Would/Should God communicate directly to everyone in the world?

[Trailblazer]

I think you might be wandering unto dangerous grounds here.

Linking a soul with the capabilities to think intelligently, is obviously a religious or even just a Bahai view. As I haven't heard other religions make such claim.

To me these capabilities of intelligence is connected to our brain, just as it is with all other animals that also have a brain. Which means that it is the result of millions and millions of years of evolution.

The reason I wrote that I think you have to be slightly careful with the claim you make, "it is the soul that gives us the capacity to think intelligently." is because, what about people that are born unable to do this and spend their life with someone having to take care of them, due to some sort of disability, disease or whatever. Do these people not have a soul then or would you categorize them as animals then?

Every human being has a soul. The soul is what animates the brain and allows the brain to function, but the soul has to work through the brain while we are live in a physical body in order for us to be able to think intelligently.

Those who have brain dysfunctions still have a soul but the soul is hindered from fully expressing itself because the brain damage interferes with the soul’s functioning. So in the case of Alzheimer’s disease we cannot see the personality of the person express itself, but it is still there, since the soul is the person himself, thus the personality. When that person dies and his soul is freed from the physical body, he will no longer be affected by that brain damage since he will no longer have a brain to hinder the soul from functioning, so the soul will be free to express itself and the personality will be seen.

If someone did not believe there was a soul, they might think that an Alzheimer’s patient had no personality, but the Baha’i belief is that the soul is hidden as if under a bushel unable to express itself, because of the brain disease which interposes itself in between the soul and the body.

To recap what I said before, your soul is responsible for consciousness, but while you are alive in a body, your soul works through the brain. The soul communicates its desires through the brain to the physical body, which thereby expresses itself in various ways. The soul is responsible for the mind, senses and emotions as well as physical sensations, but these are expressed through the body. When the brain is damaged hindrances interpose themselves between the soul and the body and cause physical illness. The body is affected but the soul remains unaffected.

The soul is like the light of the lamp. An external object may interfere with its brightness, but the light itself continues to shine. Or think about the soul as the sun above the clouds. The clouds are simply preventing us from seeing the sunshine, but the sun is shining just as brightly nevertheless.

Every illness afflicting the body of man is an impediment that prevents the soul from manifesting its inherent might and power. When the soul leaves the body, however, it will be unaffected by any bodily ailments and it will be able to fully manifest its power.

“Know thou that the soul of man is exalted above, and is independent of all infirmities of body or mind. That a sick person showeth signs of weakness is due to the hindrances that interpose themselves between his soul and his body, for the soul itself remaineth unaffected by any bodily ailments.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 153-154

The entire passage is on this link: Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, LXXX

And if they do indeed have a soul, then clearly having the capacity to think intelligently is not a requirement.

No, that is not a requirement because people who have brain diseases and who thus cannot think intelligently still have a soul, as noted above.

So how does one make the distinction between animals, aliens life forms and "regular" humans, when it comes to being able to classify them as "humans"?

All humans have a rational soul. Other animals have an animal spirit. The Baha’i belief is that the human soul is eternal, but not much is said about the animal spirit, so whether it continues in some forum after death is a mystery. There are differing views on this amongst Baha’is.

That is my exact point, if it have nothing to do with anything physical, since God is not physical as you say. Then first of all why are we physical beings with the flaws that potentially comes with it. If what is important is the spiritual attributes?

Then why not design us complete and perfect, so we can get straight to the spiritual things instead. Why spend so many millions of years, with dinosaurs etc. Before getting to what I would consider an incomplete creation.

Again if its all about the spiritual side of things, then why even create any physical things. Why not simply create us in a "spirit realm" of some sort so we can focus on that. Besides there being no evidence for a soul to exists, the approach that God have taken, assuming a soul does exists, just makes very little sense.

To me that is basically how it seems to work with God. If the important thing is the spiritual thing (Lunch and chat), then why not skip all the evolution stuff and get straight to the point?

Oh Nimos, you are intent on making me think and work hard, aren’t you? But you are the most thoughtful atheist I ever met.

So I guess you are wondering two things: (1) Why didn’t God create our bodies fully evolved, why allow them to evolve over millions of years? And (2) Why does God make it so difficult for us to achieve our goal, spiritual growth?

God does not want us to get straight to the spiritual things; God wants us to learn them during our physical lifetimes. That is why God makes it so difficult. God wants us to work hard, suffer, and learn lessons and thereby we will be worthy of the reward in heaven, like a student who earns a college degree because he deserves it.

I have to admit I do not like this setup especially because it is so much more difficult for some people than for others and there is no way we can ever know exactly where we will end up. All we can do is read the teachings God has revealed through the Messengers and try to follow them as best we can and hope for the best. Some people will work harder for the same reward because they had a greater advantage since they had a good start with good parents or good genes while others did not have that. Clearly, life does not seem fair.

Again, if its about our souls and real self, he could just have created the souls, the physical body is of no importance as you say. And whether the soul is within a physical body or not, should make no difference and doesn't make us more or less like robots. I don't see any rational or logic reason to why it is needed, in the first place.

The physical body exists so we can get around and learn our lessons in the physical world. It brings both joy and pain. A bigger question I would think you would ask is why God created this physical world.

I don't think I would call it free will then, because as I mentioned to you in an earlier post. If the next messenger of God is suppose to come in around 3000 years or how long. It means that this persons linage is living now and that these people wont be able to be harmed in any way.
Since we do not know who they are, we are not free to do as we want. We simply have the illusion of free will. That is why free will and prophecies do not work together.

Free will is the ability to make moral choices, and prophecies are not related to that. Prophecies are given in scriptures to be fulfilled by the Prophets/Messengers of God; they are not related to what we humans do.

There should be no reasons to balance them, it ought to be 100% spiritual, as you said earlier and agreed with that it is God's plan that is important and not humans, so spending time on anything none spiritual, doesn't really matters in the end.

I agree, it should be 100% spiritual, if that was possible, but unfortunately we have to contend with the physical world because we are living here, so there will be physical needs we have to tend to, like eating and sleeping and going to work. But you are right, spending time on anything non-spiritual doesn’t really matter in the end. Baha’u’llah said that many times over.

“The world is but a show, vain and empty, a mere nothing, bearing the semblance of reality. Set not your affections upon it. Break not the bond that uniteth you with your Creator, and be not of those that have erred and strayed from His ways. Verily I say, the world is like the vapor in a desert, which the thirsty dreameth to be water and striveth after it with all his might, until when he cometh unto it, he findeth it to be mere illusion. It may, moreover, be likened unto the lifeless image of the beloved whom the lover hath sought and found, in the end, after long search and to his utmost regret, to be such as cannot “fatten nor appease his hunger.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 328-329

Its like spending time painting your house on an island, knowing that in 2 week it is going to be hit by a tsunami and get completely destroyed. Getting away from the island is clearly the only thing that matters and not the painting, even though you might think that it will make it look prettier.

You are such a quick study. No, nothing in this material world matters except the people and animals we love and care for, so spending time on physical pleasures and material things is a waste of time because they will leave us with nothing at the end of this life.

Matthew 7:24-27 “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”

“For every one of you his paramount duty is to choose for himself that on which no other may infringe and none usurp from him. Such a thing—and to this the Almighty is My witness—is the love of God, could ye but perceive it.
Build ye for yourselves such houses as the rain and floods can never destroy, which shall protect you from the changes and chances of this life. This is the instruction of Him Whom the world hath wronged and forsaken.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 261

 

[Nimos]

Lets try to sum up some things, because I think you make a lot of interesting statements:

The soul is like the light of the lamp. An external object may interfere with its brightness, but the light itself continues to shine.

So in the case of Alzheimer’s disease we cannot see the personality of the person express itself, but it is still there, since the soul is the person himself, thus the personality.

All humans have a rational soul. Other animals have an animal spirit. The Baha’i belief is that the human soul is eternal

God does not want us to get straight to the spiritual things; God wants us to learn them during our physical lifetimes.

God wants us to work hard, suffer, and learn lessons and thereby we will be worthy of the reward in heaven, like a student who earns a college degree because he deserves it.

I get the idea that everyone have a soul and its the "spiritual aspect" of things that are important, guess that is the connection to God or the divine?

