Who Was Baha’u’llah, and How Can We Evaluate His Claims?

[TransmutingSoul]

So, the government will not be on his shoulders? Can you explain this quote...

Baha’u’llah envisioned a time in the future when the peoples of the world will live together in peace and unity as members of one faith. Universal justice will be established based on adherence to the law of God. A new civilization based on spiritual values will come into being. He referred to this as the Most Great Peace.
​

What does it mean when it says the people will live in peace and unity as members of one faith? And Universal justice based on the law of God? If the Baha'is aren't who he's talking about then who? And a "complete" lack of understanding? I thought the Messiah was going to rule on the throne of David. I guess I was wrong. Baha'is are going to have their laws, those given by God? And everybody else will make up their own secular laws? And there is going to be peace and unity?

I have no idea when the Most Great Peace will eventually be accepted by all humanity CG.

I do not even try to determine this. We still have not seen the moves towards a lesser peace, I wonder if that will happen in the years I have left, it may not, we make keep on being tyrants taking over countries and murdering people.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

What do you think of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad? Why does he have more followers than Baha'u'llah? I don't know. Do you know? Do you care? Or do you automatically reject him as a false prophet? And no fair to now look him up and give me the reasons why you reject him. I wouldn't be surprised if all you had to hear is that he made the same claim as Baha'u'llah, and that is all you needed to know to reject him as a fraud.

I do not have enough fingers and toes to count the amount of times that has been replied to.

I kept the link in favourites, as it seems to be a favourite question.

Interaction with The People of Bahá: A response to Ahmadi Answers

There is 3 parts to that, you get to choose where you think Mirza Ghulam Ahmad got his inspiration from.

Also it is still a movement within Islam, maybe the 3rd largest branch?

Regards Tony

 

[samtonga43]

It is not sexism just because women cannot serve on 'one' of the Baha'i institutions, as women serve on all the other Baha'i institutions.

Illogical, Tb. It is sexism concerning the one of which we speak.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Therefore, claiming that everything that begins to exist has a cause is baseless, because we have never observed anything that began to exist.

That is not entirely correct. Science has observed a human coming into existence. The cause of that is known.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

The Enlightenment, Industrial Revolution and the beginnings of socialism happened before Bab was born.

You have both lost touch with reality.

The light appears before the sun rises. It never just appears with its full splendor. That is the reality of how religion also manifests unto humanity.

Some poeple choose not to see beyond the material world, they remain captive to it and as such, can not discover the realities beyond the material senses.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

But I am not just tossing labels around. Not only did I give you the label, but I also gave you the action and reason that makes it sexism.

No, you did not give the action and you certainly did not give the reason it would be sexism.
You just assume it is sexism which is the fallacy of jumping to conclusions, because 'facts' are not in evidence.

sexism: prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.
sexism means - Google Search

If you want to give the countervailing reason (that you failed to supply in your response) that it is not restricting people from participating on all levels of society based on their genitals, then by all means... please do.

There is a reason, but we have not been told yet, but given the duties of the UHJ, I can think of a reason. Of course, you do not even know what those duties are or how they might be disrupted by a woman serving so you are flying blind.

How many women have ever been a Pope? Is that sexism?
No, there is a reason why the Pope has always been a man. Whether or not you believe it is a legitimate reason is your choice.

 

[ppp]

Um. Restricting women from holding positions of power and governance in a society is literally sexism.

No, you did not give the action and you certainly did not give the reason it would be sexism.

"Restricting women from holding positions of power and governance in a society is literally sexism.." <-- action

action (n) - The state or process of doing.

 

[Trailblazer]

Use your dictionary intelligently
Definition of misogyny
: hatred of, aversion to, or prejudice against women

You are committing the fallacy of jumping to conclusions again.
Prejudice is a liking or dislike for one rather than another especially without good reason.
You are jumping to conclusions by calling it prejudice because you do not know that there is a liking or dislike for women and you do not know that there isn't a good reason why women cannot serve on the UHJ.

