• 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!

Would/Should God communicate directly to everyone in the world?

sealchan

Well-Known Member
How would it be more efficient if God had to speak to 7.53 billion people and give them all the same messages?....
I am talking over 15,000 Tablets that God revealed to Baha'u'llah. How could all those people understand what God revealed and write it down? Why should they have to do all that when God can reveal them to one man who is divine and human and can thus act as a mediator between God and man.... That is what makes logical sense to me.

Now, if you are just talking about God letting us know He exists that is another matter.... If we search and are open and pray, God will reveal that to us in some way, but we have to be open. It won't be a Voice, it will be communication to our minds and actions that we can identify as God's compassion and assistance. But one has to believe that is possible in order for it to happen. One has to understand that faith is not the same thing as gullibility.

Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who approaches Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.

No, the problem is that God is not a man and God remains in His Own High Place, wherever that is. God does not get up close and personal with humans because He does not want to, but if we seek Him out we can get a connection, as God likes us seeking Him out.... Don't ask me why, I don't know, it's a God thing. :)

To argue this with an atheist you must address the problem of the rejection of the subjective by the modern mind. Saying one must be open...it has taken me a long time not to reject this out of hand because it seems incredulous to an objectivist.

To tackle this issue IMO we must consider the reality of the psyche and have recourse to embracing our sphexishness in order to transcend it.
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
Maybe you misunderstood what I meant. I meant that some atheists want God to communicate to them directly so they won’t have to *do anything* but listen to God talk to them and then they will know God exists and what message He has for them. They do not want to have to look for the Messenger of God or look at what He wrote.
But that's their choice, not God's.

You were a Christians and that is what Christians believe, that they can have a *personal relationship* with God. I am not a Christian so I do not believe that. That said, there are many Baha’is who desire to commune with God in prayer and meditation, but I am not one of them. I prefer to keep God at arm’s length.
But that's your choice, not God's.

For me, searching for God and finding God means that I found out something about God’s Attributes and God’s Will for me, and what God’s ordinances are that are for my own benefit. This little passage sums it up:

“The beginning of all things is the knowledge of God, and the end of all things is strict observance of whatsoever hath been sent down from the empyrean of the Divine Will that pervadeth all that is in the heavens and all that is on the earth.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 5


I still stand with my opinion that God would want to, and should prefer to communicate directly with people, and he/her/its/their will and decision shouldn't be based on what you want or like. But then, perhaps people can't hear God because he/she/it/they don't exist at all... or maybe it's because they listen wrong or don't want to (like you), but still I don't think that would have a change of what God would want to.


By the way, is there a reason you want to share as to why you are not a Christian anymore?
No. Done it before. Talked to lengths about it, and it's not pertinent to the thread.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
maybe it's the quality of the conversation that heaven seeks

really......who wants to spend time with people
that stamp their feet and cry.....prove it.....prove it.....prove it
 

Earthtank

Active Member
I guess you mean that God has let us know He is there. I can agree with that, although I do not think that all people are aware of God's presence and I do not blame them for that. We are all very different.

God's presence was not always obvious to me but it is obvious to me now that I am aware of God.

But in the OP I was not referring to awareness of God's presence, I was referring to God directly communicating to every human on earth and conveying His teachings and laws, like God communicates to Messengers/Prophets.

The Bahai faith is an extension of Islam, is that correct? sorry if i am wrong, i dont know much about bahai
 

Bird123

Well-Known Member
Some atheists think they are on the same level as God so God can and should talk to them like a human would talk to a human. Why does God owe them a private conversation? They are so arrogant and deluded. They have no conception of God, so they make up an imaginary god. They have no idea that they could never understand communication from God because God is so far above their level of comprehension. And when I tell them that they say I am making excuses. Excuses for what? How could an All-Powerful God who is All-Knowing and All-Wise need any excuses for what He chooses to do? They think they can order an Omnipotent God around like a short order cook. Their total lack of logical abilities is so comical yet very sad.


Let's remember that burden of proof rests on the one who seeks the knowledge. I think in this matter one should copy God. God places truth all around. We should place truth in the world. God leaves it up to each one of us to Discover the truth out there. WE should do the same.