But don't you run into problems, when you say that God does not want us to go straight for the spiritual things, but want us to learn them during our physical lifetimes? Because someone suffering from a brain illness or brain damage due to an accident or whatever. Will clearly not be able to learn during their physical lifetime, especially something as complex and confusing as spirituality, which is not well defined.
Now combining that with the statement that, God want us to work hard and suffer in order to be worthy of getting into heaven, just seems wrong and not really something you would relate to an all loving God.
So first of all a person's ability to learn during their physical lifetime is ripped away from them, which I guess is the "suffering" and "hard work" God "bless" them with. How on earth are they suppose to learn lessons from this?
Again, if the spiritual aspect of things are the important one and it is through the physical aspect of life that we achieve it. Clearly preventing people from learning, seems more like a curse or straight up punishment, rather than something good. Especially if you look at people born with such disadvantages.

I assume that, you would say that obviously these people can get into heaven, but just have to achieve it some other way. But doesn't that ruin your argument then, because if some people can get into heaven through other means than a physical learning process, clearly everyone can. Unless your argument is that brain issues are an exception to the rules somehow?

To me this gets really messy very quickly and honestly seems like rules and ideas are made up on the fly to suit this idea of souls and spirituality. And yet adding the physical requirement of learning through ones life, still doesn't help answer the question of why it is needed. Because you make a connection between "learning" and the "physical" and through this, one can achieve the "spiritual" and get into heaven. However, people with brain dysfunction would seem to have issues with this, I guess.

Then you have the issue with people we consider "evil" which seems to be able to live their lives rather well, while hurting or causing suffering to others, in comparison to people unlucky to be born with a brain issue. Im not only talking about those with less functional brains, but also people born as psychopath that turn them into mass murderes or do other horrible things.
There seems to be a rather strange distribution of what you could call "hard work" and "suffering" handed out to people by God. Or are these not handed out by God, but rather just a result of evolution and God is just watching and looking at this thinking, that this is equal for everyone, so their chances of getting into heaven is fair.

Again I have to say that its all very confusing how this is suppose to work and even how one would consider it a good thing and eventually why God would see the need for it.

If someone did not believe there was a soul, they might think that an Alzheimer’s patient had no personality,

Absolutely not, I clearly don't believe in a soul, so linking ones personality to one would make no sense. What Alzheimer do, is changing the "known" person's personality, in the eyes of those that know them, which is clearly what is so terrible about it.
We all have memories and knowledge of those we care about, so when the disease starts to take effect and changes this, it is obviously hurtful for those involved, as I can only imagine that it feels like you are loosing a friend, without being able to do anything about it.
But anyone in such situation also know that it is caused by the disease and it is not because the person doesn't have a personality.

Oh Nimos, you are intent on making me think and work hard, aren’t you? But you are the most thoughtful atheist I ever met.

These are interesting issues and shouldn't be accepted without questioning

Free will is the ability to make moral choices, and prophecies are not related to that. Prophecies are given in scriptures to be fulfilled by the Prophets/Messengers of God; they are not related to what we humans do.

I don't really see how you can split up free will and prophecies as if they do not affect each other.

When it comes to moral choices, do we actually have much of a choice?

If you think about it, is it a choice for you whether you want to hurt an animal or not? Either you don't care about hurting animals and you will have no moral issues doing it or you really care for them and therefore don't want to. But when exactly did you make that choice?

In certain situations you might be threaten to do it, lets say either you hurt a dog or someone is going to kill one you care about. But then we are not talking about a choice based on free will anymore.

Can you give an example of a situation, where you would have to make a moral choice without being threaten, where you think you could go either way? I tried and couldn't come up with one.

I agree, it should be 100% spiritual, if that was possible, but unfortunately we have to contend with the physical world because we are living here, so there will be physical needs we have to tend to, like eating and sleeping and going to work.

But this is only because of God right? Nothing seemingly suggest that a physical existence is needed for spirituality or a soul to exist. So God want us to do this rather than spending time on getting closer to him or how do you understand it?

Obviously if heaven, spirits, souls etc. exist, they must be able to exist without a physical world, at least I would assume that.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

1. Do you think God (if God exists) would communicate directly to everyone?

Spiritual forces exist, but they don't care to communicate with everyone, because they mind their own business sometimes, or people couldn't handle them.

2. Do you think it is *reasonable* to expect God (if God exists) to communicate directly to everyone?

No, not really. This is a journey where the ball is mostly in the human court, we're supposed to make up our minds about good and evil by ourselves, mostly. Otherwise, maybe it wouldn't really be considered real growth. The spiritual forces let us sink or swim, we are expected to strengthen or minds, bodies, and spirits as best as we can. It is a great responsibility, but an opportunity for us to own all of it

3. Do you think that *rational people* would expect God to communicate directly to everyone?

Probably, but maybe they shouldn't focus on it. What exactly is it that they want to hear from god?

 

[Trailblazer]

Spiritual forces exist, but they don't care to communicate with everyone, because they mind their own business sometimes, or people couldn't handle them.

No, not really. This is a journey where the ball is mostly in the human court, we're supposed to make up our minds about good and evil by ourselves, mostly. Otherwise, maybe it wouldn't really be considered real growth. The spiritual forces let us sink or swim, we are expected to strengthen or minds, bodies, and spirits as best as we can. It is a great responsibility, but an opportunity for us to own all of it

Probably, but maybe they shouldn't focus on it. What exactly is it that they want to hear from god?

I agree with all of what you said, only I would call that spiritual force God. It is not God's responsibility to make us believe in Him by communicating directly to us because God wants us to believe on faith and God wants belief to be a free choice.

This thread was instigated by an atheist poster I post to on my own forum who has been insisting for over five years that God (if God exists) could/would/should communicate directly to everyone in the world in order to prove He exists to everyone so everyone would believe in God, or so he thinks. I do not know that he wants to hear anything in particular from God, only "I am God and I exist." I consider this ludicrous. God does not owe anyone a free ride.

 

[Trailblazer]

I get the idea that everyone have a soul and its the "spiritual aspect" of things that are important, guess that is the connection to God or the divine?

Absolutely, as Baha’u’llah explained in this passage:

“Thou hast asked Me concerning the nature of the soul. Know, verily, that the soul is a sign of God, a heavenly gem whose reality the most learned of men hath failed to grasp, and whose mystery no mind, however acute, can ever hope to unravel. It is the first among all created things to declare the excellence of its Creator, the first to recognize His glory, to cleave to His truth, and to bow down in adoration before Him. If it be faithful to God, it will reflect His light, and will, eventually, return unto Him.If it fail, however, in its allegiance to its Creator, it will become a victim to self and passion, and will, in the end, sink in their depths.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 158-159

But don't you run into problems, when you say that God does not want us to go straight for the spiritual things, but want us to learn them during our physical lifetimes? Because someone suffering from a brain illness or brain damage due to an accident or whatever. Will clearly not be able to learn during their physical lifetime, especially something as complex and confusing as spirituality, which is not well defined.

That is very true, but for people who were (through no fault of their own) unable to make spiritual progress in this earthly life, there will be recompense from God in the spiritual world (the afterlife, which is really only a continuation of this earthly life). But regarding a disease such as Alzheimer’s, it usually does not come on until late adulthood, so that person would have had plenty of time to progress spiritually before they were diagnosed with Alzheimer’s. When they die they will take the spiritual progress they made with them to the spiritual world. In other words, their personality will be restored to its pre-Alzheimer’s state.

It is not as if spiritual progress ends at the end of this earthly life; it continues in the spiritual world throughout all of eternity.

“And now concerning thy question regarding the soul of man and its survival after death. Know thou of a truth that the soul, after its separation from the body, will continue to progress until it attaineth the presence of God, in a state and condition which neither the revolution of ages and centuries, nor the changes and chances of this world, can alter. It will endure as long as the Kingdom of God, His sovereignty, His dominion and power will endure. It will manifest the signs of God and His attributes, and will reveal His loving kindness and bounty.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 155-156

The problem is that in the spiritual world we can only progress within our own state, and that state is determined by the spiritual progress we made in this earthly life. If we fritter all our time away focusing on material things and things of the body instead of spiritual things and things of the soul, then we will be handicapped when we die and ascend to a purely spiritual world.

Now combining that with the statement that, God want us to work hard and suffer in order to be worthy of getting into heaven, just seems wrong and not really something you would relate to an all loving God.

