Atheist looking for religious debate. Any religion. Let's see if I can be convinced.

[Tiberius]

Bingo! God sets a standard that He knows 'most people' cannot meet, but a few people can and do meet that standard.

Matthew 7:13-14 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

That's like me being a music teacher, demanding that all my students be able to compose operas at five years old, burning to death the kids who can't do it and then saying, "Why can't you be more like Mozart?"

Your god appears to be an utter monster.

 

[shunyadragon]

My post politely asking for debate with anyone from any religious background was ridiculous and insulting? Or the post where I asked why you were making assumptions about me? Not willing to investigate religion or belief systems? I have a bachelors in theology and undergraduate degrees in religion and philosophy. I am currently studying law. So no, reading comprehension isn’t a problem. Isn’t the purpose of discourse on a religious forum to disseminate ideas and better understand what people believe and why? I understand if you’re no scholar but there are very smart people, from students to scholars, on here from many different religious disciplines. I find my discussions with many of them thought provoking and good natured. I’ve debated the Baha’i before and while we have yet to conclusively prove the veracity of Baha’i claims I continue to have dialogue because I don’t believe in absolute certainty or that I have found all the answers. Through this type of discourse I have become friends with people from many different personal, educational, and doctrinal backgrounds.

With the highlighted education you should have all the answers to your questions. What's up Doc?

This did not appear to be an attempt at a dialogue, but an outright challenge for others who believe differently to prove their 'beliefs' on your grounds.

The phrase; 'Let's see if "I" can be convinced.' is problematic for a dialogue on even turf.

 

[Tiberius]

Sorry it has taken so long for me to get back to you. I had planed to write something longer but after I thought about it I decided it would be better to write something shorter and then have you ask questions if you want further clarification.

The first thing we woukld have to do is rule out anyone who claimed to be a Messenger of God by using certain criteria that will rule out all the false claimants (the false messengers). Whether they are deluded or simply lying in order to deceive people really does not matter; the fact is that they are not true Messengers of God, even if they believe that they are.

By asking the following questions and getting answers we can rule them out.

1. What kind of character do they have? Did they have a good character as demonstrated by their lives and deeds?
2. Did they have a mission on earth that God gave them and was that mission brought to completion successfully?
3. Do they have any scriptures that were written by them or scriptures that were written in their name?
4. Do they have a religion that was established in their name and followers of that religion?
5. Has that religion grown over the years or is it shrinking?

If the answers to any or all of these is no, then they cannot be a true Messenger of God.
If the answer to all of these is yes then chances are they are a true Messenger of God.

This is a starting point but there are other questions we would want to ask ourselves before we would be able to believe that a man was a true Messenger of God because that is a bold claim so there should be a lot of evidence to support such a claim.

Let's say there was a man for whom the answers to your questions were:

1. He didn't drink or smoke, who strived to stop animal abuse to such a degree that the animal welfare laws he put in place are still in effect today. He also served bravely and was decorated with high honors.
2. He believed he had been given a mission by God and did everything he could to see that it was carried out. He was not completely successful before his premature death, but he did accomplish a great deal of what he set out to do.
3. He wrote much about what he believed his life's work to be, and firmly believed that the work he was doing was for the glory of God.
4. He had many followers while he was alive, and there are still millions who follow his teachings and gather in groups based on the movement he founded.
5. Indeed, his followers have grown more numerous in recent times.

Do you think such a man could be a true messenger of God? If he meets these criteria, what other criteria would he need to meet before you would say he is a messenger from God?

 

[Tiberius]

God is omnipotent thus capable of communicating to every single human in the world in a clear and unambiguous way but that is a moot point because God does not do everything that He is capable of. If God did everything He is capable of God could wipe all humans out in a heartbeat.

Clearly, it is because God is omnipotent that God only does what God chooses to do, not what you or anyone else expects Him to do. This is logic 101.

This is the most ridiculous logic I've seen from you.

It's like saying that I could have prevented someone from falling off the roof and breaking their back, but I didn't because if I did everything that I could do I'd end up shooting everyone in the head. Clearly, it is because I can do many things that I do only what I choose to do, not what you think I should do (even if that means I let a guy fall and break his back).

