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

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

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

Would God do what God has never done?

Audie

Veteran Member
For purposes of this thread, let’s act as if God could communicate a direct message to everyone in the world that would convince everyone in the world that God exists. This assumes communication from God that convinces them it is “really God” speaking.

We know that God has never done that because if God had done that everyone in the world would believe that God exists.

For purposes of this thread, let’s assume that God has never communicated a direct message to everyone in the world that would convince everyone in the world that God exists.

Some people believe that God could communicate a direct message to everyone in the world because God is omnipotent. The question I am posing to you is if you think that God would do that, even though God has never done that before?

I am not asking you if God could do that. I am asking you if God would do that.

Would and could are kind of the same.
And no, on account of because, the past present and future are
all the same to god. :D
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
For purposes of this thread, let’s act as if God could communicate a direct message to everyone in the world that would convince everyone in the world that God exists. This assumes communication from God that convinces them it is “really God” speaking.

We know that God has never done that because if God had done that everyone in the world would believe that God exists.

For purposes of this thread, let’s assume that God has never communicated a direct message to everyone in the world that would convince everyone in the world that God exists.

Some people believe that God could communicate a direct message to everyone in the world because God is omnipotent. The question I am posing to you is if you think that God would do that, even though God has never done that before?

I am not asking you if God could do that. I am asking you if God would do that.

It depends.

If He wants us to believe in Him, then that is exactly what He should do. Communicating only to middle men would not do, since we can assume He is smart enough to realise that skeptics would immediatedly say: the middle man just made it up. As it would be logical to infer anyway.

We are in image, after all, so He should know how we tick.

Therefore, either He is not interested in us believing in Him, or, well, you know....He simply does not exist.

Your call.

Ciao

- viole
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
For purposes of this thread, let’s act as if God could communicate a direct message to everyone in the world that would convince everyone in the world that God exists. This assumes communication from God that convinces them it is “really God” speaking.

We know that God has never done that because if God had done that everyone in the world would believe that God exists.

For purposes of this thread, let’s assume that God has never communicated a direct message to everyone in the world that would convince everyone in the world that God exists.

Some people believe that God could communicate a direct message to everyone in the world because God is omnipotent. The question I am posing to you is if you think that God would do that, even though God has never done that before?

I am not asking you if God could do that. I am asking you if God would do that.

Would God do what God has never done?

What a bizarre question... but I'll take a stab at it anyway. Let's say the answer is: God would NOT do what God has never done.

If that's the case then God has never done ANYTHING. God didn't create the universe, because at one point it was something God had never done and we've already established that God does NOT do what God has never done. So either the universe has always existed OR God had absolutely nothing to do with its creation.

So unless you think that god has never done anything nor has the power to ever do anything, you'd have to believe that Yes, God WOULD do what God has never done.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I disagree. You said, "that would convince" them. You did not say it in the past tense, that it has convinced everyone, which you are adding now. That was not your word choice. My point is, that if you tuned your radio dial into that channel, and heard the broadcast, you would be convinced. :)
What I said was hypothetical. It would be in the future tense, since it has not ever happened.... I said:

"a direct message to everyone in the world that would convince everyone in the world that God exists. This assumes communication from God that convinces them it is “really God” speaking."
That very much fits with what you said, with the exception I believe that already happens
No, direct communication from God that convinces everyone that it is “really God” speaking"does not happen because everyone in the world is not convinced that God exists. It is really that simple. :)
You assume because you've never heard that broadcast, no such 'broadcast message' is being sent. This is the complaint neo-atheists make. But there are very many souls who have tuned in and heard it, and they are convinced because of it. There is no doubt as to what they have heard, their very souls bearing witness to its authenticity.
I do not assume anything, but the fact remains that not everyone is convinced, so it does not satisfy the requirement I set forth in my OP. :)
God has not communicated a direct message to everyone in the world that has convinced everyone in the world that God exists. If God had done that, there would be no atheists.

Some people "believe" that God has spoken to them directly, and they have a right to believe that, but they can never prove it, so it is just a personal belief. To assert that God speaks to everyone directly is a bald assertion unless you can prove it. I learned about bald assertions from all the atheists I post to. :D
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Would and could are kind of the same.
I do not think that would and could are the same. God could communicate a direct message to everyone in the world such that everyone would believe that God exists, but would God do that just because God could do that? That was my question. :)
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
It depends.

If He wants us to believe in Him, then that is exactly what He should do. Communicating only to middle men would not do, since we can assume He is smart enough to realise that skeptics would immediatedly say: the middle man just made it up. As it would be logical to infer anyway.
There are three words -- could, would, and should.

I was not asking if God should communicate directly to everyone so that everyone would believe that God exists. I was asking if you think that God would do that. Of course, that would be something God has never done before, so it would be in the future tense.

Are saying that you think that God would do that if God wanted everyone to believe in Him?

I know it is kind of a silly question because nobody can ever know what God would do, but I ask a lot of silly questions on this forum, and I have a reason for asking them. ;)
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Would God do what God has never done?

What a bizarre question... but I'll take a stab at it anyway. Let's say the answer is: God would NOT do what God has never done.

If that's the case then God has never done ANYTHING. God didn't create the universe, because at one point it was something God had never done and we've already established that God does NOT do what God has never done.
I am known for bizarre questions and as long as I am talking to someone (not on this forum) who believes bizarre things, these questions will probably keep coming. :D

No, I was not saying that God would NOT do what God has never done. I was asking you if you think that God would do what God has never done. Hypothetically, if God is omnipotent, God could do what God has never done before, right?
So either the universe has always existed OR God had absolutely nothing to do with its creation.
That is not addressing my question in the OP regarding whether God would communicate directly to everyone such that everyone would believe that God exists, but that's okay, I will go with what you said.

