If God spoke directly to everyone...

[Samael_Khan]

The Baha’i interpretation of the Bible is a big subject. What about the Baha’i interpretation do you disagree with?

Well we have had this discussion before. The idea of blood sacrifice for sins is central to the story of the Bible and I think that you guys don't believe in that. Also the messengers of different religions contradict each other. So for instance Islam disagrees with Jesus being sacrificed for the sins of humanity, and if one doesn't believe that Jesus died for our sins then Christianity is false. The religions are exclusive.

I do not believe in a being called Satan. I believe Satan is symbolic for our lower material nature, what Baha’is call the Satanic self.

I see how a person can reflect on the text and use satan as symbol. But the New Testament clearly portrays Satan as a living being and interprets the old testament as making reference to that living being.

Yes, I think the main problem with God convincing us is that is taking away our free will to choose. The reason that is problematic seems blatantly obvious to me yet it flies over the heads of many atheists. Would we want to be forced to do anything else in life, forced to get married, forced to work at a particular job? I don’t think so, so why would we want to be forced to believe in God. Well, I am sure God knows it is better to allow us to decide for ourselves, because God is All-Knowing.

So I agree that being forced is the taking away of free choice. But that is with regards to what actions we take and subjective viewpoints. Saying that God is forcing us to believe in him when he reveals that he actually exists is the same as saying that someone placing a teacup in front of me is forcing me to believe in a teacup. If something exists I want to be shown that it does indeed exist.

Okay, I agree that everyone deserves to know God exists, but I do not think that we have any right to dictate to God what evidence He will provide. I believe that God knows what is best.

I agree that if a creator exists then we have no right to dictate what evidence he will provide. He can do what he wants. But it wouldn't be what is best if punishment is involved with those who don't believe.

I believe He has.

Which is subjective. Therefore he hasn't made himself known.

I think there is a reason why God wants us to have faith instead of providing objective proof, which means some people will have doubts and some people will have no doubts that God exists. I accept that because I accept that God knows more than I do because God is All-Knowing; but of course I accept it because I believe God exists, thus I am not standing out in the cold.

With regards to your belief in God, do you believe he exists based on the normal standards that you judge what is true or not, or are you being inconsistent with your methodology of how you determine truth based on the context?

Now, here is the clincher. According to the Bible and the Baha’i Writings, God knows that in the future everyone will believe in God and know God, so the separation between believers and nonbelievers is just a temporary situation. It was never God’s Will for humans for this to remain forever.

Jeremiah 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Isaiah 11:9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.

I agree that that is the Bible's message of what god's end goal is. But it is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of whether there are those who want to follow God or not.
Revelation 20:1-3 NKJV
Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while.

Revelation 20:7-10 KJV
And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

So God will basically destroy all those who don't agree with him.

According to my beliefs, God will ensure that everyone is a believer is by exalting the Cause of Baha’u’llah, which is evidence that God exists.
“The day is approaching when God will have exalted His Cause and magnified His testimony in the eyes of all who are in the heavens and all who are on the earth.” Gleanings, p. 248

So I do not think that God will be changing His Method of providing evidence; God will just ensure that everyone recognizes that evidence, although I have no idea when or how God will do that. God might do something else to ensure that everyone is a believer, I don’t know the ways of God, but if God exalts the Cause of Baha’u’llah in the eyes of everyone, that certainly would do the trick.

Okay. I will have to think about this.

Logically speaking, you are absolutely right about that. How we might discover that a God exists would depend entirely upon the nature of God; so if God was able to be proven empirically we might be able to find empirical proof. I do not believe that will ever be possible because of what I believe the nature of God to be; God is, and has always been, immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived, everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men. In the Bible it says God is spirit, but we cannot even fathom what that means, it simply means God is not a material being.

What I find interesting Is that Revelation 21: 3 says that God will dwell with mankind. Maybe that means that he will exist with us even if it is manifestation form, such as the form of Jesus. The bible is actually pretty unclear on the subject since angels can switch between spirit bodies and material bodies and even God can according to a straight forward reading of certain passages.

 

[Left Coast]

Show me where I admitted that an omnipotent God is absurd. Those are your words, not mine.

No, God cannot do that because God cannot change His nature just because God is omnipotent; and if God changed His nature he would no longer be omnipotent

You recognize the absurdities of believing your god is actually omnipotent, so you change the definition to avoid those absurdities.

God would have the power to do things which are absurd, but God would not do things that are absurd, since God is All-Knowing and All-Wise. That means that even if you think it is absurd, it cannot be absurd if God did it.

Which is an unfalsifiable position. You're saying even if God did something completely and obviously absurd, we must be wrong about it and it must not be absurd at all because God did it.

Special Pleading

Sorry but no. Humans set the standards, but those standards originated in scriptures.

Bull sh*t. Humans wrote all the scriptures.

They did not just drop out of the sky.

The only people who believe morality "dropped out of the sky" are theists who think God delivered morality to them from on high. Which contradicts all the evidence we have about the evolution of morality.

God does not torture anyone; that is words mean wrote about God from the Bible. Sometimes I think that Book should be burned, every single copy.

I said if. If God tortured someone, you wouldn't find that morally problematic? From what you've said, you wouldn't - you've convinced yourself that anything you think God does is morally perfect, so even if he does something you consider abhorrent, you've convinced yourself you must be wrong about it and it must actually be good. Truly scary.

Okay, fair enough. You can say anything you want to about God, but that won’t make it true.

Same goes for your "messengers."

That is completely true as well as logical, fair and just, because God gave humans a brain and two legs and two hands and free will, as well as natural resources, so we could take care of our world.

As we've now thoroughly discussed, "free will" is a misnomer that is incredibly misleading. I walk you through the logic of this, and you seem to largely agree with me, but then you revert back to talking matter-of-factly about "free will" like it's plain as day. I don't think I can re-explain it to you much more. Reread the thread, and the other one about choosing our beliefs.

