The Exclusivity of Christianity

[PureX]

How is materialism a failure? By all accounts it is the most reliable for we fallible humans to understand what is true versus false.

That's purely your own bias, as a philosophical materialist. Most people don't believe that, and don't experience reality in accord with that bias. If you were a true skeptic, you would be skeptical of such a proclamation. As there are a number of effective ways of determining the accuracy of our concepts of reality. But as with the other philosophical materialists on here, you blindly auto-defend that bias rather than seriously examine it.

 

[PureX]

The failure is in this post, which is yet another post claiming failure (not just you, most theists) without being able to demonstrate any actual failure.

That you can't see it demonstrates it quite adaquitely. The "demonstration" that you demand is based on and defined entirely by your own materialist bias. It's no different than a theist that demands that all truth and reality claims must comport with their literal interpretation of their sacred scripture because they deem their sacred scripture to be the definer of all reality and truth. It's circular reasoning in defense of an intractable bias.

 

[PearlSeeker]

"God doesn't exist in what way?

"Materially."

"But existence is not just material, it's also phenomenal, and conceptual."

... The failure here is not theism, it's materialism.

We all know that God exists as a concept. But is God real?

Something that exists may not be real. It can be imaginary, fictional, mythical...

 

[PureX]

We all know that God exists as a concept. But is God real?

Something that exists may not be real. It can be imaginary, fictional, mythical...

Ideas exist. In fact, existence itself is an idea. So is "reality". This is how materialism fails. Materialism is a philosophical concept that rejects itself as being not real because it's not materially extant. This is logically incoherent.

Matter (physicality) does not define or determine existence. In fact, the things that mean the most to us are all immaterial: love, justice, honor, beauty, wisdom, honesty, and so on. These are all concepts, like 'God', that define reality and give our experience and understanding of existence meaning and value.

Physicality is just the phenomenal ocean that enables metaphysicality to happen. Existence is both, and probably more that we aren't even awareness of.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It is pretty hard to think of a more effective way to send a message to humans than to use a human who has both a divine nature and a human nature and thus can understand communication from God and can relay the message to humans in a way that can be understood.

Not for me, and apparently not for others posting here. The difference is our thinking and yours is that yours begins with the assumption that the message from the messenger is authentic. If so, everything else follows. This must have been the most effective way for a tri-omni deity to communicate because that's the way it chose. The empiricist does it differently, beginning with that same evidence, and evaluating it without the prejudice (faith) the believer brings to the process, and sees exactly what one would expect in godless universe with sentient creatures that invent gods and religions and speak for them.

What is God going to write in the sky? "I am God and I exist." What reason would anyone have to believe God wrote that? How would they know that God wrote it rather than a space alien or a government out to deceive people?

Why would people who believe a man is channeling a god believe that something that human beings could not do came from a god? This is another example of how this way of thinking leads your thinking. You say that you can't think of a single better way to deliver a message to man than through a man using methods available to men in words like those that men write, and then just bat off better ideas with, "Why should God do that?" - a question no skeptic would to ask, the answer being obvious to him.

Deliver a verbal message that contains the equivalent of the 15,000 Tablets that Baha'u'llah wrote to the mind of every human being on earth?

Is that beyond this deity? How about just infusing knowledge directly into memory like a cosmic download? Or better yet, have that message installed at the factory (in the womb).

Why should God do that when God can deliver the message to one man who can make that message available to everyone in the world?

To communicate more effectively? These are the kinds of ideas that can't get past a faith-based confirmation bias that assumes that communicating more effectively would not have been impossible, and so rejects the suggestion out of hand. But this is the kind of answer you'll get from people who go from evidence to conclusion (seeing is believing) rather than from assumption to evidence (believing is seeing).

Why do you think you, or anyone else, would be able to recognize a superhuman message that is too excellent to have come from men?

Here are a couple opinions on that:

[1] From R. G. Ingersoll on the subject of what a such a book of divine origin would be like:

"It should be a book that no man -- no number of men -- could produce.
It should contain the perfection of philosophy.
It should perfectly accord with every fact in nature.
There should be no mistakes in astronomy, geology, or as to any subject or science.
Its morality should be the highest, the purest.
Its laws and regulations for the control of conduct should be just, wise, perfect, and perfectly
adapted to the accomplishment of the ends desired.
It should contain nothing calculated to make man cruel, revengeful, vindictive or infamous.
It should be filled with intelligence, justice, purity, honesty, mercy and the spirit of liberty.
It should be opposed to strife and war, to slavery and lust, to ignorance, credulity and superstition.
It should develop the brain and civilize the heart.
It should satisfy the heart and brain of the best and wisest."