What is the easy meaning of prejudice?

1 : a liking or dislike for one rather than another especially without good reason She has a prejudice against department stores. 2 : a feeling of unfair dislike directed against an individual or a group because of some characteristic (as race or religion) 3 : injury or damage to a person's rights.

Prejudice Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com › dictionary › prejud...

Do you know the 'real reason'?
If you do not, then you are jumping to the conclusion that it is not because of prejudice against women. Don't preach if you can't practise.

UNLIKE YOU, I do not jump to conclusions and assume that it is prejudice just because I do not know the real reason.

There is no reason to assume it is prejudice, certainly not in light of the fact that women serve in all capacities on ALL the other Baha'i institutions. Try to use your logical abilities.

The Triune God reveals Himself in Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity, and infinitely more than a mere messenger. There is no comparison. IMO.

That is your belief.
I agree that God revealed Himself in Christ who was much more than a messenger, but I do not believe that God is divided into three parts.

I believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, so in that sense I believe in a Trinity; but I do not think that these three are part of God. Rather, they are separate entities that work together. That is explained in this chapter:
27: THE TRINITY

Some people get lost in that chapter, so I wrote up a brief encapsulation of it:

God is One and God works through Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is the Bounty of God, an emanation from God. God is like the sun and the Holy Spirit is like the rays of the sun. God remains in His own high place, and does not ever descend to earth.

The Holy Spirit is the Bounty of God which became visible and evident in Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ was like a clear mirror, and God became visible in the mirror, but God did not descend into the mirror. This is why Christ said, “The Father is in the Son,” meaning that the God was visible and manifest in this mirror.

My belief is that God reveals Himself through Messengers in every age and Jesus was one such Messenger, but Jesus was 'more' than a Messenger; He was also a Manifestation of God and a Servant of God and the Voice of God, just like Baha'u'llah and all the other Messengers.

“Were any of the all-embracing Manifestations of God to declare: “I am God,” He, verily, speaketh the truth, and no doubt attacheth thereto. For it hath been repeatedly demonstrated that through their Revelation, their attributes and names, the Revelation of God, His names and His attributes, are made manifest in the world....... And were any of them to voice the utterance, “I am the Messenger of God,” He, also, speaketh the truth, the indubitable truth ..........For they are all but one person, one soul, one spirit, one being, one revelation. They are all the manifestation of the “Beginning” and the “End,” the “First” and the “Last,” the “Seen” and the “Hidden”—all of which pertain to Him Who is the Innermost Spirit of Spirits and Eternal Essence of Essences. And were they to say, “We are the Servants of God,” this also is a manifest and indisputable fact. For they have been made manifest in the uttermost state of servitude, a servitude the like of which no man can possibly attain. Thus in moments in which these Essences of Being were deep immersed beneath the oceans of ancient and everlasting holiness, or when they soared to the loftiest summits of Divine mysteries, they claimed their utterances to be the Voice of Divinity, the Call of God Himself.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 54-55

 

[Trailblazer]

"Restricting women from holding positions of power and governance in a society is literally sexism.." <-- action

action (n) - The state or process of doing.

No it is not, because you do not KNOW that the restriction is based upon prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination.
You absolutely do not know that, you just assume it to be the case.
All you have is a personal opinion, but you are stating it as a fact.
If it is a fact you should be able to prove it.

You are committing the fallacy of jumping to conclusions when you jump to conclusions without facts.

Labels are easy to toss around but proving that they apply is another matter. If you think you know it is sexism you should be able to prove it. Go ahead and try.

sexism: prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.
sexism is - Google Search

 

[Trailblazer]

Did you look upon your acceptance of MrB as 'taking a chance'?

No, because I never thought in terms of being right or wrong... I just knew, and I still know over 51 years later.