Absolutely not. You just love to pass the buck. Just because God knows what will happen does not mean God is responsible for what happens. People make choices and act on them. Free will is what sinks your ship, right down to the ocean floor.

On theism, God doesn't merely know what's going to happen like some fortune teller removed from the situation. He literally designed every single person and made the conscious decision to start the chain reaction of which he already knew and consciously intended the outcome. The only person who's passing the buck is you, on behalf of your god.

In a court of law psychopaths are held accountable because everyone on a jury knows they are responsible.

Actually that's not universally true, people who are sufficiently mentally ill can be ruled not guilty by reason of insanity, even when they've done horrible things.

God does not go on trial, except with atheists. They just want to pass the buck. The 100-dollar question is why atheists who believe this way about God would ever want to believe in God. I know I wouldn’t want to believe in a God I think is derelict in His duties.

Do you think it is a good idea for you to pursue belief in God, IF that is what you are doing? Maybe it is best to let sleeping gods lie.

I'm not "pursuing" a belief in God. I want to believe things that are true, and not believe things that are false or have no good evidence for them. The more I talk to theists about their reasons for believing, the more I become convinced that God is in the latter category. I do sometimes wonder if these debates are a waste of time.

It works almost perfectly, since almost everyone in the world believes in God.

Wrong. Again. Almost everyone in the world does not believe in your god. The majority of the world believes in some god or gods, but are radically torn on virtually every aspect of what that god is like, what he/she/it/they do(es), or what he/she/it/they expect(s) of us.

If people do not get the latest information, it is not God’s fault. It is there for the taking.

And whose fault is that if you go down for a six pack instead of eating healthy food? It is not God’s fault, it is your fault. Free will sinks your ship, again.

The junk food in my analogy is your religion's sh*tty evidence. See above re: "free will."

So what if God can accurately disseminate information about himself to everyone? God doesn’t choose to do this and is under no obligation to do so.

OK, so you don't actually care if there's a better method for your god to accurately disseminate information about himself. Thank you.

I am sorry if you do not understand why everyone does not deserve a free ride, why they have to work to obtain a belief and maintain it. Everyone can understand why everyone does not get a PhD sent to them in the mail, just because they want one; they have to pay for their education and work for it. That is how the world works, so there is no reason why belief should work any differently. There are no free rides and there is a reason for that, because then everyone would just sit on their duff and expect someone else to do what they are responsible to do.

Beliefs aren't PhD's, so your analogy is terribly flawed.

It does not matter what God knows. It is 100% your choice whether you want to choose what God provides or reject it.

No. For the 2,000th time. It is not my choice.

I would not believe it because there is no REASON to believe it, just because you said so.

Thank you! So what would convince you is objective, empirical evidence, no?

No, it is insane thinking 101 because God is not like “anything else.” God is the incomparable Creator.

So as I said two replies ago, you are asking us to have a different criteria for believing in your god than we have for literally everything else we believe in. See above re: special pleading.

To be clear, all religions as revealed by God were like pure clear water, but later they became contaminated. The older religions have false teachings embedded in them because man has tampered with the original revelations over the centuries. The Bible is an enigma because we do not even know who wrote it. However, Baha’u’llah wrote His own scriptures, and if He is who he claimed to be, a Messenger of God, everything He wrote was true. If He was a false prophet, what He wrote might contain some truth, but that is not the truth from God.

I don't know what the difference is between truth and "truth from God." Truth is truth.

No, I did not ask you to pretend that God is not omnipotent. I said “Please do not tell me “God is omnipotent so God can do anything.” Do you understand the difference between these two statements? Regardless of God's omnipotence, God has to work within parameters that will work for humans.

God chooses those parameters. He's the Creator. He consciously picked every parameter! LOL. How is this so hard to grasp?

Besides, you admitted above you don't actually care if there's a better method. So this whole line of questioning is pointless. Even if I demonstrated a better method, you'd just say, "Pssh, silly human, how dare you dictate to god what he should do!" So stop asking. You don't want to know.

Good question. Some things that Baha’u’llah did demonstrate that He was supernatural.

Like?

Okay then, I think we are done here, because God ain’t coming to earth to confirm who Baha’u’llah was.

I agree. There doesn't seem to be much else to say.

I see no reason for me to post a thread about evidence for Baha’u’llah if you do not consider it rational to believe in Messengers. Besides that, if you are going to hold to your position that God is responsible for what humans do, you would not believe what Baha’u’llah wrote, so what’s the point of believing in Him?

The point of believing him would be if what he said was actually true, but you haven't explained how anyone could ever confirm that they are relaying messages from a supernatural source. So why would I believe something that can never be confirmed?

Happy to give you the last word, if you want it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Which is an unfalsifiable position. You're saying even if God did something completely and obviously absurd, we must be wrong about it and it must not be absurd at all because God did it.

Special Pleading

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. The problem with ‘some atheists’ is that they think they know more than God, which is logically impossible because God is All-Knowing and All-Wise and no human is All-Knowing or All-Wise. When these atheists cannot weasel out of this that is when they start tossing around logical fallacies that do not apply to God. It is funny to watch but after six years with that atheist on my forum, I am really bored with it.

Special pleading does not apply to God because God is not a person. So God is completely exempt from any human criteria, and God needs no justification for anything He does or does not do. Any logical person understands this, whether they are an atheist or a believer.

I said if. If God tortured someone, you wouldn't find that morally problematic? From what you've said, you wouldn't - you've convinced yourself that anything you think God does is morally perfect, so even if he does something you consider abhorrent, you've convinced yourself you must be wrong about it and it must actually be good. Truly scary.

What is the point of saying if? What is the point of talking about a hypothetical god that does not exist?

