Non Christians: if the Christian God is real...

[firedragon]

Scholars don't know any of that. They are anonymous. I'm just reporting the scholarly consensus as i know it.

Which scholarly consensus are you referring to? Please do quote me the scholars or the scholar.

Thanks.

 

[Truthseeker]

If you notice objective thinkers who have no assigned or invested meaning in Bahai'a don't find the writings credible or believable. This has more credibility as an opinion than true believers. True believers of any religion are notable in their bias towards the ideas they believe true, and their lack of objectivity in assessing these concepts.

Are you sure about that? Do objective thinkers exist?

 

[Truthseeker]

Okay. Bahai's believe God is a panentheistic God.

If you could, please give me reference to Bahaullahs books on it. Because I cant remember reading something like that in Al Akdhas or Ikan. But I would like to know where actually its shown. Thanks in advance.

I said some Baha'is believe in Panentheism. It isn't proven.

 

[Truthseeker]

Which scholarly consensus are you referring to? Please do quote me the scholars or the scholar.

Thanks.

Oh, come on. This is you debating just for the hell of it again. I would have to do a lot of work to do what you ask. At this point all I know is that there is a consensus. It's not worth the work to quote individual authors for one person.

 

[firedragon]

I said some Baha'is believe in Panentheism. It isn't proven.

Oh okay. Sorry I misunderstood you.

 

[LuisDantas]

I’m asking non Christians this hypothetical. If the Christian God was undoubtedly real, would you become a Christian? Let’s say the Christian God proved Himself to you, He does whatever He has to to make you believe. Maybe the sky was ripped open in front of you and Jesus Christ poked His head out and said “hey”.

I suppose that might conceivably convince me that some form of supernatural entity calling itself Jesus existed.

I don't think that would have any religious meaning for me, though. Maybe if he went through the trouble of showing virtue or wisdom. I don't know.

Part of the problem is that there is really no consensus on what the Christian God would be like, even when it comes to very basic morality.

I saw someone say that “even if he was real, he wouldn’t meet my moral standards.” Is this true for you?

Yes. Abraham's god is really strange if we attempt to take him as a real entity.

The God of the Bible does some pretty gnarly stuff. And He commanded the Israelites to do some gnarly stuff with His law.
For me, I think I would serve Him. I would suspend my understanding of moral standards I suppose. Allow myself to know that I have a subjective perspective. What about you though?

Nope. I just don't see the point. And the drawbacks are scandalous.

Even if He is real, would you want to be His follower?

No. Can't even think of any conceivable reason to consider it, in all honesty.

 

[firedragon]

Oh, come on. This is you debating just for the hell of it again.

Err. I was only asking you questions on your assertion.

I would have to do a lot of work to do what you ask. At this point all I know is that there is a consensus. It's not worth the work to quote individual authors for one person.

Okay. If its not worth, that's fine.

As far as I know, the only so called "scholarly consensus" close to what you seem to be alluding to is the documentary hypothesis. That is where YHWHists and Elohists are separated as two different schools of thought among the Priestly and the D source. I just think you got the northern kingdom, Israel, northern Israel, and Judah confused. This was Wellhausen's theory, and its not that two writers from the north and south wrote two different names in the Pentateuch, but prior to the writers, the influence of Elohim came from the northern Israel. But if you are to take as writers per se, there are four writers. YHwists records the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah of which Elohists shows no knowledge, and the Abraham/Lot stories, peculiar to Ywists, are southern in origin, and in the Joseph narrative ascribes the leading role to Judah while Elohists ascribes it to Reuben. The story of Tamar in Genesis 38 which according to the hypothesis was a YHwist source displays a favourable attitude towards the tribe of Judah.

This Truthseeker was practically the invention or propagation of the source critical approach and is highly valued and regarded in any kind of Old Testament studies. The source theory is today applied to the New Testament every day. I just wanted to understand from you on what scholarship you were speaking about. Not some cheap debate for no reason like you just said.

Let me tell you one thing to conclude this. The theory is not that two different writers wrote two different names, it is a theorising that the Torah reached its final form in a series of successive “documents” or “sources,” each of which reflected and articulated a particular mode of Israel’s religion.

