Why doesn’t God communicate directly to everyone?

[CG Didymus]

No, God is not a failure just because there are a few atheists...

According to sociologists Ariela Keysar and Juhem Navarro-Rivera's review of numerous global studies on atheism, there are 450 to 500 million positive atheists and agnostics worldwide (7% of the world's population), with China having the most atheists in the world (200 million convinced atheists). Demographics of atheism - Wikipedia

That means that 93% of the world population believes in God.

If God had never used Messengers, hardly anyone would believe in God because the main reason people believe in God is because of one of those Messengers. Very few people in the world believe in God for some other reason. 84 percent of the world population has a faith and those faiths all have some kind of Founder, what I refer to as a Messenger. So obviously, using Messengers is a successful method of communication.

There will always be people who do not believe in God because man has free will so man can choose to believe in God or not. This is exactly the way God wants it, otherwise God would not have created man with free will.

Worldwide, atheism was growing at a rate of 6.54% from 1910-2010 but dropped to a growth rate of 0.05% from 2000-2010. Agnosticism was growing at a rate of 5.45% from 1910-2010 but dropped to a growth rate of 0.32% from 2000-2010. That demonstrates that both atheism and agnosticism are on the decline but also that there are many more agnostics than atheists.

Statistics from: Growth of religion - Wikipedia

Which religion, other than yours, teaches the truth about God? Is God a trinity? If not, those people believe in a false God and know nothing about the true God as defined by the Baha'is. So they can't be included, or else you might as well include believers in mythical gods.

 

[Bird123]

Not by my definition of Messenger. Nobody gets messages from God except God’s Chosen Messengers.

Am I too weak? I have the inerrant Truth from God through Baha’u’llah. Why would I want to free myself from God’s Truth? I would have to be very arrogant to think I could know more than God's Messenger.

Why do people reject Messengers of God?

Religious people reject the “new” Messenger of God when He comes because they are “emotionally attached” to their older Messengers (e.g., Moses, Jesus).

Nonbelievers and nonreligious believers reject the Messengers because they arrogantly think they “know” that there is no such thing as a Messenger of God just because they have decided that. If they even entertain the possibility that a Messenger could come from God, they cannot fathom the idea that someone could know more than they know about God. They also do not like the idea of Authority Figures, and having to obey their teachings and laws.

This is what I have observed from daily posting to all of these groups of people over a period of over five years.

God does not show people anything. Nobody can discover God by themselves. We can only know God’s Attributes and God’s Will for humanity from what the Messenger reflects and reveals.

I am not ashamed because I am a follower, instead of a thinking I know more than a Messenger of God.
One can never know God if they cannot push their pride aside.

“We observe in nature that water can only flow from a high level to a lower one. It cannot flow to a point on the same level or on a higher one. Similarly, in order for a believer to receive the bounties of God from on high, he must be positioned on the opposite end of the scale, to be lowly, humble, and self-effacing.”
(AdibTaherzadeh, The Covenant of Baha’u’llah, p. 253)

Recognizing Baha’u’llah and obeying His teachings and laws is exactly what God wants everyone to do. These are called the Twin Duties.

“The first duty prescribed by God for His servants is the recognition of Him Who is the Day Spring of His Revelation and the Fountain of His laws, Who representeth the Godhead in both the Kingdom of His Cause and the world of creation. Whoso achieveth this duty hath attained unto all good; and whoso is deprived thereof, hath gone astray, though he be the author of every righteous deed. It behoveth every one who reacheth this most sublime station, this summit of transcendent glory, to observe every ordinance of Him Who is the Desire of the world. These twin duties are inseparable. Neither is acceptable without the other. Thus hath it been decreed by Him Who is the Source of Divine inspiration.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 330-331

Did God tell you these were His messengers or did the messengers tell you this? Did God tell you what can and can't be done or did those messengers?

You misunderstand me. I speak of Facts not beliefs. I speak of discovering on your own rather than following the Beliefs of others. So many have been taught to value beliefs over all else. The result will lead away from real truth. Still, free choice is a very important part of God's system. I merely place truth upon your door. What one chooses to do with truth is entirely up to them. When you see, it will begin. Your journey has never been up to me.

