Answered Prayers

[Truthseeker]

So we have an example of what was a group of people, that the majority of which determined that a minority of people within that group failed to live up to the standards of that majority, and then declared that the said minority were no longer “true” members of the majority’s group.
And, when the minority insisted that they were what the group had started out as…,
the majority then declares the minority as “fakes”

It is not about living up to standards, all Baha'is don't live up to the standards of the Baha'i Faith completely, it is about rebelling and trying to form an alternative Baha'i administration. How can an organization formed to help bring about unity bring about unity with competing organizations that fight with each other for power? That's the reason for the Covenant.

 

[Truthseeker]

No it is clear and precise from Baha'u'llahto Abdul'baha we have this from the "Book of the Covernant".

"The Will of the divine Testator is this: It is incumbent upon the Aghsán, the Afnán and My Kindred to turn, one and all, their faces towards the Most Mighty Branch. Consider that which We have revealed in Our Most Holy Book: 'When the ocean of My presence hath ebbed and the Book of My Revelation is ended, turn your faces toward Him Whom God hath purposed, Who hath branched from this Ancient Root.' The object of this sacred verse is none other except the Most Mighty Branch [ʻAbdu'l-Bahá]. Thus have We graciously revealed unto you Our potent Will, and I am verily the Gracious, the All-Powerful. Verily God hath ordained the station of the Greater Branch [Muḥammad ʻAlí] to be beneath that of the Most Great Branch [ʻAbdu'l-Bahá]. He is in truth the Ordainer, the All-Wise. We have chosen 'the Greater' after 'the Most Great', as decreed by Him Who is the All-Knowing, the All-Informed."

Then Abdul'baha appoints Shoghi Effendi clear and precise, with the Authority given to Shoghi Effendi.

There is no, absolutely no, wriggle room.

Regards Tony

You quoted the most relevant part of that document, which is more precise than what I did, pointing to the whole document. You did a better job there.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

You haven't read the document as far as I know. How do you know if there is ambiguity in the document that could be interpreted differently? You need to read the document here: Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh | Bahá’í Reference Library

I don’t need to read a document to recognize that ANY document is open to interpretation.
The document is not the point; it’s the shield you’re using to deny the obvious.
Try to step back from the trees and see the forest.

Allow me to give an example of how written word can and is easily and often interpreted differently.

Take the simply straight forward sentence:
“He didn’t steal your wallet.”………

Now try the sentence by adding emphasis to any individual word;
it changes what is being communicated.

“HE didn’t steal your wallet.” ….
Indicates perhaps someone other than HE.

“He DIDN’T steal your wallet.” ……
a contradiction to an accusation/suspicion.

“He didn’t STEAL your wallet.” ….
He perhaps borrowed or moved the wallet.

“He didn’t steal YOUR wallet.” …….
He didn’t steal a wallet that belonged to you.

“He didn’t steal your WALLET.” ….
He perhaps stole the cash from it, or something else other than the wallet.

This is a simple 5 word sentence.
Documents are made up of many sentences; each one of which is susceptible to misinterpretation, rendering multiple possibilities of different interpretations.
Think of how many lawyers whose job it is to render documents as unambiguous as possible and how many more lawyers whose job it is to point out suspected loopholes or inconsistencies that nullify contracts etc., and entire court systems that have to sort through all of it to determine which interpretation in their view is most valid.
All documents are subject to interpretation.
This is an obvious fact.

I have found that denial of plainly obvious facts;
such as denial that documents are subject to interpretation, and your denial of the obvious
No True Scotsman fallacy to be indicative of severe emotional attachment to an idea or concept that clouds ones ability to objectively view something from all angles to better be able to determine the truth of the matter.

This denial is the root of confirmation bias
which prevents one from rational judgment.

 

[Trailblazer]

Precisely.
Thus the summation of being emotionally tied to it not being so.
Who, but someone emotionally invested would so vehemently deny the trivially obvious?

To assume there was emotional investment is the fallacy of unwarranted assumption. It is also the fallacy of jumping to conclusions.

