Answered Prayers

[Trailblazer]

That's precisely what you are doing as I see it.

As you see it. I see it differently.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

There is no fallacy since those so-called Baha'is are not Baha'is. They are fakes.

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​

Wow!
You post a description of the fallacy describing exactly what you are doing and still you don’t see it!?

No true Scotsman arguments arise when someone is trying to defend their ingroup from criticism (ingroup bias)

Your ingroup is Baha'is……

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.

those so-called Baha'is are not Baha'is. They are fakes.

If you sincerely can’t see that, perhaps you should investigate what Confirmation Bias is and it’s relationship to Cognitive Dissonance.
You are demonstrating a textbook example of it.

 

[Arnaud1221]

I say that patience is very important. For me, praying is more saying thanks.

 

[Trailblazer]

Wow!
You post a description of the fallacy describing exactly what you are doing and still you don’t see it!?

Your ingroup is Baha'is……

If you sincerely can’t see that, perhaps you should investigate what Confirmation Bias is and it’s relationship to Cognitive Dissonance.
You are demonstrating a textbook example of it.

Exactly what I am doing?
No, exactly what you 'believe' I am doing.

Everything is not some fallacy just because it appears to you to be one.
You speak about a religion you know nothing about.

You just committed the Fallacy of Jumping to Conclusions.

Jumping to Conclusions
(also known as: hasty conclusion, hasty decision, leaping to conclusions, specificity)

Description: Drawing a conclusion without taking the needed time to evaluate the evidence or reason through the argument.

Logical Form:
Little or no evidence is provided or reviewed.
Conclusion is made.

Example:
Question: Is there more than one Baha’i Faith?
Answer: Well, there are a lot of groups who call themselves Baha’is, so there must be more than one Baha’i Faith.

Explanation: The one who answers is jumping to the conclusion that there must be more than one Baha’i Faith just because more than one group calls themselves Baha'is. Nothing could be more illogical.

Jumping to Conclusions

You also committed the fallacy of assumption, because you are assuming there is an ingroup.

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, 2022

5.5 Informal Fallacies - Introduction to Philosophy | OpenStax

 

[InChrist]

I think many people misunderstand those to points. Certainly there are abuses to those two points. In Deut 28:1-14, He did enumerate a prosperity based on God. Would that have changed with the Gospel?

I do think living for the Lord brings blessings in many ways for believers during this Church age of Grace. Yet, I don’t see any where in the scriptures that Christians are to demand wealth and health and expect God to cater to such demands, rather than seeking and trusting His provision and will. The promise of blessings there in Deuteronomy appear to me to be specific to the nation of Israel, relative to their obedience to God’s voice.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Exactly what I am doing?
No, exactly what you 'believe' I am doing.

Reread the description of the No True Scotsman fallacy, which you provided…….
again

No true Scotsman arguments arise when someone is trying to defend their ingroup from criticism (ingroup bias)

in-group​

noun​

ˈin-ˌgrüp

Synonyms of in-group
1
: a group with which one feels a sense of solidarity or community of interests compare OUT-GROUP

Definition of IN-GROUP

a group with which one feels a sense of solidarity or community of interests; clique… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

You very obviously feel a sense of solidarity and community of interests with Baha’i …
do you not?
You do consider yourself Baha’i..yes?
This is your in-group.

continuing

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.

Now try to unemotionally reread your statements….

There are many writers/authors who for some reason have strong polemical views towards this Faith and would unhesitatingly answer “YES!” to this question. They will then provide you with a link to the websites of some sects founded by various individuals who have claimed to succeed the Founder, Baha’u’llah, and who managed to attract a following.

Here you admit that there persons who claim to be followers who managed to attract a fallowing.

The other fact that these individuals fail to mention is that all of these sects combined may comprise between 0–1% of the actual, legitimate Faith lead by the Universal House of Justice in Haifa today. That 0–1% isn’t one of these sects, it’s all of them combined. And the reason I mention the Faith lead by the Universal House of Justice as the “legitimate” Faith is because…it is the legitimate Baha’i Faith. Baha’u’llah explicitly “said so” Himself. More on this below.

Here you admit that there are sects that combined comprise up to 1% (your numbers) of Baha’i (a non-zero amount)

If they claim to succeed Baha'u'llah, they are obvious liars, since Baha'u'llah clearly specified who was to succeed Him in His will.
If people follow these people then they are not Baha'is, which means "follower of Baha'u'llah."