You have never heard of the mercy of God? Of course God compensates people for what they were unable to do in this world as a result of physical, mental or emotional handicaps. Anyone can advance spiritually by the mercy of God. But it is also only just that the people who work harder get a bigger reward. That also applies to Baha’is; we will not all be on the same level in the spiritual world just because we all have the same beliefs but rather our celestial habitation will be according to faith and deeds.

“The people of Bahá, who are the inmates of the Ark of God, are, one and all, well aware of one another’s state and condition, and are united in the bonds of intimacy and fellowship. Such a state, however, must depend upon their faith and their conduct. They that are of the same grade and station are fully aware of one another’s capacity, character, accomplishments and merits. They that are of a lower grade, however, are incapable of comprehending adequately the station, or of estimating the merits, of those that rank above them. Each shall receive his share from thy Lord. Blessed is the man that hath turned his face towards God, and walked steadfastly in His love, until his soul hath winged its flight unto God, the Sovereign Lord of all, the Most Powerful, the Ever-Forgiving, the All-Merciful.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 170

So first of all a person's ability to learn during their physical lifetime is ripped away from them, which I guess is the "suffering" and "hard work" God "bless" them with.

How on earth are they suppose to learn lessons from this?

We all do what we can, and even of someone does not have a brain dysfunction, not everyone is endowed with the same capacity and we are only responsible to make spiritual progress within our own capacity.

“From the exalted source, and out of the essence of His favor and bounty He hath entrusted every created thing with a sign of His knowledge, so that none of His creatures may be deprived of its share in expressing, each according to its capacity and rank, this knowledge. This sign is the mirror of His beauty in the world of creation. The greater the effort exerted for the refinement of this sublime and noble mirror, the more faithfully will it be made to reflect the glory of the names and attributes of God, and reveal the wonders of His signs and knowledge. Every created thing will be enabled (so great is this reflecting power) to reveal the potentialities of its pre-ordained station, will recognize its capacity and limitations, and will testify to the truth that “He, verily, is God; there is none other God besides Him.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 262

Again, if the spiritual aspect of things are the important one and it is through the physical aspect of life that we achieve it. Clearly preventing people from learning, seems more like a curse or straight up punishment, rather than something good. Especially if you look at people born with such disadvantages.

Some people are born with better genes and some people had a better start in life because they had a better family upbringing, so these people have the “potential” to make greater progress, but that is not always the case. Many people who have high intelligence us that intelligence for selfish reasons, even to commit crimes, whereas many people with low levels of intelligence are closer to God and make greater spiritual progress. Many people who had advantages in childhood take life for granted and are selfish because they do not have to struggle as much as those of us who had a difficult childhood. It is more difficult to overcome emotional handicaps that came about as a result of a deficient childhood, but even that can be done if one sets their mind to it.I know that only too well from my own experiences.

Have you ever heard the saying “to those whom much is given much is expected?” Only God knows our capacity so only God can judge any soul.God is just so God will judge accordingly.

(Continued on next post)

 

[Trailblazer]

I assume that, you would say that obviously these people can get into heaven, but just have to achieve it some other way. But doesn't that ruin your argument then, because if some people can get into heaven through other means than a physical learning process, clearly everyone can. Unless your argument is that brain issues are an exception to the rules somehow?

A Baha’i once asked the Guardian (Shoghi Effendi) how to get to heaven and here was his response:

"To 'get to heaven' as you say is dependent on two things--faith in the Manifestation of God in His Day, in other words in this age in Bahá'u'lláh; and good deeds, in other words living to the best of our ability a noble life and doing unto others as we would be done by. But we must always remember that our existence and everything we have or ever will have is dependent upon the mercy of God and His bounty, and therefore He can accept into His heaven, which is really nearness to Him, even the lowliest if He pleases. We always have the hope of receiving His mercy if we reach out for it."
(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, January 12, 1957)
Lights of Guidance (second part): A Bahá'í Reference File

To me this gets really messy very quickly and honestly seems like rules and ideas are made up on the fly to suit this idea of souls and spirituality. And yet adding the physical requirement of learning through ones life, still doesn't help answer the question of why it is needed. Because you make a connection between "learning" and the "physical" and through this, one can achieve the "spiritual" and get into heaven. However, people with brain dysfunction would seem to have issues with this, I guess.

We have to go through this life and learn and grow spiritually because God set it up that way, so it is needed because God decided it is needed. Hypothetically, if there was another way that would have been better, an all-Knowing God would have employed it.

Then you have the issue with people we consider "evil" which seems to be able to live their lives rather well, while hurting or causing suffering to others, in comparison to people unlucky to be born with a brain issue. Im not only talking about those with less functional brains, but also people born as psychopath that turn them into mass murderes or do other horrible things.
There seems to be a rather strange distribution of what you could call "hard work" and "suffering" handed out to people by God. Or are these not handed out by God, but rather just a result of evolution and God is just watching and looking at this thinking, that this is equal for everyone, so their chances of getting into heaven is fair.

God knows everyone does not have the same capacity or the same opportunities in life so God considers all these factors and everyone’s chances of getting into heaven is fair.

Again I have to say that its all very confusing how this is suppose to work and even how one would consider it a good thing and eventually why God would see the need for it.

I hope I cleared some things up for you and if not feel free to ask for clarification.

Absolutely not, I clearly don't believe in a soul, so linking ones personality to one would make no sense. What Alzheimer do, is changing the "known" person's personality, in the eyes of those that know them, which is clearly what is so terrible about it.
We all have memories and knowledge of those we care about, so when the disease starts to take effect and changes this, it is obviously hurtful for those involved, as I can only imagine that it feels like you are loosing a friend, without being able to do anything about it.
But anyone in such situation also know that it is caused by the disease and it is not because the person doesn't have a personality.

I worded that rather poorly. I should have said that if someone observed an Alzheimer’s patient it might seem as if that patient had no personality since they seem to lose all sense of self and of who they are as a person, but of course anyone knows they still have a personality and that the brain disease has affected their personality.

It is a Baha’i belief that the soul is not affected by the brain disease and that the person is still the same person who will be completely restored to his former self in the afterlife, but other people cannot be expected to know that.

These are interesting issues and shouldn't be accepted without questioning .

Nothing should be accepted without questioning and as usual I appreciate your questions.

I don't really see how you can split up free will and prophecies as if they do not affect each other.

Of course they are related because one has to exercise their free will in order for a prophecy to be fulfilled, but my point was that since fulfillment of prophecies are preordained by God that prophecy will be fulfilled regardless; it HAS to be fulfilled because we cannot alter what God has preordained.

When it comes to moral choices, do we actually have much of a choice?

If you think about it, is it a choice for you whether you want to hurt an animal or not? Either you don't care about hurting animals and you will have no moral issues doing it or you really care for them and therefore don't want to. But when exactly did you make that choice?

In certain situations you might be threaten to do it, lets say either you hurt a dog or someone is going to kill one you care about. But then we are not talking about a choice based on free will anymore.

Can you give an example of a situation, where you would have to make a moral choice without being threaten, where you think you could go either way? I tried and couldn't come up with one.

There are many such moral choices that we make every day. For example, I can take my cat to the vet and spend hundreds or thousands of dollars to save her life or I can spend that money on a vacation to Europe. To me, it would be immoral to spend the money on myself if a cat is ill.

Another example: Someone I know had a trip to Europe planned but her cat was sick. Her cat could have probably not have been nursed back to health anyway, but she chose to have the cat euthanized just before her vacation. It was not as if she even batted an eyelash either. Her vacation was more important than that cat. I do not have a lot of respect for her because I think she is selfish but nevertheless I am always nice to her, and that is a moral choice I make because if I said what I really think that would be mean and it would hurt her feelings.

People are who they are and make the choices they make because of a number of factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and present life circumstances

Religious beliefs also affect what we choose to do. For example, the woman I referred to above is a fundamentalist Christian and she believes people who accept Jesus as Savior are saved and going to heaven. She also believes that she does not have to do any good deeds to get to heaven because it is a “free gift.” As such, she is nice to people, her family and friends, but she does not have to go out of her way to help other people; she can live for selfish desires. By contrast, Baha’is are not saved just because of what we believe. Much is expected of us, to care about not only family and friends, but all of humanity and to try to serve humanity.