Anyone can call themself a Baha'i, so in that sense there is more than one Baha'i group, but there us only ONE group who are Baha'is under the Covenant, so when some Baha'i groups say they are Baha'is under the Covenant they are either misled or they are lying.

I find it important to often step back and look at things from different points of view.
Both opposing and neutral and try to recognize if I have an emotional attachment that is preventing me from doing so.
And, if so, try to determine if that emotional attachment is warranted.
This has served me well through the years and I often recommend it for others to try with the hope that it will serve them as well.

I know what an emotional attachment is. I have an MA in Psychology and I have been a client in counseling off and on for several decades.
I am not emotional about this subject just because I want my religion to be represented accurately on a public forum.

I appreciate if someone points out a flaw in my reasoning, so I can then correct that flaw moving forward.

Recognizing a fallacy (whether formal or informal) helps to better organize a chain of thought or prevent a flaw in logical reasoning that often leads one down a path to faulty rationale.
If emotions can be overcome, this leaves us with the ability to change our mind if warranted.

Therein lies the “big deal”.

I also appreciate it if someone points out a flaw in my reasoning, so I can then correct that flaw moving forward.
It is not a big deal if I make a mistake. We all make mistakes.

It is also not a big deal that there is more than one group that calls themselves Baha'is.
The big deal is when people try to say that the will and testament of Baha'u'llah does not mean what it clearly says, or that the UHJ is trying to conceal something from the Baha'is. That is when I will speak up, but I am not emotional.

Baháʼu'lláh created an explicit Covenant with Bahá'ís in his will and testament which was written entirely in his own hand and is known as the "Book of My Covenant". It was unsealed and read before witnesses and members of his family on the ninth day after his death in 1892.

Baháʼu'lláh - Wikipedia​

The No true Scotsman fallacy has no bearing on which Baha’i group is following the Covenant of Baha’u’llah, so I am not going to change my mind about that.

 

[Trailblazer]

No True Scotsman fallacy to be indicative of severe emotional attachment to an idea or concept that clouds ones ability to objectively view something from all angles to better be able to determine the truth of the matter.

Clearly, it is your emotional attachment to this fallacy that clouds your ability to objectively view the topic from all angles to better be able to determine the truth of the matter.

Again, it doesn't matter that more than one group calls themselves Baha'is. We all know that. There is only one Baha'i group who are Baha'is under the Covenant of Baha'u'llah. If you understand what that Covenant is you would realize that, but if you keep hiding behind that fallacy you never will.

Your denial of the Covenant of Baha'u'llah is the root of your confirmation bias which prevents you from rational judgment.

 

[Trailblazer]

The document is not the point;

The document is the point, the only point that matters.

 

[Trailblazer]

All documents are subject to interpretation.
This is an obvious fact.

However, that does not mean that there is more than one correct interpretation.
If a person is named in a will, lawyers do not dispute about who that person is.

 

[Trailblazer]

If we obey this prayer we will be happy and joyful.

Not necessarily. I think that is an overly simplistic way of thinking.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

To assume there was emotional investment is the fallacy of unwarranted assumption. It is also the fallacy of jumping to conclusions.

Let’s examine the signs that led me to suspect an emotional response that may be clouding rational cognition:

• post #80…. where you perceive “this thread, which was supposed to be about Answered Prayers has now degenerated into another thread to bash the Baha'i Faith.”
Merely because a couple people questioned/challenged your concept of whether Baha’i might consider god to be a father figure, and whether there are people who consider themselves to be Baha’i who you do not acknowledge as being so…
Misperceived persecution is an emotional response………..

• multiple posts where you apply confirmation bias in an blatantly obvious denial of people who you discount as liars, fakes, and disparage them with language such as:
“but do these alleged Baha'is really CARE about humanity or only their own selves and having a religion that is 'comfortable' for them?”…
Lashing out at those with whom one doesn’t agree is an emotional response……

• in post #144, attempting to answer having blatantly committed the No True Scotsman fallacy by erroneously alleging unfounded fallacies as a “tit for tat”…
Resorting to childish “I’m rubber and you’re glue…” mentality is an emotional response….