Thanks for engaging.

 

[nPeace]

Yes. You don't? Well, that would explain why you like the Bible so much.

I favor justice. Not injustice built on favoritism.
One is not exempt of consequences based on gender and age.
A woman is not less guilty of a crime than a man. Nor is a child.
You think otherwise. You are a woman, right. Maybe you believe women are special creatures who should bear no consequences.

Do you think a three month old baby can possibly be unrighteous?

The only good excuse I can find for your God, for killing so many innocents the way He did, is that He does not exist.

Ciao

- viole

I was waiting for the "God does not exist" strawman to come up next.
If you were a domino player, I could read your hand like an ABC book.
You "play the same hand" in every thread where winning your argument fails.

 

[F1fan]

Are you sure about that?

Your handle is "truth seeker". Do you think we humans can find and attain truth? If so, then that is a result of objective thought. But be aware truth doesn't mean dogma and abstract meanings, truth means factual explanations of what we observe. Much of what we see in Baha'i writings is that it is unverifiable and ofter counter to fact.

Do objective thinkers exist?

Are you admitting you aren't an objective thinker? The alternative is a biased thinker.

Objective thinkers have practiced skill at thinking through ideas and are aware of personal bias and work to avoid them.

 

[viole]

I favor justice. Not injustice built on favoritism.
One is not exempt of consequences based on gender and age.
A woman is not less guilty of a crime than a man. Nor is a child.
You think otherwise. You are a woman, right. Maybe you believe women are special creatures who should bear no consequences.

How can a child, say a two months old child be guilty of anything? Can you make me an example?

I was waiting for the "God does not exist" strawman to come up next.
If you were a domino player, I could read your hand like an ABC book.
You "play the same hand" in every thread where winning your argument fails.

It is not a straw man, it is His best excuse. I am trying to defend Him.

Ciao

- viole

 

[nPeace]

How can a child, say a two months old child be guilty of anything? Can you make me an example?

After you. A discussion is two way. Not one way, with one argument being pushed and dominating.
I asked you something.

It is not a straw man, it is His best excuse. I am trying to defend Him.

Ciao

- viole

So you think the Bible is the best source that would prove God... so if you can show flaws in it, you have disproved God.
Well there it is. You just showed out all your cards.
Now, you can't hide what you are holding.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I don't believe there's any reason to think that the Old Testament in particular depicts Him accurately, and in the New Testament also there are some things said that I don't consider accurate or are misinterpreted.

I don't believe that there's any reason to think that the bible is any more accurate than any other made up mythology. I'm assuming that it is accurate for the sake of this thread.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

God does not want anyone to be a Baha'i unless they choose to be a Baha'i of their own free will. That requires investigating the Baha'i Faith and coming to believe it is true. If God proved it to you then it would only be fair for God to prove it to everyone, but that has never been how God operates, although God could prove it to everyone.

And I will say this right now, very assuredly, that if God proved his existence to everybody, there would still be people that don't believe. God could record himself on a special on Netflix or YouTube and it would not remove the ability for the average man to dissociate himself from Him. Proving His existence wouldn't be forcing people to believe. And people would always have their free will to dissociate themselves, regardless of how many people He convinced.

Yes, I believe in an afterlife, call it heaven or paradise, but I do not believe in eternal damnation. In short, Baha'is believe that heaven is nearness to God and hell is distance from God and that is a state of the soul that exists in this life as well as in the afterlife (spiritual world)

Okay, so, there is an afterlife, it's Heaven, and if you are closer to God it's more heavenly or something. Does that mean God is everywhere?

I have explained the catch many times on this forum.
Of course an omnipotent God could prove that He exists IF He wanted to.

If God doesn't prove that He exists, but rather provides evidence that He exists, then all doubts about God's existence are on the people who reject the evidence that God provided. The REASON that God does not prove He exists is noted below.