 

[Trailblazer]

Illogical, Tb. It is sexism concerning the one of which we speak.

No, you do not KNOW that, you just assume it. It is nothing more than a personal opinion unless you cannot prove it as a fact.

Policy said: ↑
"Restricting women from holding positions of power and governance in a society is literally sexism.." <-- action

action (n) - The state or process of doing.

Tb said: No it is not, because you do not KNOW that the restriction is based upon prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination.
You absolutely do not know that, you just assume it to be the case.
All you have is a personal opinion, but you are stating it as a fact.
If it is a fact you should be able to prove it.

You are committing the fallacy of jumping to conclusions when you jump to conclusions without facts.

Labels are easy to toss around but proving that they apply is another matter. If you think you know it is sexism you should be able to prove it. Go ahead and try.

sexism: prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.
sexism is - Google Search

You do not KNOW the reason why women are excluded from serving on the UHJ so you cannot KNOW it is because of prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination.
You are dead in the water.

 

[Link]

@Link,

The Quran has two types of verses, as you already know.
The interpretation is also of two types.
One interpretation is Tafseer. It is explaining verses and their intention.
But another type of interpretation is called Taweel. This interpretation according to the Book of God is only known to God and His chosen ones. The story of Joseph makes this clear, and one of the things Surrah of Joseph teaches is, interpretation of future events can only be done by chosen ones of God.
To me, for example, when it is said, on the day of Resurrection the Dead is raised, the Taweel of this is, a new guidance comes. The Term "dead" and "Alive" in this case are symbols and their Taweel is "disbelievers", vs. "Believers". We already see examples of this in verses of the Quran. So, it is not just because Baha'u'llah says that, but also we see evidence. Moreover, Bahaullah did not have any significant education in religion, and yet He knew the Quran and Hadithes by heart. A clear evidence of Revelation.

Suppose what you say about two type of verses is correct (according to Quran and Ahlulbayt (a), there is not two type of verses, only clear signs and insights, and ambiguity from it is from Satanic interpretation and assumptions), it's still circular reasoning.

Bahai scripture is circular reasoning. He has to show either his interpretation by language is the clear meaning and we twisted Quran or it fails.

Simply saying he is firmly rooted in knowledge, and saying there is alternate way of reciting, and his interpretation should be given ears, doesn't do proper justice.

Anyways, the Bab screwed up with his Rajaa interpretation, and Baha'allah made it further worse with saying day of judgment was metaphorically about certain Messengers.

Someone might be curious about Bahai Faith, but just discovering his interpretation of day of judgment, should close that deal and they should shut that door. It's pointless unless they don't fear God and want to follow ambiguity and believe God is a deceiver.

The same is true of his interpretation of seal of Prophets. Suppose it can be interpreted in a way that all Prophets are each other and so Mohammad (S) is first and last Prophet type meaning, he has not shown it's the interpretation that should be followed or taken plausible. There is no reason to assume God is deceiving us and playing word games. You can say test, but that is testing too much, deceiving in language and giving wrong impression is not a test of truthful Lord, but a lying deceiving one.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

"Restricting women from holding positions of power and governance in a society is literally sexism.." <-- action

action (n) - The state or process of doing.

That is because there is no individual position's of power and authority in the Baha'i Faith, there are just opportunities to serve.

One of those Opportunities is on the Universal House of Justice. Personally I see it is a bounty Women have been exempted from this service, as it allows them to serve in a capacity that will be of a great benefit to humanity. That is the education of the children and youth that build our future.

We do know that in the future it will be obvious, but the most obvious reason for me is that it is submission to the Will of God and the laws of this age. That is the greatest bounty any soul can have, finding peace in submission.

Regards Tony

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Suppose what you say about two type of verses is correct (according to Quran and Ahlulbayt (a), there is not two type of verses, only clear signs and insights, and ambiguity from it is from Satanic interpretation and assumptions), it's still circular reasoning.