I believe that the universe has always existed, not that it was created, but God did have something to do with it because it would not exist if God did not exist. Now, try to figure that one out. :D
So unless you think that god has never done anything nor has the power to ever do anything, you'd have to believe that Yes, God WOULD do what God has never done.
No, it is door #3, the universe has always existed and God has always existed.
 

SigurdReginson

Grēne Mann
Premium Member
I am not sure if you meant to say Baha’u’llah but no matter, as the Bab and Baha’u’llah were the Twin Manifestations, and both are important. The Bab came to prepare the way for Baha’u’llah, his name means “Gate” in Persian, just as John the Baptist prepared the way for Jesus. The difference is that Baha’is believe that the Bab was a Manifestation of God in His own right, whereas John the Baptist was just a man. So the Bab and Baha’u’llah both had a human and a divine nature.

I see. Thanks for setting me straight. :)

Anyhow, the evidence that indicates that God exists is their Persons, the lives, the missions and the Writings of the Bab and Baha’u’llah. That is not proof but it is evidence, the best evidence that humanity has ever had as far as I am concerned, partly because the history of their lives and missions is verifiable and their scriptures are authentic, since they exist in the original handwriting.

I see. Did they perform any supernatural miracles that can be verified by outside sources? What makes you believe they have a personal understanding of god?

What I think you need to understand is that the religions of the past no longer exist in their original form.They have been changed so much by men that they are in effect religions of man. Baha’u’llah wrote “Certain traditions of bygone ages rest on no foundations whatever, while the notions entertained by past generations, and which they have recorded in their books, have, for the most part, been influenced by the desires of a corrupt inclination.” Gleanings, p. 171

I would agree, as everything evolves. With archeology, we can get a pretty good understanding of what they did believe in their original incarnations, though. What archeology reveals is that these religions didn't begin in some pure form -they all shared pagan roots of some kind, and their mythologies were varied depending on where they were originally located, and how their mythologies spread. There's strong evidence that Yahweh, for instance, began as part of the Canaanite pantheon in subbordination to El, the chief god. It seems Yahweh even had a wife in Asherah. Yahweh was regarded in different ways depending on where in the Levant he was revered. A monolithic ideal of Yahweh didn't come about until later when he was adopted as a city state god, similar to Marduk.

Yahweh

Asherah - Wikipedia

Was there ever a pure original form? If so, when was it? The only religions I can think of that had some original, pure beginning were religions like Islam or the Bahai faith. Even Islam contains seemingly mythological roots from it's earliest incarnations, such as the inclusion of the Djinn and the carry over of myths from Christianity and Judaism. As for the Bahaii walk, I should do some research on it's claims so I can get a better understanding. I can't really comment too much on that since I'm just too ignorant on the subject.

I fully agree with that, the spiritual truths of all the religions are timeless, they are eternal, and this is a Baha’i teaching.

That's a good thing. :D

It would be really difficult to unravel all of this, thus I do not even try to. I live fully in the present, not in the past or the future. I do not see the need to look at the older religions, especially because I believe that time is short, given the present condition of the world.

Really? Unraveling the past is how we find the truth, and get to the heart of a matter. When a boss hires a potential worker, they do a background check. When an investigator solves a crime, they look at the crime scene. Looking at something's validity through their past actions and evidence seems to be a very credible way to predict if something is accurate or not, it seems to me.

God does not gain anything because God does not need anything; humans are the one who gain something. If we had proof that would be too easy because then we would not have to have any faith and we would not have to make any effort to maintain our faith.

But why is it good that humans use faith to get to the core of a matter? Faith is hardly an accurate way to attain truth.

Faith is a good thing, as long as we also have evidence. Isn’t it good to have faith in one’s spouse that they will never let you down?

That's not really belief based on faith, though -that's belief based on evidence. I believe her based on the evidence of her past merits. If her actions proved to be unreliable or harmful, I'd get out of that situation. If I come home, see her in a bed with some other guy, and she says, "This isn't how it looks! Believe me!" Will I take her words on faith and believe her, or will I look at the evidence of the clothing on the ground and their compromising position and come to the conclusion that there was some serious hanky panky going on.

To me, faith seems like something to resort to without good evidence. I can give money to someone living on the street in good faith that they will spend it on good things for themselves instead of feeding a harmful behavior like drugs or alcohol, but that isn't a guarantee. That's a hope, which is what faith is at it's core. That isn't to say hope isn't useful. It is. What it isn't, though, is a good tool for finding truth. If I have evidence to support something, I don't really need faith or hope at all. I can be confident in my decision until better evidence comes along to challenge it.

But of course if there is a track record you can believe that because there is evidence. It is no different with the Manifestations of God, they have a track record. Otherwise it would be completely naïve and foolish to believe in them. Jesus said to beware of false prophets and there are certain dead giveaways that a prophet is false. One of those is that he exalts himself, considering himself equal to God, for example. There are many others, but there are also many indicators of a true prophet.

Eh... But the track record of what is supposed to happen doesn't mesh with the track record of actual history a lot of the time, though. This is why looking at the past is so important, I feel. How do we know Jesus actually existed if there's nothing outside of the Bible to varify he was real? Even if he was real, why take what was said about him in the bible with any sincerity if the books of the bible were written long after his death? What kind of track record is that, and if other religions have track records that are just as flawed, why should one take them all that seriously?