• the selective nonrecognition of common words/phrases such as “in-group” in order to discount a point is often an emotional response….

• the shrugging of as insignificant when shown to be in error….i.e. after doubling down on the non committal of the NTS and then acquiescing with a flippant “Big deal if it is No True Scotsman.
That does not have any bearing upon the Truth of the matter, whatever it is.”…
The minimizing of errors is an emotional response……

Etc. etc…….

You having a M.A. in Psychology?
You should be able to recognize these!

I am not emotional about this subject just because I want my religion to be represented accurately on a public forum.

Are you now denying having an emotional attachment to your religion…seriously?

Considering your (and the other Baha’i on this thread) willful blindness to committing obvious fallacies in favor of adhering to dogma;
I’m not sure if you’re representation of your religion is what you may be hoping for.

Anyone can call themself a Baha'i, so in that sense there is more than one Baha'i group, but there us only ONE group who are Baha'is under the Covenant, so when some Baha'i groups say they are Baha'is under the Covenant they are either misled or they are lying.

Ooops, there it is again!

Again, it doesn't matter that more than one group calls themselves Baha'is. We all know that. There is only one Baha'i group who are Baha'is under the Covenant of Baha'u'llah.

And again!

It is also not a big deal that there is more than one group that calls themselves Baha'is.

Correct! So why deny it?
Could it be an emotional knee jerk response?

“The No True Scotsman fallacy has no bearing on which Baha’i group is following the Covenant of Baha’u’llah”

Correct, I never said it did.
I’m proud of you for admitting that there may be other Baha’i groups. I know that was a big step!

Clearly, it is your emotional attachment to this fallacy that clouds your ability to objectively view the topic from all angles to better be able to determine the truth of the matter.

Here you are back in the playground saying
“I’m rubber and you’re glue, what you say bounces of me and sticks to you!
No backsies!”

Your denial of the Covenant of Baha'u'llah is the root of your confirmation bias which prevents you from rational judgment.

I have never once denied the Covenant of Baha’u’llah. I couldn’t care less.

I merely explained that it is not the point.
What tool you use (in this case the Covenant) in order for you to justify in your mind why you are excluding the “other Baha’i/Scotsman” is irrelevant.
The Covenant; whether someone eats haggis….
It doesn’t matter.

 

[Trailblazer]

Let’s examine the signs that led me to suspect an emotional response that may be clouding rational cognition:

• post #80…. where you perceive “this thread, which was supposed to be about Answered Prayers has now degenerated into another thread to bash the Baha'i Faith.”
Merely because a couple people questioned/challenged your concept of whether Baha’i might consider god to be a father figure, and whether there are people who consider themselves to be Baha’i who you do not acknowledge as being so…
Misperceived persecution is an emotional response………..

• multiple posts where you apply confirmation bias in an blatantly obvious denial of people who you discount as liars, fakes, and disparage them with language such as:
“but do these alleged Baha'is really CARE about humanity or only their own selves and having a religion that is 'comfortable' for them?”…
Lashing out at those with whom one doesn’t agree is an emotional response……

• in post #144, attempting to answer having blatantly committed the No True Scotsman fallacy by erroneously alleging unfounded fallacies as a “tit for tat”…
Resorting to childish “I’m rubber and you’re glue…” mentality is an emotional response….

• the selective nonrecognition of common words/phrases such as “in-group” in order to discount a point is often an emotional response….

• the shrugging of as insignificant when shown to be in error….i.e. after doubling down on the non committal of the NTS and then acquiescing with a flippant “Big deal if it is No True Scotsman.
That does not have any bearing upon the Truth of the matter, whatever it is.”…
The minimizing of errors is an emotional response……

Etc. etc…….

You having a M.A. in Psychology?
You should be able to recognize these!

None of those posts were indicative of an emotional response.
You cannot know what kind of response a person is having by words posted on a forum, you only 'believe' you know.