“He Who is the Day Spring of Truth is, no doubt, fully capable of rescuing from such remoteness wayward souls and of causing them to draw nigh unto His court and attain His Presence. “If God had pleased He had surely made all men one people.” His purpose, however, is to enable the pure in spirit and the detached in heart to ascend, by virtue of their own innate powers, unto the shores of the Most Great Ocean, that thereby they who seek the Beauty of the All-Glorious may be distinguished and separated from the wayward and perverse. Thus hath it been ordained by the all-glorious and resplendent Pen…”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 71

In the context of the passage above, If God had pleased He had surely made all men one people means that God could have made all people believers, but IF God has pleased, implies that God did not want to make all people into believers, which is why all men are not believers. The passage goes on to say why God didn’t want to make us believers... In short, God wants us to make an effort and become believers by our own efforts (by virtue of their own innate powers).

According to this passage, God wants everyone to search for Him and determine if He exists by using their own innate intelligence and using their free will to make the decision to believe. God wants those who are sincere and truly search for Him to believe in Him. God wants to distinguish those people from the others who are not sincere, those who are unwilling to put forth any effort.

Thank God I know of Wikipedia or I may have never heard of the Baha'i Faith. I'm absolutely serious. Everybody knows Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism. But I actually had to put some effort to find you guys. You guys are literally one out of thousand folks.

I don't understand why God would make it that difficult for me to find the right religion. Now, I understand some of the more omnist Baha'is will say any monotheistic religion is essentially true, and going to any church is satisfactory. In that case you do make a valid point.

But what if I simply never found out about the Baha'i Faith? What if, in order to really understand God I needed to be a Baha'i and not a Christian or Muslim? I mean ... one out of a thousand people is like a needle in a haystack.

If God proved to everyone that He exists then it would be impossible to distinguish between people and how much they really care about believing in Him.

So God cares enough for you to be jealous if you don't believe in Him but doesn't care enough to demonstrate HImself to nonbelievers. Okkkaaaayyyy.

Baha'u'llah wrote that God and the Creation have always existed but that is a big subject.

We are on the same page then, in some odd turn of events.

God has revealed multiple religions on Earth at various times throughout human history through Messengers because what humanity needs is different in different ages.

“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

“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

That's fine however these religions disagree with each other. I know Baha'is don't believe that, but there's a reason why there's omnism and then there's Christians, Musims, Jews, etc. Most Hindus are polytheistic, most Buddhists are atheists and even if you took two monotheistic faiths they would call their God different names. I guess God is not only creating different religions for different ages, but is also completely inconsistent too. Please, prove it to me that I'm incorrect.

It is a Baha'i teaching that what matters is what we do here and now on this Earth, how we help and grow the world in a way which humans can co-exist with everything else. For this reason we are urged not to dwell on the afterlife, but only know it exists.

To provide some relief. Okay. This is good. Maybe I over spoke. There are some religious people who aren't like that however, all the care about is gaining access to the afterlife paradise. I actually know Baha'is aren't like that, but it just appeared to me that you thought that way over how you expressed yourself. I'm sorry.

No, I do not primarily exist to prepare myself for the afterlife although one purpose of this Earthly existence is to prepare. The other reason we are put on Earth is to make this Earth a better place for the present generation and the generations to follow.

nods head

Do you believe that dead bodies will be resurrected to live on Earth forever? I believe we were intended to live on Earth for a short time and then when our bodies die our souls ascend to the spiritual world where we take on a new forum, a spiritual body. Other than that Baha'u'llah did not reveal much about the nature of the afterlife.

Yes and no. Dead bodies will be resurrected but whether they choose to live on Earth forever is their choice. I figure eighty+ billion people could be a little crowded and by then we will find habitable exoplanets that we and live on as well. Hopefully.

I think you have me pegged incorrectly. Although we share common beliefs, all Baha'is do not have the same attitudes towards God and this life and the afterlife. I do not look forward to death and being reunited with God but the reasons for such would entail a long story.

If you want you can private message me the story. I like hearing about such things.

So you want to continue to exist on Earth forever in the same body?

Yes and no. The body would have to not age after a certain point; I would have to be cured of anything that could ruin my life satisfaction, including my own bipolar disorder; and I would have to be able to change my genetics after a certain point after we progress beyond the point of homo sapien. Also, I'd like to see other exoplanets too. But yeah ... if all of that was in place for my future, I would love to exist forever.

