Atheists, if God existed, would it be reasonable to expect God to...

[Trailblazer]

I agree that if God wanted to convey a clear and unambiguous message to everyone, choosing to send a 'messenger' would be a poor method to use, because not everyone would consider the message clear and unambiguous so only a few people would get the message, at least in the beginning.

However, there is no reason to assume that God wants to convey a clear and unambiguous message to everyone; otherwise God would have chosen some other method.

No one claimed that God wanted EVERYONE to understand the messenger, just that IF God only wants a select few to understand the TRULY clear and unambiguous method would be to contact these individuals Himself. By sending a 'messenger' along with all of the FALSE messengers, it opens the door for confusion.

I can understand why it could be confusing and difficult to find the true Messenger among all the false messengers, but there are two problems with your suggestion:

1. Ordinary humans could never understand God if God communicated to them directly,
2. Even if humans could understand God communicating to them directly, how would it be fair for God to communicate to some people and not to other people?

That said, don’t you ever wonder why God does not *contact individuals Himself * as you said?

There is no need to determine which ones are false in order to determine which one is true. I do not have to look at all the houses in town before I decide which house to buy. I just look at ones that seem like the ones I might want because they have the features I am looking for.

Once they narrowed it down, they would not have to guess if they looked at the evidence the Messengers provided to prove their claims. It would be a bit more difficult to determine which one was the true Messenger unless you knew what to look for, but there are key features they all have in common

LOL Okay... so you're not talking about finding the TRUE messenger... it's all about finding the messenger that you AGREE with. Since it's all about finding the message that you 'want', YOUR 'true messenger' could very well be a 'false messenger' for ME. After all the perfect house for ME, might be far from the perfect house for YOU.

Where did I say that it's all about finding the messenger that I AGREE with? I said there are TRUE Messengers and FALSE messengers, and that is logic 101. It is irrelevant what *I believe* since I am not God, so I do not determine who the TRUE Messengers are.

When I talked about how I would go about looking for and buying a house, I was only describing the PROCESS by which anyone might look for a Messenger. I did not mean that they would have to *buy* the same Messenger I bought. This search is your search and the criteria are your criteria, so you might end up with a completely different Messenger than I ended up with.

That said, *I believe* that Baha’u’llah is the Messenger God sent for this age in history, but you might come to a different conclusion. I certainly am not going to try to convince you of that because Baha’u’llah wrote that the faith of no man can be conditioned by anyone except himself, meaning that we all have to do our own homework and come to our own conclusions.

Back to logic, reality is reality and it has NOTHING to do with what people believe. In reality, Baha’u’llah was either a Messenger of God as He claimed to be or He was psychotic or a really good con-man. That can only be determined by looking at His life, His character, His mission and His writings, IF He is on your short list for purchase.

Thus, it's clear 'true' and 'false' are all in the eye of the beholder. There is no TRUE god... only what individuals have made up for what they IMAGINE a TRUE god would be.

I am sorry to say that is illogical. IF there is a TRUE God, that God exists in reality and it has NOTHING to do with what believers believe.Similarly, if there is a red car in my driveway there is a red car in my driveway, so even if not everyone can see it the reality is that there is a red car in my driveway.

Likewise, IF there is no God then there is no God, even if believers imagine there is a God.

I refuse to even entertain the possibility that there could be more than one God because I consider it highly illogical, and the evidence from the revealed religions does not point in that direction. So to me it is God or no God.

Let's be honest and simply admit there there's no verifiable evidence that ANY god or gods exist.

I know that, did I ever say anything different?
You atheists are so much fun.
I mean that in a good way...

 

[Trailblazer]

Must every theological discussion be about what you believe? Maybe in discussing hypothetical gods neither of us believe exist, we can establish common concepts and principles to apply when discussing the much more emotive questions of what we do believe.

I understand what you mean. That is a creative idea. This atheist and I have been banging heads for years because we both hold to our positions which are opposite, and we both feel very strongly about them. I do not expect that either one of us is going to change our position but I just try to go about it from logic rather than just belief.

Or even if it is written in scriptures, given that different religious scriptures say very different things and people interpret the same scriptures in very different ways. They don't seem to be any kind of special or unique source of knowledge.

The salient point is that scriptures are the only source of knowledge about God. Even though different scriptures read differently and people interpret them differently, there are some common threads that run through them, attributes of God we can all agree on, at least among the Abrahamic religions.

Wouldn’t that apply to writing scripture or claiming to be Gods messenger too?

I do not see it as ME filling in the blanks if I am deferring to scriptures, since I believe that scriptures are the only Source of knowledge about God. But they do not reveal everything so I think we have to accept that there is a reason why God did not reveal everything we might want to know, either because we do not need to know it or we could never understand it.

But the core problem being discussed here is that human messengers seems to be an imperfect method, given than nobody can ever agree of what any of the messengers say and mean or even whether they’re really inspired by God or not.

That is true, but that is a problem that humans have to work out. Part of the problem is that everyone has their own separate Messenger they believe in and they interpret what was revealed by Him differently so there is a lot of division and disunity. As a Baha’i, I think that my religion has offered explanations as to why this is the case and what we need to do to resolve it, but of course most people do not accept my religion as valid so that does not help the bulk of humanity who adhere to the older religions.

If there was something God wanted us to understand (individually or in groups), wouldn’t he use a method that meant we clearly, definitively and unconditionally knew that thing?

Ideally, I suppose that is true, IF God did not want us to have to struggle on our own to try to understand. Of course I have a certain bias, but I think that my religion offers that method; but again, that won’t help if people are unwilling to even look at what it teaches.

Would it be considered churlish to quote you saying that?

I can totally accept the idea that there is a god so far beyond us that we couldn’t possible understand it in any way. I can’t accept people proposing that kind of god but then going on to claim that they can receive any kind of instruction or guidance from that god, regardless of whether it is via scripture, messengers or anything else.

I might have said “God wants” but after further thought I realized that nobody can know what God wants unless it was revealed through a Messenger, but they only reveal the Will of God, which is not the same as what God wants or desires. There is a subtle difference.

I do not see the contradiction. I can believe that there is a God that is so far beyond us that we couldn’t possibly understand it in any way and also believe that God knows the humans He created and communicates His Will to them through a Messenger. I suppose if I had never discovered the Baha’i Faith I might be an agnostic or a deist because I do not believe God is personal and approachable the way that Christians and some other religions believe. Baha’is believe in a personal God but not the same way Christians believe: God in the Bahá'í Faith

Trailblazer said: How could such a God want anything from humans, such as wanting the maximum number of people to believe He exists? God does not need anyone to believe that He exists because God is fully self-sufficient and fully self-subsisting above having needs. Needs are what humans have, God has no needs.

Such a god wouldn’t inspire messengers or scripture either. If God has no need of us, why would he interact with us at all?

Simply put, it is my belief that God has no need for us but we have a need for God. These short quotes explain it.

“Your Lord, the God of mercy, can well dispense with all creatures. Nothing whatever can either increase or diminish the things He doth possess.” Gleanings, p. 148

“Regard thou the one true God as One Who is apart from, and immeasurably exalted above, all created things. The whole universe reflecteth His glory, while He is Himself independent of, and transcendeth His creatures.” Gleanings, p. 166

God does not demand worship, God enjoins us to worship Him, and that is only for our own benefit, not for God’s benefit.

