Explain to me why god is real using facts

[Trailblazer]

First off the existence of God is not obvious. There would be no debate if that was the case.

I said " Some of us do not need proof, because it is so obvious."
I meant it is obvious to some of us... YMMV.

Some people seem to be afraid of reality so they have to invent an invisible friend.

Our invisible friends IS reality. That is why we cannot make Him go away.

And if you are not debating what are you doing here?

Yakking. I do that on several forums, mostly with atheists, but I pick up an occasional Christian along the way..

You try to defend your beliefs and when you can't you run away.

I never run away from anything. Everyone who knows me knows that, although some of them wish I would.

Are you sure that you really do believe?

Unfortunately yes. I tried to drop God off at the nearest bus depot several times but He just won't budge.

I am not sure where atheists got the idea that being a believer is as easy as falling off a log. It'd be much easier to be an atheist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They might to the other poster. That is his call.

Why would they? You seem to have forgotten the title of this thread.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I said " Some of us do not need proof, because it is so obvious."
I meant it is obvious to some of us... YMMV.

Our invisible friends IS reality. That is why we cannot make Him go away.

Yakking. I do that on several forums, mostly with atheists, but I pick up an occasional Christian along the way..

I never run away from anything. Everyone who knows me knows that, although some of them wish I would.

Unfortunately yes. I tried to drop God off at the nearest bus depot several times but He just won't budge.

I am not sure where atheists got the idea that being a believer is as easy as falling off a log. It'd be much easier to be an atheist.

You are only fooling yourself if you think that it is obvious. If it was obvious you could defend your beliefs. Saying "its obvious" is the cop out of those that know their beliefs are not obvious.

 

[The Anointed]

Those were my beliefs, not claims.
I could prove the first two but not the last, but since they were not claims I have no burden.

First you claimed that humans changed the original messages.

Correct! And in many many cases it was simply because of erroneous interpretations, one case of many is 1 Chronicles 2: 16 where it is said that David had two sisters Zeruiah and Abigail, [The Hebrew used here is 'achoth' which is correctly translated as 'sister in most bibles, but the authors of the Good News Bible catholic study edition, have erroneously interpreted this as the daughters of Jesse, but they are not, they are David's sisters because the mother of David already had two daughters and a son who were sired by King Nahash, before he gave her to Jesse, who had lost his first wife.

Second you said that they often corrupted those messages.

Again you were correct. And some of the corruptions were deliberate in order to change the original meaning.

In todays biblical canon which was established in the 4th century by the authorities of the Roman church of Emperor Constantine, Luke 3: 22; reads: "You are my own dear son, I am pleased with you. Making it seem as though Jesus was the son of God and later born of flesh.

Whereas the following authorities of the second, third, and fourth centuries read, “This day I have begotten thee,” vouched for by Codex D, and the most ancient copies of the old latin (a, b. c. ff.I), by Justin Martyr (AD 140), Clemens Alex, (AD. 190), Methodius (AD. 290), among the Greeks. And among the Latins, Lactaitius (AD 300), Hilary (AD) Juvencus (AD. 330), Faustus (AD. 400) and Augustine. All these oldest manuscripts were changed completely. They now read, “This is my son in whom I am well pleased.” Whereas the original variant was, “Thou art my Son. This day I have begotten thee,” or "TODAY I have become your Father, revealing that Jesus was a man who was born as a son of God, not by blood nor by the will of the flesh, nor of the will of Man, but of the spirit which descended upon him in the form of a dove as he came up out of the baptismal waters of the Jordan and the heavenly voice was heard to say, "YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN THEE."

The Roman church also added its own interpolations to make it seem that Jesus was not born of a human father, such as in Luke 3:23; (KJV) where it is saidL "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,. The (AS WAS SUPPOSED) in brackets, was a later interpolation by those who believed the false teaching of the so-called virgin birth.

In the different translations of the KJV into Arabic, Afrikaan, Zulu, etc and even some of the more modern English translations, such as the Good News Bible, the words (As was supposed) have been retained, but the brackets are removed, thus by, making those words appear to be the declaration of Luke, while the serious biblical students know that they were not written by Luke, but were a later interpolation and a corruption of the Holy Scriptures, by those Christians, who refuse to accept that Jesus was not a God who became a man, but a man, born of human parents, who was later CHOSEN by the Lord our saviour ‘The Son of Man,’ as his heir and successor.

Then in John 20: 17; It is written; " Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"

The Greek, "anabaino,'" is here correctly translated as "ASCEND" as in nearly all biblical translations, except for the Romans Good News Bible, who want you to believe that Jesus had previously came down from heaven and here it is said, "Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet gone back up to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am RETURNING to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"

Now there are many Greek words that can be translated to mean "RETURN," but "anabaino" is not one of them.