 

[Trailblazer]

Perhaps you consider evidence that isn't convincing to be valid, but I do not. And yes, it does have to meet my criteria for being convincing for me to conclude that it's true.

Evidence that is convincing to you is valid to you. Evidence that is convincing to me is valid to me.
Yes, it does have to meet your criteria for being convincing for you to conclude that it's true. Yes, it does have to meet my criteria for being convincing for me to conclude that it's true.

Some people will believe virtually anything based on very unconvincing evidence. I consider such people to be gullible.

But that evidence that convinces some people is different than the evidence that convinces other people. You might think they are gullible but that is just your personal opinion because their evidence is not convincing to you.

Whether the evidence is convincing to you or to me does not prove anything. What is true if true regardless of whether anyone is convinced it is true.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why should everyone get the same message that Baha’u’llah got directly from God? Do you realize that He wrote over 15,000 Tablets? Do you really think that “everyone” could receive and record all those Tablets?
You're only giving evidence of the colossal inefficiency and high probability of error and abuse being generated by not simply placing the message directly into everyone's mind.

What is the error of using a Messenger?
What abuse is generated by using a Messenger?

If people err in not recognizing Baha’u’llah, how on earth could that ever be considered God’s fault? God gave man free will to choose to believe in Baha’u’llah or not. People are responsible for their own choices.

Why do you think God is obligated to put that message directly into everyone’s mind? If God did that God would be taking away everyone’s ability to choose if they want the message or not. That is beside the point that God would have to change the brain function of people in order for them to be able to understand all that information.

But the most important question I have for you is why you think God is obligated to communicate directly to everyone, when God can communicate to one Messenger who can record the message and make it available to everyone? I have been asking nonbelievers this question for four years and I have never received any answers. I thus can only conclude one thing: The only reason that they think God should communicate directly with everyone is because they want God to do that, like a little boy wants a new bicycle from daddy.

But God is not under any obligation to give humans what they want. The All-Knowing and All-Wise God gives people what they need, not what they want. That is too bad for people who cannot accept that reality. They don’t have to believe in God. God never said that they have to.

God wants belief to be a free choice. That is one reason God uses Messengers. The other reason is because it is far more efficient and is better for humanity collectively, since everyone can read the same exact scriptures and form a religious community. That would not happen if everyone got their own direct message. It would be helter skelter.

Why would it be necessary for everyone to get the same messages He got directly from God, when God can reveal those messages to one Messenger who can receive and record the messages and make them available to everyone in the world?
Why would any message be necessary at all? Why wouldn't God simply place the information It wanted us to know directly into our minds, and avoid all the inefficiency and likelihood of error and abuse?

Why should God put information in our minds? This makes absolutely no sense. Why can’t we acquire the information ourselves? That is why we have a brain and the capacity to think and learn. What a cop-out.

It is a moot point what people want because no ordinary human is capable of receiving direct communication from God. Only a Messenger of God has those capabilities.
Why do you assume that we are "incapable"? Didn't you just claim that SOME humans are receiving messages from God?

No, I did not say that. Only Messengers of God receive messages from God. The misconception people have is that a Messenger of God is the same as other humans, but He is not.

A Messenger of God is human, but more than a human. He has a human nature so He can communicate to humans and act as a mediator, but He also has a universal divine mind, which is beyond the reach of our understanding. We can understand His human side, but not His divine side.

Only the Holy Manifestations of God have a universal divine mind, heavenly intellectual power, which is beyond nature, embraces things and is cognizant of things, knows them, understands them, is aware of mysteries, realities and divine significations. A portion and share of this power comes to the righteous man through the Holy Manifestations.

Manifestations of God are another order of God’s creation, a Being in between a man and a God. They are not like us so we cannot fully comprehend their nature.

What I refer to as Messengers of God are also called Manifestations of God.
Everything that exists is a "manifestation of God".

That is true....

“Whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth is a direct evidence of the revelation within it of the attributes and names of God, inasmuch as within every atom are enshrined the signs that bear eloquent testimony to the revelation of that Most Great Light.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 177

However, that does not help us get information from God if God has information He wants us to have. On the other hand, if you do not think we need any communication from God you can just be a deist.