But this is only because of God right? Nothing seemingly suggest that a physical existence is needed for spirituality or a soul to exist. So God want us to do this rather than spending time on getting closer to him or how do you understand it?

This physical existence is needed for our bodies to exist because that is the way we evolved. So as I see it, this physical world is kind of like a chessboard God provided for us and we are the pieces moving around on it, hopefully growing spiritually by the moves we make on the board.

Getting closer to God is part of what we do for our soul. That is the personal part, what we do to improve our own spiritual condition; the other part of becoming more spiritual is helping other people.

Obviously if heaven, spirits, souls etc. exist, they must be able to exist without a physical world, at least I would assume that.

That is another subject entirely. Of course we will be able to exist without a physical world after our body dies and we ascend to the spiritual world, but as long as we have a physical body we need to live in a physical world.

 

[Nimos]

We have to go through this life and learn and grow spiritually because God set it up that way, so it is needed because God decided it is needed. Hypothetically, if there was another way that would have been better, an all-Knowing God would have employed it.

But what about those that dies at birth, they wont have any time to go through life, obviously. So do they follow other rules?

And also if we look at the parents, is the death of their child suppose to be a lesson/suffering so they can learn to improve in life as you earlier explained. I have a pretty difficult time fitting all this together, while still trying to maintain that all this is done in the name of good. Because to me none of this seems to really add up to anything I would consider that.

God knows everyone does not have the same capacity or the same opportunities in life so God considers all these factors and everyone’s chances of getting into heaven is fair.

But clearly this isn't the case, a person born in the poorest areas in Africa, with civil wars, rapes, murdering and starvation being the norm. How do you argue that such person have the same opportunities as for instance the child of Bill Gates have, which obviously is secured for life, access to the best healthcare and opportunities in life that they want?

Is what you mean is that a poor African living under such conditions will almost without any effort get into heaven, whereas Bill Gates child, pretty much have to save the world in order to get in?

How do you compare fairness in all this, because it makes no sense to me, so lets take the example as mentioned above.

A poor African living in starvation, war etc. vs one of Bill Gates children?

It is a Baha’i belief that the soul is not affected by the brain disease and that the person is still the same person who will be completely restored to his former self in the afterlife, but other people cannot be expected to know that.

But if the soul is not affected and it is still their unaffected by the disease then, what is the idea of the disease in the first place. Because we have already established that the purpose of all this is about spirituality and God, I can agree with that. But then the idea of "needing" something like Alzheimer makes no sense at all, so God could just remove it. It would have no impact on the world at all. If it disappeared tomorrow so no one else could ever get it, nothing would change. So why would God keep it there, to interfere with a person's ability to find themselves spiritual?

it HAS to be fulfilled because we cannot alter what God has preordained.

But then we can't have free will.

There are many such moral choices that we make every day. For example, I can take my cat to the vet and spend hundreds or thousands of dollars to save her life or I can spend that money on a vacation to Europe. To me, it would be immoral to spend the money on myself if a cat is ill.

So during this example, at what point did you consider it an equal chance of you going to Europe and let the cat die, compared to not going to Europe?

My point is, when you are faced with this moral issue, its not really a choice you make. Because you won't go to Europe over saving the cat. So you never have to make that choice.

I do not have a lot of respect for her because I think she is selfish but nevertheless I am always nice to her, and that is a moral choice I make because if I said what I really think that would be mean and it would hurt her feelings.

Which is because how morals are different than yours, she probably love the cat, but not in the same way as you might. For instant you have people that go hunting and shoot animals and think that is great. Whereas to me, even if I got the choice I would say no, because I see no reason to do it and its not something that I would consider an important experience to me. However it doesn't mean that I have issues with other shooting them. Which is because our morals differs, but rarely, if ever do we actually have to make a moral choice, because they are already decided for us, by external experiences. For instant if you see a baby seal getting clubbed, most people doesn't think, what a nice fur coat it could make, most will react with it being horrible and refuse to buy such thing. But even then, you never really make a moral decision whether you ought to think that it would make a nice coat or whether you feel sorry for the baby seal. Its simply not a choice you make.

If that make sense?

This physical existence is needed for our bodies to exist because that is the way we evolved. So as I see it, this physical world is kind of like a chessboard God provided for us and we are the pieces moving around on it, hopefully growing spiritually by the moves we make on the board.

For these statement to be considered true as I see it, then they need to be so in all cases or they simply make no sense. So again how does this fit with a baby that die during birth?

That is another subject entirely. Of course we will be able to exist without a physical world after our body dies and we ascend to the spiritual world, but as long as we have a physical body we need to live in a physical world.

Ok, so you agree that God could have created everything without the need of any physical matter then and could just have made it a completely spiritual universe with no death. And where people could spend all their time focusing on God and becoming spiritual?

 

[Trailblazer]

But what about those that dies at birth, they wont have any time to go through life, obviously. So do they follow other rules?

Yes, they are covered by different rules. Obviously they cannot be expected to acquire spiritual qualities in this world so they will have to acquire them in the spiritual world.

THE IMMORTALITY OF CHILDREN

Question.—What is the condition of children who die before attaining the age of discretion or before the appointed time of birth?

Answer.—These infants are under the shadow of the favor of God; and as they have not committed any sin and are not soiled with the impurities of the world of nature, they are the centers of the manifestation of bounty, and the Eye of Compassion will be turned upon them.
Some Answered Questions, p. 240

Of course, we cannot know what that means as far as how they will grow spiritually, but I assume it means they will be assisted by angels and they will be under the favor of God.

And also if we look at the parents, is the death of their child suppose to be a lesson/suffering so they can learn to improve in life as you earlier explained. I have a pretty difficult time fitting all this together, while still trying to maintain that all this is done in the name of good. Because to me none of this seems to really add up to anything I would consider that.

I can understand how you feel because I feel the same way about it. Much of the suffering in the world seems pointless and even unfair. This is where faith comes in, faith that God knows more than we do, and that there is an ultimate purpose for our suffering that we cannot see yet, and we might not understand until we enter the spiritual world which is considered the World of Lights where things become clear. We can know certain things in this life, but we cannot fully understand everything.

But clearly this isn't the case, a person born in the poorest areas in Africa, with civil wars, rapes, murdering and starvation being the norm. How do you argue that such person have the same opportunities as for instance the child of Bill Gates have, which obviously is secured for life, access to the best healthcare and opportunities in life that they want?

No, as I said, everyone does not have the same opportunities. The goal of the Baha’i Faith is to make sure wealth is more evenly distributed so that nobody is wanting, but there will always be people who have more than others since everyone does not have the same capacity or opportunities, given where they live, what family they were raised in and their genetic makeup.

Nobody should have to live with civil wars, rapes, murdering and starvation, and it is a Baha’i belief that these conditions will not exist in the future, after the New World Order is built. However, extreme wealth is not necessarily an asset for spiritual growth and it might actually operate as a hindrance because people who have a lot of wealth often become attached to the material world and fail to grow spiritually.

Is what you mean is that a poor African living under such conditions will almost without any effort get into heaven, whereas Bill Gates child, pretty much have to save the world in order to get in?

How do you compare fairness in all this, because it makes no sense to me, so lets take the example as mentioned above.

A poor African living in starvation, war etc. vs one of Bill Gates children?

Both have an equal opportunity to get to heaven, and it would depend upon what they did with what they had. To those whom much is given much is expected so I assume more would be expected of a Bill Gates child whereas less would be expected of a poor African living in starvation. A person who is just struggling to survive day to day cannot be expected to do anything extra such as helping other people but a Bill Gates child would be expected to do a whole lot more.

When Baha’u’llah wrote to the kings and rulers of the earth in the latter part of the 19th century, He ordered them to take care of the poor, but they did not heed His call. If they had listened to Him and followed His injunctions the world would have been different, but since they didn’t the world is now still struggling for economic justice and the change will have to happen over time.

“Beware not to deal unjustly with any one that appealeth to you, and entereth beneath your shadow. Walk ye in the fear of God, and be ye of them that lead a godly life. Rest not on your power, your armies, and treasures. Put your whole trust and confidence in God, Who hath created you, and seek ye His help in all your affairs. Succor cometh from Him alone. He succoreth whom He will with the hosts of the heavens and of the earth.