Here you dismiss up to 1% (your numbers)
as liars.

There is no fallacy since those so-called Baha'is are not Baha'is. They are fakes.

Here you dismiss them as fakes.

once again; as per the description of No True Scotsman that you posted….

In other words, instead of accepting that some members may think or act in disagreeable ways, one dismisses those members as fakes.

notice the last 6 words…..
It’s practically verbatim……

They are fakes.

You appear to be very emotionally tied to this, and since I am aware of the “backfire effect” of belief perseverance within Confirmation Bias related to Cognitive Dissonance, I will leave you to carry on as you will.

 

[Trailblazer]

Reread the description of the No True Scotsman fallacy, which you provided…….
again

in-group​

: a group with which one feels a sense of solidarity or community of interests compare OUT-GROUP

Definition of IN-GROUP

a group with which one feels a sense of solidarity or community of interests; clique… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

You very obviously feel a sense of solidarity and community of interests with Baha’i …
do you not?
You do consider yourself Baha’i..yes?
This is your in-group.

How I feel about being a Baha'i is irrelevant to the point that there is no in-group and out-group. There is only ONE group.

Now try to unemotionally reread your statements….

Unemotionally? I am not emotional at all.

Here you admit that there persons who claim to be followers who managed to attract a fallowing.

Here you admit that there are sects that combined comprise up to 1% (your numbers) of Baha’i (a non-zero amount)

Here you dismiss up to 1% (your numbers)
as liars.

No, I do not admit that there are Baha'i sects. Those groups are not Baha'is, they are Covenant-breakers.

Here you dismiss them as fakes.

once again; as per the description of No True Scotsman that you posted….

I dismiss them as fakes because they are fakes. That is not the No True Scotsman fallacy since there is no in-group and out-group.
There is only one legitimate Baha'i Faith. The alleged out-groups are not Baha'is , they are Covenant-breakers.

You appear to be very emotionally tied to this,

How would you know that I am emotional? Are you here in my computer room?
I am as cool as a cucumber because I know the truth about my own religion that I have been a member of for 53 years.

 

[Stevicus]

I dismiss them as fakes because they are fakes. That is not the No True Scotsman fallacy since there is no in-group and out-group.
There is only one legitimate Baha'i Faith. The alleged out-groups are not Baha'is , they are Covenant-breakers.

I was reading up on this concept: Covenant-breaker - Wikipedia

Most Covenant-breakers are involved in schismatic groups, but not always. For example, a Baháʼí who refuses to follow guidance on treatment of Covenant-breakers is at risk of being named one. One article[13] originally written for the Baháʼí Encyclopedia, characterized Covenant-breakers that have emerged in the course of Baháʼí history as belonging to one of four categories:

1. Leadership challenge: These are persons who dispute the authority and legitimacy of the head of the religion and advance claims either for themselves or for another. The main examples of these are Mírzá Muhammad ʻAlí and Charles Mason Remey.
2. Dissidence: Those who actively disagree with the policies and actions of the head of the faith without, however, advancing an alternative claim for leadership. This group consisted mostly of opponents of the Baháʼí administration such as Ruth White, Julia Lynch Olin and Mirza Ahmad Sohrab.
3. Disobedience: Those who disobey certain direct instructions from the head of the religion. Mostly the instruction in question is to cease to associate with a Covenant-breaker. Examples of this type include most of the descendants of ʻAbdu'l-Bahá during Shoghi Effendi's time.
4. Apostates who maliciously attack the Baháʼí Faith. Examples include Ávárih, Sobhi and Níkú.

So, it sounds like membership in a club or fraternal organization, and some people get black-balled.

I don't know, but it seems to me that individuals define who they are and their beliefs in their own way. Donald Trump doesn't get to decide who is a "true Republican" and who is a "RINO." If someone says they have a certain set of beliefs, then that's their personal belief that they define themselves, regardless of whether they have the endorsement of some central authority. In my opinion.

 

[Kenny]

I do think living for the Lord brings blessings in many ways for believers during this Church age of Grace. Yet, I don’t see any where in the scriptures that Christians are to demand wealth and health and expect God to cater to such demands, rather than seeking and trusting His provision and will. The promise of blessings there in Deuteronomy appear to me to be specific to the nation of Israel, relative to their obedience to God’s voice.

