Baha'i and Messengers

[Sundance]

"Proofs are of four kinds: first, through sense perception; second, through the reasoning faculty; third, from traditional or scriptural authority; fourth, through the medium of inspiration." -- https://bahai-library.com/pdf/t/terry_abdulbaha_epistemology.pdf - bottom of page 4

Perhaps I missed it, but while he claims that scriptural authority and inspiration are ways of knowing, he doesn't seem to show that is actually the case. He just asserts that it is true and move on.

He states it, yes. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá establishes that there are four tools we can use to figure out what we can know about God. Again, though, He cautions us to balance the four.

"
I am on the first one:

• The Early History of God: Yahweh and Other Deities in Ancient Israel
• Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit (Harvard Semitic Monographs)
• Stories from Ancient Canaan, Second Edition

I’m curious as to what drew you to ancient Canaanite religion.

"
Which is essentially my position. Though I would say that I can reject it outright. What I cannot assert is that the negation is true. It is like if someone tells me that they were Napoleon in a past life, I could reject their claim outright.

BTW, I can say that a god of a particular description is impossible where that god entails a logical contradiction.

Indeed.

"
I am sorry, but I am just not with you there. It is not a matter of perspective. Real things cannot have mutually exclusive characteristics. Logically, either such a thing does not exist, or you are talking about two entirely different things. Neither of which may necessarily exist.

I understand why that is. The sort of Figure that we Bahá’ís call the “Manifestation of God” is, indeed, a paradoxical one.

Though, your assertion that

“Real things cannot have mutually exclusive characteristics,”

I would absolutely disagree with, especially as a bit of a connoisseur of sweets.

Let me ask you, can a candy exist that is both hard and soft simultaneously?

"Only so far as you are assigning attributes to the being under discussion. Not only how does one know that such a being exists, but, what sort of behavior should we expect from a being that possesses those attributes.

As for instance, in classical Christianity, God is considered to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent; which in turn raises a logical contradiction. A la, the problem of evil.

• “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
• Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
• Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
• Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” - Epicurus

A coherent being cannot exist if its nature is a logical contradiction.

Therein lies the issue, any sort of attributes that we have given God are gonna reflect what we think about God, not who or what God actually is. So, how can we know He exists? In my honest opinion, I don’t think we can know.


As to the Problem of Evil, I find it a very simple problem with an even simpler set of solutions.

I see you quoted Epicurus. Ah, classic.

Allow me, as a former Stoic, to respond with the a pair of quotations, one from Cleanthes’ Hymn To Zeus and the other from the teacher Epictetus:

Cleanthes:

“Nor is aught done on the earth without Thee, O God, nor in the divine sphere of the heavens, nor in the sea, save the works that evil men do in their folly.”

Essentially, what Cleanthes is saying here is that God is the driving Force behind everything, except for the misdoings of people. And why is that? Because of His very Nature as pure Reason, instinctive to every person as their conscience.

From Epictetus’ Golden Sayings, addressing the suffering that human beings experience:

“Seeing this then, and noting well the faculties which you have, you should say,--"Send now, O God, any trial that Thou wilt; lo, I have means and powers given me by Thee to acquit myself with honour through whatever comes to pass!"-- No; but there you sit, trembling for fear certain things should come to pass, and moaning and groaning and lamenting over what does come to pass. And then you upbraid the Gods. Such meanness of spirit can have but one result--impiety. Yet God has not only given us these faculties by means of which we may bear everything that comes to pass without being curshed or depressed thereby; but like a good King and Father, He has given us this without let or hindrance, placed wholly at our own disposition, without reserving to Himself any power of impediment or restraint. Though possessing all these things free and all you own, you do not use them! you do not perceive what it is you have received nor whence it comes, but sit moaning and groaning; some of you blind to the Giver, making no acknowledgment to your Benefactor; others basely giving themselves to complaints and accusations against God. Yet what faculties and powers you possess for attaining courage and greatness of heart, I can easily show you; what you have for upbraiding and accusation, it is for you to show me!”