Aside from that, though: what is a true prophet? Why should we take the words of self proclaimed prophets on what true prophets are? Is everyone who claims direct connections with god and speaks truths a prophet? The thing is, everyone who thinks deeply on things can find and speak truths -this doesn't require a god.

One could fill the gaps with faith, but why would that be a good thing to do? It seems faith is used when one doesn't have a good reason to believe why something is true. As I've said before, with evidence one doesn't really need faith, and you could honestly fill the gaps with anything else and it'd have the same effect. Cultural stories, mythologies, urban legends, conspiracy theories, etc. All of these are faith based.

I understand what you are saying and you make a valid point. I am kind of different from most Baha’is because I had no religious background prior to becoming a Baha’i and I never studied history or older religions. Then later I just did not have the time. Yes, the older religions were required as a foundation, since each new religion builds on the religion that came before. That made me think of a book you might like that explains some of this and it is free to read online.

The Heart of the Gospel is a book that was written by a Christian clergyman who resigned his orders after 40 years to become a Baha’i. It explains how the Bible fits into history. The same author also wrote Christ and Baha'u'llah which is a book that explains the relationship between Christ and Baha’u’llah and how Muhammad fits into the picture:

Oh! Thanks for those.

Yes, I absolutely agree with that and the reason it happened that way was because of the misinterpretation of scripture. That is a big subject we can discuss later if you want.

Again, I am at a loss because I do not know the Bible like you apparently do, so I do not know what those prophets commanded. Can you give me some examples?

Sure! A small example, the Midian War:

Midian war - Wikipedia

[Num 31:1-2, 25-30 NIV] 1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people." ... 25 The LORD said to Moses, 26 "You and Eleazar the priest and the family heads of the community are to count all the people and animals that were captured. 27 Divide the spoils equally between the soldiers who took part in the battle and the rest of the community. 28 From the soldiers who fought in the battle, set apart as tribute for the LORD one out of every five hundred, whether people, cattle, donkeys or sheep. 29 Take this tribute from their half share and give it to Eleazar the priest as the LORD's part. 30 From the Israelites' half, select one out of every fifty, whether people, cattle, donkeys, sheep or other animals. Give them to the Levites, who are responsible for the care of the LORD's tabernacle."

More verses describe taking virgins as sex slaves for the fighting men, and taking people as slaves for tributes to the lord -all done by Moses as commanded by god.

As for the conquest of Canaan, and other lands:

[Deu 20:13-18 NLT] 13 When the LORD your God hands the town over to you, use your swords to kill every man in the town. 14 But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the plunder from your enemies that the LORD your God has given you. 15 "But these instructions apply only to distant towns, not to the towns of the nations in the land you will enter. 16 In those towns that the LORD your God is giving you as a special possession, destroy every living thing. 17 You must completely destroy the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, just as the LORD your God has commanded you. 18 This will prevent the people of the land from teaching you to imitate their detestable customs in the worship of their gods, which would cause you to sin deeply against the LORD your God.

Also, Jericho and the prophet Joshua:

Battle of Jericho - Wikipedia

I agree now that you have explained why you think this way and that is why I recommended you read those books above, which are pretty short. They will at least help you understand the Baha’i perspective and how the past religions fit into the whole picture.

Will do!

The Bab and Baha’u’llah are not responsible for what happened in and to the older religions. They both brought new revelations from God. The problem is that most people cannot look at the new without carrying around all the old baggage. I was fortunate because I did not have any, and that is probably the main reason I was almost immediately able to recognize that Baha’i Faith was the truth from God; no confirmation bias.

Good point. :)
 

MonkeyFire

Well-Known Member
The only new thing God can create is satan everything else had always been including limited learning, and eternal creation.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I see. Did they perform any supernatural miracles that can be verified by outside sources? What makes you believe they have a personal understanding of god?
They did perform supernatural miracles but miracles are only miracles to those who witnessed them, and others will deny that they performed miracles. Nevertheless, here is an account of the miracle surrounding the martyrdom of the Bab. Execution of the Báb

Baha’u’llah had a book of miracles he performed but He did not want anyone to see it because He did not want people to believe in Him because of miracles, but rather because of His Person, Mission and Writings.

What made me believe that they had a personal understanding of God is what they wrote about God. Imo, nobody could make stuff like that up, it is far too profound and mystical.
I would agree, as everything evolves. With archeology, we can get a pretty good understanding of what they did believe in their original incarnations, though. What archeology reveals is that these religions didn't begin in some pure form -they all shared pagan roots of some kind, and their mythologies were varied depending on where they were originally located, and how their mythologies spread…..

Was there ever a pure original form? If so, when was it? The only religions I can think of that had some original, pure beginning were religions like Islam or the Bahai faith. Even Islam contains seemingly mythological roots from it's earliest incarnations, such as the inclusion of the Djinn and the carry over of myths from Christianity and Judaism. As for the Bahai walk, I should do some research on it's claims so I can get a better understanding. I can't really comment too much on that since I'm just too ignorant on the subject.

You obviously know a lot more than I know about the older religions and how they evolved. I I'm just too ignorant on the subject. ;) You also think very logically. Indeed, the best way to learn new things is to do the research yourself. That is one of the first principles of Baha’u’llah, individual investigation of truth.
Really? Unraveling the past is how we find the truth, and get to the heart of a matter. When a boss hires a potential worker, they do a background check. When an investigator solves a crime, they look at the crime scene. Looking at something's validity through their past actions and evidence seems to be a very credible way to predict if something is accurate or not, it seems to me.
That is true, but unless we are checking out the older religions because we are considering if we want to follow them, I do not see how what happened thousands of years ago is pertinent to the present age.