Know ye that the poor are the trust of God in your midst. Watch that ye betray not His trust, that ye deal not unjustly with them and that ye walk not in the ways of the treacherous. Ye will most certainly be called upon to answer for His trust on the day when the Balance of Justice shall be set, the day when unto every one shall be rendered his due, when the doings of all men, be they rich or poor.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 251

“O ye rulers of the earth! Wherefore have ye clouded the radiance of the Sun, and caused it to cease from shining? Hearken unto the counsel given you by the Pen of the Most High, that haply both ye and the poor may attain unto tranquillity and peace. We beseech God to assist the kings of the earth to establish peace on earth. He, verily, doth what He willeth.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 253

But if the soul is not affected and it is still their unaffected by the disease then, what is the idea of the disease in the first place. Because we have already established that the purpose of all this is about spirituality and God, I can agree with that. But then the idea of "needing" something like Alzheimer makes no sense at all, so God could just remove it. It would have no impact on the world at all. If it disappeared tomorrow so no one else could ever get it, nothing would change. So why would God keep it there, to interfere with a person's ability to find themselves spiritual?

It is not that God keeps it there, it is just part of being human and having a physical body. God expects scientists to make the necessary advances in medicine in order to eliminate these horrid diseases. It is entirely possible that in the future there will be very few diseases and there will be cures for all diseases.

But then we can't have free will.

That’s not true because we have to cause what is preordained to happen by our free will decisions and actions. In other words, we act out our own destinies.

So during this example, at what point did you consider it an equal chance of you going to Europe and let the cat die, compared to not going to Europe?

My point is, when you are faced with this moral issue, its not really a choice you make. Because you won't go to Europe over saving the cat. So you never have to make that choice.

I could make the choice to go to Europe instead of saving the cat but I would never make that choice because I consider it immoral, according to my morals.

I do not have a lot of respect for her because I think she is selfish but nevertheless I am always nice to her, and that is a moral choice I make because if I said what I really think that would be mean and it would hurt her feelings.

Which is because how morals are different than yours, she probably love the cat, but not in the same way as you might. For instant you have people that go hunting and shoot animals and think that is great. Whereas to me, even if I got the choice I would say no, because I see no reason to do it and its not something that I would consider an important experience to me. However it doesn't mean that I have issues with other shooting them. Which is because our morals differs, but rarely, if ever do we actually have to make a moral choice, because they are already decided for us, by external experiences.

She probably did not consider it immoral to choose Europe over the cat, but what if it was a small child? Then everyone would say it is immoral to abandon that child and go to Europe. I fail to see the difference between an animal and a human being. Both are living creatures that have thoughts and feelings. The difference is that the sick child would have some kind of government agency step in can care for it but nobody would care for a sick animal unless it was their own.

So what you are saying is that you do not consider hunting, killing innocent animals for sport and enjoyment, immoral, but you would not hunt because it is not something you would enjoy doing as a pastime?

I think we all make moral choices even if we are unaware they are moral choices. Nothing is decided for us unless we are locked up in a prison.

For instant if you see a baby seal getting clubbed, most people doesn't think, what a nice fur coat it could make, most will react with it being horrible and refuse to buy such thing. But even then, you never really make a moral decision whether you ought to think that it would make a nice coat or whether you feel sorry for the baby seal. Its simply not a choice you make.
If that make sense?

Yes, that makes sense because feelings just are and most people object to outright cruelty to animals, but when they refuse to buy the fur coat that is a moral decision. If they think about it, they know it is morally wrong to buy the coat if they know that the seal had to suffer and die to make it.

For these statement to be considered true as I see it, then they need to be so in all cases or they simply make no sense. So again how does this fit with a baby that die during birth?

Of course, that is an exception, there are always exceptions, and I explained how God handles that above.

Ok, so you agree that God could have created everything without the need of any physical matter then and could just have made it a completely spiritual universe with no death. And where people could spend all their time focusing on God and becoming spiritual?

Yes, I suppose God could have done that because God is All-Powerful, but since God is also All-Knowing and All-Wise it is logical to conclude that God had a reason for making us endure the physical world before we can go to the spiritual world. We must assume that it must somehow be in our best interest in the long run.

Did you ever look into that book I recommended, The Purpose of Physical Reality?

If not, I suggest you do so. There is a preview of it at Amazon.

 

[firedragon]

If God exists and God is omnipotent, hypothetically speaking God could communicate directly to everyone rather than communicating through Messengers/Prophets. By everyone I mean every one of the 7.53 billion people in the world.

1. Do you think God (if God exists) would communicate directly to everyone?

• If you think that God would do this, please explain why you think so.
• If you think that God would not do this, please explain why you think so.

2. Do you think it is *reasonable* to expect God (if God exists) to communicate directly to everyone?

• If you think that is a reasonable expectation, please explain why you think so.
• If you think it is an unreasonable expectation, please explain why you think so.

3. Do you think that *rational people* would expect God to communicate directly to everyone?

• If you think rational people would expect God to do that, please explain why you think so.
• If you think rational people would not expect God to do that, please explain why you think so.

These questions are reliant on each persons interpretation of God brother. It also predominantly depends on one's definition of God.

 

[Trailblazer]

These questions are reliant on each persons interpretation of God brother. It also predominantly depends on one's definition of God.

That is absolutely true.

 

[Nimos]

Happy birthday!!

Yes, they are covered by different rules. Obviously they cannot be expected to acquire spiritual qualities in this world so they will have to acquire them in the spiritual world.

That was lucky

Of course, we cannot know what that means as far as how they will grow spiritually, but I assume it means they will be assisted by angels and they will be under the favor of God.

Lets try to look at this from a bit of an objective side, because there is a lot going on here.

Are souls suppose to be completely developed and exist regardless of our physical body?

At which point does a soul come into existence, is it when we are born or have it always been there?

If a child that dies during birth is without sin, that would suggest that everyone is born without sin, correct?

Now if that is the case, then we spend our whole life acquiring sins, which makes little sense, since I thought the whole idea with God and all this testing and getting spiritual, were to get rid of sins?

But if we a born without sin, obviously our soul must also be without it to begin with. Which make me wonder, why on Earth we would have to go through a physical life time to begin with, in order to proof that we are without sins or what the purpose is. So we can enter into the kingdom of God? Why all the hassle if we are already without sin to begin with?

According to what you quoted, the soul of a child that dies during birth is under the favor or care of God. Which I assume means that the souls are already with God and maybe the angels?

So again why the need for a physical life time of acquiring sins?

Also clearly following the logic that we are born without sins, mean that children that die during birth are the lucky ones, because they go straight to God. Which makes you wonder why God would bother with death at child birth at all? Why not simply take care of the souls before putting the parents through hell? Again doesn't it seem more like a punishment for the parents than anything else?

To me there are so many unknowns and things that doesn't fit together, that its a miracle to me, how anyone can just accept these ideas by faith. That must be the best evidence for God ever

I can understand how you feel because I feel the same way about it. Much of the suffering in the world seems pointless and even unfair. This is where faith comes in, faith that God knows more than we do, and that there is an ultimate purpose for our suffering that we cannot see yet, and we might not understand until we enter the spiritual world which is considered the World of Lights where things become clear. We can know certain things in this life, but we cannot fully understand everything.

But suffering need an explanation just as everything else. Especially if the claim is that there is purpose behind, then one should not accept it through faith. Personally I can accept suffering in the world, because I do not think there is any such thing as objective justice. We decide it ourselves when it comes to humans. However when it comes to nature, we have to follow its rules and they are not following any rules of justice, which is why you have natural suffering.

But just as a person that suffers due to an health issue, would seek out a doctor to get an answer. The same must apply to a creator God. Seeking answers to why suffering exists in a world that is supposedly created by an all good God requires answers, faith and ultimate purpose is not going to cut it and shouldn't be a satisfying answer for anyone, in my opinion.

No, as I said, everyone does not have the same opportunities. The goal of the Baha’i Faith is to make sure wealth is more evenly distributed so that nobody is wanting, but there will always be people who have more than others since everyone does not have the same capacity or opportunities, given where they live, what family they were raised in and their genetic makeup.

Nobody should have to live with civil wars, rapes, murdering and starvation, and it is a Baha’i belief that these conditions will not exist in the future, after the New World Order is built. However, extreme wealth is not necessarily an asset for spiritual growth and it might actually operate as a hindrance because people who have a lot of wealth often become attached to the material world and fail to grow spiritually.