 

[Trailblazer]

That's like me being a music teacher, demanding that all my students be able to compose operas at five years old, burning to death the kids who can't do it and then saying, "Why can't you be more like Mozart?"

No, it is not the same since nobody is going to burn to death. The only result of not getting the message is not getting the reward you could have had.

“He who shall accept and believe, shall receive his reward; and he who shall turn away, shall receive none other than his own punishment.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 339

Your god appears to be an utter monster.

No, that is not my God, that is the Christian God who burns nonbelievers in hell. Such a God does not even exist.

 

[infrabenji]

Were you raised as an atheist or as a religious believer? I was not raised with any religion or belief in God that I can recall. I was not searching for God or a religion when I stumbled upon the Baha'i Faith during my first year of college. I had no interest in God or religion. However, I have always liked learning new things so when I heard about Baha'i I read many books about the religion and also books written by the central figures of the Faith. Not long after that I came to believe it was a true religion because of the facts surrounding the religion and because of the spiritual teachings about the soul and the afterlife and the primary message of Baha'u'llah which is the oneness of mankind and unity of mankind, as well as the promise of world peace. I was also drawn to the social teachings such as the elimination of all forms of prejudice, universal education, and the equality of men and women. You can read about the Main Baha’i Teachings in this article: What Is the Baha'i Faith?

Anyhow, I get off track very easily because my mind is very tangential. What I wanted to say is that I joined the Baha'i Faith I really did not have a belief in God, I joined because I was drawn to the teachings since I am an idealist. As such I was not really that concerned as to whether God existed since my reason for joining was not because I wanted a relationship with God. It was only many decades after I joined that I started to concern myself with God and took that seriously. I assumed that God existed before that because after all I believed that Baha'u'llah was a Manifestation of God, but I did not really know or care what that actually meant for my life or the lives of others.

It was only about eight and a half years ago when I started to think seriously about God. In this post to Adrian, another Baha'i on this forum, I explained what happened when I first I realized without a doubt that Baha'u'llah was speaking for God, which was about seven years ago.

On Adrian's thread How important are facts within your religious beliefs? I explained why I chose the Baha'i Faith.

adrian009 said:
Does historical fact matter or should religious myth be accorded the same status as fact? We’re discussing religion after all. How important are facts to you within your religious belief or worldview? Does it really matter? Why or why not?

Trailblazer said: Facts are more important to me than anything else, and that is why I became a Baha'i in the first place. The first thing I did when I heard of Baha'u'llah back in 1970 was look in the Encyclopedia Britannica to find out of Baha'u'llah was a real person. After that I read whatever books had been published about the Baha’i Faith at that time and I read the Writings of Baha’u’llah and Abdu’l-Baha, but what really convinced me that the Baha'i Faith was true was Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era because there were a lot of facts in there.

Emotions can be very misleading so I rely upon facts. As I always tell people, I never had any mushy-gushy feelings towards God or Baha'u'llah; I just know that the Baha'i Faith is the truth from God for this age because of the facts surrounding the life and mission of Baha'u'llah and because the theology is logical.

It was only 43 years after I had become a Baha'i that I connected with the Writings of Baha'u'llah on both an intellectual and an emotional level when I read Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh for the first time with serious intent, and that is when I realized without a doubt that Baha'u'llah was speaking for God. My life has never been the same since. Before that I had believed in God and I knew Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God; after that I knew beyond the shadow of a doubt that God existed and Baha'u'llah was His Representative for this age.