In this quote, he chastises people who blame the Gods for the suffering that they encounter. Why? Because God has given to every person the tools (mentally, emotionally) to be able to withstand the arrows of Fortune and Fate.

So, the so-called ‘problem’ of Evil is fatally flawed on a fundamental level, being as it implicitly charges God with the presence of evil. God has nothing to do with the presence of evil in the first place.

 

[Trailblazer]

Weren't you the one some time ago that told me that "spirits" can't really be seen by ordinary people...because spirits have no physical attributes, no body, no mass, etc?

Which begs the question of really WHAT were those disciples "looking at" as "it" ascended? According to whomever wrote that scripture you mentioned, apparently in an attempt to cover that obvious conundrum by saying whatever they were "looking at" was actually the SPIRIT of Jesus ascending.

In case you missed my FULL explanation of those verses, here it is.

Acts 1:9-11 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

The disciples were staring up into the sky as the spirit of Jesus was taken up to heaven out of their sight. The two men dressed in white (angels) came along and asked why they were staring up into the sky because they wondered why the disciples were staring up into the sky. Then the angels told the disciples that the same spirit of Jesus that was taken up to heaven will return just as it went to heaven, in like manner.

The verse does not say that the disciples saw a body go up.

It was the Christ Spirit that ascended, not a body, which is why the angels wondered why the disciples were staring into the sky, since there was nothing to look at. That makes perfect sense since angels can see spirits. Descending from heaven upon the clouds means that the spirit of Jesus, the Christ Spirit, will be made manifest from the heaven of the will of God and will appear in the form of the human temple. Though delivered from the womb of Mary, Jesus in reality descended from the heaven of the will of God, so Baha’u’llah descended in like manner, from the heaven of the will of God.

HOW did the disciples even KNOW Jesus was there WITH THEM, and then ASCENDED into the clouds, BEFORE the angels showed up to "tell them" Jesus was actually an invisible, massless, bodyless, SPIRIT?
Something stinks here, doesn't it?

I don't KNOW how the disciples knew before the angels told them. The whole thing stinks if you ask me because it has given Christians one more reason to continue waiting for the same man Jesus who is never going to return to earth, all because it says this: this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. Of course, in LIKE manner means in spirit, NOT in body, but Christians believe it means the resurrected BODY of Jesus ascended into the clouds, defying gravity! ~

 

[TransmutingSoul]

HOW did the disciples even KNOW Jesus was there WITH THEM, and then ASCENDED into the clouds, BEFORE the angels showed up to "tell them" Jesus was actually an invisible, massless, bodyless, SPIRIT?
Something stinks here, doesn't it

No, it just means we have other eyes and ears to hear and see what the Spirit said to the churches.

Regards Tony

 

[ppp]

He states it, yes. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá establishes that there are four tools we can use to figure out what we can know about God. Again, though, He cautions us to balance the four.

You mean that he asserts that there are. Which is a far, far cry from establishing it.

I’m curious as to what drew you to ancient Canaanite religion.

I have a general interest in early human cultures, our mythologies and how they both shape and reflect us.

I understand why that is. The sort of Figure that we Bahá’ís call the “Manifestation of God” is, indeed, a paradoxical one.

Though, your assertion that

“Real things cannot have mutually exclusive characteristics,”

I would absolutely disagree with, especially as a bit of a connoisseur of sweets.

Let me ask you, can a candy exist that is both hard and soft simultaneously?

No. It can be a mix of hard and soft.
But it cannot simultaneously be both 'a mix of hard and soft', and 'not a mix of hard and soft'.

Similarly Jesus cannot in the same respect be both God's only begotten son, and not be God's only begotten son.

That is one of the logical absolutes, and if you do not adhere to it then you are not being logical. As I mentioned earlier -- if you want to call your position logical, then you have to work within logical structures.

Therein lies the issue, any sort of attributes that we have given God are gonna reflect what we think about God, not who or what God actually is. So, how can we know He exists? In my honest opinion, I don’t think we can know.

Obviously, I agree.