No one can guaranty the actions of another. If we are trying to control others either through our beliefs or will, we will learn, in time, that control is one of the petty things mankind holds so dear and also control is like catching a greased pig. By the time one thinks they have control it slips out of one's grasp. People who fight and fight for control often end up angry and frustrated. Don't choose that for yourself.

Some atheists are arrogant. On the other hand, you must realize all the interaction some of them might of had with religious people trying to convert them to beliefs that do not add up.

While atheists are missing information like most people, they do have something to teach Believers. Blind faith is wrong. Never to question is wrong. Everything about God must add up.

One thing religious people can teach atheists is reality spans far beyond the physical. On the other hand, instead of demanding conversion or blind acceptance, religious people should realize and point out that Beliefs point a direction where one might search in order to Discover the Real Truth.

Truth has never stopped with mere beliefs. I see it as wrong to teach people to stop at mere beliefs. Still, since beliefs are all religion has and they value followers above all else. It is what it is. Many lessons for people to learn.

Yes, That's what I am seeing. Seems pretty clear to me.
 

night912

Well-Known Member
The message is also on audio and in braille for the blind.

A reasonable being would never send the same message to everyone in the world because there is absolutely no need to do so, except to please a paltry number of atheists who think they are so important that God owes them a personalized message.

What these atheists fail to understand is that even if they thought they got a direct message from God they could never know that or prove that so it would still be “just a belief.”
Hahaha. The more your excuses are shown to be unreasonable, the more you show how it's unreasonable. Using audio and braile as examples really show how unreasonable it is to not just give the message to everyone himself. Did Jesus and Mohammed have audio recordings of the message?

Another irrational reason is not to the the same message. So why bother spreading the god's message to others by messengers.

Third unreasonable excuse, atheists. So what about the believers of other religions? Why have Christians continue to believe in false teachings?

Again, this qualifies you as an unreasonable person. Case closed on your appeal. :hammer:
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
To argue this with an atheist you must address the problem of the rejection of the subjective by the modern mind. Saying one must be open...it has taken me a long time not to reject this out of hand because it seems incredulous to an objectivist.

To tackle this issue IMO we must consider the reality of the psyche and have recourse to embracing our sphexishness in order to transcend it.
Thanks for the suggestions but I am not sure one can change an objectivist into a subjectivist. People tend to think the way they think, although they can change that to a certain degree. Reading what others post and having to think in order to respond is a good way to see other perspectives, unless someone keeps repeating the same things over and over and over again. I do not see that happening on this forum, but I see it on my forum.

I have learned so much about people and what they believe or disbelieve and why by being on this forum for the last two years. Before that I was cloistered in a little box, although I did not realize that until I finally got out. :eek:
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
But that's their choice, not God's.
I could not have stated that better. I am a firm believer in free will. :)
But that's your choice, not God's.
True. God just sits and waits, according to my beliefs:

5: O SON OF BEING! Love Me, that I may love thee. If thou lovest Me not, My love can in no wise reach thee. Know this, O servant.
The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 4

I still stand with my opinion that God would want to, and should prefer to communicate directly with people, and he/her/its/their will and decision shouldn't be based on what you want or like. But then, perhaps people can't hear God because he/she/it/they don't exist at all... or maybe it's because they listen wrong or don't want to (like you), but still I don't think that would have a change of what God would want to.
I think that if God wanted to communicate directly with people, God’s decision shouldn't be based on what anyone wants or likes. But if God communicated to people the channel would have to be open in order for that communication to get through. Maybe the reason I do not hear God the way others say they hear God is because I do not really want to and/or because I believe that is possible and that sets up a road block. I believe that when the time is right things will happen, but not before. I have seen a huge change in my attitude towards God but it happened gradually over a number of years.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
The Bahai faith is an extension of Islam, is that correct? sorry if i am wrong, i dont know much about bahai
No, the Baha’i Faith is not an extension of Islam, it is a separate religion. Baha’u’llah, the Prophet Founder, was a Muslim, just as Jesus was a Jew, and the Baha’i Faith grew out of Islam just as Christianity grew out of Judaism. But these are all separate religions because they all have their own Prophet Founders, what I normally refer to as a Messenger of God or a Manifestation of God.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Assuming the following is also true:
- god loves us all
- god wants us to believe he is real
- god is just (so he'll value rationality over gullibility)

Then "yes" to all 3.
You are making some assumptions, facts not in evidence.