I believe that one reason for the suffering we endure in this world is so we will not be attached to this world, and since I have suffered most of my life I am pretty detached from this world. That does not mean I look forward to living forever the afterlife but that is another long story.

You can always message me these long stories privately. I haven't really suffered too much except for my mood disorder.

And i will say this. Let's say you are right. There is a Baha'i-esque version of God, I could believe in Him, be with him in the afterlife. Feel the presence of God and enter this City of Lights you talk about... I honestly think I would be more interested in what happens here for awhile before I would choose to do that, if I could live indefinitely. If, after a long time, everything turns bad, WW3, super-COVID, or let's just say my life satisfaction has gone down considerably, then yes, take me to God ... I don't see that happening any time soon. My mom's death will probably have some degree of my life changing and getting worse however if she could live forever too I most likely would also like to live forever. And ultimately I think between my afterlife and the Baha'i afterlife she'd choose mine. It's more interesting than the vague details Baha'u'llah supplies us with.

Most of us believe because we believe what we want to believe. I am optimistic enough to understand that there will be great things that will happen after I die, and I do not want to miss a single thing. When I was born, in 1989, the Internet was just being invented, the Game Boy was just created and nobody knew what a smartphone was. I figure that by the time I die this acceleration of technology and world awakening will continue to the point where I won't want to die, no matter how much suffering I have endured. I get sad sometimes, I feel numbness, or anger, but I prefer real emotions in a life I made for myself, rather than an afterlife that God has prepared for me. My apartment is my sanctuary and if were up to me I'd rather be here for as long as I possibly could be. I have neighbors that have died in my building and I bet they even miss their apartments too, if there is an afterlife.

 

[Truthseeker]

Err. I was only asking you questions on your assertion.



Okay. If its not worth, that's fine.

As far as I know, the only so called "scholarly consensus" close to what you seem to be alluding to is the documentary hypothesis. That is where YHWHists and Elohists are separated as two different schools of thought among the Priestly and the D source. I just think you got the northern kingdom, Israel, northern Israel, and Judah confused. This was Wellhausen's theory, and its not that two writers from the north and south wrote two different names in the Pentateuch, but prior to the writers, the influence of Elohim came from the northern Israel. But if you are to take as writers per se, there are four writers. YHwists records the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah of which Elohists shows no knowledge, and the Abraham/Lot stories, peculiar to Ywists, are southern in origin, and in the Joseph narrative ascribes the leading role to Judah while Elohists ascribes it to Reuben. The story of Tamar in Genesis 38 which according to the hypothesis was a YHwist source displays a favourable attitude towards the tribe of Judah.

This Truthseeker was practically the invention or propagation of the source critical approach and is highly valued and regarded in any kind of Old Testament studies. The source theory is today applied to the New Testament every day. I just wanted to understand from you on what scholarship you were speaking about. Not some cheap debate for no reason like you just said.

Let me tell you one thing to conclude this. The theory is not that two different writers wrote two different names, it is a theorising that the Torah reached its final form in a series of successive “documents” or “sources,” each of which reflected and articulated a particular mode of Israel’s religion.

Thanks for engaging.

Okay, fine. I forgot about the priestly source, or what they call P. The D source is mostly Deuteronomy. I just looked it up, and Wellhausen was mentioned as the source for this theory as you say. It also says it has been complicated lately.

But if you knew this all along, why did you grill me on this for a while? Why not just correct me in the first place? What is your motive for this?

I do recognize you as a knowledgeable person. I can stand being told that I am ignorant of some things. In this case, I forgot. I'm not a walking encyclopedia. My memory is not good. You do have a propensity to debate, which is common to a lot of people, not just you. I can debate too sometimes, but I don't want to fall into that.

 

[Truthseeker]

Objective thinkers have practiced skill at thinking through ideas and are aware of personal bias and work to avoid them.

That's what I do. I work to avoid bias. I can't say I'm objective however.

