How can you be a True Christian™ if you don't take the Eden story literally?

[CG Didymus]

There is no such science.

Just like other people in the other religions think it's "rational" to believe their religion and Scriptures. Just like those Christians that do believe the Eden story think they are being "rational" in their belief. They have evidence just as good as the Baha'is have... our Scriptures say so.

 

[CG Didymus]

So now we are back to knowing God exists all of a sudden? What changed as I slept? You offer no evidence of how you know Messengers are genuine.

"Primary" mirrors? Do these people perfectly reflect the Baha'i God? Are all these people even real? She keeps saying this stuff as if it is fact but she won't claim it is true. She says it only her "belief"? Then so what? No proof, a real lack of verifiable evidence and only her Scriptures saying that her prophet came from God. But no other prophet in any other religion describes God the same as Baha'is do. So why does she do it? She says she's not here to convince anyone, but it sure sounds like it... but that would be proselytizing.

 

[dybmh]

You speak fluent biblical Hebrew? If so, well done!

Me, I'm happy to rely on reputable professionals.

My observations were along these lines ─ that according to the Tanakh, God performed or ordained acts in these classes:

invasive war​

massacre of surrendered populations​

mass rape​

human sacrifice​

treating women as property​

murderous religious intolerance​

slavery as normal​

I also observed that these things were probably the norm for a Bronze Age deity.

If you don't know where those things are written of in the Tanakh, let me know.

If you want to argue the fine grammar points of M-CH-R, you're wasting your time with me.

That's odd, that doesn't resemble the Tanach at all. I was asking specifically about the God of Abraham. Which books are you pulling those from? None of that sounds like B'Reisheet. That's *maybe* where you'd find something about the God of Abraham. You would call it Genesis.

The only thing that maybe exists in Tanach is an invasive war. But it's completely justified. It would be kind of like invading Kuwait in the 90s, or maybe going to the Ukraine to rescue them from Putin. When was the last time you read D'varim? You would call it Deuteronomy?

Did you know we Jews read these books annually? So I know them pretty well.

It sounds like you don't have resources or are incapable of undestanding the original language. That's OK. But the so-called reputable professionals have a massive obvious bias, as I mentioned in the other post. Have you considered their bias. Or... TBH have you adopted their bias? It's interesting, because Atheists, or in your case an igtheist, they leave Christianity, for one reason or another, but they are still, strangely duty bound to the scripture.

I'm a materialist, a secularist, an igtheist, and a believer in reasoned enquiry including scientific and historical method. I have no wish at all for the bible to say any particular thing ─ its interest lies in what it actually says.

Awesome! That's the best, least-biased positition to be in. So. Where in the Tanach does it have the mass rape? In fact, what's the Hebrew word for rape so I can search for it? It MUST have that in there if you are convinced. Because, I have an obvious bias, I would like, skip over it. Totally unintentional. I can't help it. But you wouldn't, because of what you declared about yourself above.

So if you could direct me to the "mass-rape" scene. Or perhaps where God is ordering the mass rape as you put it. And please help me with "what it actually says", because I would somehow botch it. The Hebrew word for rape, please? And the mass rape scene? God ordering mass-rape?

The Christian custom of claiming that the Tanakh foretells Jesus is unsupportable and can be annoying, if that's what you mean.

OK, ok, good, so you know that they butcher the Tanach. Awesome. That's not what I was talking about, but it's good that you are aware of this.

I'm talking about Galatians 3:13. THE LAW IS A CURSE! It doesn't get more biased than that. Not only do they butcher the Tanach, they HATE us, they HATE the law. They want to make it as awful as possible, kind of like how you seem to want to do. Their reason? So that Jesus can save them from the wicked law, and all that wicked wicked Jewishness from the OT.

So, I repeat: You know they butcher Tanach. You should be able to clearly see below that they hate the law. Why do you trust a Christian translator? Makes no sense. You don't trust me? OK, ok. You're the boss. But if you *actually* care about what it *actually* says, how are you going to figure that out without either talking to Jews or Christians? You don't know something simple like the root M-CH-R. You don't seem to have even the slightest clue how to figure that out. There's 22 books in the foriegn language you can't read.

The smart choice for you seems to be agnisticsm. You don't have a clue of a clue what it actually says. Am I right?

 

[dybmh]

There is definitely a Christian bias in the translation of the Old Testament. But that appears to be in just the details. I doubt if you can find significant difference between the myths of Genesis between the two. You would not be able to make you God not have the same failings as the Christian God.

Please explain Zachar and N'Keivah from B'reisheet Aleph? And then compare that to the english.