“Consider the mercy of God and His gifts. He enjoineth upon you that which shall profit you, though He Himself can well dispense with all creatures.” Gleanings, p. 140

“The one true God, exalted be His glory, hath wished nothing for Himself. The allegiance of mankind profiteth Him not, neither doth its perversity harm Him. The Bird of the Realm of Utterance voiceth continually this call: “All things have I willed for thee, and thee, too, for thine own sake.” Gleanings, p. 260

Given these excerpts from the Writings of Baha’u’llah, I deduce that God does care. However, it is abundantly clear that God needs nothing for Himself because God is self-sufficient, above having needs as humans have. Clearly, God sends Messengers only for the benefit of humans. God cares about humans so God wants them to believe in Him and His Messenger, but God does not need anyone to believe in Him and His Messenger because God does not have needs. Only humans have needs.

God has the power to dispense with all of His creatures in one split second but He doesn’t only because He loves them. Why would God create humans if He did not love them? And if He did not love them anymore, why would He not just wipe them out? But He doesn’t do that. Instead God keeps sending Messengers in every age, no doubt hoping that people will recognize them, but not requiring that they do.

Also, since God created us out of love God wants us to feelHis love for us. The caveat is that if we do not love God, God’s love cannot reach us since God never forces His love upon anyone.

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

4: O SON OF MAN! I loved thy creation, hence I created thee. Wherefore, do thou love Me, that I may name thy name and fill thy soul with the spirit of life.”

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

 

[Trailblazer]

Humans test any claim they care about justifying. IMO, anyone who doesn't test God but believes in God anyway doesn't care about whether their beliefs are true.

You cannot test God unless you can locate God with your GPS tracker, but I do not think that technology has advanced that much yet….

You are right about testing though, because the Prophets (Messengers) said that we should test them, as it says in this chapter:

Proofs of Prophethood​

Bahá’u’lláh asked no one to accept His statements and His tokens blindly. On the contrary, He put in the very forefront of His teachings emphatic warnings against blind acceptance of authority, and urged all to open their eyes and ears, and use their own judgement, independently and fearlessly, in order to ascertain the truth. He enjoined the fullest investigation and never concealed Himself, offering, as the supreme proofs of His Prophethood, His words and works and their effects in transforming the lives and characters of men. The tests He proposed are the same as those laid down by His great predecessors. Moses said:—

When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.—Deut. xviii, 22.

Christ put His test just as plainly, and appealed to it in proof of His own claim. He said:—

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. … Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.—Matt. vii, 15–17, 20

In the chapters that follow, we shall endeavor to show whether Bahá’u’lláh’s claim to Prophethood stands or falls by application of these tests: whether the things that He had spoken have followed and come to pass, and whether His fruits have been good or evil; in other words, whether His prophecies are being fulfilled and His ordinances established, and whether His lifework has contributed to the education and upliftment of humanity and the betterment of morals, or the contrary.
Proofs of Prophethood, Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, pp. 8-9

 

[Trailblazer]

Except...
Messengers of God...as I understand things...are infallible when it comes to their delivery of the message of God, not in their everyday life. For example, Muslims will admit that Muhammed made some mistakes (let's say minor for the sake of this thread) but would say he's infallible in this delivery of the Word of God.

The Baha’i Faith teaches that the *universal* Manifestations of God are infallible in their station as Messengers, in their receipt and delivery of the Word of God. However, there are other kinds of prophets who are not infallible. They are followers and promulgators, not leaders and law-givers, and they depend upon the universal Manifestations of God for their inspiration. Others are prophets who were sent to particular localities so they are not universal.

The Three Kinds of Prophets

So, even if a Messengers delivery of the Word is perfect, the ability of another human to identify that this is a 'legitimate' Messenger of God would seem problematic (just keeping things to Muslims and Christians it seems clear that working out who is a prophet is problematic.

I agree it is not easy to identify a Messenger of God, especially when He is new and has not been proven to many people, but still it is not impossible.

So you now have a perfect message, indicating God's intervention (since a 'normal' human can never be perfect) but have a God unwilling to convey the message themselves because...I'm not sure.

One reason that God does not deliver messages to ordinary humans is because they are not infallible so they cannot act as channels for the message of God. Also, Messengers have a divine mind so they can understand and transmit communication from God whereas ordinary humans do not have that kind of mind.

I mean, if the message has to be infallible, why rely on humans? The question remains.

Because a Manifestation of God is infallible, He can infallibly receive and record the message of God. Obviously, God is not a man so God cannot come to earth and do that Himself.

Wait, are you claiming that Prophets are not human? Or at least that they are built differently? If so, wouldn't that mean that God guided that? I mean, it didn't just happen spontaneously, right? [/quote]
I am not claiming that the lesser prophets are built this way, only the Manifestations of God. Here is a quote from the Bab who was one of the “Twin Manifestations” of God who ushered in the new age and came to announce the Coming of Baha’u’llah:

“In His Tablet to Muḥammad Sháh the Báb, moreover, has revealed: “I am the Primal Point from which have been generated all created things. I am the Countenance of God Whose splendor can never be obscured, the Light of God Whose radiance can never fade…. All the keys of heaven God hath chosen to place on My right hand, and all the keys of hell on My left…. I am one of the sustaining pillars of the Primal Word of God. Whosoever hath recognized Me, hath known all that is true and right, and hath attained all that is good and seemly…. The substance wherewith God hath created Me is not the clay out of which others have been formed. He hath conferred upon Me that which the worldly-wise can never comprehend, nor the faithful discover…”
The Promised Day Is Come, p. 43

I certainly understand that this is a big claim and I do not expect anyone to take it lightly. But first it would have to make sense to someone before they would want to look into it further.

So, again...it's confusing. God builds a messenger so that the message can be delivered perfectly, but by it's very nature, using a human as the conveyer of that message is flawed in terms of it's believability. How, now, do I determine if the next guy claiming to be a prophet IS actually a prophet?

I hope I explained that above, that the manifestation of God is not flawed in His station as Messenger who speaks as the Voice of God. In His human station He is just a man like anyone else.

Yep, appreciate that, and also you taking the time to spell out your thoughts. It's an interesting conversation to me. Not looking to change your mind on anything, either, just trying to understand or maybe help you understand where the atheist you've been conversing with is at. Of course, his rationale could be different to mine, but to some degree I get where he's coming from, even if it's not quite how I think about it.

I think all atheists are different in how they relate to my beliefs. Some atheists seem to understand what I am trying to say even if they disagree and other atheists won’t even listen because they consider it ludicrous that a man could be a God-man made of a different substance. But it makes sense to me that it has to be this way because God is so far above humans, so humans need a mediator who has the dual nature and can thus understand both God and humans.

I think the reasons Christianity created a doctrine saying that Jesus was God is because they did not know what to make of Jesus; He was so godlike yet He was also a man. Of course back in those days the concept of Manifestations of God had not been revealed so nobody could understand that there could be a Being who was a different order of creation above an ordinary man, yet not God, as God is one and alone, above all that exists.

 

[stvdv]

If we look at the principle of the incarnation of God, it means that the ages of the gods are short
But if we look at the age of the sun, are billions of years in no need of incarnation, they are designed to survive very enormous periods
what about who create it ?
I worship the greatest source of existence that we believe to be
He is the first with no beginning and no birth, and the last with no end and no inheritance

I fully agree. Well said.
Seeing the vast universe makes me humble. The Creator is incredible.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

There is a reason I am posting this question and it is for the same reason I posted the other thread I posted about a week ago:

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

The reason I am posting this is because I have been posting to an atheist on some other forums for over five years and he insists that if god existed god would communicate directly to every single person in the world rather than using messengers. He should really come here and post his own question but he won’t come here so I am posting EXACTLY what he wants me to post this time, since he said that the questions on my other thread were not what he would have asked.