All that is good. But still this has to be seen in the light of God and the grand purpose that he has. And that is what makes so little sense to me. Because getting close to God is what matters, nothing else ought to matter at all. Yet a lot of religions are very happy for doing charity work, which is great. But why should we care in the grand scheme of things?

Again if we look at this from a broader perspective, none of that makes any sense. We are presumably born without sins, we spend a life time acquiring them for no good reason so we can end up where we presumably started. And through this life time, we spend a lot of energy on charity, work etc. That have nothing to do with, what its all supposedly about in the end anyway.

Adding all these things together in what to me appears to be one huge mess, pretty much just shows how incompetent God is. Because clearly these things doesn't fit together. If the purpose is to become spiritual and free of sins. Then the starting conditions are all wrong, compared to us being souls spending a life time getting closer to God. All the other stuff, with physical life times, charity, children dying at birth, suffering etc. makes absolutely no sense and is nothing but filling as I see it.

It is not that God keeps it there, it is just part of being human and having a physical body. God expects scientists to make the necessary advances in medicine in order to eliminate these horrid diseases. It is entirely possible that in the future there will be very few diseases and there will be cures for all diseases.

It makes no sense. First of all there have been periods of time in human history where we could cure anything. Secondly, I think you are talking from the perspective of human needs, which should not matter in regards to the overall goal of God. Therefore curing disease simply can't be part of his idea with us. It should not matter the slightest whether we can cure or can't cure anything. If the purpose is to become spiritual. The shorter you live the fewer sins you can acquire, so there should be no reason for humans to desire to stay alive longer than absolutely minimum. Again making the children that dies during birth the blessed ones, as they go straight to God.

That’s not true because we have to cause what is preordained to happen by our free will decisions and actions. In other words, we act out our own destinies.

Surely that will never fly. You have 7.7 billion people in the world all having to express their free will to make sure, what was preordained will happen?

She probably did not consider it immoral to choose Europe over the cat, but what if it was a small child? Then everyone would say it is immoral to abandon that child and go to Europe. I fail to see the difference between an animal and a human being. Both are living creatures that have thoughts and feelings. The difference is that the sick child would have some kind of government agency step in can care for it but nobody would care for a sick animal unless it was their own.

The difference is how we relate to them, a child as its part of our own species will be far harder to abandon than an animal, regardless of government agencies or not. Biologically we tend to care for those of our own species more than others. Being humans, we have the ability to also care for others species for that we find attractive. Since we like dogs and they can make us happy and show affection for us, we tend to care for them.

But clearly you wouldn't cancel your trip to Europe, because one of your goldfish looked a bit sick or because you would be afraid that maybe a butterfly would be caught inside your house and starve to death or whatever. It all depends on the animal and how we relate to them, and not everyone relate to the same animals in the same way.

Yes, that makes sense because feelings just are and most people object to outright cruelty to animals, but when they refuse to buy the fur coat that is a moral decision. If they think about it, they know it is morally wrong to buy the coat if they know that the seal had to suffer and die to make it.

Well, the decision was made for you a long time ago as you experience the killing of the seal. Because had you no idea where the fur came from and haven't see any killing, you would solely base it one whether you liked it or not, which would have nothing to do with making a moral decision.

Did you ever look into that book I recommended, The Purpose of Physical Reality?

If not, I suggest you do so. There is a preview of it at Amazon.

I looked at the preview, but little information is gained from that. And im sorry, but I wont be buying it, as I doubt it can answer my questions anyway

 

[Trailblazer]

Lets try to look at this from a bit of an objective side, because there is a lot going on here.

Are souls supposed to be completely developed and exist regardless of our physical body?

At which point does a soul come into existence, is it when we are born or have it always been there?

The human soul comes into existence at the moment of conception (sperm and egg) and then the soul is connected to the physical body and works through the physical body, as I explained before.

If a child that dies during birth is without sin, that would suggest that everyone is born without sin, correct?

Yes, that is true. We are all born with a clean slate, yet we have two natures, material and spiritual, so we have the propensity to do good or evil.

“In man there are two natures; his spiritual or higher nature and his material or lower nature. In one he approaches God, in the other he lives for the world alone. Signs of both these natures are to be found in men. In his material aspect he expresses untruth, cruelty and injustice; all these are the outcome of his lower nature. The attributes of his Divine nature are shown forth in love, mercy, kindness, truth and justice, one and all being expressions of his higher nature. Every good habit, every noble quality belongs to man’s spiritual nature, whereas all his imperfections and sinful actions are born of his material nature. If a man’s Divine nature dominates his human nature, we have a saint.” Paris Talks, p. 60

THE TWO NATURES IN MAN

Now if that is the case, then we spend our whole life acquiring sins, which makes little sense, since I thought the whole idea with God and all this testing and getting spiritual, were to get rid of sins?

I would explain that differently. We spend our whole life having to make choices and we have free will so we can choose to act according to our spiritual nature or our material nature. The more we choose to act according to our material nature, the more sins we will acquire. The way we become spiritual is to choose to act according to our spiritual nature.

But if we a born without sin, obviously our soul must also be without it to begin with. Which make me wonder, why on Earth we would have to go through a physical life time to begin with, in order to proof that we are without sins or what the purpose is. So we can enter into the kingdom of God? Why all the hassle if we are already without sin to begin with?

We do not get to enter the Kingdom of God in heaven without earning our way. We cannot just skip the step of living through the material world because that is how we become spiritual.

We are without sin to begin with because God wants us to start out with a clean slate. Then we make our choices that will determine what kind of person we will become, spiritual (noble) or material (sinful).

According to what you quoted, the soul of a child that dies during birth is under the favor or care of God. Which I assume means that the souls are already with God and maybe the angels?

No, that means that when that child dies he is under the favor of God and the care of angels.

So again why the need for a physical life time of acquiring sins?

As I said above, the physical life is so we can acquire spiritual qualities, because we were not born with those; we are only born with the potential to acquire them, since we are made in the image of God.

Also clearly following the logic that we are born without sins, mean that children that die during birth are the lucky ones, because they go straight to God. Which makes you wonder why God would bother with death at child birth at all? Why not simply take care of the souls before putting the parents through hell? Again doesn't it seem more like a punishment for the parents than anything else?

That child is lucky only in the sense that he does not have to endure any suffering in this world but he also misses out on the joy, so it evens out. Nobody knows exactly what happens in the spiritual world or what it means to be in God’s favor, but from stories I have read about the spiritual world, that child will still have to acquire the spiritual qualities he did not acquire in this world, with the assistance of angels.

To me there are so many unknowns and things that doesn't fit together, that its a miracle to me, how anyone can just accept these ideas by faith. That must be the best evidence for God ever.

You are right, there are many unknowns, but there are also many knowns, enough of them to piece it together and understand the purpose of this physical reality. We can also know that what we will experience after we die will be dependent upon our faith in God and our deeds.

But suffering need an explanation just as everything else. Especially if the claim is that there is purpose behind, then one should not accept it through faith. Personally I can accept suffering in the world, because I do not think there is any such thing as objective justice. We decide it ourselves when it comes to humans. However when it comes to nature, we have to follow its rules and they are not following any rules of justice, which is why you have natural suffering.

Personally I can accept suffering in the world, because I think there is such a thing as God’s justice. The problem is that we have to have faith in God because we cannot see or talk to God in order to get all the answers we want. Human suffering caused by free will decisions we make is simply reaping the consequences of our own choices, although we can suffer collateral damage from the choices other people make and that is unavoidable because we live in a world where people affect other people. It is like I could suffer if I get hit by a car riding my bike to work as the result of a careless driver. The best I can do is to be very careful and lower my chances of getting hit.

But just as a person that suffers due to a health issue, would seek out a doctor to get an answer. The same must apply to a creator God. Seeking answers to why suffering exists in a world that is supposedly created by an all good God requires answers, faith and ultimate purpose is not going to cut it and shouldn't be a satisfying answer for anyone, in my opinion.

I fully agree. We should seek answers whenever and wherever we can find them. It is not as if there are no answers. There are some answers in the scriptures of all religions but there are also many people who have written on this subject of suffering.

All that is good. But still this has to be seen in the light of God and the grand purpose that he has. And that is what makes so little sense to me. Because getting close to God is what matters, nothing else ought to matter at all. Yet a lot of religions are very happy for doing charity work, which is great. But why should we care in the grand scheme of things?