Third you claimed that those messages came from God. And again you are correct, but atheists, who have never received a visitation from 'THE SON OF MAN' who, according to our concept of one directional time, is still currently developing within the body of mankind, Just as mankind had developed within the bodies of our animal ancestors, simply because they refuse to accept him.

Come travel with me on a journey through time
Not in some capsule, but in our minds
To the Inner Most Sanctuary will we descend
To that single cell from which your body began
In the Holy of Holies where all is one
Where all of space and time is joined
We’ll mingle there with other minds
From other lands, in other times
Minds of the past, who seem dead and gone
And minds of the future who are yet unborn
For they in their time, whether here on this world
Or some distant planet to which they’ve been lured
Will enter their inner most sanctuary too
And there perhaps they’ll merge with you
Ah! To travel through space In the wink of an eye
One with your child on some world way on high
And if this is but madness, then madness it be
But come my mad brothers, come follow me.....The Anointed

 

[Trailblazer]

Why would they? You seem to have forgotten the title of this thread.

All people are different. I let people decide for themselves what they need.

 

[Trailblazer]

You are only fooling yourself if you think that it is obvious. If it was obvious you could defend your beliefs. Saying "its obvious" is the cop out of those that know their beliefs are not obvious.

I did not say that my beliefs were obvious. I said that the existence of God is obvious.

 

[Trailblazer]

First you claimed that humans changed the original messages.

Correct! And in many many cases it was simply because of erroneous interpretations, one case of many is 1 Chronicles 2: 16 where it is said that David had two sisters Zeruiah and Abigail, [The Hebrew used here is 'achoth' which is correctly translated as 'sister in most bibles, but the authors of the Good News Bible catholic study edition, have erroneously interpreted this as the daughters of Jesse, but they are not, they are David's sisters because the mother of David already had two daughters and a son who were sired by King Nahash, before he gave her to Jesse, who had lost his first wife.

Second you said that they often corrupted those messages.

Again you were correct. And some of the corruptions were deliberate in order to change the original meaning.

In todays biblical canon which was established in the 4th century by the authorities of the Roman church of Emperor Constantine, Luke 3: 22; reads: "You are my own dear son, I am pleased with you. Making it seem as though Jesus was the son of God and later born of flesh.

Whereas the following authorities of the second, third, and fourth centuries read, “This day I have begotten thee,” vouched for by Codex D, and the most ancient copies of the old latin (a, b. c. ff.I), by Justin Martyr (AD 140), Clemens Alex, (AD. 190), Methodius (AD. 290), among the Greeks. And among the Latins, Lactaitius (AD 300), Hilary (AD) Juvencus (AD. 330), Faustus (AD. 400) and Augustine. All these oldest manuscripts were changed completely. They now read, “This is my son in whom I am well pleased.” Whereas the original variant was, “Thou art my Son. This day I have begotten thee,” or "TODAY I have become your Father, revealing that Jesus was a man who was born as a son of God, not by blood nor by the will of the flesh, nor of the will of Man, but of the spirit which descended upon him in the form of a dove as he came up out of the baptismal waters of the Jordan and the heavenly voice was heard to say, "YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN THEE."

The Roman church also added its own interpolations to make it seem that Jesus was not born of a human father, such as in Luke 3:23; (KJV) where it is saidL "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,. The (AS WAS SUPPOSED) in brackets, is not found in the ancient Greek manuscripts of Luke, and was a later interpolation by those who believed the false teaching of the so-called virgin birth.

In the different translations of the KJV into Arabic, Afrikaan, Zulu, etc and even some of the more modern English translations, such as the Good News Bible, the words (As was supposed) have been retained, but the brackets are removed, thus by, making those words appear to be the declaration of Luke, while the serious biblical students know that they were not written by Luke, but were a later interpolation and a corruption of the Holy Scriptures, by those Christians, who refuse to accept that Jesus was not a God who became a man, but a man, born of human parents, who was later CHOSEN by the Lord our saviour ‘The Son of Man,’ as his heir and successor.

Then in John 20: 17; It is written; " Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"

The Greek, "anabaino,'" is here correctly translated as "ASCEND" as in nearly all biblical translations, except for the Romans Good News Bible, who want you to believe that Jesus had previously came down from heaven and here it is said, "Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet gone back up to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am RETURNING to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"

Now there are many Greek words that can be translated to mean "RETURN," but "anabaino" is not one of them.

Third you claimed that those messages came from God. And again you are correct, but atheists, who have never received a visitation from 'THE SON OF MAN' who, according to our concept of one directional time, is still currently developing within the body of mankind, Just as mankind had developed within the bodies of our animal ancestors, simply because they refuse to accept him.