As to the Problem of Evil, I find it a very simple problem with an even simpler set of solutions.

Oooo. A stoic? Hmm.. Let's find out.

Essentially, what Cleanthes is saying here is that God is the driving Force behind everything, except for the misdoings of people. And why is that? Because of His very Nature as pure Reason, instinctive to every person as their conscience.

In this quote, he chastises people who blame the Gods for the suffering that they encounter. Why? Because God has given to every person the tools (mentally, emotionally) to be able to withstand the arrows of Fortune and Fate.

So, the so-called ‘problem’ of Evil is fatally flawed on a fundamental level, being as it implicitly charges God with the presence of evil. God has nothing to do with the presence of evil in the first place.

"withstand the arrows of Fortune and Fate"
What a bucolic bit of poetry to gloss over the reality of actual horrors.

If God places a child in a world where they will be raped and brutalized, God does not get a pass because the child able to "withstand" it.

1. That god has literally created the situation with intent and knowledge aforethought; and chosen to stand aside and watch.
2. That god has chosen to create the universe where that specific event takes place.
3. That god has everything to do with the presence of evil.
4. That god is evil.

 

[ACEofALLaces]

No, it just means we have other eyes and ears to hear and see what the Spirit said to the churches.

Regards Tony

Ummmm, "what the Spirit said to the churches".....is what you said. I have to apologize for my ignorance here, but I failed to grasp just what it was that you were wanting to express to me.
Bahais have BETTER eyes and ears than I have? Or what?......do please try again

 

[CG Didymus]

Unity CG, we want peace and unity.

It is up to anyone else that wants peace and unity to consider deeply this advice.

"The well-being of mankind, its peace and security, are unattainable unless and until its unity is firmly established. This unity can never be achieved so long as the counsels which the Pen of the Most High hath revealed are suffered to pass unheeded."
(“Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh”, p. 286)

So all a Baha'i can offer is those Councils offered by the "Pen of the Most High".

So all the veils have to be removed, either by one's own choice, or via a never ending wave of calamities brought on by our unwillingness to embrace the Councils offered by the "Pen of the Most High".

I offered those Councils do not separate faith, they bind us as one people on one planet.

How will the Athiest embrace the Councils offered by the "Pen of the Most High"?

Maybe they can answer that for you?

Regards Tony

But does the lesser peace really need people to accept all that much from Baha'u'llah's teachings? If it's a secular peace established by the leaders of the nations, with a U.N. type of world tribunal, why not teach it and promote in a way that doesn't have anything to do with accepting God or the Baha'i Faith? Here's a link to a Catholic peace plan after WWI.

1. Relations between nations should be governed by justice rather than the “material force of arms”—warfare.
2. Nations must reduce their armaments.
3. Instead of relying on armies and war to settle disputes, nations should establish an international institution with the ability to settle international disagreements and the power to enforce its decrees.
​

Then a plan for peace by the Dalai Lama, mostly about freeing Tibet. Here's how he started his speech...

The world is increasingly interdependent, so that lasting peace - national, regional and global - can only be achieved if we think in terms of broader interest rather than parochial needs.
​

Then there are the Humanists...

Humanists in Lower Saxony, Germany, are today holding a public discussion on peace building. The event in Osnabrueck is being held ahead of a symposium, from October 20 – 23, on the topic of Religions and World Peace: Religious Communities and Their Potential for Peacebuilding and Conflict Resolution. The organizers of the symposium rejected requests to include Humanist representatives in the discussion of peace building.

Epicureans of ancient Greece and Rome argued that genuine peace must come, in the words of Lucretius, “By words, not arms”. These ancient Humanists recognized that genuine peace is more than just the absence of war between nations; genuine peace requires tolerance between communities, respect between individuals, and, ultimately, peace and harmony within the human heart.
​

Baha'i can take credit for being for world peace and unity. But why do it, if it's only to make your religion look good? Especially if we look hard enough and we find that plans for world peace pre-dated Baha'u'llah.

 

[ACEofALLaces]

The verse does not say that the disciples saw a body go up.

