass him by, but they only touch the surface of his life, the depths are calm and serene.” ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks, p. 110

But it was not necessary for god to create a universe where it is necessary for you to suffer so much.

You are not God so you don't know is it was necessary to accomplish what God was trying to accomplish.

Just because something happens doesn't mean you have to accept it. It is the very basis for protest and change. Have you not read any history?

I do have to accept it unless I can do something about it. If someone causes a car accident and I end up injured or paraplegic or if I have incurable cancer I have to accept that.

So you don't think god has anything to do with who suffers of by how much. It is just random chance/environment?

It is nature and nurture and the environment and random chance. I do not think God causes suffering, it is just our fate. However, since God is responsible for fate and predestination, indirectly God is the cause.

According to your argument, the world works as if there is no god.

Only if you expect God to do x and y.

Because those experience great suffering have pretty imperfect lives, by definition.

That depends upon what you consider imperfect. By his own admission, my older brother has hardly suffered at all, but he also has not changed or become more spiritual. By contrast, I have suffered constantly and I have changed a lot. Is the pain worth the gain? For some people it isn't, for some people it is. No two people are alike.

Really?
Then why do you struggle to understand basic concepts and definitions?

I don't.

That is not false equivalence. I am not claiming that men and god are the same because they share a common trait. I am saying that the word "benevolence" has meaning. If god's attributes do not correspond to the meaning of benevolence, you cannot call him "benevolent".

Sorry, but it does not mean the same thing for God to be benevolent as it means for human to be benevolent. Iows, a benevolent God cannot be expected to do what a benevolent human would do under the same circumstances. You are comparing what a benevolent man would do to what a benevolent God would do, so you are comparing apples and oranges. That is why it is the fallacy of false equivalence.

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1] A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".

This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.[2] False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear scrutiny because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.

False equivalence - Wikipedia

We can't really draw any valid inferences from such questioning because of things like a lack of control group, confirmation bias, imprecise definitions.
Thought you'd done an MA in psychology? Surely you covered this kind of thing.

No, we cannot get any definitive answers but we can get some idea as to whether suffering has helped people grow stronger by asking them. There might even be some studies that have been conducted.

No, whether suffering makes one stronger or not is not covered in psych classes, it is more of a religious subject.

 

[Trailblazer]

A person can pray as much and as often as they like, but if there is no love, prayer is meaningless.

You cannot know what is meaningless for other people, you can only know what is meaningless for yourself.

Whether I "feel" love for God or not is of no import since a feeling is only a feeling.
It is how I "show" my love for God that really matters.

48. O SON OF MAN!
For everything there is a sign. The sign of love is fortitude under My decree and patience under My trials.
(Baha'u'llah, The Arabic Hidden Words)

 

[Trailblazer]

Fear of God involves a sense of awe, reverence, submission. It has nothing to do with feeling scared (extremely frightened).

That is correct. I am not scared of God because I know that God is merciful and just.

 

[Trailblazer]

You think it is rational to consider Bahaullah infallible and accept everything he says. Surely God alone is infallible...?

Baha'u'llah is also infallible since His Will perfectly reflects the Will of God. That is called Divine unity.

“The essence of belief in Divine unity consisteth in regarding Him Who is the Manifestation of God and Him Who is the invisible, the inaccessible, the unknowable Essence as one and the same. By this is meant that whatever pertaineth to the former, all His acts and doings, whatever He ordaineth or forbiddeth, should be considered, in all their aspects, and under all circumstances, and without any reservation, as identical with the Will of God Himself. This is the loftiest station to which a true believer in the unity of God can ever hope to attain. Blessed is the man that reacheth this station, and is of them that are steadfast in their belief.” Gleanings, p. 167

 

[Truthseeker]

Just being here is a service.... You have no idea how happy I am when I see the series of Alerts that are all from you.... I know there is never anything to fear because you would never say anything that isn't kind and caring and compassionate.

I just back from my two hour walk in the dark to and saw the Alerts from you....
I have a long talk with God on my walk, nit tat He didn't already know what I told Him. But when there is nobody else to talk to in person, I can always talk to God and I know he is listening, unlike Lewis ever did.

I don't know. Sometimes I argue with you.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't know. Sometimes I argue with you.

So what? You are only trying to help and sometimes you do help, even if it does not seem that way at the time.

 

[Truthseeker]

How did you ever get that idea from what I said?

No, Baha'u'llah is not more important to Baha'is than God, I think they are equally important since Baha'u'llah was a Manifestation of God.

My friend @Truthseeker can correct me if I am wrong.

Not equally important. As exalted as He is, Baha'u'llah has made it clear He is a servant of God.

Certain ones among you have said: "He it is Who hath laid claim to be God." By God! This is a gross calumny. I am but a servant of God Who hath believed in Him and in His signs, and in His Prophets and in His angels.
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 228)

 

[Truthseeker]

So Bahaullah is more important to Bahais than god?

As I just said to @Trailblazer, Baha'u'llah is a servant of God, according to His own testimony:

Certain ones among you have said: "He it is Who hath laid claim to be God." By God! This is a gross calumny. I am but a servant of God Who hath believed in Him and in His signs, and in His Prophets and in His angels.
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 228)