Determinism, Compatibilsm, Free Will, Ex Nihilo

[seer]

I am using the word 'objective' differently here. Objective here means verifiable by evidence in repeated observations and falsifiable by scientific methods, and observation.

So basically we can not trust what Bahaullah says concerning the things of God because he was a fallible human being and not consistent.

So again seer, quote me correctly and I will respond.

Basically there is no objective evidence for an ultimate purpose of humanity other then the physical journey in this universe. Any other ultimate purpose would by defined by our belief system of a world beyond this physical world, and not 'evidence.'

I did quote you correct in the context of our discussion, so again what is this evidence that you are speaking of. You used the word evidence - not me.

Again, show me where did I misrepresent you:

You said: I believe in an eternal, infinite primal existence that exists in the image of God from which the Creation of our physical existence naturally arose.

I said: How do you know that? I thought you said it was "beyond the scope of human knowledge?

You said: By the evidence. Fallible human beings are not consistent enough to be reliable on anecdotal issues.

[Psychic Missile]

7up wrote: But the Goal of God is not to gain novelty, it is to bring imperfection to perfection, an amazing accomplishment...., to glorify His children, which brings glory to God.

Everything about it. While God may experience time differently than we do, I believe God still exists in a temporal reality. I believe that God has to live according to the laws of existence (ie: there are things that God cannot do).

-7up

Wouldn't classical theism disagree with that characterization?

[shunyadragon]

So basically we can not trust what Bahaullah says concerning the things of God because he was a fallible human being and not consistent.

Bad spelling: Baha'u'llah. We are fallible human beings, and not comparable to manifestations of God.

I did quote you correct in the context of our discussion, so again what is this evidence that you are speaking of. You used the word evidence - not me.

No you did not cite me correctly. I said, 'There is no objective evidence.'

If you wish to quote me refer to a post directly. This is not done.

[seer]

No you did not cite me correctly. I said, 'There is no objective evidence.'

If you wish to quote me refer to a post directly. This is not done.

Man! Again:

You said: I believe in an eternal, infinite primal existence that exists in the image of God from which the Creation of our physical existence naturally arose.

I said: How do you know that? I thought you said it was "beyond the scope of human knowledge?

Then you said: By the evidence. Fallible human beings are not consistent enough to be reliable on anecdotal issues.

What were you referring to when you said "by the evidence" Shuny?

And you agree that we can not trust what Bahaullah says concerning the things of God because he was a fallible human being and not consistent - correct?

[shunyadragon]

Man! Again:



What were you referring to when you said "by the evidence" Shuny?

And you agree that we can not trust what Bahaullah says concerning the things of God because he was a fallible human being and not consistent - correct?

Yes I said: By the evidence. Fallible human beings are not consistent enough to be reliable on anecdotal issues. Which refers to us not Revelation from manifestations of God.

By the evidence, we are fallible humans and inconsistent. No, Revelation from Baha'u'llah was not from the perspective of a fallible human like you and me.

The evidence is the mutitude of different churches and divisions in the religions in the past under the leadership of fallible humans who interpret scripture differently.

Second point, I believe that God is the source of Natural Laws and Created by Natural Methods.


Of course, you do not agree, but this clarifies my perspective.

[seer]

Yes I said: By the evidence. Fallible human beings are not consistent enough to be reliable on anecdotal issues. Which refers to us not Revelation from manifestations of God.

By the evidence, we are fallible humans and inconsistent. No, Revelation from Baha'u'llah was not from the perspective of a fallible human like you and me.

What? But Baha'u'llah was a human being, therefore fallible and inconsistent - correct?

[shunyadragon]

What? But Baha'u'llah was a human being, therefore fallible and inconsistent - correct?

The Revelation was from God, not Baha'u'llah. Of course you do not believe this.

[seer]

The Revelation was from God, not Baha'u'llah. Of course you do not believe this.

You mean like the Revelation of Christ Jesus. But Baha'u'llah is still human and therefore according to you fallible and inconsistent - perhaps he just misunderstood it all!

[shunyadragon]

You mean like the Revelation of Christ Jesus. But Baha'u'llah is still human and therefore according to you fallible and inconsistent - perhaps he just misunderstood it all!

This is your view, of course you do not believe in the Revelation of Baha'u'llah, which is obvious and is not worth much in the way of dialogue. The Revelations of Jesus Christ and Baha'u'llah are from God, it is the fallible humans messing things up that is the problem over the millennia. Compare it the Jewish view of Jesus Christ, they consider him very human and fallible and not the source of Revelation, and they believe your view is herecy.

[seer]

This is your view, of course you do not believe in the Revelation of Baha'u'llah, which is obvious and is not worth much in the way of dialogue.

Oh, so your prophet is accurate and mine isn't?

The Revelations of Jesus Christ and Baha'u'llah are from God, it is the fallible humans messing things up that is the problem over the millennia. Compare it the Jewish view of Jesus Christ, they consider him very human and fallible and not the source of Revelation, and they believe your view is herecy.

You mean Jesus Christ the only unique Son of God?

[shunyadragon]

Oh, so your prophet is accurate and mine isn't?

No but humans manipulate things and screw things up over time.

You mean Jesus Christ the only unique Son of God?

For his age of reign. There is the return and the OT describes more than one Messiah.

[seer]

No but humans manipulate things and screw things up over time.

You mean like the followers of Baha'u'llah have screwed up his teachings?

[shunyadragon]

You mean like the followers of Baha'u'llah have screwed up his teachings?

No, but overtime it is a universal problem with all of humanity. That is why the cycle of Messianic Revelation renews and restores the Word of God to humanity.

[seer]

No, but overtime it is a universal problem with all of humanity.

Why not? Are not the followers of Baha'u'llah fallible and inconsistent?

[shunyadragon]

Why not? Are not the followers of Baha'u'llah fallible and inconsistent?

The writings are more recent and specific and can be traced to the hand of the founder. In Christianity this is not the case. Christian scripture is highly edited and compiled, and influenced by Hellenist and Roman beliefs, therefore the doctrine and dogma is not necessarily original to the definitely more Jewish nature of the Rabbi Jesus.

I already stated that over time humans do corrupt and influence Revelation. That is why the rebirth and renewal of religion through progressive Revelation, and will continue in the future. An example is the renewal and reestablishment of pure monotheism by Baha'i Revelation. Also, new spiritual laws are progressively establish new spiritual laws as humanity spiritually evolves. Laws such as the absolute forbidding all forms of slavery and indentured servitude, and forbidding war in the name of the defense of belief. are forms of modern evolved spiritual law that become the standards of the modern world, and lacking in previous Revelations.