Here it is, a direct quote from him, turned into a question for you:

“Is there every reason to believe that if God existed, and wanted to achieve the result of the maximum number of people getting and believing any message he wanted them to get and believe, that he would use the same method used by all imaginary gods (messengers) which achieves results worse than reason demands would be achieved by using what only a real god could use: direct communication?”

Of course he is making an unfounded assumption that God is trying to achieve the result of the maximum number of people getting and believing His message, although there is no way he can know that is what God is trying to achieve.

His premise is that since imaginary gods use messengers a real God would never use a Messenger. What he is really saying is that because there are false messengers (men who claim to speak for God), God would never send a Messenger who speaks for God. Of course this is patently illogical. That is like saying that just because there is a junkyard with junky cars that do not run there cannot be a new car lot down the street with cars that run nicely.

It's hard to know his intent since not all of us atheists put down theists point of view. It's more if you're in a junk yard full of some working cars and there is no one around to sell you a car. You find a car with an engine and works well just old and you wait for years until the owner to show (given it's an old lot. Who would show?) Instead of just getting in the car and driving it. To me, it's almost as if the person second guesses himself or maybe feels he isn't supposed to "drive the car" on his own. Illegal, maybe? I don't know.

Nothing wrong with needing messengers. From what I gather from your threads, it doesn't sound like the guy knows too much about theists faith, that, or accept what he doesn't believe and keep going. It's rare that I get a theists that I can talk things through; so, maybe that's another thing. It can influence the mood of conversation.

But these are my thoughts.

 

[HonestJoe]

The salient point is that scriptures are the only source of knowledge about God. Even though different scriptures read differently and people interpret them differently, there are some common threads that run through them, attributes of God we can all agree on, at least among the Abrahamic religions.

I don’t see how you can know any scripture is an actual source of knowledge of God, even the elements you believe are consistent. I also see no justification for dismissing non-Abrahamic scriptures on the same basis. It’s easy to find writings to confirm your beliefs if you ignore all the ones that don’t.

That is true, but that is a problem that humans have to work out. Part of the problem is that everyone has their own separate Messenger they believe in and they interpret what was revealed by Him differently so there is a lot of division and disunity.

And if the God we’re discussing exists, that must be how he wants it to be. If he didn’t, he could just change it. Even if I thought God existed, I wouldn’t choose to worship a being that intentionally creates division and disunity, especially given all the pain, suffering and death that has caused throughout human history.

Ideally, I suppose that is true, IF God did not want us to have to struggle on our own to try to understand.

How can you propose and all-powerful, all-knowing God but then suggest the ideal situation might not currently exist? You seem to be grossly underestimating the power or an all-powerful God. They couldn’t just do anything we can conceive of, they could do literally anything.

I might have said “God wants” but after further thought I realized that nobody can know what God wants unless it was revealed through a Messenger, but they only reveal the Will of God, which is not the same as what God wants or desires. There is a subtle difference.

Will of God literally means what God wants. There is no practical difference, subtle of otherwise. These are just the same age-old word games used by theocrats to try to confuse the people. The only question is whether you’re one of them or one of us.

I do not see the contradiction.

You’re saying that God is entirely beyond human understanding but then claiming that you understand him a bit. You can’t be a little but pregnant. It’s more of the theistic word-play. They tell you what they want you to think and do but if you question anything, they can dismiss you with a “great mysteries of God” hand-wave.

I can believe that there is a God that is so far beyond us that we couldn’t possibly understand it in any way and also believe that God knows the humans He created and communicates His Will to them through a Messenger.

You can believe anything you want about this entirely unknowable being but that belief is always going to be entirely irrational by definition. You can’t make a special exception to the mystery of God just for you or your particular faith.

You fall back on to scripture from this point, which I’m not interested in discussing. Please don’t take this personally, but if you can’t rationally explain put your beliefs in entirely your own words, maybe you don’t understand them as well as you’d like to imagine.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You cannot test God unless you can locate God with your GPS tracker, but I do not think that technology has advanced that much yet….

For me, if I can't test a thing - i.e. if I can't check whether it even exists - then I set the thing aside as not worth believing in.

I simply can't relate to the mindset that says "even though I recognize that I can't test whether the claim is true or false, I'll accept that it's true with such certainty that I'll build my life around it being true."

This strikes me as insane, frankly.

 

[QuestioningMind]

There is no two judge reciting the sentence at the same time
The one who makes the judgment shall be one
There is only one man who is the judge who pronounces the sentence
My words are clear, frank and very easy
please no need to twist and rotate speaking
There are more than 200 heads of state in every country one head
We speak within the human system, which is a limited force requiring change of individuals because of the illness of one of them or the absence of one of them, but in the case of application be applied one


But in the sun range now as an example
It has no need in a traditional human system because it lives billions of years
How about the age of who great it or who made?

The Koran, which I wrote about God talk about 1400 years ago and is a beautiful reference and gives a reasonable and scientifically convergent conception with the Big Bang and the presence of smoke also cosmic
We cannot see smoke on heavens before 1400 in the earth
But with scientific development, we proved that the universe has dust and this dust is the result of smoke
There is no book before 1400 that speaks of smoke in heaven
Notice how you are defeated simultaneously and spontaneously
I came to you with a paragraph of enormous wisdom

Harry Potter story dedicated to children far from the conception of creation It is not mentioned that the heavens were smoke
You should be patient and speak logically
I am not as ignorant or a child as you claim
Koranic verses were put as a sign that there is talk of this thing and not to convince you
Be careful not to get angry, my friend, I am very tolerant and kind hearted

I will respond to you now to prove the inevitability of your failure
You claimed that the Big Bang was the result of magical pixie farting.
Well, I will follow you here, if you understand and are convinced of the correctness of your words
Who's the latest magical pixie farting.
Answer me clearly and without winding and rotation

I will chase you as the policeman pursues the fugitive

There is no two judge reciting the sentence at the same time

ROFL... you're right, they don't ALL recite the verdict together. But they DO reach their verdict TOGETHER. Each of the nine justices has EQUAL say in what the verdict will be. They are ALL judges and they TAKE TURNS reading the verdicts. And I an NOT 'twisting' what you say. I'm repeating what you say and each time I'm pointing out that your analogy is WRONG.

There are more than 200 heads of state in every country one head
We speak within the human system, which is a limited force requiring change of individuals because of the illness of one of them or the absence of one of them, but in the case of application be applied one

Care to reword this so that it's not incomprehensible gibberish?

The Koran, which I wrote about God talk about 1400 years ago and is a beautiful reference and gives a reasonable and scientifically convergent conception with the Big Bang and the presence of smoke also cosmic
We cannot see smoke on heavens before 1400 in the earth
But with scientific development, we proved that the universe has dust and this dust is the result of smoke
There is no book before 1400 that speaks of smoke in heaven
Notice how you are defeated simultaneously and spontaneously
I came to you with a paragraph of enormous wisdom

The Koran - which you have FAILED to demonstration is any more legitimate than the Hindu Vedas, The Iliad, or Dianetics, the religious text for Scientology - is just an old book that you have foolishly decided to imbue with some sort of divine significance, simply based upon what the society you grew up in brainwashed you to believe. You quoting it has exactly as much legitimacy for me as me quoting Harry Potter would have significance for you.