Come travel with me on a journey through time
Not in some capsule, but in our minds
To the Inner Most Sanctuary will we descend
To that single cell from which your body began
In the Holy of Holies where all is one
Where all of space and time is joined
We’ll mingle there with other minds
From other lands, in other times
Minds of the past, who seem dead and gone
And minds of the future who are yet unborn
For they in their time, whether here on this world
Or some distant planet to which they’ve been lured
Will enter their inner most sanctuary too
And there perhaps they’ll merge with you
Ah! To travel through space In the wink of an eye
One with your child on some world way on high
And if this is but madness, then madness it be
But come my mad brothers, come follow me.....The Anointed

Thanks, I am going to save this to share with Christians on another forum I post on, if you don't mind.

 

[The Anointed]

Thanks, I am going to save this to share with Christians on another forum I post on, if you don't mind.

Go for it mate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did not say that my beliefs were obvious. I said that the existence of God is obvious.

Please, you can do better than that.

If the existence of God was obvious then you could support that claim. If you can't then you are admitting that you were less than honest in your claim.

 

[CG Didymus]

Look who jointed the party. Take a seat.

I have no idea what God did back in the Bible days, it is anyone's best guess if God did anything the Bible says He did. As one Baha'i once said a long time ago, the Bible is an *unmapped swamp,* meaning that you will surely get lost long before you find anything you are looking for.

But let's just say that the stories in the OT were symbolic of something God chose to convey to the writers, and that God did not do anything it says He did in those stories. How would that make God symbolic?

I said, " why then can't God be symbolic also... and not real?" I didn't say that made God symbolic. So all I'm saying is Baha'is believe the stories didn't really happen... that they are symbolic stories. All I'm saying is that maybe people made up the stories. So I'm agreeing with you that they aren't literal. But, along with the stories, what if people made up their own concept of God also?

And, since there are many gods that people have believed in and written about, and some of them, like those in Greek mythology, or a volcano god of a South Sea Island, are not believed to be real. Then, why not your God? Why could that God also be made up by people? And then, if this idea of a supreme being that created the Universe is something invented by people, why couldn't this idea about a Supreme Creator God be symbolic?

Another important thing here is... do Baha'is believe God takes to just anybody or only "manifestations"? 'Cause then all the Scriptures of every major religion would have to have been written by a manifestation. If not, then it's a man's interpretation of what a manifestation said and taught. Or, it's that writers story about the beliefs and traditions of his people. Why would that be the absolute truth about God? If Baha'is say that the Bible is not totally "authentic" and is an "unmapped swamp", then how is it reliable as to tell us about who God is?

 

[Trailblazer]

Go for it mate.

Thanks!

 

[Trailblazer]

Please, you can do better than that.

If the existence of God was obvious then you could support that claim. If you can't then you are admitting that you were less than honest in your claim.

I do not claim that the existence of God is obvious to everyone, or that it should be.
I only said that it is obvious to some of us.
We all see things differently.

 

[CG Didymus]

Because we all have free will and God normally does not interfere with our free will.

God could do that if He wanted to, but God does not want to.
An Omnipotnet God can do anything He wants to do.
We know that God does not want to because He doesn't.

The question is: Why doesn't He? One reason is God does not need to be clear and unambiguous to every single individual. Another reason is that God wants us to do our own homework and make sure we have received His message in a clear and unambiguous way. Only those who do the homework get the grade.

The NT is very clear. Jesus died to save all us sinners from hell. All we have to do is accept his free gift. Very simple... until to add the rest of the story that is virtually impossible for people to believe in. Like a powerful angel rebelled and was cast out of heaven and sent to Earth. And he is here deceiving people about God's truth. Oh, and that little thing about Jesus coming back to life. So by the time we're done, it sounds like an implausible fairy-tale. But, it's very clear... until the Baha'is came along and said that that's not how it went down. That there is no Satan and Jesus didn't come back to life. His body is dead, gone, buried. But, that his spirit lives on. Well, that's pretty good. Except that it makes the NT look like a pack of lies made up by the early Christians.

Oh, and what about all the doctrines Christians developed from their interpretation of the NT? Like the trinity? Is that who God is? A Father, a Son and a Holy Spirit? If no, then the God of a lot of Christians is not real. Maybe he's symbolic?

 

[Trailblazer]

I said, " why then can't God be symbolic also... and not real?" I didn't say that made God symbolic. So all I'm saying is Baha'is believe the stories didn't really happen... that they are symbolic stories. All I'm saying is that maybe people made up the stories. So I'm agreeing with you that they aren't literal. But, along with the stories, what if people made up their own concept of God also?

Oh, I see. Yes, I agree that people might have also made up their own concept of God.