If you were considering the Baha’i Faith you would have to do a background check and look at the crime scene surrounding the Bab and Baha’u’llah, which means you would want to look at their early life, as well as everything surrounding their Revelations, from the time they received them, during that period of time, up until they died. For the Bab, that was only a period of six years (1844-1850), for Baha’u’llah it was a period of 40 years (1852-1892). Looking at the actions of the Bab and Baha’u’llah is indeed a way to know if they were really who they claimed to be, Manifestations of God. That is why Jesus said about prophets that we would know them by their fruits.

Fruits: the pleasant or successful result of work or actions: FRUIT | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary
But why is it good that humans use faith to get to the core of a matter? Faith is hardly an accurate way to attain truth.
I am not suggesting that you use faith as a way to attain truth. I suggest you do your due diligence and investigate in order to get to the core of the matter. But at the end of the day we need some faith to believe that God exists, since God can never be seen or heard from directly.
That's not really belief based on faith, though -that's belief based on evidence. I believe her based on the evidence of her past merits. If her actions proved to be unreliable or harmful, I'd get out of that situation.
That is really no different from believing in a Manifestation of God based on the evidence of His past merits. If His actions had proved to be unreliable or harmful, you would not want to believe in Him. So if there was evidence that the Bab or Baha’u’llah did things unbecoming of a Manifestation of God, you would never want to believe in them. When people tell me that Jim Jones could just as well be a Prophet as Baha’u’llah, I tell them to look at his actions and those alone show he was nothing but a false prophet. Did he sacrifice His entire life in service to God like Baha’u’llah? Jim Jones - Wikipedia
To me, faith seems like something to resort to without good evidence……. If I have evidence to support something, I don't really need faith or hope at all. I can be confident in my decision until better evidence comes along to challenge it.
It is not an either/or. Evidence is primary but we also have to have faith that the evidence is good and that God exists in order to believe. It is blind faith that is bad, because then you would believe on faith with no evidence or bad evidence. Since you were a Christian, do you think the Bible is good evidence?
Eh... But the track record of what is supposed to happen doesn't mesh with the track record of actual history a lot of the time, though. This is why looking at the past is so important, I feel. How do we know Jesus actually existed if there's nothing outside of the Bible to varify he was real?
This is a problem with the older religions, including Christianity, but it is not a problem with the Baha’i Faith because it is contemporary history. Not to overload you with books to read, but since I never know when I am going to have time to get back on the forum and you seem to like history, you might want to take a look at the two books that chronicle the history of the Baha’i Faith, God Passes By (1844-1944) and the The Dawn-Breakers (Nabíl’s Narrative of the Early Days of the Bahá’í Revelation).
Aside from that, though: what is a true prophet? Why should we take the words of self proclaimed prophets on what true prophets are?
You should never take their word for it and that is exactly what Baha’u’llah said:

“Bahá’u’lláh asked no one to accept His statements and His tokens blindly. On the contrary, He put in the very forefront of His teachings emphatic warnings against blind acceptance of authority, and urged all to open their eyes and ears, and use their own judgement, independently and fearlessly, in order to ascertain the truth. He enjoined the fullest investigation and never concealed Himself, offering, as the supreme proofs of His Prophethood, His words and works and their effects in transforming the lives and characters of men.” Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, p. 8
Is everyone who claims direct connections with god and speaks truths a prophet? The thing is, everyone who thinks deeply on things can find and speak truths -this doesn't require a god.
Obviously, not everyone who claims to be a prophet of God actually is one. Should we chose to determine which ones are, we have to investigate the claims. Everyone can speak truths, but everyone cannot speak for God; at least that is my belief.
One could fill the gaps with faith, but why would that be a good thing to do? It seems faith is used when one doesn't have a good reason to believe why something is true. As I've said before, with evidence one doesn't really need faith…
You do have a legitimate point, because if the evidence is good enough we do not need faith. I think Jesus talked a lot more about faith than Baha’u’llah because more faith was needed to believe in the Bible.

I understand what you are saying and you make a valid point. I am kind of different from most Baha’is because I had no religious background prior to becoming a Baha’i and I never studied history or older religions. Then later I just did not have the time. Yes, the older religions were required as a foundation, since each new religion builds on the religion that came before. That made me think of a book you might like that explains some of this and it is free to read online.
Sure! A small example, the Midian War:

Midian war - Wikipedia
Thanks for presenting that scripture, but do you really think God commanded these things? These scriptures were written by men, fallible men, not by a Manifestation of God who is infallible, according to my beliefs. I have my doubts that God actually commanded these things, but that is another big subject.
Also, Jericho and the prophet Joshua:

Battle of Jericho - Wikipedia
It is interesting you mention the battle of Jericho. There are statements about the Bible which are considered authoritative in the Baha’i Faith because they were written by Abdu’l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi (the Guardian), and the Universal House of Justice (UHJ) who had authority conferred upon them by Baha’u’llah by virtue of His Covenant. Below is one example but you can read all of the statements on this link: The Bible. Then you will know where Baha’is stand regarding the accuracy and authenticity of the Bible.

From Letters Written on Behalf of the Guardian:
We have no way of substantiating the stories of the Old Testament other than references to them in our own teachings, so we cannot say exactly what happened at the battle of Jericho.
(25 November 1950 to an individual believer)
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
There are three words -- could, would, and should.

I was not asking if God should communicate directly to everyone so that everyone would believe that God exists. I was asking if you think that God would do that. Of course, that would be something God has never done before, so it would be in the future tense.