Harry Potter story dedicated to children far from the conception of creation It is not mentioned that the heavens were smoke
You should be patient and speak logically
I am not as ignorant or a child as you claim
Koranic verses were put as a sign that there is talk of this thing and not to convince you
Be careful not to get angry, my friend, I am very tolerant and kind hearted

Note what I wrote above. Your citing the Koran is JUST AS silly to ME, as ME citing Harry Potter books is to YOU. You seem to think that just because you have something written in an old book that it's supposed to me meaningful to me. It is NOT. Until you can provide verifiable evidence that your book was actually inspired by a god and not just the product of fallible human beings it is a meaningless argument you are making.

I will respond to you now to prove the inevitability of your failure
You claimed that the Big Bang was the result of magical pixie farting.
Well, I will follow you here, if you understand and are convinced of the correctness of your words
Who's the latest magical pixie farting.
Answer me clearly and without winding and rotation

No, you really need to learn how to comprehend what I write. I did NOT claim that the big bang was the result of a magical pixie farting. What I DID say is that I have EXACTLY AS MUCH EVIDENCE for the big bang being the result of magical pixie farting as YOU have evidence that some God started the big bang. In other words, your moronic claim is JUST AS silly as MY moronic claim. since BOTH are presented WITHOUT EVIDENCE.

 

[Nakosis]

There is a reason I am posting this question and it is for the same reason I posted the other thread I posted about a week ago:

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

The reason I am posting this is because I have been posting to an atheist on some other forums for over five years and he insists that if god existed god would communicate directly to every single person in the world rather than using messengers. He should really come here and post his own question but he won’t come here so I am posting EXACTLY what he wants me to post this time, since he said that the questions on my other thread were not what he would have asked.

Here it is, a direct quote from him, turned into a question for you:

“Is there every reason to believe that if God existed, and wanted to achieve the result of the maximum number of people getting and believing any message he wanted them to get and believe, that he would use the same method used by all imaginary gods (messengers) which achieves results worse than reason demands would be achieved by using what only a real god could use: direct communication?”

Of course he is making an unfounded assumption that God is trying to achieve the result of the maximum number of people getting and believing His message, although there is no way he can know that is what God is trying to achieve.

His premise is that since imaginary gods use messengers a real God would never use a Messenger. What he is really saying is that because there are false messengers (men who claim to speak for God), God would never send a Messenger who speaks for God. Of course this is patently illogical. That is like saying that just because there is a junkyard with junky cars that do not run there cannot be a new car lot down the street with cars that run nicely.

I suppose my premise would be that if there was a real God, they wouldn't allow any junk yards. You wouldn't want folks going to the junk yard looking for running cars. All of the cars ought to be running so no one get confused.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I can understand why it could be confusing and difficult to find the true Messenger among all the false messengers, but there are two problems with your suggestion:

1. Ordinary humans could never understand God if God communicated to them directly,
2. Even if humans could understand God communicating to them directly, how would it be fair for God to communicate to some people and not to other people?

That said, don’t you ever wonder why God does not *contact individuals Himself * as you said?

Where did I say that it's all about finding the messenger that I AGREE with? I said there are TRUE Messengers and FALSE messengers, and that is logic 101. It is irrelevant what *I believe* since I am not God, so I do not determine who the TRUE Messengers are.

When I talked about how I would go about looking for and buying a house, I was only describing the PROCESS by which anyone might look for a Messenger. I did not mean that they would have to *buy* the same Messenger I bought. This search is your search and the criteria are your criteria, so you might end up with a completely different Messenger than I ended up with.

That said, *I believe* that Baha’u’llah is the Messenger God sent for this age in history, but you might come to a different conclusion. I certainly am not going to try to convince you of that because Baha’u’llah wrote that the faith of no man can be conditioned by anyone except himself, meaning that we all have to do our own homework and come to our own conclusions.

Back to logic, reality is reality and it has NOTHING to do with what people believe. In reality, Baha’u’llah was either a Messenger of God as He claimed to be or He was psychotic or a really good con-man. That can only be determined by looking at His life, His character, His mission and His writings, IF He is on your short list for purchase.

I am sorry to say that is illogical. IF there is a TRUE God, that God exists in reality and it has NOTHING to do with what believers believe.Similarly, if there is a red car in my driveway there is a red car in my driveway, so even if not everyone can see it the reality is that there is a red car in my driveway.

Likewise, IF there is no God then there is no God, even if believers imagine there is a God.

I refuse to even entertain the possibility that there could be more than one God because I consider it highly illogical, and the evidence from the revealed religions does not point in that direction. So to me it is God or no God.

I know that, did I ever say anything different?
You atheists are so much fun.
I mean that in a good way...

1. Ordinary humans could never understand God if God communicated to them directly,

IF ordinary humans could never understand God if He communicated directly THEN there's absolutely ZERO chance that an ordinary human would ever understand what God wants from a secondary source. Passing a message along to someone else is NEVER more efficient than passing the message on personally. Ever played the game telephone when you were a kid? The more individuals a message must pass through the LESS accurate the message becomes.

2. Even if humans could understand God communicating to them directly, how would it be fair for God to communicate to some people and not to other people?

Eh... EXACTLY as fair as it would be for God to communicate to a 'messenger' (SOME PEOPLE) and NOT communicate to other people. IF god can communicate to a messenger THEN he should be able to communicate to everyone. So either god has decided to be unfair OR perhaps this god entity is nothing more than a figment of your imagination.

That said, don’t you ever wonder why God does not *contact individuals Himself * as you said?

If would be silly of me to wonder such things, since I have yet to be presented with any verifiable evidence that any god entity even exists.

Where did I say that it's all about finding the messenger that I AGREE with? I said there are TRUE Messengers and FALSE messengers, and that is logic 101. It is irrelevant what *I believe* since I am not God, so I do not determine who the TRUE Messengers are.

You did when you used your house analogy. Your PROCESS is that you look for a house that 'suits' you, one that will accommodate your needs. Which means that IF the TRUE messenger has a message from God that DOES NOT suit your personal preferences or DOES NOT accommodate what you think your needs are THEN you'll ignore that messenger and assume it's a FALSE messenger. And that means IF a false messenger wanted to fool YOU all they would have to do is tell you that god's message just happens to match what YOUR personal preferences are and what YOU happen to think your needs are

When I talked about how I would go about looking for and buying a house, I was only describing the PROCESS by which anyone might look for a Messenger. I did not mean that they would have to *buy* the same Messenger I bought. This search is your search and the criteria are your criteria, so you might end up with a completely different Messenger than I ended up with

And that just confirms what I wrote above. There isn't an actual TRUE messenger... it's all just a matter of picking the one that has a message you like. So either they are ALL TRUE messengers or they are ALL FALSE messengers. And since I've heard some truly moronic claims from 'divine messengers' it's far easier for me to accept that they are ALL FALSE.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don’t see how you can know any scripture is an actual source of knowledge of God, even the elements you believe are consistent. I also see no justification for dismissing non-Abrahamic scriptures on the same basis. It’s easy to find writings to confirm your beliefs if you ignore all the ones that don’t.

I believe that because I believe what Baha’u’llah revealed, that Messengers of God are the only actual source of knowledge of God, and scripture is what the Messengers reveal. I do not dismiss non-Abrahamic scriptures. I believe that they came from God, although I do not believe they are pertinent to the present age we live in.