 

[Truthseeker]

Buddhists are atheists and even if you took two monotheistic faiths they would call their God different names. I guess God is not only creating different religions for different ages, but is also completely inconsistent too. Please, prove it to me that I'm incorrect.

Buddhists mostly are atheists, but Baha'is have reason to believe that Buddha didn't most of the time mention God because India at that time was awash with a lot of gods, and Buddha wanted to dissociate Himself from that and create a system where God could in effect be found within. Baha'is believe that all we can know about God is potentially within us.

As for proving to you that God created different religions for different ages and that calling God different names is valid, that is beyond the scope of this forum, and you would need to investigate and conclude that for yourself anyway. I assume you do have some knowledge of different religions, and you reject that Baha'i thesis, and that's fine. We Baha'is are supposed to accept people of other beliefs, and that's what I'm doing with with you. Baha'u'llah said:

O people! Consort with the followers of all religions in a spirit of friendliness and fellowship.
(Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 21)

 

[Trailblazer]

And I will say this right now, very assuredly, that if God proved his existence to everybody, there would still be people that don't believe. God could record himself on a special on Netflix or YouTube and it would not remove the ability for the average man to dissociate himself from Him. Proving His existence wouldn't be forcing people to believe. And people would always have their free will to dissociate themselves, regardless of how many people He convinced.

If God PROVED that He exists to everyone the everyone would know that God exists. they might not want to believe in God so they might dissociate theme]selves from God, but they would know that God exists since that is what proof is all about.

How God would prove He exists to everyone is another matter altogether. Only God knows how that could be accomplished.

Okay, so, there is an afterlife, it's Heaven, and if you are closer to God it's more heavenly or something. Does that mean God is everywhere?

God is omnipresent so in that sense God has the ability to be everywhere, but I do not believe that the entity we call God resides in this material realm of existence. Rather, God resides in the spiritual world in the realm on high, on His Throne of Glory, and is self-subsisting. As such, nearness to God does not mean we are near where God resides, it means our souls are near to God because our minds and hearts are centered on God.

“He is, and hath from everlasting been, one and alone, without peer or equal, eternal in the past, eternal in the future, detached from all things, ever-abiding, unchangeable, and self-subsisting. He hath assigned no associate unto Himself in His Kingdom, no counsellor to counsel Him, none to compare unto Him, none to rival His glory. To this every atom of the universe beareth witness, and beyond it the inmates of the realms on high, they that occupy the most exalted seats, and whose names are remembered before the Throne of Glory.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 192

Thank God I know of Wikipedia or I may have never heard of the Baha'i Faith. I'm absolutely serious. Everybody knows Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism. But I actually had to put some effort to find you guys. You guys are literally one out of thousand folks.

The Baha'i Faith is hardly obscure as it is all over the internet, but one has to be careful when looking at websites because there is a lot of misinformation out there, especially posted by Christians and Muslims who are attempting to discredit the Bahai Faith.

The best starting point to get accurate information is on The Baháʼí Faith - Home which is The Official Website of the Worldwide Bahá’í Community

I don't understand why God would make it that difficult for me to find the right religion. Now, I understand some of the more omnist Baha'is will say any monotheistic religion is essentially true, and going to any church is satisfactory. In that case you do make a valid point.

I cannot say why some people find it easy to find and believe in the Baha'i Faith and some people simply do not believe in it even if they find it. One reason is that some people put forth more effort and they are guided by God.

“The incomparable Creator hath created all men from one same substance, and hath exalted their reality above the rest of His creatures. Success or failure, gain or loss, must, therefore, depend upon man’s own exertions. The more he striveth, the greater will be his progress.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 81-82

“Whoso maketh efforts for Us,” he shall enjoy the blessings conferred by the words: “In Our Ways shall We assuredly guide him.”” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 266-267

But what if I simply never found out about the Baha'i Faith? What if, in order to really understand God I needed to be a Baha'i and not a Christian or Muslim? I mean ... one out of a thousand people is like a needle in a haystack.

If you had never found the Baha'i Faith then you would not be held accountable for believing in Baha'u'llah.