[2] "Imagine how spectacular a book would be if it were authored by a deity who created the universe. Yet there isn't a sentence in any holy book today that couldn't have been written by someone from the first century, and anyone today could easily improve on any of the holy books that people still follow. If a deity exists, it would be far more intelligent that anybody who has ever lived. So what does that say when anyone can improve on the Bible and Qur'an, but very few can improve on a book by Stephen Hawking?" - anon

God would not choose any of the options you suggested, so that means that if God exists God would not choose them. This is simple logic.

Yes, assuming you change would to didn't, since you've written it as a conditional statement (if). But it doesn't mean that a god like that exists or that the message is authentic. This message and all of the words of prophets in all of the holy books are very human, which as you know is an argument against them originating with a superhuman intelligence that lead skeptics everywhere to reject their claims of divine provenance.

The only evidence we have of God ever communicating to humans is through men that I call Messengers.
It is because of these men that most people in the world believe in God.

That's not evidence for a god existing. That's evidence that people have a proclivity for a god belief. I did too, once, but I don't think I could do that again unless I lost my critical thinking skills, which make returning to that place impossible without much better evidence for gods.

I'd say that Jesus did pretty good, since one third of the world population believes in Jesus.

Jesus didn't do that. Marketing after his death did. I already explained that to you in post 202:

"Paul and Constantine put Jesus on the map, and the crusaders, missionaries, and conquistadores spread it further at the point of a sword or an inquisition or a witch hanging. They've put a Bible in every hotel room, and they ran ads during the Superbowl. You've got pastors trying to grow their congregations and collection plates promoting the religion from the pulpit. Our resident Protestant Pastor on RF just commented that he led about a half dozen to Jesus last Sunday. And then there's his Sunday school in the basement marketing this religion to children."

I do know because I have sufficient evidence and thus the merry-go-round continues to go round and round.

Your criteria for belief are not those of critical analysis. You've been convinced by messengers with mundane messages. This other way of knowing what's true about the world requires more than that. The world is full of such messages from people claiming to speak for a deity, and they contradict one another.

That you can't see it demonstrates it quite adequately. The "demonstration" that you demand is based on and defined entirely by your own materialist bias. It's no different than a theist that demands that all truth and reality claims must comport with their literal interpretation of their sacred scripture because they deem their sacred scripture to be the definer of all reality and truth. It's circular reasoning in defense of an intractable bias.

So nothing to show then, huh? Just more evasive language with vague warnings. I had written, "The failure is in this post, which is yet another post claiming failure (not just you, most theists) without being able to demonstrate any actual failure." All you needed to do to falsify that was to give a specific, concrete answer that represented a failure of materialism (empiricism) rescued by this other way of knowing you prefer.

If you were a true skeptic, you would be skeptical of such a proclamation.

You don't seem to know what skepticism is. His claim was, "By all accounts [materialism] is the most reliable for we fallible humans to understand what is true versus false." Can you rebut it or only dismiss it without counterargument?

there are a number of effective ways of determining the accuracy of our concepts of reality

Nope. Just one, empiricism, or as you call it, materialism.

 

[F1fan]

That's purely your own bias, as a philosophical materialist.

How is it a bias to be honest about what we can confirm exists? Do you consider how theists assume non-material as existing a bias as well?

I suggest your negative attitude about those who are honest about what can be confirmed as existing IS the actual bias, and you are projecting.

Most people don't believe that, and don't experience reality in accord with that bias.

Who cares that most believe in non-rational and non-factual ideas? Science explains this as an artifact of how the human brain evolved. Religious (and even a lot of political belief) is adopted as true due to social experiences, not reasoned conclusions through skilled thinking. The "experiences" of theists is best described as self-induced.

If you were a true skeptic, you would be skeptical of such a proclamation.

My skepticism follows facts and data, and is wary of the unverifiable and emotional claims of others. Religious claims tend to fail scrutiny by rational minds, so my skeptisim has a high degree of reliability and I can trust it. Most of your asserton in this post of yours are not factual, and even show us more about you than it does me. You accuse me of bias but can't actually explain how being reliant on facts and data, and rejecting unverifiable ideas, is a bad thing or bias. Rejecting bad and unverifiable ideas, like gods, spirits, demons, angels, the divine, etc. is part of reasoned scrutiny, not a bais against those many different types of unskilled thinkers who believe in any of it.