A Manifestation of God is human, but more than a human.
Now you are resorting to reasoning based on "magic", and once we go down that road, logical discourse has no value.

One can apply logic to how God communicates but one cannot apply logic to God or a Manifestation of God.

Humans are finite creatures, God is infinite. One cannot expect God to be constrained by human logic. The same applies to a Manifestation of God. He is another order of creation above an ordinary human being so He is beyond human comprehension. One cannot understand the nature of what is so far above them. That is why people cannot comprehend the nature of God.

The reason God sends Messengers is because they have the ability to bridge the gap between God and man since they are both human and divine. We can understand their human nature, but we cannot understand their divine nature. Why can’t people just accept that there are mysteries that are beyond their understanding?

“And since there can be no tie of direct intercourse to bind the one true God with His creation, and no resemblance whatever can exist between the transient and the Eternal, the contingent and the Absolute, He hath ordained that in every age and dispensation a pure and stainless Soul be made manifest in the kingdoms of earth and heaven. Unto this subtle, this mysterious and ethereal Being He hath assigned a twofold nature; the physical, pertaining to the world of matter, and the spiritual, which is born of the substance of God Himself. He hath, moreover, conferred upon Him a double station. The first station, which is related to His innermost reality, representeth Him as One Whose voice is the voice of God Himself.....The second station is the human station, exemplified by the following verses: “I am but a man like you.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 66-67

 

[Trailblazer]

What is it about these things that you think is evidence?

I mean, I "write in my own pen" too; do you think that this is evidence that *I'm* a messenger of God? If not, how is Baha'u'llah doing this evidence in his case?

The point about Baha’u’llah writing in His own Pen is that no former Prophet/Messenger of God ever wrote anything Himself, so we have no “original writings” of any other Prophet. This is a pretty big deal, and some of His Writings were even displayed at a museum:
Exhibition of Baha’u’llah’s Writings Opens at British Museum

As you know, what we know of what Jesus purportedly said came to those who wrote the New Testament by way of oral tradition, and Moses did not actually write the Old Testament. Muhammad dictated the Qur’an because He was illiterate; that is a lot more authentic than the Bible, but it is still not the actual Writings of Muhammad.

But it is what He wrote that is the evidence, at least for those of us who recognize it as the Word of God.

“The evidence that Baha’u’llah was who He claimed to be is His Person (His character);”
What about "his person" or "his character?" Every person has a character.

It was the Person that He was as demonstrated by his life that stands as part of the evidence.

The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4, cover the 40 years of His Mission, from 1853-1892. In those volumes is information about His character and His mission.

“the history of His life; what He did during His mission on earth;”
Every person has a life history and does things on Earth; what about Baha'u'llah and what he did is evidence?

It was what He did in His life, from early childhood on, but especially what He did on His 40 year mission that stands as part of the evidence.

It is important to understand all the history that led up to the coming of the Bab and Baha’u’llah, as well as what they did on their missions. I recently stumbled upon these videos that do a good job of covering that. None of them are very long, but they cover a lot of history.

What Hath God Wrought - Episode 1
What Hath God Wrought - Episode 2
What Hath God Wrought - Episode 3
What Hath God Wrought - Episode 4
What Hath God Wrought - Episode 5

“the scriptures that He wrote;”
What about them?

You’d have to read them to know that. It is the content and the way they were written that sets them apart, at least for those of us who can see that.

“what others have written about Him;”
Like that video you posted a while back with the Englishman who met him, said that he was remarkable, but in the end didn't follow him and become a Baha'i?

That was not much compared to what others have written, but all of this is part of the evidence. What other have written is really not as important as His Character, His Mission, and His Writings.

“the Bible prophecies that He fulfilled and the prophecies of other religions that He fulfilled;”
Which specific prophecies are those?

Any prophecies in the Old Testament or the New Testament that refer to the Messiah or the Return of Christ are about Baha’u’llah. There are many books, but this is one book I have read that has many of those prophecies and it explains how they were fulfilled: Thief in the Night

I know Baha’u’llah also fulfilled prophecies of other religions. Some of those are listed here: Prophecy Fulfilled Webpage

“the predictions He made that have come to pass;”
What did he predict?