Also, very important, Anochi Hashem! Where is that in the Christian bible. What does it mean?

What about the private name and the public name in Shemot Gimmel? What does the Christian bible have for that?

What do you actually know about the God of Abraham in the Christian bible? Can you show me?

Oh, oh, I would love to hear you explain the signifance of the 5 letter name B'reisheet. What does the Christian bible say about that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please explain Zachar and N'Keivah from B'reisheet Alpeh? And then compare that to the english.

Why? You do not seem to understand that you are the one claiming that there is a difference that would make your version of God not evil. don't make nonsensical demands. All that I really need to do at the most is to compare a Jewish interpretation of Genesis and Exodus to Christian ones. You are just playing silly games now.

 

[dybmh]

Why? You do not seem to understand that you are the one claiming that there is a difference that would make your version of God not evil. don't make nonsensical demands. All that I really need to do at the most is to compare a Jewish interpretation of Genesis and Exodus to Christian ones. You are just playing silly games now.

Hahahaha Why? because you said that there was no difference between them. The fact that you are unable to admit:

"You know what dybzie, I actually have no clue what's in the Hebrew bible."

and instead ask "Why do I have to have proof for the claim I just made?" speaks volumes about you.

Bye now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hahahaha Why? because you said that there was no difference between them. The fact that you are unable to admit:

"You know what dybzie, I actually have no clue what's in the Hebrew bible."

and instead ask "Why do I have to have proof for the claim I just made?" speaks volumes about you.

Bye now.

No, I did not say that. Can't you read? I said no significant difference. I can show you why the Christian interpretation shows God to be evil and incompetent. I doubt if you could find an out for the Hebrew one. And if I found a Jewish translation I am very sure that it would show that there was no significant difference.

EDIT: A translation into English by Jews. It looks almost identical to various Christian versions. How are you going to rescue your version of God:

Genesis 1 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre

mechon-mamre.org

 

[Trailblazer]

No, it's irrelevant to ponder whther a God does anything because we can't known one way of the other, and if any gods exist as you define it. How you dfine God is also a guess since you can't detect anything to describe.

I do not need to detect God in order to know some things about God.
How I describe (not define) God is according to scriptures. It is not a guess, it is my belief.
No, you cannot know one way or another, without scriptures.

No, it is an assumption. Belief isn't knowledge.

I make no assumptions, I only have beliefs. They are not based upon what you consider knowledge, they are based upon what I consider knowledge, which comes from God through Messengers.

There is no such science.

The evidence that God exists is not found in science.

No gods are known to exist, so irelevant.

No gods are known to exist by you.

Bringing it up gods at all is a dead end, even with your own definition. You say we can't detect God, so how can you present any definition? It must be a total guess.

Remember, I told you that we can detect God through His Messengers. That is how we can know the 'very little' we are able to know about God.

You might refer to your Baha'i dogma, but that can't be confirmed either, so is yet another claim that has no basis in fact, so we throw it out.

I have confirmed it to be true by the process of independent investigation. You can throw it out if you want to.

So now we are back to knowing God exists all of a sudden? What changed as I slept? You offer no evidence of how you know Messengers are genuine.

"I" can know God exists because of the Messengers.
I have offered evidence of how "I" know Messengers are genuine. Obviously, not everyone is going to see the evidence as I see it.

Belief in the many gods is comforting for those who believe. There is no factual basis for belief. You offer no other explanation.

You do not know if it is comforting for those who believe unless you ask people if they feel comforted, but even if they do, I highly doubt many people would say that is why they believe. If they were Christians they would say they believe because of the Bible and if they were Baha'is they would say they believe because of Baha'u'llah.

The explanation is that I don't need a factual basis for belief. I only need a revelation from God.

OK, you assume the Baha'i teachings are factual, and that is not fact-based.

No, I do not assume the Baha'i teachings are factual, I believe they are true. True means in accordance with fact or reality.
The teachings can be in accordance with reality even if they have not been proven as a fact.

Who cares what they claim when they offer no facts?

I do.

We don't care what you believe, we care about facts. You are moving towards a heavy reliance on this dogma in your responses to me. Baha'i dogma is not evidence.

After all this time posting to me and reading my posts you should know I only have beliefs, not facts. I cannot give you something I do not have. Baha'i dogma is not evidence, Baha'u'llah is the evidence.

But you don't know any of it is true, you just assume it is. That means nothing to me or others.

I do not assume it is, I believe it is.. I do not expect it to mean anything to you or others.

It doesn't convince critical thinkers. Your mileage may vary. You are motivated to believe it, thus biased.