As there are a number of effective ways of determining the accuracy of our concepts of reality.

Science does an exceptional job. there is so much that goes way over my understanding. When I was in college for psychology I came across Cell Magazine in a waiting room, so I looked through it. Jesus Christ I could not make sense of any of it. The articles were written for those in biology and an understanding of the biomechanics of life that goes way beyond the lay person. I took basic biology in high school but this was on another level that I did not know existed. This is what materialism acheives. It illustrated to me just how much science can know about the real world. And you consider this a bais. In contrast what do theists offer in the way of knowledge? Belief in fantastic ideas that can't be verified as true? No thanks.

But as with the other philosophical materialists on here, you blindly auto-defend that bias rather than seriously examine it.

False. If you theists had anything to offer that is truthful, and then we reject it, THEN you could accuse us of bias. As it is you promote fantastic ideas that do not correlate to anything we can confirm is real. We reject it due to a lack of evidence, and due to the logical default.

 

[F1fan]

Ideas exist. In fact, existence itself is an idea. So is "reality".

Cats exist, as does the word "cat", as does the general idea of cats. These are all categories of what is real.

However the same doesn't apply to gods. The word "god" exists, and there is a general idea of gods, but there is nothing we can confirm real or existing that is god. That some humans imagine a God that they consider real is NOT a God existing independently of human minds. No one can honestly classify imagined beings as real beings.

This is how materialism fails. Materialism is a philosophical concept that rejects itself as being not real because it's not materially extant. This is logically incoherent.

Your claim fails, and you offer no full examples nor argument.

Matter (physicality) does not define or determine existence.

Ideas exist in minds, and are not objects in the material sense. But ideas are still dependent on material brains to be conjured. The ideas are real in the sense that there is electrochemical activity that their existence depends on. I know of a deceptive theistic argument that tries to assert that ideas are not material, but this is ignoring certain facts of the biology of thinking brains and how ideas are devendent on them.

Jim might have new ideas about a toaster that uses no electricity, but if he dies before he can write down the idea then the idea dies with his brain. If he did write it down on paper then the idea would exist due to the paper and ink. So ideas remain dependent on medium and material to exist.

In fact, the things that mean the most to us are all immaterial: love, justice, honor, beauty, wisdom, honesty, and so on. These are all concepts, like 'God', that define reality and give our experience and understanding of existence meaning and value.

I argue that these are all material because as I have explained they are all dependent on living, material brains. They also rely on working brains that function due to electrochemical processing, all a material process. Dead brains don't feel or show love.

Physicality is just the phenomenal ocean that enables metaphysicality to happen. Existence is both, and probably more that we aren't even awareness of.

This appears to be an attempt of self-confusion. There is the bias, by misclassifying common human emotions as immaterial, and then pondering woo as an explanation.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

existence itself is an idea

No, it is not. That would be a religious idea, anyway, since there was no mind known to exist to hold that idea before the evolution of mind from unconscious existence.

Materialism is a philosophical concept that rejects itself as being not real because it's not materially extant. This is logically incoherent.

Yes, the comment is incoherent, but the idea is yours, not the position of naturalist and physicalists. Concepts are part of and derived from physical reality. It's you declaring otherwise that makes the position self-contradictory, but you are incorrect. Thought is an epiphenomenon of brains and nothing else. My first thoughts followed the formation of my brain. As my brain matured, so do my thoughts. When my brain is unconscious, thought ceases until I awaken. When the chemical milieu of my brain is altered by hypoxia or intoxicants or whatever, thinking is altered. That's evidence that yuo are incorrect.

Matter (physicality) does not define or determine existence.

Yes, it does. Physical reality is synonymous with existence. If something that is said to exist doesn't impact matter in some place at some time, the claim can be rejected. That's the description of the nonexistent - no material impact ever anywhere. Gods are not the source of matter. Matter is the source of god concepts.

the things that mean the most to us are all immaterial: love, justice, honor, beauty, wisdom, honesty, and so on. These are all concepts

Yes, and they are all the result of brains, not ghosts independent of matter.

Physicality is just the phenomenal ocean that enables metaphysicality to happen.

Metaphysicality doesn't happen.

You have yet to reveal the price you claim that people who think like I do pay despite repeated requests. I considered matter resolved. Your claim was empty.