And if the God we’re discussing exists, that must be how he wants it to be. If he didn’t, he could just change it. Even if I thought God existed, I wouldn’t choose to worship a being that intentionally creates division and disunity, especially given all the pain, suffering and death that has caused throughout human history.

It is true that God allows it to be that way but there is no way we can know that God wants it to be that way. All we know is that humans have free will and God does not intervene to change things. The only way God intervenes is through the Messengers He sends with a message, teachings and laws. Then we do not hear from God again for another 500-1000 years.

God does not intentionally create division and disunity, God simply allows it to exist. It is humans who create division and disunity. I do not think they do it intentionally, but out of ignorance, because they do not know what to do other than cling to their religious beliefs which conflict with other religious beliefs.

How can you propose and all-powerful, all-knowing God but then suggest the ideal situation might not currently exist?

Easily, because humans are fallible and they have free will to create a less than ideal situation. Why would you expect God to intervene and fix things just because God is all-powerful and all-knowing?

You seem to be grossly underestimating the power or an all-powerful God. They couldn’t just do anything we can conceive of, they could do literally anything.

True, but only if God chose to do it. That is what atheists do not understand about the all-powerful God; He only does what He chooses to do, not what we think He should do.

Will of God literally means what God wants. There is no practical difference, subtle of otherwise. These are just the same age-old word games used by theocrats to try to confuse the people. The only question is whether you’re one of them or one of us.

I said there is a subtle difference because saying that God wants something is anthropomorphizing God as if He was a human who has desires. God wills things to be as He wants them to be but not the same way a human would want things.

You’re saying that God is entirely beyond human understanding but then claiming that you understand him a bit. You can’t be a little but pregnant.

It’s more of the theistic word-play. They tell you what they want you to think and do but if you question anything, they can dismiss you with a “great mysteries of God” hand-wave.

It is the Essence of God that is unknowable. We can know the Attributes of God and the Will of God through what Messengers reveal but we can never know the Essence of God (God’s intrinsic nature).

The Attributes of God and the Essence of God are completely separate “aspects” of God.One of these aspects, the Essence of God, is unknowable, but the other aspect, the Attributes of God, is knowable. It is really that simple.

In the Baha’i prayers, it says that God is “Sanctified above all Attributes”and this means that God’s Essence is ABOVE all His Attributes or that God is much more than can EVER be attributed to Him.

You can believe anything you want about this entirely unknowable being but that belief is always going to be entirely irrational by definition. You can’t make a special exception to the mystery of God just for you or your particular faith.

Please explain why you think that this belief is entirely irrational by definition. Do you think that if a God exists it would have to be entirely unknowable? Why would that have to be the case? I think that God reveals what humans are capable of understanding and what we need to know about Him in order to know and love Him, which is the purpose of our existence, according to my beliefs. If we knew absolutely nothing about God we would not be able to fulfill the purpose of our existence. This makes logical sense to me.

You fall back on to scripture from this point, which I’m not interested in discussing. Please don’t take this personally, but if you can’t rationally explain put your beliefs in entirely your own words, maybe you don’t understand them as well as you’d like to imagine.

I am trying to rationally explain my beliefs but that does not mean they will make rational sense to you. We humans are all different in how we think.

 

[Trailblazer]

For me, if I can't test a thing - i.e. if I can't check whether it even exists - then I set the thing aside as not worth believing in.

I simply can't relate to the mindset that says "even though I recognize that I can't test whether the claim is true or false, I'll accept that it's true with such certainty that I'll build my life around it being true."

This strikes me as insane, frankly.

What strikes me as insane is thinking that God could be tested for. How can you test for an immaterial being that is not even reachable?

I understand that is your mindset but that is not my mindset because I believe that the thing – God – exists… Why I believe that with absolute certainty is because I believe Baha’u’llah manifested God. I tested that claim for many years before having certainty that it was true and building my life around it.

 

[Trailblazer]

1. Ordinary humans could never understand God if God communicated to them directly,

IF ordinary humans could never understand God if He communicated directly THEN there's absolutely ZERO chance that an ordinary human would ever understand what God wants from a secondary source. Passing a message along to someone else is NEVER more efficient than passing the message on personally. Ever played the game telephone when you were a kid? The more individuals a message must pass through the LESS accurate the message becomes.

Apparently you just don’t understand. The ordinary human brain is incapable if comprehending direct communication from God and that is why there has to be a mediator, a man who is more than human, a divine human. The Messenger is able to receive communication from God because He has a divine mind so He can understand God. Then He translates what He receives and writes it down in a form that humans can comprehend.

The upshot is that if God passed it to you personally you could not hear a thing God said because God is on a completely different wavelength, far, far above a human wavelength.

2. Even if humans could understand God communicating to them directly, how would it be fair for God to communicate to some people and not to other people?

Eh... EXACTLY as fair as it would be for God to communicate to a 'messenger' (SOME PEOPLE) and NOT communicate to other people. IF god can communicate to a messenger THEN he should be able to communicate to everyone.

I have explained why that is IMPOSSIBLE so I won’t go over that again. You are free to believe God could do that if you want to believe it. It has nothing to do with God’s capabilities in delivering messages, it is all about human inability to receive messages from God directly.

So either god has decided to be unfair OR perhaps this god entity is nothing more than a figment of your imagination.

I have to say that is very childish. It is also arrogant to expect the ALMIGHTY God to deliver personal messages to you just because you do not LIKE His Messengers. It’s kind of like, “Mommy, I do not like vanilla ice cream, it is unfair that you gave me vanilla because I wanted chocolate.“

That said, don’t you ever wonder why God does not *contact individuals Himself * as you said?

If would be silly of me to wonder such things, since I have yet to be presented with any verifiable evidence that any god entity even exists.

That I can agree with.

Where did I say that it's all about finding the messenger that I AGREE with? I said there are TRUE Messengers and FALSE messengers, and that is logic 101. It is irrelevant what *I believe* since I am not God, so I do not determine who the TRUE Messengers are.

You did when you used your house analogy. Your PROCESS is that you look for a house that 'suits' you, one that will accommodate your needs. Which means that IF the TRUE messenger has a message from God that DOES NOT suit your personal preferences or DOES NOT accommodate what you think your needs are THEN you'll ignore that messenger and assume it's a FALSE messenger. And that means IF a false messenger wanted to fool YOU all they would have to do is tell you that god's message just happens to match what YOUR personal preferences are and what YOU happen to think your needs are.

That was not a perfect analogy, it was just something I pulled out of my hat. This was about looking for a religion to investigate in more depth. When looking for a house you do not have to look at every single house in the city you live in, you only pick a few houses that seem like the ones you might buy. Likewise, you would not have to look at every religion that ever existed; that is unrealistic because there are so many, just as it would be unrealistic to look at every house in your city before buying one. You would only look at religions that seemed to you most likely to be the true religion.

This brings up another topic to mind though, a point you raised that I think a sincere seeker of truth would have to watch out for. IF you were looking for a religion to suit your personal needs you could easily end up with a false religion because you might like a religion for selfish reasons but it might be false. For example you might want to be a Christian so you can be “saved and forgiven” without doing anything else. Ideally, when looking for a religion, one should not be looking for a good fit to their personality, they should be looking for what is actually the truth from God. It might not be convenient because for example it might have certain laws that are very restrictive, such as no alcohol, but if one really wants to follow the true religion they might have to make some personal sacrifices.