God does love us all and God is just, and God wants us to believe He is real, but God not require that everyone believe He is real. That is why God will not barter on how He chooses to prove He is real.
Someone who plays hide and seek, demands irrational beliefs on bad evidence and in fact even punishes those who don't believe, is effectively punishing rationality and rewarding gullibility.

Those aren't actions consistent with someone who loves you, cares about you and who is just in his judgements.
God does not demand belief and God does not punish those who choose not to belief, and God does not WANT us to have irrational beliefs. You are correct. Those aren't actions consistent with someone who loves you, cares about you and who is just in his judgements.
Such a person / entity / whatever, wouldn't have us rely on ancients texts which are copies of copies of translations of copies of translations of copies based on centuries of oral tradition (telephone game, anyone?) which on top of it all are attributed to the least credible people (iron and bronze aged peasants who didn't even know the earth orbits the sun).
At one time in human history that was all God gave us that we could rely upon, and there was a reason for that back then, but there is NO reason to continue reading ancient texts in this modern age.

Time has marched on and now we have better evidence. Most atheists however assume all religions are the same as Christianity and all scriptures are the same as the Bible, which is the fallacy of hasty generalization and the fallacy of jumping to conclusions.

Such an entity would understand that no rational person who actually cares about being rationally justified in his/her beliefs, could never believe such things on those parameters.[/quote]

Since God is omniscient, God understands that only certain people are going to continue believing in ancient texts, Jews and Christians, because most of them were raised believing those are the only valid scriptures for all of time. Of course this is illogical, but their beliefs are not driven by logic; they are driven by tradition and emotion.

An omniscient God also understands that atheists are not going to believe that He exists based upon the Bible. God does not expect atheists to believe in Him based upon the Bible, and that is no longer necessary because we have new scriptures that are suited to the modern times.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
If there were no negative consequences attached for not believing, then religion itself would be meaningless and useless to begin with. Since it wouldn't matter.
That is untrue. Some people, hopefully most people, belong to religions for the positive things religion and God bring to their lives. Are you assuming all people are like *some Christians* who might believe just to be saved from hell?
Satan did, according to christian mythology.
I am not a Christian and I do not believe there is a *being* called Satan. According to my religion, Satan represents the lower selfish nature of man, often called the Satanic Self.

I suppose some people might reject God even though they know He exists, but that would probably only be because they are angry at God for some reason. I went through a long phase like that, but even during those years I knew God existed.
With college, at least everyone has the option.

That is a valid point, but I could say the same about knowing God exists. Everyone has the option to search for God even if they come up empty-handed. Likewise, everyone who goes to college does not finish and graduate.
Then this god isn't a moral agent.
God is the one who sets the standards for human morality but God is not subject to those standards since God is not subject to anything.

Only humans have moral obligation.
God has no obligations to anyone because God is not answerable to anyone.
Sounds suspiciously a lot like Kim Jung Un.

That is kind of funny and there might be some parallels were it not for the fact that God is not a Source of great power and authority, God is also compassionate and merciful.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
No, what i say is "I think it is reasonable to expect God to communicate directly to everyone, because it's a duty for God to do so."

If it's not a duty for God to communicate directly to everyone, i can still think of some other reasons which are not base on the reason of duty that make God communicate directly to everyone. E.g. God is bored, God think it's fun to communicate directly to everyone; God is very talkative and likes to make friends with everyone; so God communicate directly to everyone.

The above hypothetical scenarios show that God communicate directly to everyone not because of duty but other reasons.
So now you are saying that even if it is not a duty for God to communicate directly to everyone, God might communicate directly to everyone for other reasons. But it is not the reasons God might do that I am interested in, it is whether or not God has an obligation/duty to communicate directly to everyone. So do you think it is *reasonable* to expect God (if God exists) to communicate directly to everyone? That was my question and it is based upon the fact that some atheists think that God would/should communicate directly to everyone if God existed because God owes everyone a direct message rather than a message that comes indirectly through Messengers/Prophets.
Is it reasonable for God to communicate directly to everyone if he is bored or he wants to make friends?
I'm not sure.