If you just expressed your beliefs as ideas that work for you, I doubt anybody would care. But you demean and condemn the thinking of others whose thinking is more rigorous simply because they don't accept your ideas, and that requires an answer. You and I have different opinions about how the world is and works because we use different methods for deciding that. You have demeaned mine without cause or argument. I have never done the same to you, because why would I? Your opinions about reality don't matter to me. I have no interest in correcting the thinking in your head. Go on believing all of that if you like. But your opinions about critical thinking do matter to me, because they are wrong and others may read them and be influenced by them, which would harm them.

 

[CG Didymus]

That's not evidence for a god existing. That's evidence that people have a proclivity for a god belief.

How many different gods have come and gone? But even with the gods believed by the religions in the world today, they aren't necessarily talking about the same god. The Baha'is have their interpretations of the different beliefs about god that are found in the different religions, and they explain those differences away. But does that really make the gods from the different religions the same god?

And about the volumes of writings. Yes, impressive. But take out the flowery language and that reduces the writings by quite a bit.

 

[Trailblazer]

This doesn't mean that communication is successful. Do all believe in the same God?

Believers have different conceptions of God, according to what their scriptures say, because scriptures were revealed in different ages to different people, but all these people believe in God.

This is contradictory. If God interacts with humanity (sends messngers) then God is a person.

God does not interact with humanity directly because God is not a person who can interact with humanity directly.
God only interacts with humanity through the Messengers who speak for God.

“Attract the hearts of men, through the call of Him, the one alone Beloved. Say: This is the Voice of God, if ye do but hearken. This is the Day Spring of the Revelation of God, did ye but know it. This is the Dawning-Place of the Cause of God, were ye to recognize it. This is the Source of the commandment of God, did ye but judge it fairly. This is the manifest and hidden Secret; would that ye might perceive it.”

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 33

"In the time when people were not able to do it" This means 5000 years ago.

Why would it be far more effective to write in the sky 5000 years ago in every language: "I'm God and I exist." ?

What I wrote before just proves that it wasn't sufficient.

What wasn't sufficient and why wasn't it sufficient?

 

[Trailblazer]

How many different gods have come and gone?

Only One God, and many Messengers.

 

[CG Didymus]

Or, many gods and many messengers and some gods and some messengers being rejected as being false. Again, the gods of the people that were around Israel all had false religions and false gods, including many great empires like Egypt and Babylon.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Ideas exist. In fact, existence itself is an idea. So is "reality". This is how materialism fails. Materialism is a philosophical concept that rejects itself as being not real because it's not materially extant. This is logically incoherent.

Matter (physicality) does not define or determine existence. In fact, the things that mean the most to us are all immaterial: love, justice, honor, beauty, wisdom, honesty, and so on. These are all concepts, like 'God', that define reality and give our experience and understanding of existence meaning and value.

Physicality is just the phenomenal ocean that enables metaphysicality to happen. Existence is both, and probably more that we aren't even awareness of.

Yes, many things are part of subjective experience. Even colors, sound and the taste of food... We don't know what is objective reality but there is something.

Existence of matter may be just an idea from our common experience but existence itself is certainly not just an idea. Something existed before we were here and something will exist... Theists are no different from materialists. They think God is objective reality - not an idea in their mind.

Furthermore there is a problem with experiencing God. Many concepts are based on common experience. No one here debates if there is earth, water, air etc. But God-experience is not so common. Even less direct experience/communication. Most believers only have faith.

 

[PearlSeeker]

God only interacts with humanity through the Messengers who speak for God.

You can't speak for someone who is not a person. So God must be a person.

Why would it be far more effective to write in the sky 5000 years ago in every language: "I'm God and I exist." ?

1. Because people would have direct experience/message of God.

2. People would have empirical evidence for their belief.

3. They could exclude the message is man-made because people couldn't write in the sky at that time.

What wasn't sufficient and why wasn't it sufficient?

If it was sufficient we wouldn't debate for 2000 years if Jesus is the Messiah, if Jesus is God, man or both, if miracles are true, the problem of suffering and loving God, what happens after death etc.

 

[Trailblazer]

You can't speak for someone who is not a person. So God must be a person.

Why can't you? Do you know how God would communicate?

1. Because people would have direct experience/message of God.

2. People would have empirical evidence for their belief.

3. They could exclude the message is man-made because people couldn't write in the sky at that time.

Oh, I missed number 3. Now it makes more sense.
That might have worked 5000 years ago but it won't work now.