When I talked about how I would go about looking for and buying a house, I was only describing the PROCESS by which anyone might look for a Messenger. I did not mean that they would have to *buy* the same Messenger I bought. This search is your search and the criteria are your criteria, so you might end up with a completely different Messenger than I ended up with

And that just confirms what I wrote above. There isn't an actual TRUE messenger... it's all just a matter of picking the one that has a message you like. So either they are ALL TRUE messengers or they are ALL FALSE messengers. And since I've heard some truly moronic claims from 'divine messengers' it's far easier for me to accept that they are ALL FALSE.

Oh Sheesh! If there is no true Messenger of God it is an utter waste of time to go looking.

It is totally illogical to say that they are either they are ALL TRUE messengers or they are ALL FALSE messengers. That is like saying there is a town and that town is comprised of either ALL CHILDREN or ALL ADULTS. In reality, a town would have both adults and children, and in reality there would be true messengers of God and false messengers, which is the same thing as true prophets and false prophets. The WAY we determine which ones are true and which ones are false is by following the instructions Jesus gave:

Matthew 7:15-20 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Fruits: the pleasant or successful result of work or actions: FRUIT | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What strikes me as insane is thinking that God could be tested for. How can you test for an immaterial being that is not even reachable?

I have no idea how to test for God.

To me, this makes it even more ridiculous to believe in him: not only have we not established that he exists, but we don't have the first clue about how we might potentially do it? I don't see how there's anything in this that even begins to justify faith in God.

... but I do still think that the idea that God is untestable goes against the claims of God in the mainstream versions of the Abrahamic religions. If God is at least as relevant and important to humanity as, say, the Moon, then it stands to reason that God should be at least as testable as the Moon. I take your claim that God is untestable as implying that your God doesn't exist at all.

I understand that is your mindset but that is not my mindset because I believe that the thing – God – exists… Why I believe that with absolute certainty is because I believe Baha’u’llah manifested God. I tested that claim for many years before having certainty that it was true and building my life around it.

And I can't see how you'd even begin establishing that someone is a "manifestation of God" without having already established that God exists in the first place.

 

[Trailblazer]

I have no idea how to test for God.
To me, this makes it even more ridiculous to believe in him: not only have we not established that he exists, but we don't have the first clue about how we might potentially do it? I don't see how there's anything in this that even begins to justify faith in God.

To coin a phrase, Jesus said that no man could come to the Father except by Him. That was true during the Dispensation of Jesus because Jesus was "the Way" to the Father, but then time moved on and God sent other Messengers of God who revealed God.

What I am trying to say is that there is no way to have any connection to God of know anything about God except through these Messengers God sends... Anything else people might think they know is a product of their imagination.

As far as "establishing" that God exists as a fact I do not think that is possible, so we just have to settle for knowing by (a) evidence and (b) faith.

... but I do still think that the idea that God is untestable goes against the claims of God in the mainstream versions of the Abrahamic religions. If God is at least as relevant and important to humanity as, say, the Moon, then it stands to reason that God should be at least as testable as the Moon. I take your claim that God is untestable as implying that your God doesn't exist at all.

We can test the Moon because we can see the Moon... but we can never see God, so how could we test for God?
As I always say, it is not proof that makes God exist, proof is just what people want in order to know God exists. That is understandable but I think that sometimes we have to settle for the best evidence when proof is not available. That is also true in courts of law since everything is not provable.

And I can't see how you'd even begin establishing that someone is a "manifestation of God" without having already established that God exists in the first place.

As I probably told you in the past, since the Manifestation of God is the "evidence" that God exists that is a Catch-22 situation.

There are other possibilities for people who really want to believe in God and have no idea what avenue to pursue. They can pray to God for guidance. I know two lifelong atheists who became believers this way and they soon became so faithful to God that they put me to shame. Baha'u'llah wrote in many passages that God guides those who He chooses to guide and in other passages we are told that is the sincere seeker.

 

[CG Didymus]

I am sorry to say that is illogical. IF there is a TRUE God, that God exists in reality and it has NOTHING to do with what believers believe.Similarly, if there is a red car in my driveway there is a red car in my driveway, so even if not everyone can see it the reality is that there is a red car in my driveway.

Likewise, IF there is no God then there is no God, even if believers imagine there is a God.

I refuse to even entertain the possibility that there could be more than one God because I consider it highly illogical, and the evidence from the revealed religions does not point in that direction. So to me it is God or no God.

So a few men over the years say they see a red car in your driveway. The rest of us go by your house and see nothing in the driveway. Who is nuts here?

Since many "mythical" religions have had gods that aren't real. Since people have believed in those religions, then people have believed in gods that aren't real. Even with trinity believing Christians, not only do they believe in their three part god, but they believe in an evil spirit being called Satan. They believe it absolutely. Baha'is say none of that is true. And Christianity is a "revealed" religion? Revealed by whom? By people that say they heard what the messenger said? So what is that, like third hand information?

Is Hinduism a "revealed" religion? If "yes", then they have teachings about many Gods and Goddesses. But Baha'is say that is not true. So who revealed all those "false" things about there being many Gods? But then again, why couldn't there be god-like lessor gods that work for the main God? Kind of like what Baha'is say that the souls of the manifestations are eternal, and perfect? and infallible? and have a "divine mind"? That's pretty close to being at least a lessor god.

The salient point is that scriptures are the only source of knowledge about God. Even though different scriptures read differently and people interpret them differently, there are some common threads that run through them, attributes of God we can all agree on, at least among the Abrahamic religions.

So lets take the Bible. What is God like? Hmmm? He cursed the first humans for disobey him. But did God set them up? God blew up two cities filled with people that worshipped other gods. He flooded the world and killed all the evil people, but still didn't eradicate evil. In Revelation he destroys all people whose names are not in his book of life. So God created people and kills all that don't believe in him?

Because a Manifestation of God is infallible, He can infallibly receive and record the message of God. Obviously, God is not a man so God cannot come to earth and do that Himself.

Did Moses receive all the information about God that is in the Bible? No. So who did? It wasn't a manifestation.

And the Bible says God was in the Garden with Adam and Eve. God performed great wonders to prove he was real to the Hebrews. One of those wonders was when the prophets of Baal called to their false gods to send fire to consume a sacrifice. Nothing happened. Elijah called on the God of Israel and fire came down from heaven and burned up the sacrifice. Elijah then killed the prophets of Baal.

God's presence was all over the Bible stories. Speaking from heaven. Speaking from a burning bush. Writing on the wall. Stopping the Sun for a whole day. Showing his backside to Moses. The power in the Ark of the Covenant. Very real and tangible things... but, do Baha'is believe any of those stories? Probably not. Probably most Baha'is will say those things didn't really happen but were only symbolic stories. So, there is no proof about God. Just made up stories?

I don’t see how you can know any scripture is an actual source of knowledge of God, even the elements you believe are consistent. I also see no justification for dismissing non-Abrahamic scriptures on the same basis. It’s easy to find writings to confirm your beliefs if you ignore all the ones that don’t.

Baha'is do explain away or ignore any verses in the Scriptures that don't agree with what Baha'is say is true. Reincarnation in Hinduism, Baha'is explain it away. The resurrection of Jesus, Baha'is explain it away. So what is true? Only what Baha'is say is true. Which makes a lot of things that the other religions say about God not true.