Are saying that you think that God would do that if God wanted everyone to believe in Him?

I know it is kind of a silly question because nobody can ever know what God would do, but I ask a lot of silly questions on this forum, and I have a reason for asking them. ;)
God has never done before? I thought God was outside time. So, what does “before” mean in this context?

well, if He wanted us to believe in Him He would communicate with all of us. But that would probably cancel belief and replace it with evidence and knowledge about His existence.

so, I don’t think there is a clear solution to the problem. For sure, if He wants us all equally to believe in Him, He would not speak to middle men either, since the latter would also stop belief and have knowledge of Him. Or Her.

Even worse. He would need to accept that belief in those middle men is equivalent to belief in Him. Being the two things not equivalent.

ciao

- viole
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
I am known for bizarre questions and as long as I am talking to someone (not on this forum) who believes bizarre things, these questions will probably keep coming. :D

No, I was not saying that God would NOT do what God has never done. I was asking you if you think that God would do what God has never done. Hypothetically, if God is omnipotent, God could do what God has never done before, right?

That is not addressing my question in the OP regarding whether God would communicate directly to everyone such that everyone would believe that God exists, but that's okay, I will go with what you said.

I believe that the universe has always existed, not that it was created, but God did have something to do with it because it would not exist if God did not exist. Now, try to figure that one out. :D

No, it is door #3, the universe has always existed and God has always existed.

No, I was not saying that God would NOT do what God has never done. I was asking you if you think that God would do what God has never done. Hypothetically, if God is omnipotent, God could do what God has never done before, right?

I never claimed that YOU said anything. What you did was ask a question: Would God do what God has never done? Either the answer is either Yes or No. IF the answer to your question is No THEN everything that I wrote applies.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
God has never done before? I thought God was outside time. So, what does “before” mean in this context?
God is outside of time but humans are not outside of time, at least not while living in the material world, so I was referring to time as we know it.
well, if He wanted us to believe in Him He would communicate with all of us. But that would probably cancel belief and replace it with evidence and knowledge about His existence.
I would say that if He needed us to believe in Him He would communicate with all of us, and yes that would cancel faith and belief and replace it with evidence and knowledge.

I believe that God wants us all to believe in Him, but only if we can believe based upon the evidence He provides. God does not need us all to believe in Him, in fact God does not need anyone to believe in Him, because God has no needs.
so, I don’t think there is a clear solution to the problem. For sure, if He wants us all equally to believe in Him, He would not speak to middle men either, since the latter would also stop belief and have knowledge of Him. Or Her.
Again, I would say if He needed us all equally to believe in Him, He would not speak to middle men, because as you know, not everyone recognizes those middle men as Messengers of God. That prevents some people from believing and having knowledge of God.

I believe that God wants us to all recognize the middle men, but since God does not need anyone, let alone everyone, to believe in Him, it does not affect God is people don’t recognize those middle men. It is only humans who suffer by rejecting those middle men because they are the only ones who need them.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
No, I was not saying that God would NOT do what God has never done. I was asking you if you think that God would do what God has never done. Hypothetically, if God is omnipotent, God could do what God has never done before, right?

I never claimed that YOU said anything. What you did was ask a question: Would God do what God has never done? Either the answer is either Yes or No. IF the answer to your question is No THEN everything that I wrote applies.
I do not think anyone can know if God would do what God has never done because nobody can ever know what God would do, but it makes sense to me that God might do some things He has never done before, because as humanity evolves, we need God to do something different in order to accommodate that evolution. Otherwise God is just keeping us stuck in a time warp. That is why I could never believe that The Bible was the only Word of God, or the final Word of God. I just makes no sense at all because I do not believe that what is in the Bible is what humanity needs in this brand new age.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
God is outside of time but humans are not outside of time, at least not while living in the material world, so I was referring to time as we know it.

I would say that if He needed us to believe in Him He would communicate with all of us, and yes that would cancel faith and belief and replace it with evidence and knowledge.

I believe that God wants us all to believe in Him, but only if we can believe based upon the evidence He provides. God does not need us all to believe in Him, in fact God does not need anyone to believe in Him, because God has no needs.

Again, I would say if He needed us all equally to believe in Him, He would not speak to middle men, because as you know, not everyone recognizes those middle men as Messengers of God. That prevents some people from believing and having knowledge of God.

I believe that God wants us to all recognize the middle men, but since God does not need anyone, let alone everyone, to believe in Him, it does not affect God is people don’t recognize those middle men. It is only humans who suffer by rejecting those middle men because they are the only ones who need them.

Yes, could be. It could also be that God is, in reality, Mickey Mouse and He spoke to W. Disney only. A lot is possible. And I think I could effectively defend the Divine Mickey with a little of imagination, too.

However, there is a much simpler answer to the question: why doesn’t God speak to all? And simpler answers that still account for what we observe tend to be true. Or truer than the overly complicated ones

ciao

- viole
 

SigurdReginson

Grēne Mann
Premium Member
Bleh! I was writing a reply a while back, but got sidetracked. I lost all of my progress. Doh! o_O Ah well, here we go again!

They did perform supernatural miracles but miracles are only miracles to those who witnessed them, and others will deny that they performed miracles. Nevertheless, here is an account of the miracle surrounding the martyrdom of the Bab. Execution of the Báb

Baha’u’llah had a book of miracles he performed but He did not want anyone to see it because He did not want people to believe in Him because of miracles, but rather because of His Person, Mission and Writings.

What made me believe that they had a personal understanding of God is what they wrote about God. Imo, nobody could make stuff like that up, it is far too profound and mystical.