It was the Christ Spirit that ascended, not a body, which is why the angels wondered why the disciples were staring into the sky, since there was nothing to look at. That makes perfect sense since angels can see spirits.

Then what DID they see then, since what they SAID they saw, you say they couldn't see because it is invisible to the naked human eye.

I don't KNOW how the disciples knew before the angels told them. The whole thing stinks if you ask me because it has given Christians one more reason to continue waiting for the same man Jesus who is never going to return to earth, all because it says this: this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. Of course, in LIKE manner means in spirit, NOT in body, but Christians believe it means the resurrected BODY of Jesus ascended into the clouds, defying gravity! ~

Yeah, it DOES stink....and oftentimes, your explanations do not do much in alleviating the stench either. As in THIS case, your explanation, is just about as bad as what those characters wrote in the bible.
So therefore to take it LITERALLY, when Jesus DOES ever come back, NONE OF US will ever actually KNOW, because it will only be the SPIRIT of JESUS and we should all know by now, that SPIRITS are INVISIBLE, right?

 

[F1fan]

Unity CG, we want peace and unity.

Then why do you emphasize the religious claims nearly 100%? The religious claims are a very hard sell. It would actually be easier to actually just talk about unity and how people can achieve it.

It is up to anyone else that wants peace and unity to consider deeply this advice.

What advice? You make religious claims, many of which imply there is a flawless leader. That will turn people off. A lot of religious folks already have a guru. Atheist follow their own wits. You need to appeal to humanity. Did your guru not teach that?

"The well-being of mankind, its peace and security, are unattainable unless and until its unity is firmly established. This unity can never be achieved so long as the counsels which the Pen of the Most High hath revealed are suffered to pass unheeded."
(“Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh”, p. 286)

So all a Baha'i can offer is those Councils offered by the "Pen of the Most High".

So all the veils have to be removed, either by one's own choice, or via a never ending wave of calamities brought on by our unwillingness to embrace the Councils offered by the "Pen of the Most High".

This all sounds like more of a problem for Baha'i people than others. It has mysterious lingo and meanings, so none of our business. Trying to drag others into internal issues is not a good approach.

I offered those Councils do not separate faith, they bind us as one people on one planet.

Heck, even Muslim sects don't get along. Protestants don't think Catholics are legit, even though Catholics were the only Christians for over 1200 years. The approach to unity has to be something else. An asteroid. Matt Damon stuck on Mars. it has to be a cause that touches the best in people. I'm not sure why you guys aren't guided to do it a different way. It's a serious flaw.

How will the Athiest embrace the Councils offered by the "Pen of the Most High"?

Probably the same embrace as Santa at the mall. I can say I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. But having to submit to another authority will not be something atheists or theists will do in any significant number.

 

[CG Didymus]

Weren't you the one some time ago that told me that "spirits" can't really be seen by ordinary people...because spirits have no physical attributes, no body, no mass, etc?

Which begs the question of really WHAT were those disciples "looking at" as "it" ascended? According to whomever wrote that scripture you mentioned, apparently in an attempt to cover that obvious conundrum by saying whatever they were "looking at" was actually the SPIRIT of Jesus ascending.

HOW did the disciples even KNOW Jesus was there WITH THEM, and then ASCENDED into the clouds, BEFORE the angels showed up to "tell them" Jesus was actually an invisible, massless, bodyless, SPIRIT?
Something stinks here, doesn't it?

Not that it didn't happen exactly how the NT says it did. But still the easiest explanation is the oral traditions, the legends and myths about Jesus, had him rising from the dead and appearing and floating off to space. Why would the people in those days not believe it and not trust what they were being told? "He walked on water. Was virgin born. Cast out demons and healed the lepers. He was truly the Son of the living God. And to top it off, death couldn't hold him. He rose again and ascended into heaven. And he's coming back soon, to establish God's kingdom on Earth. Believe on him now and be saved." Heck, people fall for that now. I can just imagine back then. Plus, later on, a little force and coercion didn't hurt to spread the message.