Getting close to God is what matters to us as individuals but we also have to consider other people and trying to improve the living conditions in this world because we have to live here until we die and we should care about making this world abetter place for future generations who have to live here.

Again if we look at this from a broader perspective, none of that makes any sense. We are presumably born without sins, we spend a life time acquiring them for no good reason so we can end up where we presumably started. And through this life time, we spend a lot of energy on charity, work etc. That have nothing to do with, what its all supposedly about in the end anyway.

I hope I have explained this so you better understand it and even if you do not agree maybe it makes more sense to you.

(Continued on next post)

 

[Trailblazer]

Adding all these things together in what to me appears to be one huge mess, pretty much just shows how incompetent God is. Because clearly these things doesn't fit together. If the purpose is to become spiritual and free of sins. Then the starting conditions are all wrong, compared to us being souls spending a life time getting closer to God. All the other stuff, with physical life times, charity, children dying at birth, suffering etc. makes absolutely no sense and is nothing but filling as I see it.

You are onto something there Nimos because the goal is getting closer to God.

That raises the question of just how a soul gets closer to God. In short, one gets closer to God by praying and meditating and reading scriptures, but I do not think that is as important as the way we live, the choices we make. By choosing God over our selfish desires and the material world enjoyments we become closer to God. By choosing to help others materially or spiritually we are getting closer to God because we are doing what God has enjoined us to do.

It makes no sense. First of all there have been periods of time in human history where we could cure anything. Secondly, I think you are talking from the perspective of human needs, which should not matter in regards to the overall goal of God. Therefore curing disease simply can't be part of his idea with us. It should not matter the slightest whether we can cure or can't cure anything. If the purpose is to become spiritual. The shorter you live the fewer sins you can acquire, so there should be no reason for humans to desire to stay alive longer than absolutely minimum. Again making the children that dies during birth the blessed ones, as they go straight to God.

You are onto something there Nimos because human needs do not really matter that much in regards to the overall goal of becoming more spiritual.

However, since we have to live in this world, and some people live a long time, we should seek to mitigate human suffering as much as possible.

That might be true that the shorter you live the fewer sins you can acquire, but the converse is also true; the longer you live the more time you have to acquire spiritual qualities.

The difference is how we relate to them, a child as its part of our own species will be far harder to abandon than an animal, regardless of government agencies or not. Biologically we tend to care for those of our own species more than others. Being humans, we have the ability to also care for others species for that we find attractive. Since we like dogs and they can make us happy and show affection for us, we tend to care for them.

Biologically we might tend to care for our own species more than other species but that does not mean that we do not care about other species as much as our own. Do you think this should be based upon what we get from our caring, what is attractive and what the animal can do for us to make us happy? If so, it is no wonder people choose children over pets, because they get more in return. But I consider this a selfish reason to have children. I also consider it selfish to have pets just to get affection from them. A better reason would be because the pets need someone to care for them. Caring for them is a win-win because it makes us more spiritual and it also helps the animals.

But clearly you wouldn't cancel your trip to Europe, because one of your goldfish looked a bit sick or because you would be afraid that maybe a butterfly would be caught inside your house and starve to death or whatever. It all depends on the animal and how we relate to them, and not everyone relate to the same animals in the same way.

Yes, that is certainly true. Many years ago, say about 15 years ago, for about five years we used to go on regular vacations and leave our cats with a pet sitter coming in twice a day. We had more than twice as many cats as we have now, but vacations were very important to me. I never left any sick cats and everything went well, but my pet sitter was the manager of a cat clinic so she would have known what to do if anything had happened. Now we only have 10 cats and two have kidney disease so we would never leave them and go on a vacation. We have not been on any vacation since 2012, and that was a very short vacation. My husband does not mind because he does not like traveling anyway. We both love all animals and we would not want to leave the wild animals outdoors who we feed if we were away.

I know not many people are like us, because most married couples have children, even if they also have pets, and most people would not make all the sacrifices in time and money we make for all our animals, indoors and outside.

Well, the decision was made for you a long time ago as you experience the killing of the seal. Because had you no idea where the fur came from and haven't see any killing, you would solely base it one whether you liked it or not, which would have nothing to do with making a moral decision.

That is true, if you never thought about where the fur came from and what had to happen for you to have the fur coat, it would not be a moral decision at all. Back when I was in by 20s I used to wear coats with raccoon collars because those were in style and they were warm, but I cannot even imagine wearing one now. I cannot even stand to see a raccoon that is hit by a car, which I do see occasionally since I ride my bike to work.

I looked at the preview, but little information is gained from that. And im sorry, but I wont be buying it, as I doubt it can answer my questions anyway.

Okay, I wish the book was online but it isn’t, so I will keep trying to answer your questions. I think we are making some progress, little by little.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, they are covered by different rules. Obviously they cannot be expected to acquire spiritual qualities in this world so they will have to acquire them in the spiritual world.

THE IMMORTALITY OF CHILDREN

Question.—What is the condition of children who die before attaining the age of discretion or before the appointed time of birth?

Answer.—These infants are under the shadow of the favor of God; and as they have not committed any sin and are not soiled with the impurities of the world of nature, they are the centers of the manifestation of bounty, and the Eye of Compassion will be turned upon them.
Some Answered Questions, p. 240

Of course, we cannot know what that means as far as how they will grow spiritually, but I assume it means they will be assisted by angels and they will be under the favor of God.

If that all were true, then one of the worst sins a person could commit would be to let a child grow to adulthood.

After all, if dying as children would ensute their immoral and "favor of God," then helping them to survive to adulthood would mean denying them a guarantee of immortality and favor of God; what greater crime could you inflict upon a person?

 

[Trailblazer]

If that all were true, then one of the worst sins a person could commit would be to let a child grow to adulthood.

If no children survived into adulthood then there would be no adults to run the world.
I explained to Nimos why we have to traverse this earthly world...

After all, if dying as children would ensure their immoral and "favor of God," then helping them to survive to adulthood would mean denying them a guarantee of immortality and favor of God; what greater crime could you inflict upon a person?

We will all have immortality but we won't all have eternal life, which is nearness to God.
We can all be in the favor of God if we play our cards right in this world but that is a choice we have to make.

The child who is in the favor of God will still have to do the work in the afterlife in order to acquire the spiritual qualities we all need in the spiritual world, so adults who traverse this earthly world and acquire these qualities before they die will be ahead of the game.

 

[Nimos]

I hope I have explained this so you better understand it and even if you do not agree maybe it makes more sense to you.

I think I understand the way you are looking at it. To me this whole setup seems extremely unlikely to be

true, but that is what it is.

Biologically we might tend to care for our own species more than other species but that does not mean that we do not care about other species as much as our own. Do you think this should be based upon what we get from our caring, what is attractive and what the animal can do for us to make us happy? If so, it is no wonder people choose children over pets, because they get more in return.

Its is partly about attractiveness, if you look at these two animals.

If the question were that you could either save the cat or the scorpion, The majority of people would choose the cat. Simply because, it looks more attractive to us, it have a cute face, human looking eyes, soft fur and in general a behavior that we can easier relate to. But if the question were whether you could save a baby from a burning house or the cat, the majority of people would most likely go for the baby and the scorpion would have no chance whatsoever.

Now in either of these situations or examples, you are not really gaining anything from saving any of them, none of them might be your animals or baby. Yet I think the majority of people would still choose to save them in that order. Baby > Cat > Scorpion.

When people do choose to have children, at least to me it seems like a majority, especially in the modern day, does it due to self fish reasons. And seem to be driven more by the parents desire and pleasure of having one, rather than anything else. Not saying there is anything wrong with it. But most people that plan to get children, I think does it, because they believe it brings then happiness and therefore they want them.

When it comes to who is happier, people with kids or those without, most research points to the latter. But a new study suggests that parents are happier than non-parents later in life, when their children move out and become sources of social enjoyment rather than stress.

Most surveys of parental happiness have focused on those whose children still live at home. These tend to show that people with kids are less happy than their child-free peers because they have less free time, sleep and money.

Read more: Having kids makes you happier, but only when they move out

As such in the modern day society, there doesn't seem to be a huge amount of benefits, besides the "social enjoyment" to have children, not like it used to be or still are some places, where children are needed to help secure the old age of their parents or help in the fields or whatever.