Unfortunately, that doesn't really provide good evidence for someone like me. What would give more weight to the claim of the Bab's execution being supernatural would be if the third party writings were to also varify the miraculous account. There are differing stories, though, and it seems very possible that it could have been a fluke that he wasn't executed right away. You can read Franz Schmidt's diary to see for yourself. He was an executioner, and failed executions were pretty common. It's a dark, dark read though. I don't recommend it. :confused:

As for what convinced you, what about his writings firstly convinced you that a god existed, and secondly, how did what he had written about god ring true to you? How does one realise their understanding of something that cannot be seen or measured is correct versus someone else's understanding of something that cannot be seen or measured? Seems like it'd be vulnerable to one's one bias.

You obviously know a lot more than I know about the older religions and how they evolved. I I'm just too ignorant on the subject. ;) You also think very logically. Indeed, the best way to learn new things is to do the research yourself. That is one of the first principles of Baha’u’llah, individual investigation of truth.

That's a respectable principle. :D

That is true, but unless we are checking out the older religions because we are considering if we want to follow them, I do not see how what happened thousands of years ago is pertinent to the present age.

Well, just because we wouldn't want to adopt a past concept doesn't mean it loses it's value. On the contrary, by knowing why things are the way they are, they give a deeper meaning for why we do what we do. Sure, detectives in Portland Oregon who specialize against human trafficking can just go off of modern knowledge and techniques, but by understanding older methods such as what happened in the Shanghai tunnels under Portland in the 1800s, they get a deeper understanding of why things have evolved the way they have in their city, and they can be more effective detectives because of it. Context in understanding why things are the way they are is everything IMO. Learning about why things, such as religion, have evolved in the way they have gives context in spades.

If you were considering the Baha’i Faith you would have to do a background check and look at the crime scene surrounding the Bab and Baha’u’llah, which means you would want to look at their early life, as well as everything surrounding their Revelations, from the time they received them, during that period of time, up until they died. For the Bab, that was only a period of six years (1844-1850), for Baha’u’llah it was a period of 40 years (1852-1892). Looking at the actions of the Bab and Baha’u’llah is indeed a way to know if they were really who they claimed to be, Manifestations of God. That is why Jesus said about prophets that we would know them by their fruits.

Fruits: the pleasant or successful result of work or actions: FRUIT | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fruit

I agree, though I do find it Ironic that you use that quote from Mathew. For me, Jesus didn't stand the test since I am an atheist. To your point, though, I am researching slowly but surely. I like to take these things at a leisurely pace. :D

I am not suggesting that you use faith as a way to attain truth. I suggest you do your due diligence and investigate in order to get to the core of the matter. But at the end of the day we need some faith to believe that God exists, since God can never be seen or heard from directly.

Then you are using faith as a bridge to get to the core of the matter (the truth), it seems. Do you think that mght increase your chances in arriving at an inaccurate conclusion?

That is really no different from believing in a Manifestation of God based on the evidence of His past merits. If His actions had proved to be unreliable or harmful, you would not want to believe in Him. So if there was evidence that the Bab or Baha’u’llah did things unbecoming of a Manifestation of God, you would never want to believe in them. When people tell me that Jim Jones could just as well be a Prophet as Baha’u’llah, I tell them to look at his actions and those alone show he was nothing but a false prophet. Did he sacrifice His entire life in service to God like Baha’u’llah? Jim Jones - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones

Well, that depends. What does a manifestation of god look like? Who says what it's supposed to look like? If I said I was a reincarnation of Chief Kitsap, and I knew every quote from him and acted in his manor and said incredibly profound things, should people believe me? I can think of many reasons not to, just like I can think of many reasons to doubt a man who says he is divine. It takes more than profound deeds or an exceptional life.

Look at Gandhi. He was one of a kind, and he changed the face of the world. He also was obsessed with bodily fluids, and he attributed super natural things to his obsession. Now there's no way to test if he was right or wrong about his claims with bodily fluids, since many of them were supernaturally based, but without real evidence there is no reason to believe what he said about that was accurate -even when he will go down in history as one of the greatest human beings ever.

"One who conserves his vital fluid acquires unfailing power." -Mahatma Gandhi

It is not an either/or.

Hmmm. When would faith be used outside of religion to get to the truth, even with evidence? Would it stand up in the court of law, or do we only persecute people when it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt, with evidence, that they have commited a crime? Doubt requires two things to be resolved: faith and evidence. By including faith in the equation, it undermines evidence, and by plugging all the holes with evidence, there really is no room for faith.

Evidence is primary but we also have to have faith that the evidence is good and that God exists in order to believe. It is blind faith that is bad, because then you would believe on faith with no evidence or bad evidence. Since you were a Christian, do you think the Bible is good evidence?

We really don't need faith to know that evidence is good, though -that's what science is for. It's a pretty darn useful tool. :D

As for the Bible being good evidence as a descritpion of reality or god, not really, no. It seems as factual as any other holy book I've read so far.

This is a problem with the older religions, including Christianity, but it is not a problem with the Baha’i Faith because it is contemporary history. Not to overload you with books to read, but since I never know when I am going to have time to get back on the forum and you seem to like history, you might want to take a look at the two books that chronicle the history of the Baha’i Faith, God Passes By (1844-1944) and the The Dawn-Breakers (Nabíl’s Narrative of the Early Days of the Bahá’í Revelation).

Thanks for the material!