What I am saying is that since God is All-Knowing and All-Wise and Just and Loving, even if I considered something God did to be immoral, I would be wrong, because there is no way I can know as much as God. It would be the epitome of arrogance for me to think I could.

That is a hard pill for some people to swallow, so if they do not want to swallow it, I suggest they don’t bother trying to believe in God, because the pill goes with the belief.

As we've now thoroughly discussed, "free will" is a misnomer that is incredibly misleading. I walk you through the logic of this, and you seem to largely agree with me, but then you revert back to talking matter-of-factly about "free will" like it's plain as day. I don't think I can re-explain it to you much more. Reread the thread, and the other one about choosing our beliefs.

I was not talking about choosing our beliefs. I was talking about having free will to take care of the world rather than expecting God to do what we are responsible for.

I have been thinking about this and I came to the conclusion that only God knows whether or not we are/were free to choose our beliefs, and we will be held accountable according to what God has determined we were capable of. The reason only God knows what we are capable of is because God knows us better than we know ourselves.

On theism, God doesn't merely know what's going to happen like some fortune teller removed from the situation. He literally designed every single person and made the conscious decision to start the chain reaction of which he already knew and consciously intended the outcome. The only person who's passing the buck is you, on behalf of your god.

God did not intend any outcome. God gave us all free will so we could choose our own outcomes. Free will is constrained but that does not mean it is nonexistent.

God knowing what is going to happen does not cause what happens. I suggest you read this short chapter:
35: PREDESTINATION

Actually that's not universally true, people who are sufficiently mentally ill can be ruled not guilty by reason of insanity, even when they've done horrible things.

If they are insane then that is a different situation because in that case they did not act on free will. But in most cases it was a choice to act so they are considered responsible.

I'm not "pursuing" a belief in God. I want to believe things that are true, and not believe things that are false or have no good evidence for them. The more I talk to theists about their reasons for believing, the more I become convinced that God is in the latter category. I do sometimes wonder if these debates are a waste of time.

Sitting on the other side of the fence, I also wonder if these debates are a waste of time. If they could be discussions then maybe they could be fruitful, but if you think you already know what is true about God what is the point? It is just an argument and I do not want to argue. I have what I believe to be an accurate source of information about God and if you reject that then there is nothing to discuss. I am not playing the game of making a god in my own image. The only way we can know anything about God is through scriptures of religions. Anything else is hypothetical and imaginary.

Wrong. Again. Almost everyone in the world does not believe in your god. The majority of the world believes in some god or gods, but are radically torn on virtually every aspect of what that god is like, what he/she/it/they do(es), or what he/she/it/they expect(s) of us.

I do not have a God so there is no such thing as my God. There is only one true God. Some people have misconceptions about that God, but they still believe in God or gods. It is not God’s fault they rejected the latest Messenger who explained all of this to a tee. Free will is sacrosanct in God’s eyes.

The junk food in my analogy is your religion's sh*tty evidence. See above re: "free will."

I guess that settles it then. I won’t be presenting any evidence for my religion.

OK, so you don't actually care if there's a better method for your god to accurately disseminate information about himself. Thank you.

I did not say there is a better method. There is no better method -- for what God is trying to achieve -- because God is All-Knowing and All-Wise so God knows the best method for what God is trying to achieve. Obviously, God does not need everyone believing in Him.

Beliefs aren't PhD's, so your analogy is terribly flawed.

If you never go to college then you can never get a degree. You outright reject the idea of God using Messengers and that is a choice you make. Good luck with it because that means you will never know anything about God.

No. For the 2,000th time. It is not my choice.

Go ahead; keep believing that, because that is what assures you will never have a choice. In psychology, that is called learned helplessness.

I have been thinking about this a lot lately because there are some things related to my house I think I cannot do that I feel I need to do, but I cannot seem to do them. I have made up my mind that for now I cannot do them and that means I will not do them. But maybe I can do them and I just don’t want to, or maybe it is not God’s will that I do them right now. I do not really know why, but I do not know that if I do not take steps to do them they will not get done. I do not really worry that much because I know they will get done eventually and they are just material things so they do not matter as much as people or my animals.

Another important point is that my failure to make a decision and act upon it has consequences, just as everything in life we do has consequences. I am willing to accept those consequences for the time being but not forever. Likewise, there might be consequences for non-belief but only God knows what those are or will be. People have up till they die to make that decision. There will be no free will in the next world, according to my beliefs.

So as I said two replies ago, you are asking us to have a different criteria for believing in your god than we have for literally everything else we believe in. See above re: special pleading.

Yes, there certainly are different criteria for believe in God than for belief in anything else that we can see, feel, touch, hear, and measure in the material world. That is obvious to anyone with logical abilities.

I am not asking you to do anything. It is a choice you make. You can try or give up. People usually try if it is something that really matters to them. If not, like my house, I have not tried yet. When the time come and it really matters I will do something.

I don't know what the difference is between truth and "truth from God." Truth is truth.

Truth from God is infallible Truth so we do not have to question it.

God chooses those parameters. He's the Creator. He consciously picked every parameter! LOL. How is this so hard to grasp?

No, God created and then left us to make our own choices. It is by the power of God that we are able to make these choices, but God picks nothing for us. Maybe you should reread that chapter on free will:
70: FREE WILL

Besides, you admitted above you don't actually care if there's a better method. So this whole line of questioning is pointless.

Yes, it is pointless because you cannot know of a better method than God because you are not All-Knowing. This is logic 101 stuff.

Even if I demonstrated a better method, you'd just say, "Pssh, silly human, how dare you dictate to god what he should do!" So stop asking. You don't want to know.