"Then as to what thou hast asked me for pious people who died before they heard the Voice of this Manifestation. Listen: Those who have mounted to God before hearing the Voice, if they followed the rules of conduct as laid down by Jesus and always walked in the straight path, they have obtained this Dazzling Light after their rising to the Kingdom of God. I pray God to lift the veil for thee and to corroborate by the spirit of experience, so that all may be evident to thee, by the Holy Spirit of God."
('Abdu'l-Bahá, Tablets of 'Abdu'l-Bahá, p. 478)

Of course, that implies that those people who have discovered the Baha'i Faith are held accountable for believing.

That's fine however these religions disagree with each other. I know Baha'is don't believe that, but there's a reason why there's omnism and then there's Christians, Musims, Jews, etc. Most Hindus are polytheistic, most Buddhists are atheists and even if you took two monotheistic faiths they would call their God different names. I guess God is not only creating different religions for different ages, but is also completely inconsistent too. Please, prove it to me that I'm incorrect.

Why would you expect religions that were revealed in different ages to different people be the same?
The religions have different social teachings and laws because they needed to be different in order to address the needs of the times in which they were revealed, but the essential spiritual teachings are the same in all the true religions.

Now you might ask why some teachings such as polytheism and reincarnation vs. monotheism and heaven are different, but to explain that properly would require another post or a new thread, because it is rather involved.

To provide some relief. Okay. This is good. Maybe I over spoke. There are some religious people who aren't like that however, all the care about is gaining access to the afterlife paradise. I actually know Baha'is aren't like that, but it just appeared to me that you thought that way over how you expressed yourself. I'm sorry.

No need to apologize. I am glad we got this sorted out.

Yes and no. Dead bodies will be resurrected but whether they choose to live on Earth forever is their choice. I figure eighty+ billion people could be a little crowded and by then we will find habitable exoplanets that we and live on as well. Hopefully.

Why do you believe that dead bodies will be resurrected to life? Why would you want to have the same physical body for all of eternity? Even the Bible says that in heaven we will have a spiritual body, not a physical body, so this is not only a Baha'i belief.

If you want you can private message me the story. I like hearing about such things.

Okay, I will keep that in mind.

Yes and no. The body would have to not age after a certain point; I would have to be cured of anything that could ruin my life satisfaction, including my own bipolar disorder; and I would have to be able to change my genetics after a certain point after we progress beyond the point of homo sapien. Also, I'd like to see other exoplanets too. But yeah ... if all of that was in place for my future, I would love to exist forever.

It is a Baha'i belief that there are many worlds besides this world which we will unveiled to our eyes after we die physically and leave this world. Our soul will continue to exist after our body dies and we will have a spiritual body comprised of spiritual elements. Whatever psychological or physical s=diseases we has will be no more because they are associated with the physical body that is no more. I never had bipolar disorder but I had major depression and generalized anxiety disorder.

“The world beyond is as different from this world as this world is different from that of the child while still in the womb of its mother. When the soul attaineth the Presence of God, it will assume the form that best befitteth its immortality and is worthy of its celestial habitation.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 157

“The answer to the third question is this, that in the other world the human reality doth not assume a physical form, rather doth it take on a heavenly form, made up of elements of that heavenly realm.”
Selections From the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, p. 194

You can always message me these long stories privately. I haven't really suffered too much except for my mood disorder.

I will keep that in mind and message you as soon as I have time.
Meanwhile, I can see that this post is going to exceed the maximum length so I will continue my response on another post.

(Continued on next post)

 

[Trailblazer]

And i will say this. Let's say you are right. There is a Baha'i-esque version of God, I could believe in Him, be with him in the afterlife. Feel the presence of God and enter this City of Lights you talk about... I honestly think I would be more interested in what happens here for awhile before I would choose to do that, if I could live indefinitely. If, after a long time, everything turns bad, WW3, super-COVID, or let's just say my life satisfaction has gone down considerably, then yes, take me to God ... I don't see that happening any time soon. My mom's death will probably have some degree of my life changing and getting worse however if she could live forever too I most likely would also like to live forever. And ultimately I think between my afterlife and the Baha'i afterlife she'd choose mine. It's more interesting than the vague details Baha'u'llah supplies us with.

