• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

God’s Method of delivering messages, is it flawed?

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
This is the continuation is a discussion I was having with @ QuestioningMind on another thread.
We got off topic so I decided to start a new thread. Anyone is welcome to contribute their ideas if they are so inclined. :)

Trailblazer said: It IS an important message, but it is unrealistic to expect everyone to receive it. That happens over the course of time, not all at once. The delivery system is not flawed just because everyone has not received the message. You have received the message but so far you have chosen to reject it.

QuestioningMind said: Apparently that's the case for EVERY religion. I've had Christians tell me after I read the bible that I'd received god's message, but I'm simply rejecting it. Muslims have said as much after I read the Koran, Hindus have said the same after I read the Vedas... now you've said it too. Yet when I read what you claimed were the most convincing messages from your religion, I found them to be just as vague and unconvincing as all of the other religions I've studied.

It is true that if you reject messages from any of the true religions, you are rejecting God’s message, because all of those messages were true. However they were also time-date stamped, so much of what they revealed is no longer pertinent to the age we now live in. The Spiritual teachings are eternal, but the social teachings and laws are not for this age, and the message is no longer needed in this day since it was intended for another age in history. In addition, those messages were not written by a Messenger of God, they were written by man on His behalf, and as such they are not exactly what the Messenger said. In addition to that, the religions themselves have been changed and corrupted by man over the course of time.

Yet when I read what you claimed were the most convincing messages from your religion, I found them to be just as vague and unconvincing as all of the other religions I've studied.

I do not know what messages you are referring to, but reading a few things I have posted is not the way to determine if a religion is actually the truth from God or not.

What is the flaw and who has the flaw; that is the hundred-dollar question. If religious believers believe they already have the truth from God and they refuse to look at a new message, whose fault is that? I think they are the ones who are flawed. I agree that those who are unaware that there is a new message are somewhat screwed, and that is why it is so important for Baha’is to get the message out. However, those people are not completely screwed because If they were really seeking a new religion they could find the message on the internet and contact the Baha’is in their area who are readily available to talk to seekers.

After reading this several times all I can conclude is that you're saying the 'flaw' is in a person ever believing that they already have the truth from god. Even if you're convinced that you have discovered god's TRUE messenger, you shouldn't accept it and instead continue to look for new messengers who might actually have the truth from god.

I can understand why you concluded that but that is not exactly what I am saying. There is no reason they should not believe they have the truth from God in their religion because they were probably raised in that religion and that is what they learned thus believed to be the truth. However, here is the caveat:

“Each of the world's major religions contains Messianic prophecies.
Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, the Zoroastrian religion and even the Native American religions all foretell the coming of a Promised One. Each of the Founders of these great religions either promised to personally return himself, to send another like himself or in some instances.... the Founder promised to do both.”


Prophecy Fulfilled Webpage

Because all the major religions foretold that another one would come and fulfill the prophecies of their respective religions, they should be looking, or at least open, to a man who makes such a claim. This is particularly true of the Jews and Christians, as the Jews have been waiting for their Messiah for thousands of years, and of course we all know that Christians are waiting for the return of Christ. So if a man such as Bahaullah comes claiming to be the Messiah and the return of Christ, they should at least be willing to check Him out in order to determine if He is who He claims to be.

But shouldn't they ALSO be looking at all of the old messengers who claimed to have the truth of god as well? After all, the true messenger may have come 3000 years ago and you were never fortunate enough to have been exposed to their message.

The Messengers that came thousands of years ago were true Messengers, but as I said above the messages that they brought are not what humanity needs in this age. They should be concerned about what humanity needs now, but instead they cling to their older religious traditions because that is comfortable for them. The older religions do not have the answers to the serious problems humanity is facing NOW. If there is an All-Knowing God who cares about humans, don’t you think that God would know what humanity needs in this age and reveal that to humankind? I believe that is exactly what has happened.

“The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and center your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 213


But why would anyone keep seeking a new religion if they're convinced that they've already found the TRUE religion? That's like saying that after you've determined that the statement 2 + 2 = 4 is TRUE, but you're going to continue to seek evidence that maybe 2 + 2 is ACTUALLY 9. Once someone has found an answer for a question, it's illogical to expect them to keep searching for an answer.