Except basic things. But what about those basic things that God wants us to do? The main one is love one another. And God needed a messenger to tell people that?

And how useless was that message in spite of being so simple? Because God created people to be filled with bad traits that cause them to hurt and kill each other? Yet, he created other people, special people that had a "divine mind" that could communicate with God, know his will and follow his commands? And he couldn't make all people with that capacity? No, he seems to like all the rest of us fighting and arguing. Great guy this god must be. I guess? Because he's invisible and unknowable and every religion says something different about him. But now, we are to believe this messenger has got the message right this time? A message that fallible humans are supposed to live up to? Which they won't, because they can't. Because they are only human... fallible humans bound to screw things up eventually.

 

[HonestJoe]

I believe that because I believe what Baha’u’llah revealed…

I know what you believe, I was asking how you know? Beliefs just built on other beliefs seem empty to me, I’m after any actual concrete facts and logic behind them.

It is true that God allows it to be that way but there is no way we can know that God wants it to be that way.

You’re still missing the key point here. If God is all-powerful, he is capable of changing the universe to literally any state possible. Whatever way he wanted it to be, he would make it that way. Therefore, whatever way the universe is must be what an all-powerful God wants by definition (if it exists).

Easily, because humans are fallible and they have free will to create a less than ideal situation. Why would you expect God to intervene and fix things just because God is all-powerful and all-knowing?

I don’t expect God to intervene unless God didn’t want things to be the way they are. I’m saying that the fact God hasn’t intervened suggests he is perfectly content with the way things are (or, of course, doesn’t exist).

True, but only if God chose to do it. That is what atheists do not understand about the all-powerful God; He only does what He chooses to do, not what we think He should do.

That applies to theists too. I’m not the one claiming to know what god wants from us though.

I said there is a subtle difference because saying that God wants something is anthropomorphizing God as if He was a human who has desires. God wills things to be as He wants them to be but not the same way a human would want things.

I totally agree. The problem is that a lot of scripture, and most resultant religious teaching, tends to treat God like a powerful human though, even at the same time as declaring God to be entirely beyond human understanding. The entire concept just feels contradictory (though, ironically, very human).

It is the Essence of God that is unknowable. We can know the Attributes of God and the Will of God through what Messengers reveal but we can never know the Essence of God (God’s intrinsic nature).

Sorry, but that’s just more empty word play. If God is unknowable, God is unknowable. If the “essence” is unknowable, how could we know any messages accurately represent the “will” of that “essence”?

Please explain why you think that this belief is entirely irrational by definition.

Because if God is unknowable “in essence”, you can’t know anything about him for certain. Even if there are elements you think you know, the unknowable aspect could fundamentally alter or entirely contradict them. You can’t even know any purported messages even come from God.

I am trying to rationally explain my beliefs but that does not mean they will make rational sense to you. We humans are all different in how we think.

Beliefs aren’t rational, not even mine. That’s the problem. I’m trying to draw the line between what we can actually rationally conclude and what we just believe. I don’t think we are in a position to declare that any particular god does or doesn’t exist but we can consider a hypothetical god and determine whether its proposed characteristics are internally logically consistent.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Apparently you just don’t understand. The ordinary human brain is incapable if comprehending direct communication from God and that is why there has to be a mediator, a man who is more than human, a divine human. The Messenger is able to receive communication from God because He has a divine mind so He can understand God. Then He translates what He receives and writes it down in a form that humans can comprehend.

The upshot is that if God passed it to you personally you could not hear a thing God said because God is on a completely different wavelength, far, far above a human wavelength.

I have explained why that is IMPOSSIBLE so I won’t go over that again. You are free to believe God could do that if you want to believe it. It has nothing to do with God’s capabilities in delivering messages, it is all about human inability to receive messages from God directly.

I have to say that is very childish. It is also arrogant to expect the ALMIGHTY God to deliver personal messages to you just because you do not LIKE His Messengers. It’s kind of like, “Mommy, I do not like vanilla ice cream, it is unfair that you gave me vanilla because I wanted chocolate.“

That I can agree with.

That was not a perfect analogy, it was just something I pulled out of my hat. This was about looking for a religion to investigate in more depth. When looking for a house you do not have to look at every single house in the city you live in, you only pick a few houses that seem like the ones you might buy. Likewise, you would not have to look at every religion that ever existed; that is unrealistic because there are so many, just as it would be unrealistic to look at every house in your city before buying one. You would only look at religions that seemed to you most likely to be the true religion.

This brings up another topic to mind though, a point you raised that I think a sincere seeker of truth would have to watch out for. IF you were looking for a religion to suit your personal needs you could easily end up with a false religion because you might like a religion for selfish reasons but it might be false. For example you might want to be a Christian so you can be “saved and forgiven” without doing anything else. Ideally, when looking for a religion, one should not be looking for a good fit to their personality, they should be looking for what is actually the truth from God. It might not be convenient because for example it might have certain laws that are very restrictive, such as no alcohol, but if one really wants to follow the true religion they might have to make some personal sacrifices.

Oh Sheesh! If there is no true Messenger of God it is an utter waste of time to go looking.

It is totally illogical to say that they are either they are ALL TRUE messengers or they are ALL FALSE messengers. That is like saying there is a town and that town is comprised of either ALL CHILDREN or ALL ADULTS. In reality, a town would have both adults and children, and in reality there would be true messengers of God and false messengers, which is the same thing as true prophets and false prophets. The WAY we determine which ones are true and which ones are false is by following the instructions Jesus gave:

Matthew 7:15-20 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Fruits: the pleasant or successful result of work or actions: FRUIT | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Apparently you just don’t understand. The ordinary human brain is incapable if comprehending direct communication from God and that is why there has to be a mediator, a man who is more than human, a divine human. The Messenger is able to receive communication from God because He has a divine mind so He can understand God. Then He translates what He receives and writes it down in a form that humans can comprehend.

The upshot is that if God passed it to you personally you could not hear a thing God said because God is on a completely different wavelength, far, far above a human wavelength.

What I understand is that you KEEP making completely unsubstantiated claims. How do you KNOW that no ordinary person is capable of directly communicating with your god being? How do you KNOW that there are 'special messengers' who somehow CAN communicate directly with your god being? How exactly have YOU managed to gain so much insight into this being you claim is incomprehensible? And how exactly does this process work? How does your god being directly communicating his message to the messenger SOMEHOW make it possible for the messenger to make the message comprehensible to normal people? Sounds like this messenger is capable of doing things that your god being cannot do. I mean, if this messenger is capable of making a message comprehensible that god in incapable of making comprehensible, then it sounds like the messenger is superior to your god.

I have explained why that is IMPOSSIBLE so I won’t go over that again. You are free to believe God could do that if you want to believe it. It has nothing to do with God’s capabilities in delivering messages, it is all about human inability to receive messages from God directly.

Except that you haven't. All you keep doing is CLAIMING that it's impossible, yet you've provided ZERO evidence for your claim. I mean, if you're stating that there are human messengers who ARE capable of communicating directly with your god being, then why would it be impossible for every human being to do so? CLEARLY your god being IS capable of allowing mere human being to comprehend him... that's who these 'messengers' are. So what makes it IMPOSSIBLE for your god being to give this ability to EVERYONE?

I have to say that is very childish. It is also arrogant to expect the ALMIGHTY God to deliver personal messages to you just because you do not LIKE His Messengers. It’s kind of like, “Mommy, I do not like vanilla ice cream, it is unfair that you gave me vanilla because I wanted chocolate.