You cannot demonstrate a better method than what God uses because you do not know more than God. It is really that simple. Given the empirical evidence there are only three logical possibilities and you can pick:

1. God exists and communicates via Messengers, or
2. God exists and does not communicate at all, or
3. God does not exist

God exists and speaks directly to everyone is not a logical possibility because if God exists God did not speak directly to everyone. That means that if God exists, God would not speak directly to everyone.

“Good question. Some things that Baha’u’llah did demonstrate that He was supernatural.”

Like?

Like the way He wrote His Tablets, which is explained here: God Passes By, pp. 137-138

Happy to give you the last word, if you want it.

I do not need the last word. I just respond to posts because I consider that a matter of courtesy, if I have something to say. That does not mean you have to respond to mine if there is nothing more to say. There is no point covering the same ground over and over and over again.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well we have had this discussion before. The idea of blood sacrifice for sins is central to the story of the Bible and I think that you guys don't believe in that.

Where is that actually written in the Bible? If you mean the cross sacrifice was needed for original sin, that is not in the Bible; original sin is a doctrine of the Church based upon their interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve. Jews do not accept that interpretation, nor do Muslims.

Also the messengers of different religions contradict each other. So for instance Islam disagrees with Jesus being sacrificed for the sins of humanity, and if one doesn't believe that Jesus died for our sins then Christianity is false. The religions are exclusive.

The religions might be exclusive, but that is not because the scriptures contradict; it is because the interpretations of the scriptures were incorrect, Imo. Islam is more correct than Christianity because Muhammad is a later Messenger so He corrected some misconceptions in Christianity.

I see how a person can reflect on the text and use satan as symbol. But the New Testament clearly portrays Satan as a living being and interprets the old testament as making reference to that living being.

As you might recall, I do not know the Bible very well because I was never a Christian and I was never interested in studying it. I would like to see those scriptures, but even if it says that there could be another interpretation or those who wrote the OT and the NT could have had an agenda; but more likely, that might have been the way that God wanted people of that day to understand evil. However, that does not mean that God wanted us to understand it that way later, or now.

So I agree that being forced is the taking away of free choice. But that is with regards to what actions we take and subjective viewpoints. Saying that God is forcing us to believe in him when he reveals that he actually exists is the same as saying that someone placing a teacup in front of me is forcing me to believe in a teacup. If something exists I want to be shown that it does indeed exist.

God does show us that He exists; He does it by sending Messengers on His behalf. I understand that nonbelievers do not like that method, they want something more direct, but that is the method God has chosen to use.

I agree that if a creator exists then we have no right to dictate what evidence he will provide. He can do what he wants. But it wouldn't be what is best if punishment is involved with those who don't believe.

I do not believe there is any punishment from God. The only punishment we might incur is missing out on getting the message, but that cannot be avoided, because some people are going to reject the Messenger who comes with the message.

Which is subjective. Therefore he hasn't made himself known.

No, that is not true. God has either made Himself known or not. How we view the Messenger is subjective, but if God made Himself known via a Messenger that is objective.

With regards to your belief in God, do you believe he exists based on the normal standards that you judge what is true or not, or are you being inconsistent with your methodology of how you determine truth based on the context?

Imo, we cannot use the same standards to judge whether God exists or not, because God is not subject to “normal standards.’
As I said to @ Left Coast “there certainly are different criteria for believe in God than for belief in anything else that we can see, feel, touch, hear, and measure in the material world. That is obvious to anyone with logical abilities.”

I agree that that is the Bible's message of what god's end goal is. But it is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of whether there are those who want to follow God or not.
Revelation 20:1-3 NKJV
Revelation 20:7-10 KJV

So God will basically destroy all those who don't agree with him.

Do you really believe these things that are written in Revelation are literally true? I consider much of Revelation to be the words of a madman, and it is so symbolic that there is really no way for an average person to interpret it correctly.

I believe that in the future, be it ever so distant, everyone will choose to believe in God of their own free will, because it will be drop dead obvious that God exists to everyone.

What I find interesting Is that Revelation 21: 3 says that God will dwell with mankind. Maybe that means that he will exist with us even if it is manifestation form, such as the form of Jesus. The bible is actually pretty unclear on the subject since angels can switch between spirit bodies and material bodies and even God can according to a straight forward reading of certain passages.

Revelation 21:3: And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

I believe God will be with us in the future, because we will all know the Manifestation of God.

The Baha’i Faith does have what we call “authoritative interpretations” of the Bible, and here is one chapter related to that topic:
11: COMMENTARY ON THE ELEVENTH CHAPTER OF THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN

There are some other commentaries on chapters in the OT and NT in PART ONE and PART TWO of that book entitled Some Answered Questions.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Where is that actually written in the Bible? If you mean the cross sacrifice was needed for original sin, that is not in the Bible; original sin is a doctrine of the Church based upon their interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve. Jews do not accept that interpretation, nor do Muslims.

Jews do accept offerings for sins, as laid out in Leviticus 16. It is their day of Yom Kippur.
Leviticus 16:15 NIV
“He shall then slaughter the goat for the sin offering for the people and take its blood behind the curtain and do with it as he did with the bull’s blood: He shall sprinkle it on the atonement cover and in front of it.

Leviticus 16:15–16
“Then he shall kill the goat of the sin offering that is for the people and bring its blood inside the veil and do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull, sprinkling it over the mercy seat and in front of the mercy seat. Thus he shall make make atonement for the Holy Place, because of the uncleannesses of the people of Israel and because of their transgressions, all their sins. And so he shall do for the tent of meeting, which dwells with them in the midst of their uncleannesses.

Israel celebrated the Day of Atonement in which a sacrifice was made annually for the forgiveness of all their sins.

Christians believe that this prefigures Christ's sacrifice for the sins of mankind.

As for what the Bible says about Jesus dying for sins:
Matthew 26:26-28 NKJV
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

(Luk.24:46–47): "and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Messiah(Christ) should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.”"