You should never take their word for it and that is exactly what Baha’u’llah said:

“Bahá’u’lláh asked no one to accept His statements and His tokens blindly. On the contrary, He put in the very forefront of His teachings emphatic warnings against blind acceptance of authority, and urged all to open their eyes and ears, and use their own judgement, independently and fearlessly, in order to ascertain the truth. He enjoined the fullest investigation and never concealed Himself, offering, as the supreme proofs of His Prophethood, His words and works and their effects in transforming the lives and characters of men.” Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, p. 8
http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/o/BNE/bne-11.html

I suppose. There aren't any third party ways to varify his prophethood though, is there?

Obviously, not everyone who claims to be a prophet of God actually is one. Should we chose to determine which ones are, we have to investigate the claims. Everyone can speak truths, but everyone cannot speak for God; at least that is my belief.

Hmmm. As I said earlier, who speaks for god when we cannot know anything about god or what his intentions are? Seems like the blind leading the blind.

You do have a legitimate point, because if the evidence is good enough we do not need faith. I think Jesus talked a lot more about faith than Baha’u’llah because more faith was needed to believe in the Bible.

I understand what you are saying and you make a valid point. I am kind of different from most Baha’is because I had no religious background prior to becoming a Baha’i and I never studied history or older religions. Then later I just did not have the time. Yes, the older religions were required as a foundation, since each new religion builds on the religion that came before. That made me think of a book you might like that explains some of this and it is free to read online.

Oh nice! What book is that?

Thanks for presenting that scripture, but do you really think God commanded these things?

I can't pretend to know him or his motives. Some Gnostics framed Yahweh as a brutal tyrant at best, and the source of all evil at worst. Even some modern Satanists hold this view. Maybe they're right?

These scriptures were written by men, fallible men, not by a Manifestation of God who is infallible, according to my beliefs. I have my doubts that God actually commanded these things, but that is another big subject.

I would agree. :)

It is interesting you mention the battle of Jericho. There are statements about the Bible which are considered authoritative in the Baha’i Faith because they were written by Abdu’l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi (the Guardian), and the Universal House of Justice (UHJ) who had authority conferred upon them by Baha’u’llah by virtue of His Covenant. Below is one example but you can read all of the statements on this link: The Bible. Then you will know where Baha’is stand regarding the accuracy and authenticity of the Bible.

From Letters Written on Behalf of the Guardian:
We have no way of substantiating the stories of the Old Testament other than references to them in our own teachings, so we cannot say exactly what happened at the battle of Jericho.
(25 November 1950 to an individual believer)

Interesting. Thanks!
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
why doesn’t God speak to all?
God does speak to all, but He speaks through the Messengers.

There are several reasons why God does not speak directly to everyone. One reason is because nobody could ever understand God except the Messengers, who have a divine mind. Another reason is because God does not want it to be that easy to believe in Him. Rather, God wants us to use our innate abilities to search Him out and come to believe on our own. Another reason is that God wants us to have faith that He exists without absolute proof. That faith should be supported by evidence, but only the evidence that God provides, which is the Messengers.

So you see, there are many reasons why God does not speak directly to everyone and I cannot even think of one reason why God would or should.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Bleh! I was writing a reply a while back, but got sidetracked. I lost all of my progress. Doh! o_O Ah well, here we go again!
That is why I write all longer posts in Word documents... Sorry that happened…Oh well!
Unfortunately, that doesn't really provide good evidence for someone like me. What would give more weight to the claim of the Bab's execution being supernatural would be if the third party writings were to also varify the miraculous account. There are differing stories, though, and it seems very possible that it could have been a fluke that he wasn't executed right away. You can read Franz Schmidt's diary to see for yourself. He was an executioner, and failed executions were pretty common. It's a dark, dark read though. I don't recommend it.
There were people who wrote about what they witnessed, but you would still have different peoples with different accounts, unless you had witnessed it yourself. That is the problem with miracles, it is only proof to those who witnessed it themselves.
As for what convinced you, what about his writings firstly convinced you that a god existed, and secondly, how did what he had written about god ring true to you?
Those are good questions. I had already half-heartedly believed that a God existed before I read much of what Baha’u’llah wrote, because God goes with the territory of a religion; but not until I seriously read the Writings of Baha’u’llah did I really believe in God, I mean I then knew that God existed and the implications of such. What Baha’u’llah wrote just rang true because it made complete sense to me but there was also a mystical component, which is why it was a spiritual experience for me.
How does one realise their understanding of something that cannot be seen or measured is correct versus someone else's understanding of something that cannot be seen or measured? Seems like it'd be vulnerable to one's one bias.
That my friend is why we should look at all the evidence, not just read the scriptures, because anyone can get caught up in the emotions they feel by reading scriptures. Everything that surrounds the Revelation of Baha’u’llah, His early life, the history surrounding His mission, including and what led up to the Revelation before the Bab appeared, the fulfillment of all the prophecies, predictions Baha’u’llah made that came to pass, what other people wrote about Him, the religion itself as it is today – all that is evidence.
Well, just because we wouldn't want to adopt a past concept doesn't mean it loses it's value. On the contrary, by knowing why things are the way they are, they give a deeper meaning for why we do what we do. Sure, detectives in Portland Oregon who specialize against human trafficking can just go off of modern knowledge and techniques, but by understanding older methods such as what happened in the Shanghai tunnels under Portland in the 1800s, they get a deeper understanding of why things have evolved the way they have in their city, and they can be more effective detectives because of it. Context in understanding why things are the way they are is everything IMO. Learning about why things, such as religion, have evolved in the way they have gives context in spades.
I understand your point, but they are using the modern techniques, not the older ones, just as is the case in medicine. Why would religion be any different? Why would the teachings and laws humanity needed 4000 years ago be useful now? As I said before, the spiritual teachings are eternal, so they will always be useful, but there is more to religion; there are also social teachings and laws and the remedy mankind needs for this age, all of which the Messenger of God reveals.