That’s really fascinating. So you became Baha’i because of their message of peace essentially and the strength of your belief in a deity was kind of ancillary. It wasn’t until years later that your belief in god fully developed. I can definitely get behind Baha’i’s ( I don’t know what the plural of Baha’i is or if there is one) message certainly, but to assume god exists as a starting point is problematic. Even if it feels right. It also feels to me that if we assume or somehow know someone is a messenger for god it begs the question of gods existence and the assumption has already taken place before the determination can be made based on the evidence whether or not the god exists. Does that make any sense? Like if someone tells me chocolate ice cream will bring world peace and tastes really good and I’ve never had it. I’ve been pre-conditioned to accept to multiple ideas. And then it turns out chocolate ice cream does taste really good in fact, it’s the best tasting thing I’ve ever had. So it follows logically that this persons message is true and that ice cream does not only taste good but will also bring world peace. Does that mean chocolate ice cream will bring world peace? No. Humans are surprisingly susceptible to this type of conditioning. It is exploited in people all the time from cults to mlm’s to self help seminars to pilgrimages for healing that never happens. These ideas once planted are then encouraged and reinforced through indoctrination until they feel natural. Have you heard of the sunken cost fallacy? If not, It’s where someone has spent so much time and effort on something that they can’t let it go. This is what usually follows, in my experience, for victims of this type of conditioning. It’s the refusal to think critically and the acceptance of complacency. You’re obviously a smart person and you’re on a debate forum so I’m assuming you’re not absolutely certain? Though I could be wrong. Have you had anything happen spiritual or otherwise, maybe your studies, that would make you absolutely certain?

 

[infrabenji]

That's like me being a music teacher, demanding that all my students be able to compose operas at five years old, burning to death the kids who can't do it and then saying, "Why can't you be more like Mozart?"

Your god appears to be an utter monster.

Tiberius! What’s up my dude. See you’re back. Bringing us some knowledge. Blow some minds. Good to see you.

 

[shunyadragon]

Let's say there was a man for whom the answers to your questions were:

1. He didn't drink or smoke, who strived to stop animal abuse to such a degree that the animal welfare laws he put in place are still in effect today. He also served bravely and was decorated with high honors.
2. He believed he had been given a mission by God and did everything he could to see that it was carried out. He was not completely successful before his premature death, but he did accomplish a great deal of what he set out to do.
3. He wrote much about what he believed his life's work to be, and firmly believed that the work he was doing was for the glory of God.
4. He had many followers while he was alive, and there are still millions who follow his teachings and gather in groups based on the movement he founded.
5. Indeed, his followers have grown more numerous in recent times.

Do you think such a man could be a true messenger of God? If he meets these criteria, what other criteria would he need to meet before you would say he is a messenger from God?

I doubt, because sounds very humanist in that your works would justify one's claims that one is a manifestation of God.

 

[Tiberius]

No, it is not the same since nobody is going to burn to death. The only result of not getting the message is not getting the reward you could have had.

“He who shall accept and believe, shall receive his reward; and he who shall turn away, shall receive none other than his own punishment.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 339

No, that is not my God, that is the Christian God who burns nonbelievers in hell. Such a God does not even exist.

And let's not forget that the reward that they don't get is LIFE, according to the passage you cited. So, God is sentencing them to death. God that created the wide path that leads to destruction that most people will follow while intentionally keeping the path to life narrow so only a few will find it. Same thing, really.

Your god intentionally makes it difficult to get the reward when it need not be that way, yet you claim he wants everyone saved.

 

[Tiberius]

Tiberius! What’s up my dude. See you’re back. Bringing us some knowledge. Blow some minds. Good to see you.

Yeah, I pop in every day or so.

 

[Trailblazer]

Let's say there was a man for whom the answers to your questions were:

1. He didn't drink or smoke, who strived to stop animal abuse to such a degree that the animal welfare laws he put in place are still in effect today. He also served bravely and was decorated with high honors.
2. He believed he had been given a mission by God and did everything he could to see that it was carried out. He was not completely successful before his premature death, but he did accomplish a great deal of what he set out to do.
3. He wrote much about what he believed his life's work to be, and firmly believed that the work he was doing was for the glory of God.
4. He had many followers while he was alive, and there are still millions who follow his teachings and gather in groups based on the movement he founded.
5. Indeed, his followers have grown more numerous in recent times.

Do you think such a man could be a true messenger of God? If he meets these criteria, what other criteria would he need to meet before you would say he is a messenger from God?

The criteria would be met more like this:

1. He had good character as exemplified by his qualities such as love, mercy, kindness, truth, justice, benevolence, gracious, merciful, righteous, forgiving, patient.
2. He believed he had been given a mission by God and did everything he could to see that it was carried out. He was completely successful before his death, and he accomplished everything that he set out to do.
3. He wrote much about God and God's purpose for humans both individually and collectively. He firmly believed that the work he was doing was for the Cause of God.
4. He had many followers while he was alive, and there are still millions who follow his teachings and gather in groups based on the religion he founded.
5. Indeed, his followers have grown more numerous in recent times.