1 Corinthians 15:22: "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive."
Romans 5:12-21

Christians should care what Jews say about the old Testament since they use their text. Christians should not care about what muslim say about the bible because having spoken with many muslims and looked extensively at the claims of muslim "experts" on the Bible they do not know what the Bible says as a whole and just parrot what the Imams tell them. It is too easy to refute a muslims claim. Also when you say "Jews" you do realise that the first Christians were Jews? The NT is a Jewish text. It is Jews themselves, even if a minority of them, who started Christianity, interpreting their own texts in such a way. Paul was a scholar of the OT himself. As opposed to Muhammed who wasn't a Jew or a Christian, who new nothing about those scriptures. Christianity could be described at worst as a cult of Judaism. Also many Jews convert to Christianity these days, hence there are groups like Messianic Jews or Jews for Jesus. Michael Brown is one of them. Look him up.

The religions might be exclusive, but that is not because the scriptures contradict; it is because the interpretations of the scriptures were incorrect, Imo. Islam is more correct than Christianity because Muhammad is a later Messenger so He corrected some misconceptions in Christianity.

No. The Bible says that Jesus died for the sins of mankind. The Quran rejects that. Therefore, they contradict each other. If you claim that Christians interpret their texts wrong then please lay out a methodology in which they can interpret it correctly.

As you might recall, I do not know the Bible very well because I was never a Christian and I was never interested in studying it. I would like to see those scriptures, but even if it says that there could be another interpretation or those who wrote the OT and the NT could have had an agenda; but more likely, that might have been the way that God wanted people of that day to understand evil. However, that does not mean that God wanted us to understand it that way later, or now.

Yes, I do recall that. I think you should read the Bible though since you do make claims about it and that is probably the reason why we do not agree on what it says. A methadology should be laid out as to how to interpret the texts correctly.

God does show us that He exists; He does it by sending Messengers on His behalf. I understand that nonbelievers do not like that method, they want something more direct, but that is the method God has chosen to use.

Well the idea that God sent many messengers is a claim that is made. For me to accept that claim you will have to prove it. If you cannot prove it to me then the reason why i don't like whatever method God uses otherwise is because it means that there is no reason for me to believe that they were his messengers in the first place.

No, that is not true. God has either made Himself known or not. How we view the Messenger is subjective, but if God made Himself known via a Messenger that is objective.

If you make a claim about something with proving it as a fact then you believing that is subjective. If god sent a messenger and we cannot objectively prove that at the moment then it can be true, but me believing it now based on the quality of evidence supporting would be subjective on my part.

Imo, we cannot use the same standards to judge whether God exists or not, because God is not subject to “normal standards.’
As I said to @ Left Coast “there certainly are different criteria for believe in God than for belief in anything else that we can see, feel, touch, hear, and measure in the material world. That is obvious to anyone with logical abilities.”

Therefore at best I cannot confirm or deny that the God exists.

Do you really believe these things that are written in Revelation are literally true? I consider much of Revelation to be the words of a madman, and it is so symbolic that there is really no way for an average person to interpret it correctly.

Much of the symbology is actually explained in revelation or it is common symbology used in the rest of the bible. I also don't know how you can make judgements about the book if you haven't read it yourself. Also I am a creative person and study symbology for fun so interpreting it might be easy for. For instance, the lamb is certainly Christ because Christ is considered a lamb in the bible. For me the narrative is easy to explain but certain things are left vague and the context limits interpretations. I read it as a mythological text and it definitely is based in Judaism. It resembles Daniel and Ezekiel quite a bit.

I believe that in the future, be it ever so distant, everyone will choose to believe in God of their own free will, because it will be drop dead obvious that God exists to everyone.

Revelation 21:3: And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

I believe God will be with us in the future, because we will all know the Manifestation of God.

The Baha’i Faith does have what we call “authoritative interpretations” of the Bible, and here is one chapter related to that topic:
11: COMMENTARY ON THE ELEVENTH CHAPTER OF THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN

There are some other commentaries on chapters in the OT and NT in PART ONE and PART TWO of that book entitled Some Answered Questions.

Thanks, I will check those interpretations out. I think it is best for me to read your official sources.

 

[Trailblazer]

Jews do accept offerings for sins, as laid out in Leviticus 16. It is their day of Yom Kippur.
Leviticus 16:15 NIV

Israel celebrated the Day of Atonement in which a sacrifice was made annually for the forgiveness of all their sins.

Do you consider killing of innocent animals and offering them for sin to be rational behavior? If it says to do that in the OT I have to conclude it has nothing to do with God, and it was just a book men wrote about what they thought God said and wanted. Of course, I tend to think that about the OT anyway, for the most part.

Maybe it is understandable why people believed this over 4000 years ago, but I consider it really sad if people continue to believe this and justify it in this modern age. Imo, they believe it only because of religious tradition, because that is what they were taught to believe, and this shows that they have been brainwashed and they cannot even think for themselves.

Christians believe that this prefigures Christ's sacrifice for the sins of mankind.

I consider this sad too. I do not believe that there was any original sin; I believe that doctrine was a travesty that was heaped upon unsuspecting people who took the ball and ran with it because they could not think for themselves. It is understandable if they were brought up believing it as children that they would continue to believe it, but some people have broken free. I suppose it could make sense if one does not think in terms of a God being just and fair, but then why believe in God at all? Oh but yes, God made it all right by sending Jesus to die and remove all those sins, but before that nobody could go to heaven. How can people believe these things? It is no wonder there are atheists. I would be one too had I not stumbled upon the Baha’i Faith.

Here is an authoritative interpretation, what Baha’is consider an official commentary, on the story of Adam and Eve:
30: ADAM AND EVE

As for what the Bible says about Jesus dying for sins:
Matthew 26:26-28 NKJV
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

That says nothing about original sin. We all have sins and I can understand being forgiven for those sins, and Baha’u’llah wrote that Jesus could forgive sins, but I do not believe we are born as sinners. This is ludicrous. A newborn baby is not sinful. If Jesus ever did say or do what is in Matthew 26:26-28, He would have meant it symbolically, not literally.