And, since there are many gods that people have believed in and written about, and some of them, like those in Greek mythology, or a volcano god of a South Sea Island, are not believed to be real. Then, why not your God? Why could that God also be made up by people? And then, if this idea of a supreme being that created the Universe is something invented by people, why couldn't this idea about a Supreme Creator God be symbolic?

I suppose it could be but we have to look at ALL the evidence to determine how likely that is.

Another important thing here is... do Baha'is believe God takes to just anybody or only "manifestations"? 'Cause then all the Scriptures of every major religion would have to have been written by a manifestation. If not, then it's a man's interpretation of what a manifestation said and taught. Or, it's that writers story about the beliefs and traditions of his people. Why would that be the absolute truth about God? If Baha'is say that the Bible is not totally "authentic" and is an "unmapped swamp", then how is it reliable as to tell us about who God is?

You have a good point. God only talks to Manifestations so what is in the Bible is is a man's interpretation of what a manifestation said and taught and/or it's that writers story about the beliefs and traditions of his people. So no, it cannot be the absolute truth about God and it is not reliable as to tell us about who God is? It took you how many years of talking to Baha'is to figure this out?

 

[CG Didymus]

Those were my beliefs, not claims.
I could prove the first two but not the last, but since they were not claims I have no burden.

Hmmm? Since Jesus got his information from God, then what he said would be considered the "original" message? But then, he didn't write anything down, so all we have is what the NT writers said. So do you believe that it is accurate in telling exactly what Jesus taught? If so, then do you consider it to close enough to the "original" message that Jesus brought from God? Then, the NT itself, you believe got changed?

 

[Trailblazer]

The NT is very clear. Jesus died to save all us sinners from hell. All we have to do is accept his free gift. Very simple... until to add the rest of the story that is virtually impossible for people to believe in. Like a powerful angel rebelled and was cast out of heaven and sent to Earth. And he is here deceiving people about God's truth. Oh, and that little thing about Jesus coming back to life. So by the time we're done, it sounds like an implausible fairy-tale. But, it's very clear... until the Baha'is came along and said that that's not how it went down. That there is no Satan and Jesus didn't come back to life. His body is dead, gone, buried. But, that his spirit lives on. Well, that's pretty good. Except that it makes the NT look like a pack of lies made up by the early Christians.

It was a made up fairy-tale, or it was written that way deliberately to make some spiritual points but never intended to be taken literally, or it was written and intended to be taken literally at that time, until Baha'u'llah came and straightened it out.

Also the Bible was chock full of erroneous interpretations and corrupted text. Read this: #244 The Anointed

Oh, and what about all the doctrines Christians developed from their interpretation of the NT? Like the trinity? Is that who God is? A Father, a Son and a Holy Spirit? If no, then the God of a lot of Christians is not real. Maybe he's symbolic?

No, God is not a Trinity. It was a misinterpretation of the Bible that led them to believe that. It is a misrepresentation of who God actually is, but it is not symbolic since it does not symbolize anything.

 

[The Anointed]

Hmmm? Since Jesus got his information from God, then what he said would be considered the "original" message? But then, he didn't write anything down, so all we have is what the NT writers said. So do you believe that it is accurate in telling exactly what Jesus taught? If so, then do you consider it to close enough to the "original" message that Jesus brought from God? Then, the NT itself, you believe got changed?

The words that came out of the mouth of the man Jesus, were the words of the heir and successor to the throne of the Most High in the creation, who said to Moses in Deuteronomy 18: 18-19; " I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put MY WORDS in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him. 19I myself will call to account anyone who does not listen to MY WORDS that the prophet speaks in my name.

 

[Trailblazer]

Hmmm? Since Jesus got his information from God, then what he said would be considered the "original" message? But then, he didn't write anything down, so all we have is what the NT writers said. So do you believe that it is accurate in telling exactly what Jesus taught? If so, then do you consider it to close enough to the "original" message that Jesus brought from God? Then, the NT itself, you believe got changed?

Read what I just said in the previous post. I do not believe all of the Gospels are exactly what Jesus said, because that is impossible, but it is essentially what Jesus taught. However, you have to parse out what is from Jesus' actual words, a red letter edition would help. The parables of Jesus and Sermon on the Mount is what Jesus taught; that is TEACHINGS. The Resurrection is stories that the Gospel writers wrote about Jesus. Do you understand the difference?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do not claim that the existence of God is obvious to everyone, or that it should be.
I only said that it is obvious to some of us.
We all see things differently.

But it is not. You only believe that it is. I can explain things that are obvious to me. That is why I know that they are obvious. If you can't support your claim then it is not even obvious to you.

 

[Trailblazer]

But it is not. You only believe that it is. I can explain things that are obvious to me. That is why I know that they are obvious. If you can't support your claim then it is not even obvious to you.

I could explain why it is obvious to me but you would not accept my explanation.