I think that is a very balanced approach!!! Well said.

Obedience to God’s voice and doing what He said will bring prosperity. Of course, prosperity is often “Shalom” in the Hebrew. I understand it to mean “complete wholeness in every area of life”. We understand that simply and only having money is not “prosperity”. There is a lot of destroyed homes that have money. As it is written:: 1 Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and piercedthemselves through with many sorrows.

But when you hear and obey:

Proverbs 10:22 The blessing of the Lord, it maketh rich, and he addeth no sorrowwith it.

To be a lender and not a borrower makes one the head and not the tail, above only and not beneath (Deut 28) - I would be on the position that the Gospel includes Deut 28:1-14 because we are grafted into the tree and The Tree’s Covenant is even better than the Mosaic Covenant so it would add to it.

I like what one pastor said, “Abundance in the Kingdom is not measured in what you have but in what you have given away”. Interestingly enough, the pastor who said that would be classified as a “Shalom preacher”.

Demanding prosperity would be wrong, as you said!

 

[Stevicus]

Yes, I think you are correct. The NT warns of false gospels and teachings; one big one over the last few decades has been the “prosperity” or “name it and claim it” (unbiblical) gospel pushed by a number of televangelists.

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.

 

[Trailblazer]

So, it sounds like membership in a club or fraternal organization, and some people get black-balled.

No, it is not like that.

Definition​

Covenant-breaking does not refer to attacks from non-Baháʼís or former Baháʼís.[12] Rather, it is in reference to internal campaigns of opposition where the Covenant-breaker is seen as challenging the unity of the Baháʼí Faith, causing internal division, or by claiming or supporting an alternate succession of authority or administrative structure. The central purpose of the covenant is to prevent schism and dissension.[13]

Covenant-breaker - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I don't know, but it seems to me that individuals define who they are and their beliefs in their own way. Donald Trump doesn't get to decide who is a "true Republican" and who is a "RINO." If someone says they have a certain set of beliefs, then that's their personal belief that they define themselves, regardless of whether they have the endorsement of some central authority. In my opinion.

Baha'is are individuals who define who they are and what they believe in their own way. Nobody gets to decide who is a "true Baha'i" and who is not.

There are central tenets of the Baha'i Faith that all Baha'is adhere to, and then there are many different teachings, but we do not all relate to those in the same way. These are our personal beliefs and they require no endorsement of some central authority. For example, Baha'u'llah wrote that God is All-Loving and I question that, but nobody is coming after me and excommunicating me from the Baha'i Faith for holding my own opinion.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Do y’all seriously not recognize the “No True Scotsman Fallacy” here?

That's precisely what you are doing as I see it. You are trying to defend your ingroup (Baha'i) from the criticism of being divided, you are dismissing those Baha'i members who disagree with the (haifa based) universal house of justice as fakes.

It could have easily been given as a textbook example of the fallacy in my view.

No there is no contradiction. It is just a basic understanding of the Covernant given by Baha'u'llah, that the Baha'i Faith cannot be split. If one attempts to split the faith, they are cut off from the tree, no longer having the right to be a Baha'i.

This is the greatest bounty that Faith has been given in this age. A sound written and sealed Covernant that has a foundation that cannot be divided.

"O ye that dwell on earth! The religion of God is for love and unity; make it not the cause of enmity or dissension … That which is conducive to the regeneration of the world and the salvation of the peoples and kindreds of the earth hath been sent down from the heaven of the utterance of Him Who is the Desire of the world. Give ye a hearing ear to the counsels of the Pen of Glory. Better is this for you than all that is on the earth. – Baha’u’llah". The Book of the Covenant, Tablets of Baha’u’llah, p. 219, p. 221.

The whole message of Baha'u'llah is about oneness and unity and for us to avoid division like the plagues.

The Covernant is way too big a topic , but to say, anyone that has attempted a division, does not have even a basic fundamental understanding of the purpose of Baha’u’llah, their own self has become more important than the whole, their lust for temporal mortal superiority and power has destroyed their being.