(Luk.24:46–47): "and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Messiah(Christ) should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.”"

Anyone can write anything they want to write, that does not make it true. Stories do not prove that stories are true.

1 Corinthians 15:22: "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive."

I do not believe this verse refers to physical death and life. I believe it refers to spiritual death and life.

Romans 5:12-21
12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned— 13 sin was indeed in the world before the law, but sin is not reckoned when there is no law. 14 Yet death exercised dominion from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who is a type of the one who was to come.

It is unbelievable to me that Christians believe that physical death never would have come into the world, and that everyone would have lived forever in a physical body, if Adam had not eaten fruit from a tree. Do they even think logically? If there was no physical death, how could new life ever be born?

I believe that spiritual death came through sin, because that makes sense.

Christians should care what Jews say about the old Testament since they use their text. Christians should not care about what muslim say about the bible because having spoken with many muslims and looked extensively at the claims of muslim "experts" on the Bible they do not know what the Bible says as a whole and just parrot what the Imams tell them. It is too easy to refute a muslims claim. Also when you say "Jews" you do realise that the first Christians were Jews? The NT is a Jewish text. It is Jews themselves, even if a minority of them, who started Christianity, interpreting their own texts in such a way. Paul was a scholar of the OT himself. As opposed to Muhammed who wasn't a Jew or a Christian, who knew nothing about those scriptures. Christianity could be described at worst as a cult of Judaism. Also many Jews convert to Christianity these days, hence there are groups like Messianic Jews or Jews for Jesus. Michael Brown is one of them. Look him up.

I can agree that the Muslims are not who to go to for an accurate interpretation of the Bible, but I think that Muhammad knew more about the Bible and what it meant than any Christian or Jew because he was a manifestation of God and He this had innate knowledge as well as knowledge from a Revelation from God. How do you think Christians and Jews know what those scriptures mean? How are they more qualified to interpret them than anyone else who can study them, such as nonreligious scholars? Logically speaking if they knew the true meaning of their scriptures, why is there so much disagreement between Christians and between Jews? Without using logic, we are dead in the water.

No. The Bible says that Jesus died for the sins of mankind. The Quran rejects that. Therefore, they contradict each other. If you claim that Christians interpret their texts wrong then please lay out a methodology in which they can interpret it correctly.

Where does the Bible say that Jesus died for the sins of mankind? That is assuming the doctrine of original sin is true and that is based upon an interpretation of an allegorical story, yet people millions of people are basing their entire lives upon this doctrine, incredible.

To be clear, Baha’u’llah said that Jesus sanctified the souls of the sinner, but that is not the same as saying that we were all born sinners because of Adam and Eve. The significance of the cross sacrifice for a Baha’i is that the Holy Spirit was released into the world:

“Know thou that when the Son of Man yielded up His breath to God, the whole creation wept with a great weeping. By sacrificing Himself, however, a fresh capacity was infused into all created things...... Through Him, the unchaste and wayward were healed. Through His power, born of Almighty God, the eyes of the blind were opened, and the soul of the sinner sanctified.” Gleanings, pp. 85-86

However, it was the teachings of Jesus that opened the eyes of the blind and sanctified the soul of the sinner, yet the teachings take a back seat to the cross sacrifice and the resurrection, sad really.

Yes, I do recall that. I think you should read the Bible though since you do make claims about it and that is probably the reason why we do not agree on what it says. A methadology should be laid out as to how to interpret the texts correctly.

Someday maybe I will have time, but I am not highly motivated because I do not expect I would understand it just by reading it.

Well the idea that God sent many messengers is a claim that is made. For me to accept that claim you will have to prove it. If you cannot prove it to me then the reason why I don't like whatever method God uses otherwise is because it means that there is no reason for me to believe that they were his messengers in the first place.

So do you believe God sent any Messengers, such as Jesus? And if God sent one Messenger, why couldn’t God send many? The fact is that such a claim can never be proven by one person to another, it has to be proven to oneself. It would have to make sense to you that God uses Messengers and then you would have to investigate the claim and what Baha’u’llah did to support His claim. Of course this is no small thing to believe, but if it is true, you can do the math.

If you make a claim about something with proving it as a fact then you believing that is subjective. If god sent a messenger and we cannot objectively prove that at the moment then it can be true, but me believing it now based on the quality of evidence supporting would be subjective on my part.

Yes, I agree. Your believing it would be subjective just as is my believing it and it would be based upon how you view the evidence.
Therefore at best I cannot confirm or deny that the God exists. [/quote]
Maybe not right now but that is subject to change.

Much of the symbology is actually explained in revelation or it is common symbology used in the rest of the bible. I also don't know how you can make judgements about the book if you haven't read it yourself. Also I am a creative person and study symbology for fun so interpreting it might be easy for. For instance, the lamb is certainly Christ because Christ is considered a lamb in the bible. For me the narrative is easy to explain but certain things are left vague and the context limits interpretations. I read it as a mythological text and it definitely is based in Judaism. It resembles Daniel and Ezekiel quite a bit.

Well, I suppose if I put my mind to it like you have, I could understand it but I would have to also know the rest of the Bible for context. That reminds me that there are Baha’is who have sought to interpret it and there was a book written. It is not an “official source” but a lot went into it:

Apocalypse Secrets: Baha'i Interpretation of the Book of Revelation

Thanks, I will check those interpretations out. I think it is best for me to read your official sources.

I think that is a good idea because I cannot explain things as well as those sources.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Do you consider killing of innocent animals and offering them for sin to be rational behavior? If it says to do that in the OT I have to conclude it has nothing to do with God, and it was just a book men wrote about what they thought God said and wanted. Of course, I tend to think that about the OT anyway, for the most part.