If you have not had a difficult life on Earth and there are things about this life that you would like to have forever I can understand why you might want to live on this Earth forever. That made me think of these Bible verses which concur with Baha'i beliefs about attachment to this world of dust barring us from eternal life, which is defined as nearness to God.

John 12:24-26 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal. If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour.

Logically speaking, whatever is true is true and that is what will happen when we die. It is not about what we want, it is about what God created for us, which in my mind has to be better than anything that we can imagine for ourselves, since God is All-Knowing, All-Wise and All-Loving. I often complain to my husband about not wanting to go to the afterlife but he always tells me that.

Most of us believe because we believe what we want to believe. I am optimistic enough to understand that there will be great things that will happen after I die, and I do not want to miss a single thing. When I was born, in 1989, the Internet was just being invented, the Game Boy was just created and nobody knew what a smartphone was. I figure that by the time I die this acceleration of technology and world awakening will continue to the point where I won't want to die, no matter how much suffering I have endured. I get sad sometimes, I feel numbness, or anger, but I prefer real emotions in a life I made for myself, rather than an afterlife that God has prepared for me. My apartment is my sanctuary and if were up to me I'd rather be here for as long as I possibly could be. I have neighbors that have died in my building and I bet they even miss their apartments too, if there is an afterlife.

That is probably true that many people believe what they want to believe, rather than thinking in terms of what is actually true. I mean that they believe what they believe is true because it is what they want to believe.

I can totally relate to what you said, that I would rather have my own life that I have made for myself, no matter how difficult it is, than some afterlife that God has prepared for me. My house is my sanctuary and I want to be here as long as I can be here. I am not afraid of the afterlife, which I believe will be in a spiritual world, and I believe it will be much better than this life could ever be. On the other hand there are things about this life I like and don't want to leave behind, mainly my cats, animals, and nature. I did not include people I love since I believe for certain that I will see them in the afterlife.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I’m asking non Christians this hypothetical. If the Christian God was undoubtedly real, would you become a Christian? Let’s say the Christian God proved Himself to you, He does whatever He has to to make you believe. Maybe the sky was ripped open in front of you and Jesus Christ poked His head out and said “hey”.
I saw someone say that “even if he was real, he wouldn’t meet my moral standards.” Is this true for you? The God of the Bible does some pretty gnarly stuff. And He commanded the Israelites to do some gnarly stuff with His law.
For me, I think I would serve Him. I would suspend my understanding of moral standards I suppose. Allow myself to know that I have a subjective perspective. What about you though? Even if He is real, would you want to be His follower?
I am unsure of my position. Jehovah is mighty but arguably immoral from our human perspective. Jesus Christ is great though, died for us and stuff.

No, not the one depicted in the Bible.

However, I will allow that if your proposal (that God/Jesus could "poke his head out) were to be true, then I suspect that this God/Jesus could then explain why the biblical version is so wrong.

And if the explanation were reasonable, well then obviously I would have to accept the evidence before me.

(On the other hand, I also suspect that most of those people who are presently Christian would reject the explanations that turn their Bible upside down. Consider reading Book V of The Brothers Karamazov -- The Grand Inquisitor, or listening to John Gielgud read it for you.

)

 

[Bird123]

Probably.

I can't imagine worse news - the existence of an entity that has that kind of knowledge of me and power over me such that it would and could keep me conscious just to gratuitously torture me forever to the benefit of nobody but other sadists. Can you imagine being born into a more dangerous and hostile universe? I guess if the deity sent everybody to hell rather than just the 90+ percent that died unsaved, that would be 10% worse. What's the best one can hope for? To spend eternity praising a black hole of need? And that's the jackpot, the pie in the sky, the reward promised. Is this what the Christian God wants of me? :

View attachment 63297



I think like this, too, but one should expect to be rebuked by believers, who consider it blasphemy to just the deity' intellect and moral fiber. I'm sure the universe would like somebody with my values better than that god. I don't need praise, and I would be there to help, not to looking for anything in return from my creation. I would program people to be good people, which would make them happy people. This biblical god is a monster, setting those kids up for failure in the garden and drowning the world over it's own error and inability to live with it or correct it without killing, and then punishing the kids and their progeny. Who does that to people they love? The Christian god apparently, according to Christians, who call that love. I sure hope they aren't applying that kind of "love" to their children at home.