Bahai scripture is circular reasoning. He has to show either his interpretation by language is the clear meaning and we twisted Quran or it fails.

Simply saying he is firmly rooted in knowledge, and saying there is alternate way of reciting, and his interpretation should be given ears, doesn't do proper justice.

Anyways, the Bab screwed up with his Rajaa interpretation, and Baha'allah made it further worse with saying day of judgment was metaphorically about certain Messengers.

Someone might be curious about Bahai Faith, but just discovering his interpretation of day of judgment, should close that deal and they should shut that door. It's pointless unless they don't fear God and want to follow ambiguity and believe God is a deceiver.

The same is true of his interpretation of seal of Prophets. Suppose it can be interpreted in a way that all Prophets are each other and so Mohammad (S) is first and last Prophet type meaning, he has not shown it's the interpretation that should be followed or taken plausible. There is no reason to assume God is deceiving us and playing word games. You can say test, but that is testing too much, deceiving in language and giving wrong impression is not a test of truthful Lord, but a lying deceiving one.

Well, this is what Quran says:


:Surely Allah is not ashamed to set forth any parable-- (that of) a gnat or any thing above that; then as for those who believe, they know that it is the truth from their Lord, and as for those who disbelieve, they say: What is it that Allah means by this parable: He causes many to err by it and many He leads aright by it! but He does not cause to err by it (any) except the transgressors" 2:26


So, there could be many parables in the Quran, and they are causing many to err and be misguided. It is not like, God in every verse says, this is a Parable. He has left it to us to use our mind, and realize what is a parable, and what is literal.

Likewise the Quran says, Allah is the best deceiver. خير الماكرين

Although translators translate it as best plotter, but you know, it comes from مكر، which is to deceive.
We all do not like to think, God is misleading us, but God does what He wills, and He shall not be asked for His actions!, but everyone else shall be asked!

 

[Trailblazer]

So you agree that you have a "blindly intolerant, religious mindset".
Some refreshing honesty right there!

Please do not speak for me. No, I did not agree with that. Those are your words.

You claimed that my morality comes from god, despite not believing in him
You have just agreed that it cannot, as my morality is opposed to that revealed by god. So, where does it come from?

No, I did not claim either one of those things.
I said that 'I believe' that God sets the standards for what is moral, I did not say you follow God's standards. Your morality comes from somewhere else, if you do not believe in God and follow God's Laws.

So if someone burns down a house it is justified to burn them to death?

Sorry, but the Law does not state that they will be burned to death. My bff @Truthseeker clarified that for me. Thanks Duane.

It is unknown whether the person would still be alive when burned. Baha'u'llah did not say "burned alive."

86. Should anyone intentionally destroy a house by fire, him also shall ye burn; should anyone deliberately take another’s life, him also shall ye put to death. # 62
The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, p. 203

In the notes to the Aqdas, it says this:

The details of the Bahá'í law of punishment for murder and arson, a law designed for a future state of society, were not specified by Bahá'u'lláh. The various details of the law, such as degrees of offence, whether extenuating circumstances are to be taken into account, and which of the two prescribed punishments is to be the norm are left to the Universal House of Justice to decide in light of prevailing conditions when the law is to be in operation. The manner in which the punishment is to be carried out is also left to the Universal House of Justice to decide.
In relation to arson, this depends on what "house" is burned. There is obviously a tremendous difference in the degree of offence between the person who burns down an empty warehouse and one who sets fire to a school full of children. The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, p. 204

If I leave metallic iron in the presence of water and oxygen under normal atmospheric conditions, it will rust. That is not a guess. It is perfect foreknowledge.

Only of one specific thing. It is not perfect foreknowledge of everything as God has.

So all your efforts to achieve this utopia are pointless. It either will happen or will not, depending on what god knows.