I said: "This is a starting point but there are other questions we would want to ask ourselves before we would be able to believe that a man was a true Messenger of God because that is a bold claim so there should be a lot of evidence to support such a claim."

Other criteria he would have to meet is that his religion could not contradict or be in opposition to any of the world religions that are already established and he could not talk down any of those religions and say his religion is the only true religion from God.

Depending upon his claims he would have other criteria to meet.

 

[infrabenji]

With the highlighted education you should have all the answers to your questions. What's up Doc?

This did not appear to be an attempt at a dialogue, but an outright challenge for others who believe differently to prove their 'beliefs' on your grounds.

I mean if it’s that unclear maybe I should change the title but we’re like 40 pages in so I’ll maybe leave it alone at this point? I’m not sure I definitely am not trying to invite personal attacks or have my intellect or achievements belittled. Who is arrogant enough to say they have all the answers? Just because I have a higher education doesn’t mean I do. It is kind of a challenge in a way because their are multiple competing doctrines on here who do not agree with each other’s ( Baha’i excluded ) prophets, messengers, or gods. And they are also the affirmative position, the ones making the claim, so yeah it is kind of a challenge but not in a “I’ve got all the answers make your case and fail before my mighty intellect” lol kind of way. More of a let’s test our mettle against each other and see if our ideas or the veracity of our claims are correct, need tweaking, or are wrong all together. And that includes me.

 

[infrabenji]

The criteria would be met more like this:

1. He had good character as exemplified by his qualities such as love, mercy, kindness, truth, justice, benevolence, gracious, merciful, righteous, forgiving, patient.
2. He believed he had been given a mission by God and did everything he could to see that it was carried out. He was completely successful before his death, and he accomplished everything that he set out to do.
3. He wrote much about God and God's purpose for humans both individually and collectively. He firmly believed that the work he was doing was for the Cause of God.
4. He had many followers while he was alive, and there are still millions who follow his teachings and gather in groups based on the religion he founded.
5. Indeed, his followers have grown more numerous in recent times.

I said: "This is a starting point but there are other questions we would want to ask ourselves before we would be able to believe that a man was a true Messenger of God because that is a bold claim so there should be a lot of evidence to support such a claim."

Other criteria he would have to meet is that his religion could not contradict or be in opposition to any of the world religions that are already established and he could not talk down any of those religions and say his religion is the only true religion from God.

Depending upon his claims he would have other criteria to meet.

With those criteria it makes me want to write my own holy book and start a religion. I know if I hit the points of interest I can at least get the Baha’i behind me. By the way how much do the Baha’i typically tithe just cur…. Bad Infrabenji Bad. I promised I wouldn’t start a religion just to get rich. It’s tempting though lol.

 

[Trailblazer]

This is the most ridiculous logic I've seen from you.

It's like saying that I could have prevented someone from falling off the roof and breaking their back, but I didn't because if I did everything that I could do I'd end up shooting everyone in the head. Clearly, it is because I can do many things that I do only what I choose to do, not what you think I should do (even if that means I let a guy fall and break his back).

Trailblazer said: ↑

God is omnipotent thus capable of communicating to every single human in the world in a clear and unambiguous way but that is a moot point because God does not do everything that He is capable of. If God did everything He is capable of God could wipe all humans out in a heartbeat.

Clearly, it is because God is omnipotent that God only does what God chooses to do, not what you or anyone else expects Him to do. This is logic 101.

No, it is not anything like saying what you said it is like saying.
Logically speaking, an omnipotent God only does what He chooses to do because he can choose to do only what He wants to do since there is nobody with more power than Him who can make Him do anything He does not want to do. And that is why atheists are not getting what they want from God, because they have less power than God so they cannot make God do what they want Him to do.

And there you go, comparing God to a human, which is that fallacy of false equivalence since God is not a human so should never be expected to behave like a human. Lots of atheists have been committing this same fallacy lately, so don't feel bad. It is a common error.