Do i think that it would only be reasonable for God to communicate directly to everyone only if it was a duty for God to communicate directly to everyone?
Maybe it can be reasonable for God to communicate directly to everyone base on other non-duty reasons; or maybe it's only reasonable for God to communicate directly to everyone only if it was a duty for God to communicate directly to everyone. I don't know which scenario is true. I haven't been convince to believe in either way.

What you imply to ask is that: It would only be reasonable for someone to do something only if it's a duty to do so?

It would only be reasonable for someone to eat food only if it's a duty to eat food?
It would only be reasonable for someone to enjoy swimming if it's a duty to enjoy swimming?
Other similar example...etc.

Weird questions, i don't have the answers now.
I understand your point. It might be reasonable for God communicate directly to everyone for any number of reasons. I was trying to hone in on the obligation aspect. Would it be reasonable for God communicate directly to everyone just because some atheists want God to do so, even if God does not choose to do so (obviously, since that is not what we have ever seen)?
Do i think it would be a duty for God to communicate directly to everyone?

How do i suppose to know?

Just like if anyone ask me:
If Flying Spaghetti Monster/Blue Unicorn exists, do i think it would be a duty for them to communicate directly to everyone?

How do i suppose to know whether or not it's a duty for Blue Unicorn to communicate directly to everyone in a hypothetical imaginary world?
By making bold empty claims about that imaginary world? By writing story about whatever that will happen in that imaginary world as i wish? By believing whatever book which make the bold empty claim that whatever that will happen in that imaginary world? That would be silly.
You just made a very good point. From an atheist viewpoint, god does not exist so god is an imaginary being like a Blue Unicorn. Moreover, atheists have no conception of what god would be like if god did exist, so they know no more about God than they know about Blue Unicorns. So do you think it is rational for an atheist to say that “as a matter of reason, the expectation would be that an omnipotent/omniscient god would communicate directly to everyone” or do you think that is a bold and empty claim?
No, what i say is "I think that rational people would expect God to communicate directly to everyone, because it's a duty for God to communicate directly to everyone."

In that hypothetical scenario where if God exists and if it's a duty for God to communicate directly to everyone, it would logically follows that rational people (who believe in those two hypothetical premise) would expect God to communicate directly to everyone.

No where do i say "rational people would only expect God to communicate directly to everyone if it was God’s duty to communicate directly to everyone". You have some weird misunderstanding.
Here is what you said:

Q: (If God exists and if it's not a duty for God to communicate directly to everyone) Do you think it is reasonable to expect God to communicate directly to everyone?
A: No. I think it is not reasonable to expect God to communicate directly to everyone, because it's not a duty for God to do so.

Q: (If God exists and if it's not a duty for God to communicate directly to everyone) Do you think that rational people would expect God to communicate directly to everyone?
A: No. I think that rational people wouldn't expect God to communicate directly to everyone, because it's not a duty for God to communicate directly to everyone.

So to summarize that, if it is not God’s duty to communicate directly to everyone, then it is not reasonable to expect God to communicate directly to everyone. If it is not God’s duty to communicate directly to everyone, then rational people wouldn't expect God to communicate directly to everyone.

If you want to withdraw what you said before and say you think that rational people would expect God to communicate directly to everyone because it's a duty for God to communicate directly to everyone please explain why you think it is a duty.
Definition of duty: a moral or legal obligation; a responsibility.

Anyone or any self-appointed true messenger can write a story about whatever duty should be done by any invisible God. Anyone can pick any book and believe whatever it says is God's duty.

Who determines what God’s duties are, God or humans?
Some humans: (write/believe whatever story and whatever duty attribute to any God. Then says whatever God's duty is or is not.)
God: (Invisible and silence)
Are you trying to make a point that God should come on down to earth and talk and explain what His duties are, instead of sending Messengers who explain that, because IF you are making that point I have to tell you it is silly because God cannot come to earth and that is one reason why God sends Messengers to represent Him.
Really weird question.

Just like if someone ask me:
Who determines what Flying Spaghetti Monster’s duties are, Flying Spaghetti Monster or humans?
Who determines what Blue Unicorn’s duties are, Blue Unicorn or humans?

You people first prove that those invisible beings exist as real being, after that maybe i'll take the question that "who determines those invisible beings' duty" seriously.
I understand your point, but the existence of God cannot be proven in any objective way so belief in God has to be based upon faith and knowledge that comes through the Messengers of God.
How do isuppose to know why it's or it's not a God's duty (in a hypotetical imaginary scenario or imaginary story)?