If it was sufficient we wouldn't debate for 2000 years if Jesus is the Messiah, if Jesus is God, man or both, if miracles are true, the problem of suffering and loving God, what happens after death etc.

That's true. Here we are, still debating these things. Even the Christians cannot agree on the nature of Jesus or on what happens after we die.

 

[F1fan]

Why can't you? Do you know how God would communicate?

Because it is weird that God is limited in ability to communicate with only a select few humans. If God can manage to communicate with any humans, why not all humans? Some might say messengers are special, well how did they become special and other humans don't, and why can't more humans get this special ability? None of it really adds up. And with the few messengers that are claimed to be authentic, none really offer anything all that special. Take out the God references and it is what any ordinary person could think up.

Oh, I missed number 3. Now it makes more sense.
That might have worked 5000 years ago but it won't work now.

More critique of a weak God.

That's true. Here we are, still debating these things. Even the Christians cannot agree on the nature of Jesus or on what happens after we die.

Which leaves non-believers watching all the drama and inconsistency. If a God really exists then it has to be blamed for not providing clearer messages.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Oh, I missed number 3. Now it makes more sense.
That might have worked 5000 years ago but it won't work now.

Hmm. Didn't I already give you that suggestion at The Exclusivity of Christianity when we were discussing Baha'u'llah, who lived before man could write in the sky, and you asked, "if God existed, what method of communication other than Messengers would God use to communicate to humans?" You answered me with, "What is God going to write in the sky? "I am God and I exist." What reason would anyone have to believe God wrote that? How would they know that God wrote it rather than a space alien or a government out to deceive people?"

That's true. Here we are, still debating these things. Even the Christians cannot agree on the nature of Jesus or on what happens after we die.

That's the problem with messengers. A direct infusion of knowledge into memory would be more effective.

 

[Trailblazer]

Not for me, and apparently not for others posting here.

I have not seen anyone here post a more effective way for God to communicate. All I have seen is nonsense, such as God writing "I am God and I exist" in the sky. How would anyone know God actually wrote that, and even if there was a way to know it came from God, what would it accomplish?

It doesn't matter if we know that God exists, unless we know something about God and what God's will is for us. That requires a man who is a Messenger, unless you can think of another way to communicate that information from God to man.

The difference is our thinking and yours is that yours begins with the assumption that the message from the messenger is authentic. If so, everything else follows.

No, we do not assume that the message is from the messenger. We do our due diligence before we come to believe that it did.

This must have been the most effective way for a tri-omni deity to communicate because that's the way it chose.

IF God chose that method, THEN it was the most effective method.

The empiricist does it differently, beginning with that same evidence, and evaluating it without the prejudice (faith) the believer brings to the process, and sees exactly what one would expect in godless universe with sentient creatures that invent gods and religions and speak for them.

The empiricist does it differently, beginning with that same evidence, and evaluating it with the prejudice he brings to the process.
That prejudice is his expectations, what he would expect to see if God existed, and since he does not see what he would expect to see if God existed, he says there can't be a God. This is nothing short of ego projection.

Why would people who believe a man is channeling a god believe that something that human beings could not do came from a god? This is another example of how this way of thinking leads your thinking.

With all the modern technology we now have at our disposal, you don't think that writing in the sky "I am God and I exist" is something that humans could not do?

What God could do is another matter. God could do whatever He wanted to do to communicate to humans but there is no way that humans could know that such communication actually came from God.

You say that you can't think of a single better way to deliver a message to man than through a man using methods available to men in words like those that men write, and then just bat off better ideas with, "Why should God do that?" - a question no skeptic would to ask, the answer being obvious to him.

You think you know why God should use 'another method' of communication to deliver a message, other than Messengers, yet you cannot even come up with another method that would achieve anything.

By contrast, the Messenger method has achieved belief in God for most everyone in the world, since 84 percent of the world population has a faith, and those faiths were all established by a Messenger. It doesn't matter if you call him a Messenger or a prophet or a holy man, he was a man who was an intermediary between God and man.

Is that beyond this deity? How about just infusing knowledge directly into memory like a cosmic download? Or better yet, have that message installed at the factory (in the womb).

Who should God spoon feed humans who have been given a brain and free will?
Why don't universities hand out medical degrees at the door, before the student even does any work?