I like your logic and you just nipped it in the bud. Why indeed would they seek a new religion of they are convinced that their religion is the one TRUE religion? And therein lies the essential problem. With some exceptions, most people who hold a religious belief believe their religion is true, the only way, the best and the last religion God will ever reveal, so if course they would not be seeking another religion. It is only a small number of people who are open to the idea that God might have revealed a new religion, a religion that does not invalidate any of the religions of the past but rather fulfills the promises of their religion, as noted above.

So it seems to me that if it's just as easy for someone to convince themselves that religion A is true, when it actually isn't, as it is to convince themselves that religion F is true, when it is, THAT'S a huge flaw in the system. If someone picks the wrong religion it should be as evident as someone claiming 2 + 2 = 9. Otherwise it has virtually nothing to do with what religion is actually true, but rather on which religion a person if first introduced to and indoctrinated into. If we determined the truth of mathematical statements the way we determine the truth of religious claims then anyone taught that 2 + 2 = 9 would have just as reliable evidence as those who claim that 2 + 2 = 4.

You raise a valid point, but according to Baha’i beliefs, there is no WRONG religion, although there are religions whose messages and social teachings and laws are outdated. For example, do you believe that adulterers and homosexuals should be put to death, as the Torah teaches? Those ancient laws have been updated by Baha’u’llah who revealed a new Book of Laws with penalties that are pertinent to the age in which we live.

Once someone grasps the idea that there is only one true God and that God reveals different religions through different Messengers over the course of time, according to the ever-changing needs of humanity, called Progressive Revelation, the sky is the limit. Unfortunately most religious people are so mired in their own religious beliefs they cannot see the forest, they only see one tree. I always hope that an atheist might understand because at least atheists are logical and unbiased towards one particular religion, but hurdle for atheists is that they do not believe in a God that would use Messengers to establish religions.

“The Purpose of the one true God, exalted be His glory, in revealing Himself unto men is to lay bare those gems that lie hidden within the mine of their true and inmost selves. That the divers communions of the earth, and the manifold systems of religious belief, should never be allowed to foster the feelings of animosity among men, is, in this Day, of the essence of the Faith of God and His Religion. These principles and laws, these firmly-established and mighty systems, have proceeded from one Source, and are the rays of one Light. That they differ one from another is to be attributed to the varying requirements of the ages in which they were promulgated.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 287-288

(Continued on next post)
If there were a con artist trying to convince people that he was a prophet of a made-up religion, then he would likely want to control the beliefs of that religion, which would mean:

- they'd say that they're the only person (or only living person the followers have access to) who gets communication directly from God. Everyone else has to rely on him to know God's will.

- the only "evidence" they'd be able to produce is stuff within the power of a regular person to fabricate.

So if your religion's "messenger" or "prophet" is indistinguishable from a con artist to me, then I'm not going to find it compelling.

... and things that won't help your case:

- accounts of the person's "character." Skilled con artists can convince others that they have good character, so these sorts of accounts are still consistent with the assumption that the person is a con artist.

- claims of "fulfilled prophecy." This is mostly a fool's game.
 

Sirona

Hindu Wannabe
Trailblazer said:
This short chapter is worth reading because it compares early Christianity with where the Baha’i Faith is now, in its early stages of growth.

There's plenty of material online on why Christianity succeeded in the Roman Empire. While some of these factors are also present today, such as
  • pax Romana / pax Americana
  • common language (Ancient Greek / English)
  • safe travelling / globalization
  • gain of esteem by martyrdom
other factors are different, especially Christianity demanding to give up all other religions, appealing to the lowly and destitute and encouraging its members to show (actual, physical) charity. So, if the Baha'i want to gain more followers, they probably should drop their main claim of "respecting all other religions" in order to play their card of allegiance to Baha'ullah straight. They also should start actual charities instead of making social justice an abstract issue in the far-away future. They might also consider that their claim of "respecting all religions" is probably too complicated to possibly appeal to simple minds. The product thus created might probably not be the Baha'i faith anymore, but only then they could compare themselves to early Christianity. If you start a religion with a complicated premise, you may only attract a certain clientele, and these are not the lowly and destitute, who are often the majority.
 

PearlSeeker

Well-Known Member
4728eac809e54c17428edbce2284f166.jpg
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
If god can't be bothered to deliver his message and prove it's existence. He doesn't love us and I can't be bothered to follow it.
After all what is the down side of not believing in it?
Ask the staff of Charlie Hebdo. Or Dr. Tiller. Or Ariana Grande.