How do i suppose to know why it's or it's not a Flying Spagetti Monster's duty (in a hypotetical imaginary scenario)?

How do i suppose to know why it's or it's not a Blue Unicorn's duty (in a hypotetical imaginary scenario)?

It's or it's not a duty because that's the plot in those imaginary stories?
You are proving the point I want to make. For an atheist to say that God SHOULD/WOULD communicate directly to everyone if god existed is absurd on its face, yet I have been listening to an atheist say this over and over and over again for over five years... “If god were real god would/should communicate directly to everyone, because then everyone in the world would believe in God” as if he even knows that God would want everyone to believe in Him. What he believes in is an imaginary god he has made in his own image and he seems to think he knows exactly what this god’s goals are and how god should accomplish them. He might as well take over for God since he is setting God’s agenda for God.
Yes, just like if Flying Spaghetti Monster or Blue Unicorn exists, and if they had wanted to do that they would have done it already.
Agreed.
Yes, (if God/Flying Spaghetti Monster/Blue Unicorn exist), should every single person on earth get their own full book of scriptures whispered into their ear? Is that a reasonable thing for God/Flying Spagetti Monster/Blue Unicorn to do? Could everyone understand God/Flying Spaghetti Monster/Blue Unicorn and write all that down? Then what would happen? Would that make the world a better place? Is there a good reason why they cannot just all refer to the scriptures that God/Flying Spaghetti Monster/Blue Unicorn has made available?
So are you saying that since we do not have proof that god exists my questions are moot?
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Hmmmmm... I never thought of it that way, but I think you have a point in that a person will pick a religion with a God concept that fits their personality.

Yes. Or interpret scripture to suit their personality.
That is true too and it is quite an astute observation because of course scripture can be used to believe anything people WANT to believe.
That’s a personality I could work with.
I sensed from past conversations that you and I have some personality characteristics in common. :)
I think the value of a god concept that helps you live a life with self esteem, and a sense of purpose, is not to be underestimated.
Yes, it does, but I had both even before I was heavily involved with God and my religion. I am just the kind of personality that needs a sense of purpose.
Logic is logic. Feeling is feeling. We have to balance them.
How true.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
These are a bit of trick questions. I think what happens is as long as you have judgment about imperfections in yourself, nature, other people, and God you are blind. You have to have not a single shred of judgment before you can see all God's blessings abundantly all around us. Unless you love as in deeply accept and appreciate everything including ALL imperfections you find in the World you will NOT be able to hear what God is saying.
What I hear you saying is that we have to accept ourselves and other people for who we/they are and we have to accept God’s Will for our lives, the good and the bad. That is a very valid point, and even though I am not able to do it all the time I am getting better at it since I am aware this is the best path to take.
 

Etritonakin

Well-Known Member
False. I am proof your claim, above is 100% false. I also know of quite a number of folk, who also prove your claim, above, is 100% false.

I am not exactly sure what you mean, but....

If you remove self-awareness from the equation, you should agree.

The fact that you are aware that there is one overall reality greater than ourselves -which we could all agree upon -which should be referenced if we are to get things "correct" -means that the "one true God" has communicated it to you..... SELF-AWARE OR NOT.


"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

~ Epicurius (341-270 BC)"

Becuase his intent is to call you a god!
"YOU MUST MASTER IT".

"I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High."

He did not intend to make blissful humans -but masters of reality prepared to inherit the entire creation -without concern that it would be like..... this. So he allowed.... this.
 
Last edited:

sealchan

Well-Known Member
Thanks for the suggestions but I am not sure one can change an objectivist into a subjectivist. People tend to think the way they think, although they can change that to a certain degree. Reading what others post and having to think in order to respond is a good way to see other perspectives, unless someone keeps repeating the same things over and over and over again. I do not see that happening on this forum, but I see it on my forum.

I have learned so much about people and what they believe or disbelieve and why by being on this forum for the last two years. Before that I was cloistered in a little box, although I did not realize that until I finally got out. :eek:

I think the science of psychology will eventually come around and ironically help us to understand our subjectivity as a higher level of an objective reality.

You have a forum? Do tell...
 
Top