In this book is a list of 30 things that Baha’u’llah predicted that actually came to pass: The Challenge of Baha'u'llah

“the religion that was established as the result of His Revelation, what His followers all over the world have done and are doing now.”
You: What about these is evidence that he's a messenger of God? I mean, I'm sure we could point to religions founded by people who you don't consider messengers of God.

It is what the followers of the religion have done and what they are “doing” now that constitutes evidence that the religion has been successful and is moving forward according to the “plans” envisioned by Baha’u’llah. That is not proof, but the success is indicative that it could be the religion of God.

All goals set forth by the Baha’i administration from the very beginning have been met. For example, during the FOURTH PERIOD: THE INCEPTION OF THE FORMATIVE AGE OF THE BAHÁ’Í FAITH 1921–1944, the Baha’i Faith met its goal of spreading to over 200 countries and territories around the world, and the religion is now almost as widespread as Christianity.
The Global Spread of the Baha’i Faith

Unlike the Christians who do missionary work and then come back to where they live, Baha’is move to other countries to become part of the culture and many establish themselves there, becoming residents of those countries.

“All this constitutes evidence that is verifiable.”
Yes - you assure me that the evidence is wonderful and you've described general categories of evidence, but you haven't actually pointed me to any evidence at all.

When I said “verifiable” I meant that anyone who wants to can verify that what I am saying is true. People actually have to verify these things for themselves; otherwise they are just taking my word for it. This is called the Independent Investigation of Truth, and it is the first principle Baha’u’llah inculcated.
Independent Investigation of Truth

Do you understand what I'm asking for?

Are you asking for all of the evidence that is within the categories of evidence I listed? Obviously, I cannot post all that evidence as there is too much. However, I can point you to where that information is located and I can answer any specific questions you might have.

 

[Trailblazer]

That is your belief for which you have no evidence

No, what I said was not derived from my religious belief...
I simply applied logic to empirical observation....

Has anyone ever seen any proof that God exists?
If not, I think we can safely conclude that God wants it that way, because an Omnipotent God could provide proof if He wanted to.

That conclusion I came to is corroborated by something Baha’u’llah quoted from the Qur’an. He Who is the Day Spring of Truth is God.

“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, pp. 70-71

In that passage, “If God had pleased He had surely made all men one people” means that God could have revealed Himself in some way such that everyone would know He exist, which means that God could have provided proof of His existence to everyone.

 

[Trailblazer]

All humans on earth are bound to a covenant. The covenant which saves says that humans need faith to be saved. So if everyone can communicate with God directly, it simply means no one can be saved by the covenant.

A religious covenant is an agreement made by God with humanity. That covenant states that God will guarantee certain blessings, meaning God will send Messengers in every age. In order for humanity to hold up their end of the agreement, they are required to recognize the Messengers that God sends and follow His teachings and laws.

God makes covenants with religious communities in every new age.

God has made a covenant with the followers of the Baha’i Faith in this age through His Messenger Baha’u’llah. This covenant is called the Covenant of Baha'u'llah.

You are right that people need faith in order to live up to their end of the bargain with God, because they have to recognize the Messenger and believe in Him. That requires faith, since nobody can ever prove He got a message from God. If God communicated directly to everyone, faith would be unnecessary. Apparently God wants us to have faith because god does not communicate directly to everyone.

 

[Trailblazer]

We are not attacking any cause of God.

There is ample evidence that shows the Baha’i Faith is the Cause of God. On the other hand, everyone views evidence differently so not many people will view it as evidence. But that does not mean anything. It is either the Cause of God or not. What people believe has no bearing on that.

A tree without fruit is exactly the right one to throw stones at.
We tried to extinguish the Nazis, so you think that they had a good light?
Anybody can turn this rhetorical drivvle around....

Whether a cause has good light or not is not the criteria for trying to extinguish it. People try to extinguish both bad causes and good causes. Good people try to extinguish bad causes such as the Nazis, but bad people try to extinguish religious causes. History demonstrates that.

Go ahead, try to turn it around. You will never succeed except in your own mind. Nobody can find anything in the Writings of Baha’u’llah that is not good for individuals and humanity as a whole, so they go after the UHJ with all kinds of accusations that are unverifiable... Been there, done that, on another forum. Obviously the defamers succeeded in convincing them.