You appear to me to be very emotional about all this. The only emotions I have been having is laughing ear to ear, wondering what anyone would get so riled up over one silly fallacy, especially after I admitted committing it. I catch atheists committing fallacies all the time, and all I do is point them out, I never get emotional about it. It is no big deal.

Are you now denying having an emotional attachment to your religion…seriously?

I am absolutely denying that.

I was waiting for this and I had already thought it through. I thought of going back to add it to my post but decided to wait.
I am not emotionally attached to the Baha'i Faith, I don't even like religion or God. My friends on this forum can corroborate me saying that over and over, as both atheists and believers have heard me say that.

I am only emotionally attached to things I love, and right now the only thing I love are my cats, as my only other love was my late husband who passed on last year.

All that said, I do take the Baha'i Faith very seriously, since I am absolutely certain that it is the truth from God. Although I am none too fond of that God I want to be obedient to Him and serve Him because I believe it is the right thing to do. After 37 years of marriage, my late husband, who had been a Baha'i for 64 years, did not understand why I would serve a God I did not like, and on numerous occasions he asked me why I didn't become an atheist.

But that is just the way it is. Some people do things for emotional reasons and some people do them out of principle.

Considering your (and the other Baha’i on this thread) willful blindness to committing obvious fallacies in favor of adhering to dogma;
I’m not sure if you’re representation of your religion is what you may be hoping for.

I was not 'hoping' for anything. I just do my work and let the cards fall where they may. The people on this forum are very intelligent and they can make their ow choices about what to believe.

Obvious fallacies? No, one fallacy, which I later admitting to have committed.

You have no logical abilities if you do not understand why the mere existence of many groups who call themselves Baha'is has absolutely no bearing upon whether there is only one Baha'i Faith that adheres to the Covenant of Baha'u'llah. It is your confirmation bias that prevents you from seeing this. You don't even care because all you can think about is one fallacy I committed, as if it even matters. If you had anything else you could bring it to the able.

Ooops, there it is again!

And again!

Correct! So why deny it?
Could it be an emotional knee jerk response?

And I will say it again and again and again and again because it is true and truth matters very much to me.

Anyone can call themself a Baha'i, so in that sense there is more than one Baha'i group, but there us only ONE group who are Baha'is under the Covenant.

I am not emotional at all, but it seems like you are very emotional.

No true Scotsman arguments arise when someone is trying to defend their ingroup from criticism (ingroup bias) by excluding those members who don't agree with the ingroup. In other words, instead of accepting that some members may think or act in disagreeable ways, one dismisses those members as fakes. Jun 5, 2023​

​

No True Scotsman Fallacy | Definition & Examples - Scribbr​

When a group is a fake I am going to dismiss it as a fake. That is what logical people do, after they have determined that the other groups are fakes.
You commit the fallacy of unwarranted assumption and assume that all the Baha'i groups are on equal footing, with no further investigation of the matter. Could it be an emotional knee jerk response?

What is the fallacy of assumption?​

​

Fallacies of Unwarranted Assumption. Fallacies of unwarranted assumption occur when an argument relies on a piece of information or belief that requires further justification. The category gets its name from the fact that a person assumes something unwarranted to draw their conclusion. Jun 15, 20225.5 Informal Fallacies - Introduction to Philosophy | OpenStax​

​

5.5 Informal Fallacies - Introduction to Philosophy | OpenStax​

“The No True Scotsman fallacy has no bearing on which Baha’i group is following the Covenant of Baha’u’llah”

Correct, I never said it did.
I’m proud of you for admitting that there may be other Baha’i groups. I know that was a big step!

It was no big step to see what you were getting at and look at it from your point of view as a non-Baha'i...

Yes, there are other groups that call them selves Baha'is but they are going against the Will of God since they don't adhere to the Covenant of Baha'u'llah, who is the Voice of God.

Here you are back in the playground saying
“I’m rubber and you’re glue, what you say bounces of me and sticks to you!
No backsies!”

Who is emotional?

I have never once denied the Covenant of Baha’u’llah. I couldn’t care less.
I merely explained that it is not the point.
What tool you use (in this case the Covenant) in order for you to justify in your mind why you are excluding the “other Baha’i/Scotsman” is irrelevant.
The Covenant; whether someone eats haggis….
It doesn’t matter.