It is a spiritual sickness that has attacked all Faiths and in the past the Covernants were not so clear, rendering them open to lasting division, in this age it is clear and any attempt has been hewn from the tree of Baha’u’llah. They lay on the ground withered, dying, unable to produce fruit and soon to be used in the fire,

Regards Tony

 

[danieldemol]

Baha'is are individuals who define who they are and what they believe in their own way. Nobody gets to decide who is a "true Baha'i" and who is not.

If that is the case then neither you or anyone else gets to decide these so-called "covenant breakers" are not true Baha'i.

 

[Trailblazer]

anyone that has attempted a division, does not have even a basic fundamental understanding of the purpose of Baha’u’llah,

or they don't care about it.

 

[danieldemol]

No there is no contradiction.

Of course there is no contradiction between the words of the "no true Scotsman fallacy" and the virtually text book example of it given by Baha'i loyal to the Universal House of Justice based in Haifa in my view.

It is just a basic understanding of the Covernant given by Baha'u'llah, that the Baha'i Faith cannot be split. If one attempts to split the faith, they are cut off from the tree, no longer having the right to be a Baha'i.

This is the greatest bounty that Faith has been given in this age. A sound written and sealed Covernant that has a foundation that cannot be divided.

"O ye that dwell on earth! The religion of God is for love and unity; make it not the cause of enmity or dissension … That which is conducive to the regeneration of the world and the salvation of the peoples and kindreds of the earth hath been sent down from the heaven of the utterance of Him Who is the Desire of the world. Give ye a hearing ear to the counsels of the Pen of Glory. Better is this for you than all that is on the earth. – Baha’u’llah". The Book of the Covenant, Tablets of Baha’u’llah, p. 219, p. 221.

The whole message of Baha'u'llah is about oneness and unity and for us to avoid division like the plagues.

The Covernant is way too big a topic , but to say, anyone that has attempted a division, does not have even a basic fundamental understanding of the purpose of Baha’u’llah, their own self has become more important than the whole, their lust for temporal mortal superiority and power has destroyed their being.

It is a spiritual sickness that has attacked all Faiths and in the past the Covernants were not so clear, rendering them open to lasting division, in this age it is clear and any attempt has been hewn from the tree of Baha’u’llah. They lay on the ground withered, dying, unable to produce fruit and soon to be used in the fire,

Regards Tony

All this appears to be to me is an elaborate strawman of a group such as the Unitarian Baha'i Tony, but what would you know? Have you ever read their writings and sayings or do you just content yourself with the strawmen of the Haifa Universal House of Justice?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

One who professes allegiance to Baha'u'llah believes and follows what He wrote regarding the succession of authority.

That is really the end of story.

The covernant is signed, sealed and delivered and is available in the Baha'i Library. Every person can access and read the documents written by Baha'u'llah and Abdul'baha.

There is no fuzzy line up and until the transition from the Guardian to the Universal House of Justice. That transition was handled well by the majority and was an opportunity for the Covernant Brekers to make another attempt. Mason Reamy, who was a staunch believer and was responsible of bringing many souls into the faith, who was known as a learned Baha'i, first hand found out how powerful the Covernant is when he broke the Covernant. The Wikipedia article posted by @danieldemol clearly detailed how it all falls apart after you are cut off from the tree.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

If that is the case then neither you or anyone else gets to decide these so-called "covenant breakers" are not true Baha'i.

You took what I said and ripped it out of context.
As you already know, the UHJ gets to decide who is a Covenant-breaker vs. a member of the Baha'i Faith.

 

[danieldemol]

That is really the end of story.

Except its not because Unitarian Baha'i appear to see themselves as following Baha’u’llah's covenant, which you then have to descend into your no true Scotsman approach to disagree with.

 

[danieldemol]

You took what I said and ripped it out of context.
As you already know, the UHJ gets to decide who is a Covenant-breaker vs. a member of the Baha'i Faith.

The UHJ of Haifa is just a collection of 9 people. There is no context in which "Nobody gets to decide who is a true Baha'i" but a collection of 9 somebody's does in my view.

As is sadly too often the case I find your disregard of the context presented by the person you were speaking to in order to reply with your own super semantically defined context without defining it to be entirely misleading the person you were talking to in my view.

 

[Trailblazer]

how it all falls apart after you are cut off from the tree.

and ceases to grow and have any useful effect in the world, but do these alleged Baha'is really CARE about humanity or only their own selves and having a religion that is 'comfortable' for them?