Maybe it is understandable why people believed this over 4000 years ago, but I consider it really sad if people continue to believe this and justify it in this modern age. Imo, they believe it only because of religious tradition, because that is what they were taught to believe, and this shows that they have been brainwashed and they cannot even think for themselves.

I consider this sad too. I do not believe that there was any original sin; I believe that doctrine was a travesty that was heaped upon unsuspecting people who took the ball and ran with it because they could not think for themselves. It is understandable if they were brought up believing it as children that they would continue to believe it, but some people have broken free. I suppose it could make sense if one does not think in terms of a God being just and fair, but then why believe in God at all? Oh but yes, God made it all right by sending Jesus to die and remove all those sins, but before that nobody could go to heaven. How can people believe these things? It is no wonder there are atheists. I would be one too had I not stumbled upon the Baha’i Faith.

Here is an authoritative interpretation, what Baha’is consider an official commentary, on the story of Adam and Eve:
30: ADAM AND EVE

That says nothing about original sin. We all have sins and I can understand being forgiven for those sins, and Baha’u’llah wrote that Jesus could forgive sins, but I do not believe we are born as sinners. This is ludicrous. A newborn baby is not sinful. If Jesus ever did say or do what is in Matthew 26:26-28, He would have meant it symbolically, not literally.

Anyone can write anything they want to write, that does not make it true. Stories do not prove that stories are true.

I do not believe this verse refers to physical death and life. I believe it refers to spiritual death and life.

It is unbelievable to me that Christians believe that physical death never would have come into the world, and that everyone would have lived forever in a physical body, if Adam had not eaten fruit from a tree. Do they even think logically? If there was no physical death, how could new life ever be born?

I believe that spiritual death came through sin, because that makes sense.

I can agree that the Muslims are not who to go to for an accurate interpretation of the Bible, but I think that Muhammad knew more about the Bible and what it meant than any Christian or Jew because he was a manifestation of God and He this had innate knowledge as well as knowledge from a Revelation from God. How do you think Christians and Jews know what those scriptures mean? How are they more qualified to interpret them than anyone else who can study them, such as nonreligious scholars? Logically speaking if they knew the true meaning of their scriptures, why is there so much disagreement between Christians and between Jews? Without using logic, we are dead in the water.

Where does the Bible say that Jesus died for the sins of mankind? That is assuming the doctrine of original sin is true and that is based upon an interpretation of an allegorical story, yet people millions of people are basing their entire lives upon this doctrine, incredible.

To be clear, Baha’u’llah said that Jesus sanctified the souls of the sinner, but that is not the same as saying that we were all born sinners because of Adam and Eve. The significance of the cross sacrifice for a Baha’i is that the Holy Spirit was released into the world:

“Know thou that when the Son of Man yielded up His breath to God, the whole creation wept with a great weeping. By sacrificing Himself, however, a fresh capacity was infused into all created things...... Through Him, the unchaste and wayward were healed. Through His power, born of Almighty God, the eyes of the blind were opened, and the soul of the sinner sanctified.” Gleanings, pp. 85-86

However, it was the teachings of Jesus that opened the eyes of the blind and sanctified the soul of the sinner, yet the teachings take a back seat to the cross sacrifice and the resurrection, sad really.

Someday maybe I will have time, but I am not highly motivated because I do not expect I would understand it just by reading it.

So do you believe God sent any Messengers, such as Jesus? And if God sent one Messenger, why couldn’t God send many? The fact is that such a claim can never be proven by one person to another, it has to be proven to oneself. It would have to make sense to you that God uses Messengers and then you would have to investigate the claim and what Baha’u’llah did to support His claim. Of course this is no small thing to believe, but if it is true, you can do the math.

Yes, I agree. Your believing it would be subjective just as is my believing it and it would be based upon how you view the evidence.
Therefore at best I cannot confirm or deny that the God exists.

Maybe not right now but that is subject to change.


Well, I suppose if I put my mind to it like you have, I could understand it but I would have to also know the rest of the Bible for context. That reminds me that there are Baha’is who have sought to interpret it and there was a book written. It is not an “official source” but a lot went into it:

Apocalypse Secrets: Baha'i Interpretation of the Book of Revelation

I think that is a good idea because I cannot explain things as well as those sources.[/QUOTE] So here is where come to the core reason that causes me not to hold the Baha'i interpretation of the bible as credible. You pick and choose which verses in the Bible are true based on whether you like them or not. The sacrifical system is central to the narrative of the Bible. It is featured in almost all the old Testament books. It is also central to the New Testament.

It is not a matter of whether what is stated in the Bible is rational or not. Whether it is right or wrong also doesn't matter. If you claim to interpret these scriptures accurately you cannot jettison key themes. It is like me claiming I know how to interpret what the author of Frankenstein meant by rejecting that the monster was made by an experiment.

Our understandings of the scriptures will always be at odds because you show bias in your interpretation. I take them for what they are.

 

[Trailblazer]

So here is where come to the core reason that causes me not to hold the Baha'i interpretation of the bible as credible. You pick and choose which verses in the Bible are true based on whether you like them or not. The sacrifical system is central to the narrative of the Bible. It is featured in almost all the old Testament books. It is also central to the New Testament.

It is not a matter of whether what is stated in the Bible is rational or not. Whether it is right or wrong also doesn't matter. If you claim to interpret these scriptures accurately you cannot jettison key themes. It is like me claiming I know how to interpret what the author of Frankenstein meant by rejecting that the monster was made by an experiment.

Our understandings of the scriptures will always be at odds because you show bias in your interpretation. I take them for what they are.