I am not trying to convince anyone. You do not know that I am motivated to believe, thus biased.
That cuts both ways. I could just as easily say that you are not motivated to believe, thus biased towards non-belief.

Thus far none of it convinces thinkers, only a few folks who are willing to assume these claims are true without adequate evidence.

I am not trying to convince anyone.
I am willing to believe these claims are true with adequate evidence.

Every religious group thinks it's dogma is true. None offer evidence to show theirs is true over others, or true independently. It's all tribalism. You found your tribe, you are happy with your tribe's dogma, you will not examine the ideas like critical thinkers.

You do not speak for me, I can speak for myself.
Most people were raised in a particular religion so that is what they belong to. I was not raised in any religion, I came to belief by myself was by reading what Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha, and Shoghi Effendi wrote, and by reading other information about the Baha'i Faith. The Baha'i teachings made logical sense to me so that is why I believed it. No emotions were ever involved.

I am happy but not because I belong to a tribe that has a dogma. I am happy because I know I have truth to live by, and nothing is more important that that.

Religious belief is notoriously reliant on assumptions, not evidence. This is why believers, like you, are willing to suspend reason to adopt a religious framework that lacks evidence.

I have plenty of evidence. You just don't recognize it as evidence. We all look at the evidence through our own mind which differs from other minds.

Believers don't believe due to evidence, so the only other option is non-rational motives.

You are projecting 'what you believe' about believers onto believers. Since you don't believe there is any evidence, you cannot believe that believers believe on evidence, so you think there must be another reason why they believe.

It might help if you could at least try to look at this through the eyes of believers, because then you would understand why they believe. A long time ago I started looking at what atheists believe through their own eyes since I believed them when they told l me why they don't believe in God.

The key is to be able to separate and realize that believers have their own thought process just as atheists do, and to believe them when thye tell you why they believe. So for example if a Christian says he believes in God because of the Bible you can accept that he is telling the truth even though you could never believe in God because of the Bible.

Atheists are able to examine religious concepts more objectively because for whatever reason they don't feel pressured or motivated to to adopt religious ideas.

You are making assumptions, facts not in evidence. You are assuming that believers 'feel pressured or motivated to to adopt religious ideas.'

A person can always look at something more objectively when they are looking from outside; so for example, I can look at the Bible more objectively since it is not my Holy Book. Similarly, I can look at atheist position more objectively since it is not my position.

I think this is what you tell yourself, as do other theists, to help jusify belief in ideas that not only l;ack evidence, but are also inconsistent with what we observe and understand about reality. Religions tend to require some level of illusion by the believer. They certainly can't rationally explain their thinking and experience in ways that suggest they aren't imagining their version of truth. These "truths" certainly are not fact-based.

What Baha'is believe is not inconsistent with what we observe and understand about reality, it is just outside the purview of the physical reality.

If atheism could stand on its own merit, you wouldn't need to say religions require some level of illusion by the believer. What you refer to an illusory is simply something you do not believe is real.

I cannot speak for other religious believers, but Bahais can rationally explain their thinking and experience in ways that suggest they aren't imagining their version of truth. These "truths" are not fact-based, they are scripture-based.

 

[dybmh]

No, I did not say that. Can't you read?

LOL. See below:

I doubt if you can find significant difference between the myths of Genesis between the two.

"I doubt if YOU can find a significant difference ...."

Please explain Zachar and N'Keivah from B'reisheet Aleph? And then compare that to the english. There's a MASSIVE difference that I found.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I make no assumptions, I only have beliefs. They are not based upon what you consider knowledge, they are based upon what I consider knowledge, which comes from God through Messengers.

You still do not know when you are making claims and not just stating beliefs. Also when you admit to just having beliefs that is admitting that you do not have evidence. Evidence allows one to go past mere beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL. See below:



"I doubt if YOU can find a significant difference ...."

Please explain Zachar and N'Keivah from B'reisheet Aleph? And then compare that to the english. There's a MASSIVE difference that I found.

LOL! Epic fail. You are trying to shift the burden of proof by playing silly games.

 

[dybmh]

What does she mean to "know" something about God but not as a fact? What does she really know? Maybe that she believes it?