To communicate more effectively? These are the kinds of ideas that can't get past a faith-based confirmation bias that assumes that communicating more effectively would not have been impossible, and so rejects the suggestion out of hand.

You have no suggestions that are even rational. All your suggestions are just ways to try to circumvent the only logical way a God could communicate to humans, via another human who was also divine, so he could understand both God and humans.

"Imagine how spectacular a book would be if it were authored by a deity who created the universe.

I do not have to imagine it, all I have to do is read the Writings of the Bab or Baha'u'llah.

Yet there isn't a sentence in any holy book today that couldn't have been written by someone from the first century, and anyone today could easily improve on any of the holy books that people still follow.

Only in your opinion is there no such book in existence today. We all have opinions.
Only God can improve upon what has been written, by sending another Messenger to write more books.

If a deity exists, it would be far more intelligent that anybody who has ever lived. So what does that say when anyone can improve on the Bible and Qur'an, but very few can improve on a book by Stephen Hawking?" - anon

How do you think you would know what an intelligent deity would reveal to humans.
What makes you think that the deity would reveal everything that He knows?

Baha'u'llah did not reveal everything that God taught Him, and He explained why He didn't do so. Baha'u'llah only revealed what humans were capable of understanding at the time of revelation.

“Oh, would that the world could believe Me! Were all the things that lie enshrined within the heart of Bahá, and which the Lord, His God, the Lord of all names, hath taught Him, to be unveiled to mankind, every man on earth would be dumbfounded.

How great the multitude of truths which the garment of words can never contain! How vast the number of such verities as no expression can adequately describe, whose significance can never be unfolded, and to which not even the remotest allusions can be made! How manifold are the truths which must remain unuttered until the appointed time is come! Even as it hath been said: “Not everything that a man knoweth can be disclosed, nor can everything that he can disclose be regarded as timely, nor can every timely utterance be considered as suited to the capacity of those who hear it.

Of these truths some can be disclosed only to the extent of the capacity of the repositories of the light of Our knowledge, and the recipients of Our hidden grace.”

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 176

Yes, assuming you change would to didn't, since you've written it as a conditional statement (if). But it doesn't mean that a god like that exists or that the message is authentic. This message and all of the words of prophets in all of the holy books are very human, which as you know is an argument against them originating with a superhuman intelligence that lead skeptics everywhere to reject their claims of divine provenance.

The words of the prophets sound human since humans wrote them. No prophets or Messengers ever wrote their own scriptures before the coming of the Bab and Baha'u'llah. Even the Qur'an was not written by Muhammad, it was written by humans.

Scriptures sound human or divine depending upon who is reading them. Skeptics do not reject the messages because they sound human. They reject the messages because the cannot be verified to have come from God.

That's not evidence for a god existing. That's evidence that people have a proclivity for a god belief. I did too, once, but I don't think I could do that again unless I lost my critical thinking skills, which make returning to that place impossible without much better evidence for gods.

Religion is not proof that God exists, but it is evidence. I don't think I could dismiss all the religions in the world unless I lost my critical thinking skills, which makes my returning to the place before I believed in God impossible.

Jesus didn't do that. Marketing after his death did. I already explained that to you in post 202:

"Paul and Constantine put Jesus on the map, and the crusaders, missionaries, and conquistadores spread it further at the point of a sword or an inquisition or a witch hanging. They've put a Bible in every hotel room, and they ran ads during the Superbowl. You've got pastors trying to grow their congregations and collection plates promoting the religion from the pulpit. Our resident Protestant Pastor on RF just commented that he led about a half dozen to Jesus last Sunday. And then there's his Sunday school in the basement marketing this religion to children."

No, Jesus did not do anything but preach the gospel and garner a few disciples. It was the marketing after His death that increased the numbers of Christians.

Your criteria for belief are not those of critical analysis. You've been convinced by messengers with mundane messages. This other way of knowing what's true about the world requires more than that. The world is full of such messages from people claiming to speak for a deity, and they contradict one another.

My criteria for belief came from my critical analysis of the Baha'i Faith in its entirety, and initially that had nothing to do with the Writings of Baha'u'llah, which I never read with any serious intent until about nine years ago. It was only after I started to read the Writings of Baha'u'llah that I realized that He was speaking for God. My life has never been the same since. Before that I merely believed that God exists and it did not mean much to me, but after I read Gleanings I knew.

The world is not full of people who wrote like Baha'u'llah. Some people see the difference, some people don't.