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

 

[Tiberius]

Trailblazer said: ↑

God is omnipotent thus capable of communicating to every single human in the world in a clear and unambiguous way but that is a moot point because God does not do everything that He is capable of. If God did everything He is capable of God could wipe all humans out in a heartbeat.

Clearly, it is because God is omnipotent that God only does what God chooses to do, not what you or anyone else expects Him to do. This is logic 101.

No, it is not anything like saying what you said it is like saying.
Logically speaking, an omnipotent God only does what He chooses to do because he can choose to do only what He wants to do since there is nobody with more power than Him who can make Him do anything He does not want to do. And that is why atheists are not getting what they want from God, because they have less power than God so they cannot make God do what they want Him to do.

And there you go, comparing God to a human, which is that fallacy of false equivalence since God is not a human so should never be expected to behave like a human. Lots of atheists have been committing this same fallacy lately, so don't feel bad. It is a common error.

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

I was specifically responding to your claim, "If God did everything He is capable of God could wipe all humans out in a heartbeat" as an explanation for why God does not communicate to every single human in the world in a clear and unambiguous way.

You seem to be suggesting that if God did communicate to every single human in the world in a clear and unambiguous way, then he would have to do everything he is capable of doing. This does not follow. God is surely capable of communicating to everyone without killing everyone.

 

[Tiberius]

The criteria would be met more like this:

1. He had good character as exemplified by his qualities such as love, mercy, kindness, truth, justice, benevolence, gracious, merciful, righteous, forgiving, patient.
2. He believed he had been given a mission by God and did everything he could to see that it was carried out. He was completely successful before his death, and he accomplished everything that he set out to do.
3. He wrote much about God and God's purpose for humans both individually and collectively. He firmly believed that the work he was doing was for the Cause of God.
4. He had many followers while he was alive, and there are still millions who follow his teachings and gather in groups based on the religion he founded.
5. Indeed, his followers have grown more numerous in recent times.

I said: "This is a starting point but there are other questions we would want to ask ourselves before we would be able to believe that a man was a true Messenger of God because that is a bold claim so there should be a lot of evidence to support such a claim."

Other criteria he would have to meet is that his religion could not contradict or be in opposition to any of the world religions that are already established and he could not talk down any of those religions and say his religion is the only true religion from God.

Depending upon his claims he would have other criteria to meet.

So, two questions.

Do you think this person meets the first set of criteria? Yes or no?

Secondly, John 14:6 would seem to indicate that Jesus was not a messenger of God. There are many other parts of the Bible that claim to be the only path to religious truth. By your logic, the Bible would not be valid as a source, since it says it is the only true religion (as did Jesus).

 

[Trailblazer]

And let's not forget that the reward that they don't get is LIFE, according to the passage you cited. So, God is sentencing them to death. God that created the wide path that leads to destruction that most people will follow while intentionally keeping the path to life narrow so only a few will find it. Same thing, really.

Your god intentionally makes it difficult to get the reward when it need not be that way, yet you claim he wants everyone saved.

Matthew 7:13-14 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

God does want everyone to go to heaven (I don't believe in saved, since there is nothing to be saved from) but God does not override a person's free will decision to choose to believe or not believe. Remember John?

God does not intentionally make the path narrow, in fact it is not even God who makes the paths. Humans create their own destinies by choosing to enter the wide gate and follow the broad road that leads to destruction or choosing to enter through the narrow gate and walk the narrow road that leads to eternal life.

In every new age, the religion at the narrow gate is the new religion God wants us to find and follow, and it is the gate that leads to eternal life. But it is not that easy for most people to find this gate because most people are steeped in religious tradition or attached to what they already believe. If they do not have a religion, most people are suspicious of the new religion and the new messenger. If they are atheists they do not like the idea of messengers of God or they think they are all phonies.

Jesus told us to enter through the narrow gate, the gate that leads to eternal life, and Jesus said few people would find that gate... It is narrow, so it is difficult to get through... It is difficult to get through because one has to be willing to give up all their preconceived ideas, have an open mind, and think for themselves. Most people do not normally embark upon such a journey. They go through the wide gate, the easy one to get through – their own religious tradition or their own preconceived ideas about God or no god. They follow that broad road that is easiest for them to travel.