If people do not like the way the Baha’i Faith administration is set up then they can just ignore it because no Baha’is are going to force their beliefs upon anyone.

Why throw stones at a tree with no fruit? If the tree of the Baha’i Faith has no fruit it will wither away and die on its own so it makes no logical sense to waste your time throwing stones at it.

It is said that Queen Victoria, upon reading the Tablet revealed for her by Baha'u'llah, remarked:
"If this is of God, it will endure; if not, it can do no harm." (pdc 65) (18:49)
From: 2nd Coming of Christ by David Yamartino

I find these present day attacks quite comical. The Baha’i Faith has weathered the evils of the Covenant-breakers during the ministry of the Bab, Baha’u’llah, and Abdu’l-Baha and it has reigned victorious. There is no way these piddly little attacks by today’s naysayers can touch the Faith. The Power of the Covenant is our most great protection. Good always triumphs over evil.

It is precisely these attacks that cause the Faith to grow. All these people are doing is adding fuel to the fire because they lead people to the truth.

But you cannot give a straight answer to my points, just throw insults and personal accusations.

Nothing I posted was at all personal. It was just a passage written by Abdu’l-Baha. I will answer sincere questions if I have the answer but not accusations of deception that have no merit. That is simply a personal opinion with no verifiable evidence to back it up. It is a twisting of the facts to suit an agenda. Nothing I say is going to make any difference. It just turns into an argument. Besides, I have already stated my position so you know what it is.

I do not know what the Baha’i Faith is going to do in the future and I don’t care. I live fully in the present and don’t think about the future.With a life such as mine, I would be insane if I worried about the future. I believe Baha’u’llah was a Manifestation of God so victory is assured. The Covenant of Baha’u’llah will ensure that in this new Day of God will be a day that is not followed by night.

Most reasonable folks here just acknowledge the faiths of others, but when every thread posted is a side-creeping and insidious 'sell' of 'our prophet is best', 'our way is best' and 'ours is the true way' and suchlike, then you can expect to get it shaken and stirred for a test......... and you then you call out 'liars!' It's all very shallow..... really.

I never said anything about best. At the most, I have only said that the Revelation of Baha’u’llah is the most current, the newest one. That is just a fact and since this is a religious forum I see no reason to keep it a secret.

I never attacked anyone; not atheists or believers of any other religion. I just share what I believe. For five years on forums I have been the target of virulent attacks just because I believe in Baha’u’llah. The attacks come from Christians Jews and nonbelievers. On one forum they even put me in solitary confinement,limited to posting on one thread called “Baha’i.” Meanwhile the Christians had free reign to say whatever they wanted to. Everyone wondered why I did not just leave. I was the only Baha’i willing to take that kind of abuse. What they did not understand is that, as Baha’u’llah wrote, my calamity is my providence. Outwardly it is fire and vengeance, but inwardly it is light and mercy.

I never called anyone a liar. I just posted what Abdu’l-Baha wrote about the calumniators that have appeared in of every age, whenever a new religion is revealed.

 

[Trailblazer]

Luke 3:22 says that the Holy Spirit descended like a dove and a voice came out of heaven and said "Thou art My beloved Son..."

Yeah, what about that voice? What is the Baha'i explanation of God supposedly speaking?

It means just what it says. God considered Jesus His Son, but in a figurative way, just like a father considers his son to be similar to him in many ways, and also a son obeys his father.

It does not mean that Jesus was literally God’s Son, because God does not have human offspring.

 

[Trailblazer]

Which religion, other than yours, teaches the truth about God? Is God a trinity? If not, those people believe in a false God and know nothing about the true God as defined by the Baha'is. So they can't be included, or else you might as well include believers in mythical gods.

Judaism and Islam both teach the truth about God.

 

[Trailblazer]

Did God tell you these were His messengers or did the messengers tell you this? Did God tell you what can and can't be done or did those messengers?

God does not communicate with me or any other human being, so God cannot tell me anything.
Of course the Messenger told me. That is the only way to get any communication from God.

Why do so many people have a problem with Messengers of God? This is the hundred-dollar question nobody can answer.