Messages from people claiming to speak for a deity contradict one another, since they are not speaking for the deity.

 

[Trailblazer]

Because it is weird that God is limited in ability to communicate with only a select few humans. If God can manage to communicate with any humans, why not all humans?

God did not create all humans with the ability to understand communication from God since God never intended to communicate to all humans.
God only intended to communicate to Messengers so they alone had the unique capacity to understand God.

Some might say messengers are special, well how did they become special and other humans don't, and why can't more humans get this special ability? None of it really adds up.

Messengers became special because their souls were in the spiritual world with God before their souls united with their bodies and they were born into this world.

The Prophets, unlike us, are pre-existent. The soul of Christ existed in the spiritual world before His birth in this world. We cannot imagine what that world is like, so words are inadequate to picture His state of being.
(Shoghi Effendi: High Endeavors, Page: 71)

The souls of ordinary humans come into existence at the time of conception, so they are not pre-existent.

And with the few messengers that are claimed to be authentic, none really offer anything all that special. Take out the God references and it is what any ordinary person could think up.

Nothing you recognize as special.

More critique of a weak God.

Why would that make God weak?

Which leaves non-believers watching all the drama and inconsistency. If a God really exists then it has to be blamed for not providing clearer messages.

If you are referring to the Bible I agree it is not clear and I join the non-believers watching all the drama and inconsistency.
All I can say is that the Bible was written for another age, not the age we are living in now, so it worked for a former age, but it does not work for this age, and that is why we see people leaving Christianity in droves, since rational people can no longer believe in the Bible.

I don't blame God because God knew all along that the confusion would be cleared up in this age.

I believe that God has now provided a clear roadmap to the Bible, through the Writings of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha, thus clearing up much of the confusion.

Christians have misinterpreted much of the Bible because they did not have the key to unlock the meaning. Because of the way the Bible was written, misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Bible has been a big problem since the very beginning. Christians disagreed as to what the Bible meant and none of them clearly understood much of what it meant, and that is why there are so many different sects of Christianity.

That is understandable because it was prophesied by Daniel that the Book would be sealed up until the time of the end, meaning nobody would really understand it:

Daniel Chapter 12: 4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. 8 And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? 9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. 11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. 12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.

The early Church fathers interpreted the Bible the way they did because they could not fully understand it.
Now Christians continue to interpret the Bible the way it has always been interpreted...

The "Book" was intended to be sealed up until the time of the end, until the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days came. The 2,300 years came in 1844 and the book was unsealed by Baha’u’llah. That math is explained in Some Answered Questions, 10: TRADITIONAL PROOFS EXEMPLIFIED FROM THE BOOK OF DANIEL.

We do not have to run to and fro anymore. Unsealing the Book means we can now understand the true meaning of the Bible. By reading the Baha’i Writings that explain the true meaning of the Bible, we can understand what much of the Bible means that could never be understood before (knowledge shall be increased).

 

[Trailblazer]

Hmm. Didn't I already give you that suggestion at The Exclusivity of Christianity when we were discussing Baha'u'llah, who lived before man could write in the sky, and you asked, "if God existed, what method of communication other than Messengers would God use to communicate to humans?" You answered me with, "What is God going to write in the sky? "I am God and I exist." What reason would anyone have to believe God wrote that? How would they know that God wrote it rather than a space alien or a government out to deceive people?"

And you never answered my questions.

That's the problem with messengers. A direct infusion of knowledge into memory would be more effective.

Why should God do that when humans have the capacity to gain the knowledge for themselves?
There is no problem with Messengers just because it means you have to recognize them and do some work.

Effective for what? In making men into robots who do not have to learn anything for themselves.
Why not also infuse a college education into everyone's mind and do away with colleges and universities?
I think you know this is absurd but you are only offering it as a last ditch effort.

Sorry, that is not how God operates. God expects us to use the rational mind we were created with and our own volition.

“The incomparable Creator hath created all men from one same substance, and hath exalted their reality above the rest of His creatures. Success or failure, gain or loss, must, therefore, depend upon man’s own exertions. The more he striveth, the greater will be his progress.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 81-82

“Know thou that all men have been created in the nature made by God, the Guardian, the Self-Subsisting. Unto each one hath been prescribed a pre-ordained measure, as decreed in God’s mighty and guarded Tablets. All that which ye potentially possess can, however, be manifested only as a result of your own volition. Your own acts testify to this truth…”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 149