Baha’u’llah wrote that the fundamental purpose animating the Faith of God and His Religion is to safeguard the interests and promote the unity of the human race, and to foster the spirit of love and fellowship among men and that the manifold systems of religious belief should never be allowed to foster the feelings of animosity among men because… “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, pp. 287-288

In other words, every age has its own problems so the remedy the world needs in the present age is not the remedy the world needed in the past, nor is it the remedy that the world will need in the future.
I agree, though I do find it Ironic that you use that quote from Mathew. For me, Jesus didn't stand the test since I am an atheist. To your point, though, I am researching slowly but surely. I like to take these things at a leisurely pace.
What do you mean that Jesus did not stand the test? Do you think that the work of Jesus was wanting? It is good to be methodical in your research. I was very young when I became a Baha’i and I kind of jumped into it headlong, so I had to double back and do my extensive research later. However, I never regretted my decision because I never found anything but more good reasons to be a Baha’i, especially now that the world is falling apart. :eek:
Then you are using faith as a bridge to get to the core of the matter (the truth), it seems. Do you think that might increase your chances in arriving at an inaccurate conclusion?
Sorry if I confused you. No, I looked at the evidence to get to the core of the matter and my faith was auxiliary to the evidence.
Well, that depends. What does a manifestation of god look like? Who says what it's supposed to look like? If I said I was a reincarnation of Chief Kitsap, and I knew every quote from him and acted in his manor and said incredibly profound things, should people believe me? I can think of many reasons not to, just like I can think of many reasons to doubt a man who says he is divine. It takes more than profound deeds or an exceptional life.
That is a huge claim so you should doubt any man who says he is divine, thus that is a good sign. However, I do not think you should completely dismiss the possibility that such a man could exist.
Look at Gandhi. He was one of a kind, and he changed the face of the world. He also was obsessed with bodily fluids, and he attributed super natural things to his obsession. Now there's no way to test if he was right or wrong about his claims with bodily fluids, since many of them were supernaturally based, but without real evidence there is no reason to believe what he said about that was accurate -even when he will go down in history as one of the greatest human beings ever.

"One who conserves his vital fluid acquires unfailing power." -Mahatma Gandhi
I would not go so far as to say that Gandhi changed the face of the world. Some people do not even know what he did, but everyone knows what Jesus did and in other parts of the world everyone knows about Muhammad and His contribution to civilization. "Islamic Contributions To Civilization Stanwood Cobb"

I do not know if I already sent you this link because I post to a lot of people, but it is something I think you would like since you like history: RELIGION AND CIVILIZATION
Hmmm. When would faith be used outside of religion to get to the truth, even with evidence? Would it stand up in the court of law, or do we only persecute people when it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt, with evidence, that they have commited a crime?
You cannot legitimately compare evidence for a religion to evidence required in a court of law, and the reason is because God cannot even be proven to exist, whereas we can prove a man committed a murder if we have forensic evidence.
Doubt requires two things to be resolved: faith and evidence. By including faith in the equation, it undermines evidence, and by plugging all the holes with evidence, there really is no room for faith.
You cannot plug all the holes unless you can prove that God exists, and since that cannot be proven, it also cannot be proven that Messengers got messages from God.
We really don't need faith to know that evidence is good, though -that's what science is for. It's a pretty darn useful tool.
Religion cannot be proven with science. They are two different domains of knowledge. One is material, the other spiritual.
As for the Bible being good evidence as a description of reality or god, not really, no. It seems as factual as any other holy book I've read so far.
I can agree with you regarding that.
I suppose. There aren't any third party ways to varify his prophethood though, is there?

Nobody can verify that He was a Messenger of God, except God. ;) Do you understand why?
Hmmm. As I said earlier, who speaks for god when we cannot know anything about god or what his intentions are? Seems like the blind leading the blind.
I believe that Messengers of God speak for God so we can know something about God through what they reveal.
Oh nice! What book is that?
It is called The Heart of the Gospel but don’t get misled by the title because it is not about the gospel.
I can't pretend to know him or his motives. Some Gnostics framed Yahweh as a brutal tyrant at best, and the source of all evil at worst. Even some modern Satanists hold this view. Maybe they're right?
I cannot believe that because it makes no sense to me. This is what those biblical scriptures have done to peoples’ minds. :(
It really is no wonder why God had to send three more Messengers since Jesus to straighten out that mess. :rolleyes:
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
God does speak to all, but He speaks through the Messengers.

There are several reasons why God does not speak directly to everyone. One reason is because nobody could ever understand God except the Messengers, who have a divine mind. Another reason is because God does not want it to be that easy to believe in Him. Rather, God wants us to use our innate abilities to search Him out and come to believe on our own. Another reason is that God wants us to have faith that He exists without absolute proof. That faith should be supported by evidence, but only the evidence that God provides, which is the Messengers.

So you see, there are many reasons why God does not speak directly to everyone and I cannot even think of one reason why God would or should.

yes, the mother of all rationalizations. God does not provide evidence because He wants us to believe without it. If I were God I would sent to eternal fire whoever believed in me, or anything else, without the proper evidence.

After all, He created us in our image,allegedly, and I suppose He is rational. so, it could be a reverse test. To see if we are rational enough to suspend judgement when evidence is not sufficient.

ciao

- viole
 
Top