How about just abandoning the idea of calling that a god? I'm a humanist, and also have a sense that reality is worthy of my awe, affection, and respect, but I don't personify that. Brahman as described in this thread is closer to my intuition, and seems to be less of a person, which is more to my liking.

Regarding that intuition, I invented a godless "religion" for myself using the language of the bayou song Aiko, a bayou favorite that I came to know listening to the Grateful Dead. It's kind of a tongue-in-cheek expression of my experience of reality. Here it is for those interested. I think the dharmics here might identify.

Spoiler

AIKO – a belief system

This is a personal belief system called AIKO*, which is meant to represent the gratitude that (this) one feels to be included in existence. The creation, FEENO, is a stunning and awesome thing, remarkable not only for its beauty, complexity and potential for beneficence, but remarkable just that it can and does exist and is apparent to us.

That anything at all exists is itself the most fundamental and awe-inspiring mystery (AYE-NA-NAY), one which is a continual source of awe (FIYO), and for which we are deeply grateful (FEE-NA-NAY). That existence should be as rich and robust as we find it is infinitely more remarkable. That we were included in it as conscious beings to experience it even more so, and that that conscious experience includes a faint intuition of divinity that is accompanied by an experience of mystery, of awe and of graitude.

To experience FEENO is the greatest gift. My gratitude that all of this is so is called AIKO, and it is expressed as an affinity for the creation FEENO, and by implication, its source JOCKOMO, whether that be person-like, purposeless and accidental forces, or any other ontogenic entity or entities.

Nothing can be said or known about the creative source of FEENO, an entity termed JOCKOMO. All that can be ascertained about the reality of JOCKOMO is that which is faintly intuited by the mystery faculty called SPYBOY (the faculty of the brain that intuitively produces the experience of mystery or divinity to us), and whatever little bit that the reasoning faculty can add to that.

JOCKOMO may be existent, may have been formerly existent, or something else altogether. It may be substantial (material) or transcendent. It may be plural or singular, finite or immortal, conscious or insentient; we cannot know. Whatever the case, we love it and identify with it through its creation, FEENO by which we intuit JOCKOMO faintly and indirectly.

We do not know if JOCKOMO knows us or can know us. It is not necessary. We are astounded and grateful nevertheless. We are indebted to JOCKOMO for being included in the creation FEENO and being blessed with the faculty of conscious mind, including SPYBOY that generates our intuition of the mysterious and divine, called AYE-NAH-NAY. The awe we feel is called FIYO, and the gratitude that results naturally from these is FEE-NAH-NAY.

AIKO – a belief system
FEENO – the creation
JOCKOMO – the source of the creation FEENO
SPYBOY – the faculty that reveals the mystery and awesomeness of the creation FEENO
AYE-NA-NAY – the intuition of the mysterious and divine
FEE-NA-NAY – the gratitude experienced for being included in the creation
FIYO – the experience of awe

Now listen to a little of the song:

Isn't that a red flag? Those are the fingerprints of man, not a god.

Are you sure you want to program people to be good? Wouldn't it be better to educate the kids to the point they understand all sides?

When one understands all sides, Intelligence will make the Best choices. Bad or evil choices will no longer be viable choices one could make simply because they aren't the best choices. You would end up with Wise, Intelligent, Caring, Loving children making the best choices along with helping those that cross their path.

Look around you. Isn't that what God is doing as we speak??

In this multilevel classroom, one will see others learning lessons one has already learned. One would ask oneself: How could they choose to do what they are doing? Is this the time to hate, judge, condemn or is it the time to help, place truth and knowledge in their lives, and point them in the right direction?

How many problems would simply disappear if everyone concentrated on solving the problems rather than valuing all those petty things mankind holds so dear?

We are meant to Learn, Grow, and Solve all the problems. It has always been in each of our hands. It is within the reach of us all. It's so simple yet so hard until one actually learns and grows enough to Understand.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!