"knowing something about, but it is not a fact" ----> that's called understanding. people tend to idolize knowledge. but understanding always and forever defeats it, because understanding can derive knowledge if it is needed.

it's a lofty idea, but i encourage you to think it about. what is the difference between knowing and understanding? Are they just two words that mean exactly the same thing and can be flip-flopped "same-difference"? Or is there something different happening intellectually?

people who are slaves to knowledge put themself in a box. understanding is a form of freedom. All peace treaties are coming from.... mutual understanding. Do you think that if I have an argument with my neighbor and we figure things out I actually "know" what's happening with them and they "know" what's happening with me? Do we have "facts"?

if you really want to flip your pancakes, recall what "knowing" means in the bible. Knowing in the biblical sense?

when someone wants to "know" something, some idea. They want to dominate it. Not kidding. Understanding / "knowing something about it but not as a fact" is much more polite and respectful. It makes perfect sense for some one who is devoted to a god t speak this way. It's devotional, it's respectful, it's ... modest.

So let's not pick apart @Trailblazer 's words. She's 100% right as usual. If a person is not devoted to God, or perhaps want to be God, and they want the God to be their slave ( which will never happen ), then yeah, they're going to attempt to dominate the concept, basically rape it. But we believers don't do that. We speak a little differently, we do things a little differently.

As the blessed Rev Jeremiah Wright says, "Different is not Deficient". <------- do you agree?

 

[Subduction Zone]

"knowing something about, but it is not a fact" ----> that's called understanding. people tend to idolize knowledge. but understanding always and forever defeats it, because understanding can derive knowledge if it is needed.

it's a lofty idea, but i encourage you to think it about. what is the difference between knowing and understanding? Are they just two words that mean exactly the same thing and can be flip-flopped "same-difference"? Or is there something different happening intellectually?

people who are slaves to knowledge put themself in a box. understanding is a form of freedom. All peace treaties are coming from.... mutual understanding. Do you think that if I have an argument with my neighbor and we figure things out I actually "know" what's happening with them and they "know" what's happening with me? Do we have "facts"?

if you really want to flip your pancakes, recall what "knowing" means in the bible. Knowing in the biblical sense?

when someone wants to "know" something, some idea. They want to domintate it. Not kidding. Understanding / "knowing something about it but not as a fact" is much more polite and respectful. It makes perfect sense for some one who is devoted to a god t speak this way. It's devotional, it's respectful, it's ... modest.

So let's not lick apart @Trailblazer 's words. She's 100% right as usual. If a person is not devoted to God, or perhaps want to be God, and they want the God to be their slave ( which will never happen ), then yeah, they're going to attempt to dominate the concept, basically rape it. But we believers don't do that. We spak a little differently, we do things a little differently.

As the blessed Rev Jeremiah Wright says, "Different is not Deficient". <------- do you agree?

If anything understanding is a step about knowing. But I doubt if you have either when it comes to your religious beliefs. Now there is nothing wrong with having religious beliefs, but one needs to know, and hopefully understand why when it comes to pathways to the truth that they do not appear to be reliable mechanisms.

 

[ppp]

I cannot speak for other religious believers, but Bahais can rationally explain their thinking and experience in ways that suggest they aren't imagining their version of truth.

Yet, they don't.

Explanations are only explanations when the explainer starts at a common ground with the explainee. Then builds with sound argumentation towards the conclusion, all the while faithfully checking in with the explainee every single step of the way.

It's work.

 

[dybmh]

If anything understanding is a step about knowing. But I doubt if you have either when it comes to your religious beliefs. Now there is nothing wrong with having religious beliefs, but one needs to know, and hopefully understand why when it comes to pathways to the truth that they do not appear to be reliable mechanisms.

why does one need to know? and it would be interesting for you to please describe the God of Abraham? What do you know about it?

 

[CG Didymus]

So let's not pick apart @Trailblazer 's words. She's 100% right as usual.

Right about what? The Baha'i Faith? A religion that believes that their prophet fulfills all of the Messianic prophesies? Here's some claims of fulfilled Bible prophecy. Pick them apart or leave them be?

There are many prophecies in the Jewish Scriptures about the coming of the Promised One, the Lord of Hosts. It is clear from these Scriptures that He will come to the Holy Land from the east:​

​

"And behold, the glory of the God of Israel came from the way of the east." [Ezekiel 43:2]​

Bahá'u'lláh, Whose name means "Glory of God", came from Persia which is east of the Holy Land. And again:​

​

"And the glory of the Lord came into the house by way of the gate whose prospect is towards the east." [Ezekiel 43:4]​

The Person Who came to prepare the way for Bahá'u'lláh was called the Báb, which means the Gate.​

​

Because of His claim to be a Messenger of God, Bahá'u'lláh was sent as a prisoner and an exile through different parts of the Turkish empire and eventually to the Holy Land. As Micah prophesied:​

​

"In that day also he shall come even to thee from Assyria, and from the fortified cities, and from the fortress even to the river, and from sea to sea, and from mountain to mountain ... Feed thy people in the midst of Carmel..." [Micah 7: 10-12]​

Bahá'u'lláh was banished first to Assyria (now part of Iraq), then to the city of Constantinople, then again to the fortress within the fortified city of Akka. When finally released from the fortress, he stayed on an island in the Na'mayn river. During His banishments He travelled on the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea, lived as a Holy Man on Mount Gar-lu and pitched His tent on Mount Carmel, the "Mountain of God" where Elijah had dwelt in his cave.​

 

[dybmh]

Yet, they don't.