You misunderstand me. I speak of Facts not beliefs. I speak of discovering on your own rather than following the Beliefs of others. So many have been taught to value beliefs over all else. The result will lead away from real truth. Still, free choice is a very important part of God's system. I merely place truth upon your door. What one chooses to do with truth is entirely up to them. When you see, it will begin. Your journey has never been up to me.

You misunderstand me. I make my own discoveries. I do not just follow a Messenger, but I am guided by the teachings of the Messenger because I know they are the truth. God is All-Knowing and All-Wise. The inerrant truth comes from God through His Messengers. Anything humans construe as truth is subject to error. It might be true or not. Anything we think we know is also subject to our ego, and that leads people away from God’s Truth.

You said: “I merely place truth upon your door.” How do you think you know what the truth is?

 

[PureX]

It does give credence to that assertion. It does not PROVE that assertion, however. You are assuming that only the evidence that you deem convincing is valid evidence. But evidence does not hove to be convincing to be evidence. And it certainly doesn't have to be convincing, to you. Because evidence does not have to reach the level of proof to be evidence. Nor does it have to meet your criteria for being convincing.

Perhaps you consider evidence that isn't convincing to be valid, but I do not.

Then how can you possibly account for your own bias?

And yes, it does have to meet my criteria for being convincing for me to conclude that it's true.

Again, then how can you possibly account for your own bias?

Some people will believe virtually anything based on very unconvincing evidence. I consider such people to be gullible.

I don't see how what some people believe and why, is relevant, here. Especially when you refuse to acknowledge or take responsibility for your own biases.

That, however, has no bearing on whether or not the claim is true. Truth is not determined by what you choose to believe is valuable or necessary.

You are correct. It is POSSIBLE for something to be true, even though there is no valid evidence to support it. However, that doesn't mean that I accept that something IS true, simply because it's POSSIBLE that it COULD be true.

No, but the fact that something remains possible gives us the option to accept it or reject it based on faith and functionality, rather than evidence. And since sufficient "evidence" against it's being true is not available, it's not illogical to choose that option; especially if doing so results in an increased value in your experience of life.

I don't declare that something IS true, unless I have verifiable evidence to support the notion. Sadly there are plenty of people who do declare that claims are true, even though they possess zero verifiable evidence to support the claims.

We humans declare truths all the time that we can't really prove. We would have to be omniscient to prove something true, with legitimate certainty. So we are all declaring our truths based on questionable evidence, on faith, and on personal experience, all the time. You are doing this just the same as everyone else is.

 

[ChristineM]

No, what I said was not derived from my religious belief...
I simply applied logic to empirical observation....

Has anyone ever seen any proof that God exists?
If not, I think we can safely conclude that God wants it that way, because an Omnipotent God could provide proof if He wanted to.

That conclusion I came to is corroborated by something Baha’u’llah quoted from the Qur’an. He Who is the Day Spring of Truth is God.

“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, pp. 70-71

In that passage, “If God had pleased He had surely made all men one people” means that God could have revealed Himself in some way such that everyone would know He exist, which means that God could have provided proof of His existence to everyone.

You are welcome to guess what you want. That is your belief,it is not evidence

 

[CG Didymus]

God is intelligent enough to know that using Messengers is the best way to communicate messages to humanity.
God’s intelligence comes with being All-Knowing and All-Wise.

When the various prophets of Israel said things like "Thus says the Lord", who was telling them the message?

 

[CG Didymus]

It means just what it says. God considered Jesus His Son, but in a figurative way, just like a father considers his son to be similar to him in many ways, and also a son obeys his father.

It does not mean that Jesus was literally God’s Son, because God does not have human offspring.

Did God speak is the question? Or did Luke make the story up? If God spoke audibly then several people heard him.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Evidence that is convincing to you is valid to you. Evidence that is convincing to me is valid to me.
Yes, it does have to meet your criteria for being convincing for you to conclude that it's true. Yes, it does have to meet my criteria for being convincing for me to conclude that it's true.
But that evidence that convinces some people is different than the evidence that convinces other people. You might think they are gullible but that is just your personal opinion because their evidence is not convincing to you.