That's just the modern people. Look at history....

That's the downside. Believers.
Tom
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
If God wanted to deliver a message, surely he could just turn on the secret microphone in everyone's ear simultaneously, introduce himself, or herself, and tell everyone the same message. If he wanted to prove he was God, he should say he's gonna switch two large building's location from opposite sides of the planet, and just do it. Or he could volunteer to go into one of his 'messengers', get shot by a 300 rifle firing squad with everyone loaded, then have the body thrown into boiling HCl, and then come up, smiling ... "See, I told you I was God."

After all, he is God, isn't he? He is all-powerful after all. That would just be a trivial thing to him, right?
He could do that if He wanted to, but how would people know it was God speaking?
It could be an alien. ;)
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
If there were a con artist trying to convince people that he was a prophet of a made-up religion, then he would likely want to control the beliefs of that religion, which would mean:

- they'd say that they're the only person (or only living person the followers have access to) who gets communication directly from God. Everyone else has to rely on him to know God's will.

- the only "evidence" they'd be able to produce is stuff within the power of a regular person to fabricate.

So if your religion's "messenger" or "prophet" is indistinguishable from a con artist to me, then I'm not going to find it compelling.

... and things that won't help your case:

- accounts of the person's "character." Skilled con artists can convince others that they have good character, so these sorts of accounts are still consistent with the assumption that the person is a con artist.

- claims of "fulfilled prophecy." This is mostly a fool's game.
But just because a con artist might do some of those things, that does not mean that Baha’u’llah was a con artist.
This is simple logic.

Besides that the con artist would only be able to say things, he could not back up his words with deeds.

For example, a con artist would not have a completed mission of 40 years duration, and he would also not have fulfilled any prophecies, and a con artist also would not have made predictions that came to pass.

A con artist would also not have sacrificed anything in the path of God, and by his behavior it could be determined that he was selfish.

The list goes on.
The upshot is that Baha’u’llah is easily distinguishable from a con artist.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
If a perfect and omnipotent god wanted me to believe and understand his message perfectly, then he could deliver it in a way that I believe and understand perfectly. No matter how profoundly flawed or obstinate I might be.

Either he does not want me to believe and understand perfectly, or he is not a perfect and omnipotent god.
There is no reason to believe that a perfect and omnipotent God would care if you believe and understand perfectly.
There is no reason to believe that a perfect and omnipotent God would want to make you understand.

God has no dog in this fight so God does not care if you believe and understand perfectly.

God gave you innate intelligence so you could understand and free will so you could believe, without His help.

“I have perfected in every one of you My creation, so that the excellence of My handiwork may be fully revealed unto men. It follows, therefore, that every man hath been, and will continue to be, able of himself to appreciate the Beauty of God, the Glorified. Had he not been endowed with such a capacity, how could he be called to account for his failure?”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 143
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
But just because a con artist might do some of those things, that does not mean that Baha’u’llah was a con artist.
This is simple logic.
Sure. But as long as his actions are consistent with being a con artist - or any other version of "not a genuine prophet," I'm not going to conclude that he must be a prophet.

This is simple logic.

Besides that the con artist would only be able to say things, he could not back up his words with deeds.
Don't be so sure.

Earlier this afternoon, I was listening to a podcast about Titus Oates, a con man (basically) who fabricated a "Popish plot" against the king in 1500s England. He accused several people being in on this fictitious plot; in one case, the authorities raided one of the people he accused and found incriminating pro-Catholic, anti-monarchical letters.

Oates had no idea that they were there, but he made a lucky guess that bolstered his credibility.

For example, a con artist would not have a completed mission of 40 years duration, and he would also not have fulfilled any prophecies, and a con artist also would not have made predictions that came to pass.
Like I just said: "fulfilled prophecy" is a fool's game.

A con artist would also not have sacrificed anything in the path of God, and by his behavior it could be determined that he was selfish.
Nonsense. A con artist might be happy to sacrifice something in the short term if he thought it might lead to a net benefit - monetary or otherwise - over the long term.

The list goes on.
The upshot is that Baha’u’llah is easily distinguishable from a con artist.
Not to me.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
If god can't be bothered to deliver his message and prove it's existence. He doesn't love us and I can't be bothered to follow it.
God did deliver His message to everyone, through Baha'u'llah. God uses general delivery, not special delivery.