Whether it will happen or not and when and how it will happen has NOTHING to do with what God knows since God does not cause anything to happen by having foreknowledge. It will happen because God has ordained that it will happen but when and how it will happen depends totally upon human actions.

“Every act ye meditate is as clear to Him as is that act when already accomplished. There is none other God besides Him. His is all creation and its empire. All stands revealed before Him; all is recorded in His holy and hidden Tablets. This fore-knowledge of God, however, should not be regarded as having caused the actions of men, just as your own previous knowledge that a certain event is to occur, or your desire that it should happen, is not and can never be the reason for its occurrence.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 150

Just a minute? The whole purpose of the Bahaullah's message seems to be to affect the future. Y'all keep going on about how we can't have world peace and unity without following Bahullah's teaching.
Now you are saying not to worry about the future and live in the moment?

No, that is not what I said. I said we live in the present, not in the future. We can only do what we do in the present so there is no point worrying about the future. We can look towards the future and make plans for the future but we cannot know if everything will unfold as we plan.

So when he said ...
"That which the Lord hath ordained as the sovereign remedy and mightiest instrument for the healing of all the world is the union of all its peoples in one universal Cause"
he wasn't referring to Bahaiism or Bahaullah's message as the means of bringing about global peace and unity?
So what is that "sovereign remedy" then?

The sovereign remedy is the union of all its peoples in one universal Cause.
Baha'u'llah did not specify what that Cause is.

But you just made a claim about the future - that Bahaiism may not be the faith that saves the world. In which case, why promote or follow it?

Because the Baha'i Faith (not Bahaiism) is the religion of God for this age, the religion that Baha'u'llah, speaking for God, has enjoined us to follow and promote.

“This is the Day when the loved ones of God should keep their eyes directed towards His Manifestation, and fasten them upon whatsoever that Manifestation may be pleased to reveal.” Gleanings, p. 171

Have you found anything in his writings that you disagree with?

Yes, that God is all-loving. I do not necessarily disagree with it but I have my doubts.

 

[Link]

You are wrong about God being a deceiver. But you can believe what you want.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Kinda subjective. Who decides if we need to drive cars, heat homes, eat meat, etc?

As for the "prophesy", has certainly not been fulfilled. The population of Greenland is over 95% Christian, yet it is still mostly an inhospitable, frozen wasteland. If all the ice on Greenland did melt (which will not happen under even the worst projections), much of humanity would be wiped out by the consequences of the 70m rise in sea level. Greenland would not be a "temperate rose garden". It would still be below freezing for a good part of the year, and would barely reach achieve a temperate climate at the peak of summer.
The prophesy is complete fantasy, as is the claim that it has been, or ever will be fulfilled. It is just another case of extreme confirmation bias clouding people's judgement.

We will just have to wait and see. People predicted the world would end when Jesus returned yet He returned ages ago and we are all still here.

 

[Trailblazer]

Not my opinion at all.
Bahaullah excluded women from the UHJ. This is the definition of sexist discrimination.

It is ONLY your opinion.

sexism: prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.
sexism is - Google Search

No, excluding women from the UHJ is not the definition of sexist discrimination.
You do not KNOW that the restriction is based upon prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination.
You absolutely do not know that, you just assume it to be the case.
All you have is a personal opinion, but you are stating it as a fact.
If it is a fact you should be able to prove it.

You are committing the fallacy of jumping to conclusions when you jump to conclusions without facts.

Labels are easy to toss around but proving that they apply is another matter. If you think you know it is sexism you should be able to prove it. Go ahead and try.

You do not KNOW the reason why women are excluded from serving on the UHJ so you cannot KNOW it is because of prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination.
You are dead in the water.

Buahullah prohibited and condemned homosexuality. Shoghi Effendi called it a "shameful sexual aberration". That is the definition of homophobia.