The Covenant of Baha'u'llah is the point and it is the only thing that matters since the truth about the Baha'i Faith is the only thing that matters to me and any rational person. The Covenant of Baha'u'llah means that the other groups are fakes. Any logical person coud figure that out.

Whether I committed a fallacy or not only matters to you, nobody else cares.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Are you now denying having an emotional attachment to your religion…seriously?

I am absolutely denying that.

The Covenant of Baha'u'llah is the point and it is the only thing that matters since the truth about the Baha'i Faith is the only thing that matters to me

Nothing emotional about that eh?

I think we’ve beaten this dead horse enough.

 

[Trailblazer]

Nothing emotional about that eh?

I denied a false accusation and then I made a logical statement.
There is nothing emotional about it.

 

[Truthseeker]

I don’t need to read a document to recognize that ANY document is open to interpretation.
The document is not the point; it’s the shield you’re using to deny the obvious.
Try to step back from the trees and see the forest.

Allow me to give an example of how written word can and is easily and often interpreted differently.

Take the simply straight forward sentence:
“He didn’t steal your wallet.”………

Now try the sentence by adding emphasis to any individual word;
it changes what is being communicated.

“HE didn’t steal your wallet.” ….
Indicates perhaps someone other than HE.

“He DIDN’T steal your wallet.” ……
a contradiction to an accusation/suspicion.

“He didn’t STEAL your wallet.” ….
He perhaps borrowed or moved the wallet.

“He didn’t steal YOUR wallet.” …….
He didn’t steal a wallet that belonged to you.

“He didn’t steal your WALLET.” ….
He perhaps stole the cash from it, or something else other than the wallet.

This is a simple 5 word sentence.
Documents are made up of many sentences; each one of which is susceptible to misinterpretation, rendering multiple possibilities of different interpretations.
Think of how many lawyers whose job it is to render documents as unambiguous as possible and how many more lawyers whose job it is to point out suspected loopholes or inconsistencies that nullify contracts etc., and entire court systems that have to sort through all of it to determine which interpretation in their view is most valid.
All documents are subject to interpretation.
This is an obvious fact.

I have found that denial of plainly obvious facts;
such as denial that documents are subject to interpretation, and your denial of the obvious
No True Scotsman fallacy to be indicative of severe emotional attachment to an idea or concept that clouds ones ability to objectively view something from all angles to better be able to determine the truth of the matter.

This denial is the root of confirmation bias
which prevents one from rational judgment.

You can see it as you want to. I see it differently. To me, what @TransmutingSoul quoted from that document is unambiguous.

As you are not a Baha'i, it is not important how you see it, because you don't have to decide whether to adhere to it.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

You can see it as you want to. I see it differently. To me, what @TransmutingSoul quoted from that document is unambiguous.

As you are not a Baha'i, it is not important how you see it, because you don't have to decide whether to adhere to it.

I don’t need to be a Scotsman to understand that someone born and raised in Glasgow but doesn’t eat haggis, is still a Scotsman.

 

[InChrist]

I respect this, and I respect that there are many Christians who reject concepts like the prosperity gospel and many of these shameless televangelists.

However, when it comes to their religious zeal and admonitions against sin, many Christians seem more obsessed with what goes in people's bedrooms than what goes on in corporate boardrooms. I think of churches like the Westboro Baptist Church and their agenda, but where is the church which says "God hates billionaires" and goes after them with equal ferocity? If (as just one example) all the resources, time, and energy they use to fight abortion was devoted to fighting big business and big banking, they'd make a much bigger splash.

I don’t actually consider Westbrook Baptist Church a biblical church, rather a cult kind of group, since they are so focused on perpetuating hate and assert that God hates anyone who does not believe exactly as they do and who does not act as they do. I believe this is exactly the opposite of the biblical Gospel of grace and speaking the truth in love. So with such a faulty foundation based in hate, I don’t know what good they could do at all.