 

[loverofhumanity]

First, we can understand a character of a God as spelled out in stories and religion. This doesn't imply this is a real God any more than reading Lord of the Rings implies there are actually Hobbits, elves, and wizards. We understand a lot about Hobbits, elves and wizards from reading these tests by Tolkien.

Second, there are many depictions of this God in literature that are not consistent. The Old Testament is not consistent with the New Testament. The Quran rejects certain beliefs of Christians and Jews about God. The Mormon Bible has it's own description of God, as does your Baha'i texts and the massive Urantia book, over 2000 pages. So what is there to understand about this God except that is changes with the times and cultures? Have you looked into the Urantia book since it is a more recent revelation than the Baha'i texts? If not, then aren't you opening yourself to condemnation for not being open to the latest revelation? The Urantia book is thick, and it goes into a lot of detail about God and Jesus, along with other things about the universe. Why aren't you reading it to understand the latest version of god that is offered by messengers?


And why did you decide a God exists? When did you decide it exists? Did anyone tell you a God exists, and if so, why did you believe these people? Did you subject their claims to scrutiny and doubt?

You have the capacity for reason and using facts to make sound, reliable judgment, did you use it?


OK, reflecting. Explain in detail what reflecting entails, and include how it is reliable and not a process that gives in to what feels good to the ego. Give us a step by step process of reflecting that self-checks itself from error. You say it's reliable, so give us that standard. It must be better than reasoning via facts since you are heavily critical of this approach, so I wait to see this superior method you have to offer us.


OK, what exactly is unlocked in minds and hearts? Explain how this is reliable and objective, and not something that makes a person gullible to belief in dogma.


I suspect you were just not religious. Atheists tend to have a very astute and reasoned basis for their rejection of irrational concepts of many different types, religion being one category.

Let me ask you this, was there a emotionally traumatic event that happened when you "found" God?

I have investigated the Revelation of Baha’u’llah over many years to determine its truth and validity but it was His Words which enabled me to discover the truth.

You are not mentioning anything of substance such as things Baha’u’llah said which we can discuss.

If we wanted to have a discussion about history or the Quantum theory then both of us would need to be well informed on these topics. I couldn’t just go in all guns blazing with no knowledge of either topic.

The Words of Baha’u’llah are what transformed me so that’s what we should be focusing on if you want to know what changed me.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Baha'i can take credit for being for world peace and unity. But why do it, if it's only to make your religion look good? Especially if we look hard enough and we find that plans for world peace pre-dated Baha'u'llah.

Why do it? Really?

Do you see that the move towards peace is based on self satisfaction? Personally I see it will take the giving of a lot of self, for the good of the whole.

Regards Tony

 

[ACEofALLaces]

So this is where justice is required.

Before I even attempt at answering that, I need to know what IS "justice" to YOU in this context?

Maybe you could offer, as you have now accused Baha'u'llah as an opportunist, what perceived benefit was produced for Baha'u'llah?

Mmmmm, it would be highly presumptions of me to be suggesting what the benefits would be for Baha'u'llah to be ursurping any particular position that was not initially intended FOR him. I dunno....Power, Prestige, hard to tell.

Baha'u'llah was born into great wealth and could have had any position he desired in the court of the Shah.

Yes, from what I have read so far, Baha'u'llah WAS essentially a nobleman in his own right. However, "apparently" he wasn't satisfied with being JUST that.....he wanted MORE. He set out to actually BECOME the equivalent of the Christian Jesus. That's how I see it.

By accepting the Bab, that all vanished.

From what I have read so far, I myself am NOT a fan of this Babs fellow.

Regards Tony
Backatcha Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

As to the Problem of Evil, I find it a very simple problem with an even simpler set of solutions.

So, the so-called ‘problem’ of Evil is fatally flawed on a fundamental level, being as it implicitly charges God with the presence of evil. God has nothing to do with the presence of evil in the first place.

Oooo. A stoic? Hmm.. Let's find out.

I did a search on Baha'is and evil.