Whether the evidence is convincing to you or to me does not prove anything. What is true if true regardless of whether anyone is convinced it is true.

Which brings us all the way back to the beginning. If this god refuses to provide evidence that is valid for ME then clearly this god has no desire for me to believe in it.

 

[PureX]

Which brings us all the way back to the beginning. If this god refuses to provide evidence that is valid for ME then clearly this god has no desire for me to believe in it.

I agree with this reasoning, somewhat. Except that I have to assume that if God wanted me to believe something, I would believe it. And what I think is or isn't valid would be an irrelevant consideration.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Then how can you possibly account for your own bias?
Again, then how can you possibly account for your own bias?
I don't see how what some people believe and why, is relevant, here. Especially when you refuse to acknowledge or take responsibility for your own biases.
No, but the fact that something remains possible gives us the option to accept it or reject it based on faith and functionality, rather than evidence. And since sufficient "evidence" against it's being true is not available, it's not illogical to choose that option; especially if doing so results in an increased value in your experience of life.
We humans declare truths all the time that we can't really prove. We would have to be omniscient to prove something true, with legitimate certainty. So we are all declaring our truths based on questionable evidence, on faith, and on personal experience, all the time. You are doing this just the same as everyone else is.

Yes, I PROUDLY have a bias for verifiable evidence. If presented with two options for a possible truth, one of which I have lots of verifiable evidence for and one that I have zero verifiable evidence for, I WILL choose the option for which I have verifiable evidence. If zero verifiable evidence is available then I will admit that it may be POSSIBLE, but I certainly won't commit to believing that it IS, until such verifiable evidence comes to light.

It''s a shame that more people don't have a bias for verifiable evidence. That's how you get people declaring that the Earth is flat - not based on verifiable evidence, but rather 'faith and functionality'. That's how you get morons to convince themselves that god wants them to fly airplanes into buildings... NOT via verifiable evidence, but via that wonderful 'faith and functionality'.

Isn't it a shame that terrorists on 9/11 said: It's POSSIBLE God wants me to kill a bunch of innocent people, so that gives me the option to accept it on faith! It would have been SO much better if they had said: It's POSSIBLE that God wants me to kill a bunch of innocent people, BUT maybe I should wait for VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE that this is true, instead of simply accepting it on FAITH.

Requiring verifiable evidence for belief is a bias that everyone should have.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I agree with this reasoning, somewhat. Except that I have to assume that if God wanted me to believe something, I would believe it. And what I think is or isn't valid would be an irrelevant consideration.

Are you actually capable of believing in something that you don't think is valid? Personally, in order for me to believe something it's a REQUIREMENT that I think that it's valid.

 

[PureX]

Yes, I PROUDLY have a bias for verifiable evidence. If presented with two options for a possible truth, one of which I have lots of verifiable evidence for and one that I have zero verifiable evidence for, I WILL choose the option for which I have verifiable evidence. If zero verifiable evidence is available then I will admit that it may be POSSIBLE, but I certainly won't commit to believing that it IS, until such verifiable evidence comes to light.

These are not the options that are available to you regarding the possibility of a "God", however. As you have NO verifying evidence of any kind, for any of the many conceivable possibilities.

It''s a shame that more people don't have a bias for verifiable evidence.

We all have a preference for verifying evidence. We just don't have the verifying evidence.

That's how you get people declaring that the Earth is flat - not based on verifiable evidence, but rather 'faith and functionality'.

Except that no one is claiming that the Earth is flat, because we all have plenty of verifying evidence that it's spherical.

That's how you get morons to convince themselves that god wants them to fly airplanes into buildings... NOT via verifiable evidence, but via that wonderful 'faith and functionality'.

Sure, it's also how millions of addicts and alcoholics get clean and sober. And how billions of horribly abused, bereaved, and defeated people find the will to go on living. And how billions of others find the will and reasoning to try to be good to others, even when doing so is not always good for them.

It's easy to cherry-pick examples to suit your theological bias. But for every example you pick, there are a thousand more that expose your bias for what it is.

Requiring verifiable evidence for belief is a bias that everyone should have.

Everyone does, until there is no verifying evidence. Then we have to go on intuition, courage, desire, faith, and the value resulting from action.