In regards to animals, they do give us comfort, enjoyment or they serve as a product or worktool, if they gave us nothing we would not spend resources and energy on them, besides to eat them.

Besides those animals that we have bred specifically to suit our needs, they are well adapted to survive in nature and doesn't need our help, for the most part when they do, its because we have caused the problem to begin with.

Although some animals are lucky enough to be adopted after being surrendered, the tragic fate of too many is death. According to a petition written by Best Friends Animal Society, 5,500 animals are killed in shelters across America every single day. That means over two million innocent lives are cut short each year.

These animals did not decide to live in a shelter obviously , but is a problem caused by the amount and careless behavior of people choosing to have pets.

To me and I might be wrong here, it seems like you choose to have cats, because you feel that they need to be saved, is that correct?

 

[Trailblazer]

I think I understand the way you are looking at it. To me this whole setup seems extremely unlikely to be true, but that is what it is.

Yes, it is what it is, and that is not determined by us. After we die we will know what it is or not know anything.
I have no doubts it is the former.

Its is partly about attractiveness, if you look at these two animals.

If the question were that you could either save the cat or the scorpion, The majority of people would choose the cat. Simply because, it looks more attractive to us, it have a cute face, human looking eyes, soft fur and in general a behavior that we can easier relate to. But if the question were whether you could save a baby from a burning house or the cat, the majority of people would most likely go for the baby and the scorpion would have no chance whatsoever.

Yes, that is true.

Now in either of these situations or examples, you are not really gaining anything from saving any of them, none of them might be your animals or baby. Yet I think the majority of people would still choose to save them in that order. Baby > Cat > Scorpion.

That is no doubt true because people tend to value a human being more than an animal and a pet animal more than a scorpion. It is about levels in the hierarchy and also what is commonly accepted as the most valuable creature.

When people do choose to have children, at least to me it seems like a majority, especially in the modern day, does it due to self fish reasons. And seem to be driven more by the parents desire and pleasure of having one, rather than anything else. Not saying there is anything wrong with it. But most people that plan to get children, I think does it, because they believe it brings then happiness and therefore they want them.

I fully agree with that. People generally do what they want to do if they can and they generally consider their personal happiness above anything else, except maybe their immediate family, who they would sacrifice for. There are many people who should not have had children, if they had them for the wrong reasons.

When it comes to who is happier, people with kids or those without, most research points to the latter. But a new study suggests that parents are happier than non-parents later in life, when their children move out and become sources of social enjoyment rather than stress.

Most surveys of parental happiness have focused on those whose children still live at home. These tend to show that people with kids are less happy than their child-free peers because they have less free time, sleep and money.

Read more: Having kids makes you happier, but only when they move out

As such in the modern day society, there doesn't seem to be a huge amount of benefits, besides the "social enjoyment" to have children, not like it used to be or still are some places, where children are needed to help secure the old age of their parents or help in the fields or whatever.

Besides social enjoyment, there is probably also a lot of satisfaction in having raised children, if they turned out well, went out on their own and became successful. It is like any job well done. Then of course there are usually grandchildren, which most people enjoy. I never liked children or wanted children and they annoy me. I am sure that is because I was just an annoyance to my parents, not really wanted.

In regards to animals, they do give us comfort, enjoyment or they serve as a product or worktool, if they gave us nothing we would not spend resources and energy on them, besides to eat them.

Yes, I can agree that animals give us comfort and enjoyment, but they can also be a lot of work and expense, and a source of much grief when we lose them. That is not usually the case with children because they normally outlive their parents.

Besides those animals that we have bred specifically to suit our needs, they are well adapted to survive in nature and doesn't need our help, for the most part when they do, its because we have caused the problem to begin with.

That is true with domesticated animals that we breed for our purposes.

Although some animals are lucky enough to be adopted after being surrendered, the tragic fate of too many is death. According to a petition written by Best Friends Animal Society, 5,500 animals are killed in shelters across America every single day. That means over two million innocent lives are cut short each year.

These animals did not decide to live in a shelter obviously, but is a problem caused by the amount and careless behavior of people choosing to have pets.

Sadly, that is the way some people are, they just don’t care so they should have never had a pet.

To me and I might be wrong here, it seems like you choose to have cats, because you feel that they need to be saved, is that correct?

No, I did not originally have cats with the idea of saving them because I purchased my first cats from Persian breeders. After that we adopted two Persian cats that needed a home. They were eight years old and their owner had children so she no longer wanted them and I heard about them needing a home from my friend. That was about 25 years ago and a lot has happened since then. I loved those cats so much for many years until they passed from horrific deaths. Then after that we bred our Persian cats on a small scale and had more cats because I kept some of the kittens we could not sell. Then, after some of those cats died, in more recent years we adopted one Persian cat from a shelter and two more Persians from a private home when the owners could not keep them because they were moving. These adopted cats have been great cats and we are very close to them, but we also love all our cats that were born as kittens in our home. We only have seven of them left, God help me when we lose more cats. The time will come and it is the worst time of my life. The only way to deal with it is to live fully in the present.

I see you are busy on the Bible thread although I have not had time to read there. I hope you had a good vacation. I have two weeks off work for the holidays but we are not going anywhere. The cats keep us home and I do not like driving anymore, so I cannot go anywhere anyway.

I thought you might enjoy this short video about pets and how good they are for our emotional and physical health. Of course one does not need as many as we have, but it is what it is and I do not like going below that number.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Nimos]

I see you are busy on the Bible thread although I have not had time to read there. I hope you had a good vacation. I have two weeks off work for the holidays but we are not going anywhere. The cats keep us home and I do not like driving anymore, so I cannot go anywhere anyway.

Yeah that is a long discussion as well. But yeah had a nice vacation, just went to the ocean on the western coast of Denmark. (Looks like this, even though I did not take that image.) So that is always very relaxing when you live in a city normally

I thought you might enjoy this short video about pets and how good they are for our emotional and physical health.

Wouldn't disagree with that

 

[Spirit of Light]

If God exists and God is omnipotent, hypothetically speaking God could communicate directly to everyone rather than communicating through Messengers/Prophets. By everyone I mean every one of the 7.53 billion people in the world.

1. Do you think God (if God exists) would communicate directly to everyone?

• If you think that God would do this, please explain why you think so.
• If you think that God would not do this, please explain why you think so.

2. Do you think it is *reasonable* to expect God (if God exists) to communicate directly to everyone?

• If you think that is a reasonable expectation, please explain why you think so.
• If you think it is an unreasonable expectation, please explain why you think so.

3. Do you think that *rational people* would expect God to communicate directly to everyone?

• If you think rational people would expect God to do that, please explain why you think so.
• If you think rational people would not expect God to do that, please explain why you think so.

In my understanding, a god or other heavenly beings can and do contact humans, but the problem is that to many people can not understand the message because it is more like sign, the words.
Only when human rise their awarness and gain higher wisdom can we start to translate the message in to knowledge we can use to gain Even higher level of wisdom. Then i do not speak of mundane wisdom from ordenary books. But wisdom of the heavenly teaching and realms.

Gods, buddha or other heavenly beings dont care about mundane things like, Fame, money, wealth, or luxus that humans ser as important. Gods only looking for good morality, ethics, truthfulness, compassion and benevolance in human beings

 

[Trailblazer]

Yeah that is a long discussion as well. But yeah had a nice vacation, just went to the ocean on the western coast of Denmark. (Looks like this, even though I did not take that image.) So that is always very relaxing when you live in a city normally

Wow, that scenery is gorgeous! It also looks like an uncrowded beach. I am so jealous but I am glad you had a good time. I live in the country, 12 miles from the city, but I still have to negotiate the city in order to go shopping and to work. I am sick of the city but I do not see any other alternative for now.

We have a vacation house that sits on a bluff overlooking the Pacific Ocean in a very small town of 622 people. The beach looks like that photo except that there are tall trees in the foreground. It is only about two hours from here but we never used it for vacations, since it has been a monthly rental since we purchased it 10 years ago. Since he is always behind on the rent, I could easily oust the tenant and use the house for a vacation home, but the tenant has been there seven years now so I would be taking his home away. He is now thousands of dollars behind in rent but he gets almost caught up periodically. He just sent me an e-mail saying he sent one month rent and he will have more money soon. He probably will, although I do not know when soon will come. But we have no mortgage so I can wait.