I believe that the Baha'i Faith is now the narrow gate and the narrow road that leads to eternal life in this age. The Baha’i Faith and is the narrow gate because only a few people recognize God’s new religion in the beginning and enter through that gate.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Secondly, the passage above refers to eternal life, which is a state of the soul that is near to God. The verse does not say that everyone else will get death.

When Jesus referred to eternal life, but He was not referring to physical life of the body. He was referring a quality of life, spiritual life, loving God and being close to God, and we can have eternal life both in this world and in the next world (the spiritual world).

The soul can never die because it is immortal. Only the physical body can die because it is mortal.

All souls continue to exist in the spiritual world after the body dies but not all souls have eternal life (everlasting life). Eternal life refers to a “quality” of life, nearness to God which, according to Jesus, comes from believing in Him. Baha'u'llah wrote the same thing about believing in Him and gaining eternal life.

“The immortality of the spirit is mentioned in the Holy Books; it is the fundamental basis of the divine religions. Now punishments and rewards are said to be of two kinds: first, the rewards and punishments of this life; second, those of the other world. But the paradise and hell of existence are found in all the worlds of God, whether in this world or in the spiritual heavenly worlds. Gaining these rewards is the gaining of eternal life. That is why Christ said, “Act in such a way that you may find eternal life, and that you may be born of water and the spirit, so that you may enter into the Kingdom.” 2” Some Answered Questions, p. 223

“Likewise, the rewards of the other world are the eternal life which is clearly mentioned in all the Holy Books, the divine perfections, the eternal bounties and everlasting felicity….The rewards of the other world are peace, the spiritual graces, the various spiritual gifts in the Kingdom of God, the gaining of the desires of the heart and the soul, and the meeting of God in the world of eternity.” Some Answered Questions, pp. 224-225

Those people who are distant from God do not have eternal life, and although their soul continues to exist in the spiritual world after their physical body dies they are “as dead” compared to those souls who are close to God.

“In the same way, the souls who are veiled from God, although they exist in this world and in the world after death, are, in comparison with the holy existence of the children of the Kingdom of God, nonexisting and separated from God.”
Some Answered Questions, p. 243

 

[shunyadragon]

With those criteria it makes me want to write my own holy book and start a religion. I know if I hit the points of interest I can at least get the Baha’i behind me. By the way how much do the Baha’i typically tithe just cur…. Bad Infrabenji Bad. I promised I wouldn’t start a religion just to get rich. It’s tempting though lol.

This basically the humanist atheist approach to pick and choose to make up there own religion one of many versions

The Baha'i Faith did it first, and the humanists followed with their versions, without God.

 

[infrabenji]

This basically the humanist atheist approach to pick and choose to make up there own religion one of many versions

The Baha'i Faith did it first, and the humanists followed with their versions, without God.

I think I agree lol. Plenty of non deistic religions out there and probably a lot more irreligious religions out there than we know.

 

[Trailblazer]

With those criteria it makes me want to write my own holy book and start a religion. I know if I hit the points of interest I can at least get the Baha’i behind me. By the way how much do the Baha’i typically tithe just cur…. Bad Infrabenji Bad. I promised I wouldn’t start a religion just to get rich. It’s tempting though lol.

Can you write 15,000 tablets as Baha'u'llah did? You would surely have to sacrifice all the other things you want to accomplish in life such as getting a law degree. BTW, I come from a long line of attorneys going way back on my father's side of the family. I have a propensity for law but I did not realize that until after I got various other degrees and by then it was too late.

To answer your question, Baha'is contribute to the Baha'i Fund on a voluntary basis. They choose to contribute however much they want and there no requirement to contribute at all.

Now I am curious. When you studied theology and religion did you only study Christian theology and Christianity? Why were you interested in theology and religion? What did they teach you about Christianity, the Church doctrines?

Psychology is my most recent academic achievement so I am very interested in people and why they do what they do. I was never very interested in religion but I am now very interested in God because I do not think there is anything more important in life than to know God and come to terms with God.