Again, you are wrong and again you are committing the fallacy of jumping to conclusions. An opinion about homosexuality and a Baha'i Law that prohibits homosexual sex does not equate to 'a dislike of or prejudice against gay people.'

homophobia: dislike of or prejudice against gay people.
homophobia means - Google Search

Bahaullah proclaimed that some people should be burned alive. That is the definition of brutal and barbaric.

If you disagree, please explain why.

I just explained that in the previous post. Baha'u'llah did not say they would be burned alive, He said "him also shall ye burn."

86. Should anyone intentionally destroy a house by fire, him also shall ye burn; should anyone deliberately take another’s life, him also shall ye put to death. # 62
The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, p. 203

But even if He meant they are to be burned alive that is not the definition of brutal and barbaric.
It is only YOUR OPINION that it would be brutal and barbaric, it is not a fact.

We can disregard this now as you have claimed that you only have to go by what Bahaullah says concerning the future. You can just ignore his laws for the present. (I predict that you will soon contradict your earlier statement and claim that you do have to abide by what he says about the present).

You continue to twist my words and imply that I said something I did not say.

I said "Second, Baha'i Laws are not for the purpose of bringing about global peace and unity."
I did not say that I can just ignore his laws for the present. I never said that.

Maybe you are having trouble keeping up. I already explained that when I said that 'we only have to go by what Baha'u'llah says concerning the future' that was in the specific context of what will happen in the future, it had nothing to do with following Baha'i Laws. I never said that we can just ignore His laws for the present.

 

[Trailblazer]

So what was the "context" that changed the implication of his statement?

"God Who is the Author of all life can alone take it away, and dispose of it the way he deems best."

Without the context you cannot know the implication.

So as I said, it is not an issue of "inheritance".

A congenital disorder is a condition that is present from birth. Congenital disorders can be inherited or caused by environmental factors.

He said...
"But there are certain things to which man is forced and compelled, such as ...sickness; these are not subject to the will of man, and he is not responsible for them, for he is compelled to endure them."
So who "compels him to endure them", if not god?

I did not say it was not God. It is God since God created the material world,

You have Bahaullah saying that only god can dispose of life, in the way he deem best. He also said that we are compelled to suffer things like illness. Plus god knows the future and can do anything.
So given all that, how do you claim that god is not responsible for babies dying in agony from congenital conditions? How does it happen if he isn't?

Baha'u'llah did not say that only God can dispose of life, in the way he deem best, Shoghi Effendi said that.
Baha'u'llah did not say that we are compelled to suffer things like illness, Abdu'l-Baha said that.

I did not claim that God is not responsible for babies dying in agony from congenital conditions.
Indirectly God is responsible since God created the conditions under which thye can exist, be they inherited or caused by environmental factors.

So to use an analogy, god may not be convicted of murder, but he would go to jail for manslaughter or negligent homicide.

No, because God does not deliberately cause a death.

This also implies that there is stuff happening in the world that god has no control over. Of that he could prevent the agonising death of those babies, but he chooses not to.
So either way, he is still a monster only worthy of condemnation, not worship.

Typical atheist... God could prevent it because God is omnipotent.
If God set it up so there would be suffering and death, why would God rush in and play Superman and prevent it? Expecting God to play Superman is childish.

Don't worry, God does not need your worship. Choosing to reject God us your loss, not God's.

I use the example of babies suffering from congenital conditions to avoid apologists blaming the suffering on "sin", personal responsibility, external neglect, or other factors.

Some suffering is because of sin and lack of personal responsibility, external neglect, or other factors, just not ALL of the suffering is because of these things.

 

[Trailblazer]

The claim is that the religions of the past were actually valid and from god at one point, but are no longer valid or applicable. Whether this is through redundancy or corruption, the end result is the same.

BTW, are you now claiming that earlier messages were not corrupted?

That is what I have always claimed.
1. that the religions of the past were actually valid and from God at one point, but are no longer valid or applicable (except for their spiritual teachings, which will always be valid and applicable).
2. that earlier messages were corrupted by man over time.