I was responding to YOUR childish question: 2. Even if humans could understand God communicating to them directly, how would it be fair for God to communicate to some people and not to other people? And I replied: Eh... EXACTLY as fair as it would be for God to communicate to a 'messenger' (SOME PEOPLE) and NOT communicate to other people. IF god can communicate to a messenger THEN he should be able to communicate to everyone. So either god has decided to be unfair OR perhaps this god entity is nothing more than a figment of your imagination.

So you tell, ME, is it 'fair' for god to communicate directly with 'messengers' and to not communicate directly with everyone else?

That was not a perfect analogy, it was just something I pulled out of my hat. This was about looking for a religion to investigate in more depth. When looking for a house you do not have to look at every single house in the city you live in, you only pick a few houses that seem like the ones you might buy. Likewise, you would not have to look at every religion that ever existed; that is unrealistic because there are so many, just as it would be unrealistic to look at every house in your city before buying one. You would only look at religions that seemed to you most likely to be the true religion.

And that's exactly my point! You are PICKING the message that fits with what YOU might want. You ONLY look at the houses (religions) that YOU have decided fits what YOU want. And that means you are ignoring all of the houses (religions) that you've decided you don't want. But what if the REAL religion happens to be one of those that you don't think 'fits' you? So again I say, either ALL of the various claimed religions are true or MAYBE all of them are false.

This brings up another topic to mind though, a point you raised that I think a sincere seeker of truth would have to watch out for. IF you were looking for a religion to suit your personal needs you could easily end up with a false religion because you might like a religion for selfish reasons but it might be false. For example you might want to be a Christian so you can be “saved and forgiven” without doing anything else. Ideally, when looking for a religion, one should not be looking for a good fit to their personality, they should be looking for what is actually the truth from God. It might not be convenient because for example it might have certain laws that are very restrictive, such as no alcohol, but if one really wants to follow the true religion they might have to make some personal sacrifices.

Okay, you really need to make up your mind. You JUST got done telling me that you don't HAVE to look at every single house (religion) in order to decide which is true. You wrote; you only pick a few houses that seem like the ones you might buy. But what IF the actual truth from God happens to be one of the 'houses' that you originally thought you wouldn't want to 'buy'? YOU decided YOU didn't have to look at THAT house... yet it turned out to be the TRUE house (religion).

Oh Sheesh! If there is no true Messenger of God it is an utter waste of time to go looking.

That's kind of been my point all along. Until you can provide some sort of evidence that there even IS a 'true messenger of God', it's an utter waste of time to go looking.

The WAY we determine which ones are true and which ones are false is by following the instructions Jesus gave:

WHAT? That's a completely moronic statement. You're going to determine which message is TRUE by automatically ASSUMING that instructions given by Jesus are true? That's like me saying that the way we determine which religion is true is by following what the instructions given by the Hindu Vedas.

 

[Trailblazer]

So a few men over the years say they see a red car in your driveway. The rest of us go by your house and see nothing in the driveway. Who is nuts here?

It is not a few men over the years, it is almost everyone in the world:
84 percent of the world population has a faith

Because most faiths have a religious Founder or what I call a Messenger that means most people believe in a Messenger.

According to sociologists Ariela Keysar and Juhem Navarro-Rivera's review of numerous global studies on atheism, there are 450 to 500 million positive atheists and agnostics worldwide (7% of the world's population), with China having the most atheists in the world (200 million convinced atheists). Demographics of atheism - Wikipedia

100% - 84% religious = 16% – 7% atheists = 9%, which means that about 9% of people in the world believe in God and have no religion.

Since many "mythical" religions have had gods that aren't real. Since people have believed in those religions, then people have believed in gods that aren't real. Even with trinity believing Christians, not only do they believe in their three part god, but they believe in an evil spirit being called Satan. They believe it absolutely. Baha'is say none of that is true. And Christianity is a "revealed" religion? Revealed by whom? By people that say they heard what the messenger said? So what is that, like third hand information?

It was a revelation from God but nobody can know exactly what Jesus said since Jesus did not write His own scriptures.

Is Hinduism a "revealed" religion? If "yes", then they have teachings about many Gods and Goddesses. But Baha'is say that is not true. So who revealed all those "false" things about there being many Gods? But then again, why couldn't there be god-like lessor gods that work for the main God? Kind of like what Baha'is say that the souls of the manifestations are eternal, and perfect? and infallible? and have a "divine mind"? That's pretty close to being at least a lessor god.

It was a revelation from God but nobody can know exactly what Krishna said since Krishna did not write His own scriptures.

So lets take the Bible. What is God like? Hmmm? He cursed the first humans for disobey him. But did God set them up? God blew up two cities filled with people that worshipped other gods. He flooded the world and killed all the evil people, but still didn't eradicate evil. In Revelation he destroys all people whose names are not in his book of life. So God created people and kills all that don't believe in him?

As you know, I do not believe God did what was attributed to Him in the Bible so the Bible does not represent what God is like.

Did Moses receive all the information about God that is in the Bible? No. So who did? It wasn't a manifestation.

No, it was not a manifestation and that is why it is pointless to refer back to it, now that we have information about God that was infallibly received and recorded by Baha’u’llah.

And the Bible says God was in the Garden with Adam and Eve. God performed great wonders to prove he was real to the Hebrews. One of those wonders was when the prophets of Baal called to their false gods to send fire to consume a sacrifice. Nothing happened. Elijah called on the God of Israel and fire came down from heaven and burned up the sacrifice. Elijah then killed the prophets of Baal.

And the Bible says..... I do not give a rip what the Bible says, as the dispensations associated with the Bible have been abrogated. What a waste of a human life to keep referring back to them.

God's presence was all over the Bible stories. Speaking from heaven. Speaking from a burning bush. Writing on the wall. Stopping the Sun for a whole day. Showing his backside to Moses. The power in the Ark of the Covenant. Very real and tangible things... but, do Baha'is believe any of those stories? Probably not. Probably most Baha'is will say those things didn't really happen but were only symbolic stories. So, there is no proof about God. Just made up stories?

I have probably posted to you the authoritative Baha’i position on the bible at least 10 times:

From Letters Written on Behalf of the Guardian:

When 'Abdu'l-Bahá states we believe what is in the Bible, He means in substance. Not that we believe every word of it to be taken literally or that every word is the authentic saying of the Prophet.
(11 February 1944 to an individual believer)

We cannot be sure of the authenticity of any of the phrases in the Old or the New Testament. What we can be sure of is when such references or words are cited or quoted in either the Quran or the Bahá'í writings.
(4 July 1947 to an individual believer)

From letters written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice:

In studying the Bible Bahá'ís must bear two principles in mind. The first is that many passages in Sacred Scriptures are intended to be taken metaphorically, not literally, and some of the paradoxes and apparent contradictions which appear are intended to indicate this. The second is the fact that the text of the early Scriptures, such as the Bible, is not wholly authentic.
(28 May 1984 to an individual believer)

The Bahá'ís believe that God's Revelation is under His care and protection and that the essence, or essential elements, of what His Manifestations intended to convey has been recorded and preserved in Their Holy Books. However, as the sayings of the ancient Prophets were written down some time later, we cannot categorically state, as we do in the case of the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, that the words and phrases attributed to Them are Their exact words
(9 August 1984 to an individual believer)

The Bible