Explanations are only explanations when the explainer starts at a common ground with the explainee. Then builds with sound argumentation towards the conclusion, all the while faithfully checking in with the explainee every single step of the way.

It's work.

Sure they will. What are you talking about? Have you ever gotten to know any Bahai or spent any time with them? They are absolute work-horses.

They're the worker bees in the Abrahamic faiths.

 

[YoursTrue]

I pointed it out previously. I quoted it. I think I raised the font size and bolded it. I'm not going back to get it. I don't care if you object.



Calling it "nonsense" is not a logical argument. All I can say is that the refutation to your claim is so simple that you cannot believe it. Emphasis on *cannot*.



Not true. God is like an author writing multiple stories simultaneously. The characters in the stories are duplicated across multiple ( infinite ) storylines. In this model, there would be multiple versions of me. Each and every free-will choice is represented in each of these multiple storylines. When I make a choice, I am choosing which of those storylines is "real" for me.

This is what produces what is described as freewill. God's omnipotence is not compromised in anyway. To the contrary, free-will is being produced as a result of God's omnipotence. It couldn't happen without it.

I said all of this previously. I gave multiple examples. The example I gave was about my choice of what to eat. I admited that in this model ( note, it's a hypothetical model ) there is a version of me that is eating bacon for dinner, in spite of religious ideals.

Thats what I said. Not nonsense. It doesn't make God no longer omnipotent. ( 158 words )



"You do not get to assume a creation."

Your claim that God is immoral requires an agent that is creating. I am not making the assumption, I am participating in the debate which you started that presumes it. Yes it is flip-flopping to assume that there was a creation, then object when a person assumes there is a creation.



Your HYPOTHETICAL claim that God is immoral requires a HYPOTHETICAL agent that is HYPOTHEICALLY creating. I am not making the assumption, I am participating in the debate which you started that HYPOTHETICALLY presumes it. Yes it is flip-flopping to assume that there was a HYPOTHETICAL creation, then object when a person assumes there is a HYPOTHETICAL creation.



Even if you see the bait-ad-switch, I would never expect you to admit it.

You know, it's interesting, @dybmh. Because the worship of God is higher than anything we humans may have to do or imagine about Him. Going back to Ezra again for a moment, Ezra prostrated himself because of the situation the nation found itself in when a remnant returned to Israel.

 

[dybmh]

Right about what?

She's right about knowing about God without it being a fact. She understands. That is the content of your reply to which I responded.

 

[YoursTrue]

And you misinterpreted it. That is not my fault.

Wow, Once again you demonstrate that you do not know how to use logic. Not all statements need to be logical. It was a conclusion drawn from the poor argument that you presented. If you did not understand why it was nonsense the time to ask was when you were corrected. Not pages later.


Oh my! You are once again limited God's knowledge with that claim. You are saying that he is not omnipotent. If he does not know the outcome of all of those possibilities ahead of time that is something that he does not know. That is you stating that God does not know everything. Or in other words your solution to the problem was to make God not omniscient. That is a logical argument.


Freewill is a claim that is refuted by omnipotence and omniscient. I can break it down for you if necessary. I have doubts if you will let yourself understand.

And once again you are limiting God's knowledge with that model.


And you are not following the argument. Your model means that God is not omniscient. The claim was that he cannot be both and not have everything be his fault.

I never claimed that God is immoral. Once again you are conflating your flawed personal version of God with a possible real God. Your version is demonstrably immoral. But you keep posting a version of God that is self refuting. Do not conflate the refutation of your God with a refutation of God in general.


No, again I did not claim that God was immoral. If anything you did. We are going by your model of God for this hypothetical. You keep repeating rather basic errors.

If anyone is doing it it is you. You do not like how your God is refuted by logic. I never made the claim that refutes all versions of God. It only refutes flawed versions of God. You cannot own up to the obvious fact that your version of God is fatally flawed.

Please -- how would you know any version of god is fatally flawed?