If people cannot be bothered to go to their mailbox, get their mail, open it and read it, it is no skin off God's nose because God needs nobody's belief.

Wah, wah, wah, if daddy does not buy me a bicycle for Christmas, daddy does not love me. :rolleyes:
After all what is the down side of not believing in it?
The only downside is that you never know that God exists or get God's message.
There is no punishment from God, you just don't get the reward you could have had.

“He who shall accept and believe, shall receive his reward; and he who shall turn away, shall receive none other than his own punishment.” Gleanings, p. 339
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
There is no reason to believe that a perfect and omnipotent God would care if you believe and understand perfectly.
I agree. I said, If a perfect and omnipotent god wanted me to believe
There is no reason to believe that a perfect and omnipotent God would want to make you understand.
I agree. I said, If a perfect and omnipotent god wanted me to believe

God has no dog in this fight so God does not care if you believe and understand perfectly.
That's certainly an opinion.

God gave you innate intelligence so you could understand and free will so you could believe, without His help.
If there is a god who gave me my innate intelligence and my (chuckle) free will, then he provided a message in a manner and with contents that I could not take seriously.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Sure. But as long as his actions are consistent with being a con artist - or any other version of "not a genuine prophet," I'm not going to conclude that he must be a prophet.
This is simple logic.
Can you demonstrate that any of His actions were consistent with being a con artist or that they were inconsistent with a genuine prophet?
Like I just said: "fulfilled prophecy" is a fool's game.
Not if the prophecies were actually fulfilled and that was demonstrated by what actually happened in the world.
That was clearly demonstrated in this book: William Sears, Thief in the Night
Nonsense. A con artist might be happy to sacrifice something in the short term if he thought it might lead to a net benefit - monetary or otherwise - over the long term.
Maybe for the short term but not for 40 years.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Can you demonstrate that any of His actions were consistent with being a con artist or that they were inconsistent with a genuine prophet?
The fact that you'd ask this suggests to me that you didn't get my point.

Not if the prophecies were actually fulfilled and that was demonstrated by what actually happened in the world.
Yes, even then.

That was clearly demonstrated in this book: William Sears, Thief in the Night
I don't care about your book.

Maybe for the short term but not for 40 years.
The fact that he's remembered more than a century after his death is a benefit all by itself.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I agree. I said, If a perfect and omnipotent god wanted me to believe.

I agree. I said, If a perfect and omnipotent god wanted me to believe.
I would rephrase that to say: If a perfect and omnipotent god needed me to believe.

I believe that God wants you to believe but only on His terms.
God does not need you to believe because God had no needs.

And since God does not need you to believe, God is not going to use His omnipotence to make you believe;
rather, God is going to leave that decision up to you.
Trailblazer said: God has no dog in this fight so God does not care if you believe and understand perfectly.

That's certainly an opinion.
It is an opinion based upon logic, because if an omnipotent God cared if you believe and understand perfectly, an omnipotent God would make sure you believe and understand perfectly.
If there is a god who gave me my innate intelligence and my (chuckle) free will, then he provided a message in a manner and with contents that I could not take seriously.
Everyone will not use their innate intelligence or take it seriously; that is what free will is all about, the ability to choose.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
So, if the Baha'i want to gain more followers, they probably should drop their main claim of "respecting all other religions" in order to play their card of allegiance to Baha'ullah straight. They might also consider that their claim of "respecting all religions" is probably too complicated to possibly appeal to simple minds. The product thus created might probably not be the Baha'i faith anymore, If you start a religion with a complicated premise, you may only attract a certain clientele, and these are not the lowly and destitute, who are often the majority.
You are right that maybe we could attract more people if we did that, but the Baha'i Faith cannot change what is contained on the Baha'i Writings in order to attract more followers, and as you said, "The product thus created might probably not be the Baha'i faith anymore."

Fundamental Principle of Religious Truth
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
"Messengers" are irrelevant. We have no way of determining the source of their message.
No, we can never prove that any Messenger got a message from God.
All that matters is the value of the message itself, to us, and we each have to determine this for ourselves, regardless of how or from whom the message was received.
Yes, that is what matters most.
When I became a Baha'i 50 years ago, I did not really care if Baha'u'llah got a message from God, all I cared about is what He wrote. Only much later did I even form a conception of God or care much about God.
 
Top