As I have said, I do not know the Bible well enough to carry on a discourse about it. You would be able to have a more fruitful dialogue about the Bible with one of my Baha'i cohorts such as @ adrian009 who was raised in Christianity and has also studied the Bible extensively. I am afraid I am misrepresenting the Baha'i position on the Bible owing to my lack of knowledge, so I hope Adrian will jump in.

For now, all I can say is that perhaps the sacrificial system was a central theme in the Bible because that was necessary for people who lived thousands of years ago, but from my viewpoint that is religious history that no longer applies to the modern age. Humanity today faces many serious problems and time is short, so I cannot see the value of focusing on what happened thousands of years ago that is no longer pertinent to the age in which we live. That does not represent any official position of the Baha'i Faith, it is just my personal opinion.

To further understand the official Baha'i position on the Torah and the Bible, I suggest you read on this link:
The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments

Here is an article on the Baha'i view of the Bible:
A Bahá'í View of the Bible

 

[Samael_Khan]

As I have said, I do not know the Bible well enough to carry on a discourse about it. You would be able to have a more fruitful dialogue about the Bible with one of my Baha'i cohorts such as @ adrian009 who was raised in Christianity and has also studied the Bible extensively. I am afraid I am misrepresenting the Baha'i position on the Bible owing to my lack of knowledge, so I hope Adrian will jump in.

For now, all I can say is that perhaps the sacrificial system was a central theme in the Bible because that was necessary for people who lived thousands of years ago, but from my viewpoint that is religious history that no longer applies to the modern age. Humanity today faces many serious problems and time is short, so I cannot see the value of focusing on what happened thousands of years ago that is no longer pertinent to the age in which we live. That does not represent any official position of the Baha'i Faith, it is just my personal opinion.

To further understand the official Baha'i position on the Torah and the Bible, I suggest you read on this link:
The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments

Here is an article on the Baha'i view of the Bible:
A Bahá'í View of the Bible

Ok. That is understandable. I should rather then read the official Baha'i stance.

 

[TheBannerofHomuraAkemi]

Why assume that “everyone” wants to hear from God? There have to be some people who would not want to hear from God. God is All-Knowing so God knows that. God wants belief to be a choice and that might be one reason God does not speak directly to everyone.

However, that is not the main reason why God does not speak directly to everyone, because hypothetically speaking, even if God spoke directly to everyone, people could still choose not to listen or hear.

Imo, the main reasons why God does not speak directly to everyone are as follows:

1. God wants us to seek Him out and use our innate intelligence to decide if we have found Him. God rewards true seekers.
2. God does not want to make belief easy to acquire. God wants us to exert an earnest effort in order to believe.
3. God wants us to have faith that He exists without absolute proof. Those who have faith will get the proof they need.
4. Last but not least, nobody except God’s Messengers can comprehend God. Messengers act as mediators between God and humans, communicating what we would otherwise be unable to understand.

If God is all knowing then he should know the reasons why I don't believe in him and then provide the evidence I need to believe in God.
I don't have the evidence I need to believe in God. So ether this God were discussing isn't all knowing or he doesn't exist. I'm leaning towards the latter option.

 

[Trailblazer]

If God is all knowing then he should know the reasons why I don't believe in him and then provide the evidence I need to believe in God.

God certainly does know why you do not believe in Him, but why do you think God is obligated to provide the evidence you need to believe in Him?

I don't have the evidence I need to believe in God. So ether this God were discussing isn't all knowing or he doesn't exist. I'm leaning towards the latter option.

God exists and God is All-Knowing but God provides the same evidence for everyone. God is not a chef at a restaurant who makes up different meals to suit different tastes.

 

[TheBannerofHomuraAkemi]

God certainly does know why you do not believe in Him, but why do you think God is obligated to provide the evidence you need to believe in Him?

If he refuses to provide evidence for himself then why should I believe in him?

God exists and God is All-Knowing but God provides the same evidence for everyone. God is not a chef at a restaurant who makes up different meals to suit different tastes.

Then be more useful than your god and provide evidence for you god's existence.

 

[Trailblazer]

If he refuses to provide evidence for himself then why should I believe in him?

He does provide evidence, it is just not the kind of evidence you want.

Then be more useful than your god and provide evidence for you god's existence.

The evidence is the Messengers of God, and for me the best evidence is Baha'u'llah, who I believe is the Messenger for this age.

 

[tas8831]

God is speaking to everyone, it just that most of them aren't listening or don't want to listen.

How does God speak to people?

 

[tas8831]

There is a metaphysical barrier between God and man.

met·a·phys·ics
/ˌmedəˈfiziks/
noun
noun: metaphysics

1. the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.
   • abstract theory with no basis in reality.

Sounds about right.

 

[tas8831]

The evidence is the Messengers of God...

Self-proclaimed messengers.

How does one determine if they are legit?

 

[Trailblazer]

Self-proclaimed messengers.

How does one determine if they are legit?

They check out all the evidence that indicates they are legit.

 

[tas8831]

They check out all the evidence that indicates they are legit.

OK:

 

[TheBannerofHomuraAkemi]

He does provide evidence, it is just not the kind of evidence you want.

So no evidence to warrant a belief in him. Wow that's pretty logical right there.(Sarcasm)

The evidence is the Messengers of God, and for me the best evidence is Baha'u'llah, who I believe is the Messenger for this age.

How do you know these so called messengers are actually speaking from God and not just making stuff up?

 

[Trailblazer]

So no evidence to warrant a belief in him. Wow that's pretty logical right there.(Sarcasm)

No, that is not what I said. I said it is not the kind of evidence that you want, but maybe I am wrong, because I am basing that comment upon all the atheists I have been posting to day and night, night and day, for seven years.

How do you know these so called messengers are actually speaking from God and not just making stuff up?

That is a good question. That is where the homework comes in. There is a lot of homework to do in order to determine that they were telling the truth.