The source of all evil is for man to turn away from his Lord and set his heart on things ungodly.
Bahá’u’lláh, Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 156

Evil is non-existent; it is the absence of good; sickness is the loss of health; poverty the lack of riches. When wealth disappears you are poor; you look within the treasure box but find nothing there. Without knowledge there is ignorance; therefore ignorance is simply the lack of knowledge. Death is the absence of life. Therefore on the one hand we have existence; on the other, nonexistence, negation or absence of existence.
‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Foundations of World Unity, p. 76-79

In creation there is no evil; all is good. Certain qualities and natures innate in some men and apparently blameworthy are not so in reality. For example, from the beginning of his life you can see in a nursing child the signs of desire, of anger, and of temper. Then, it may be said, good and evil are innate in the reality of man, and this is contrary to the pure goodness of nature and creation. The answer to this is that desire, which is to ask for something more, is a praiseworthy quality provided that it is used suitably. So, if a man has the desire to acquire science and knowledge, or to become compassionate, generous and just, it is most praiseworthy. If he exercises his anger and wrath against the bloodthirsty tyrants who are like ferocious beasts, it is very praiseworthy; but if he does not use these qualities in a right way, they are blameworthy. ... It is the same with all the natural qualities of man, which constitute the capital of life; if they be used and displayed in an unlawful way, they become blameworthy. Therefore it is clear that creation is purely good.
‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, pp. 250- 251​

 

[ACEofALLaces]

Why do it? Really?

Do you see that the move towards peace is based on self satisfaction? Personally I see it will take the giving of a lot of self, for the good of the whole.

Regards Tony

Sounds a lot what Spock of Star-trek fame would have said....."the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one".
Cute to say, even cuter to hear...but when it comes down actually PRACTICING it.....that's a different ball-game isn't it?

 

[F1fan]

No, it just means we have other eyes and ears to hear and see what the Spirit said to the churches.

So your claim is that certain theists have a second set of eyes and ears? If so point to facts in biology that confirm you are telling the truth.

 

[loverofhumanity]

The new name verses and the 1260 day verses are very good for Baha'is, but there's lots of verses that aren't very good for Baha'is. And that's true with Jesus and Muhammad. If we look at only the verses that Christians use, then for sure, they must be talking about Jesus. A virgin will give birth to a son. For unto us a child is born. etc. Muhammad? I don't know. Give me a few Bible and NT verses you think point directly to and only to Muhammad.

Anybody can find a few verses that they can make fit their guy. But we can't ignore the verses that point away from their guy.

Abdul-Baha - Commentary on Revelation Chapter 12 all about Muhammad

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 67-72

Shoghi Effendi

“Biblical References to Muhammad and Ali

“References in the Bible to ‘Mt. Paran’ and ‘Paraclete’ refer to Muhammad’s Revelation: Deuteronomy 33:2, Genesis 21:21, Numbers 12:16, Numbers 13:3. Genesis 17:20 refers to the twelve Imams and in the Revelation of St. John, chapter 11, where it mentions two witnesses, it refers to Muhammad and Ali.

“The figures 1290 date from the declaration of Muhammad, ten years before His flight to Medina.”



Is it only prophecies which prove the Spiritual Sovereignty of a Manifestation or is it His ability to change civilisation, influence millions to model their lives on His teachings and bring a Holy Book which is revered thousands of years later by billions of people?

How do we explain these Great Beings: Buddha, Moses, Krishna, Christ, Zoroaster, Muhammad, the Bab & Bahaullah? They are somewhat unique and unparalleled in human history and were clearly not ordinary people.

There are famous people in history, famous artists, musicians and scientists but none can compare to the influence of the Educator, Teacher, Messiah or Prophet.

But Who were they? And why were they and still are so influential throughout history? Why did they inspire civilizations? Why have their scriptures become patterns of life followed daily by billions of people for thousands of years?

What gift did they possess to be able to be persecuted, oppressed, tortured, exiled and crucified by the most despotic and powerful leaders of their age with but a handful of followers and yet eventually triumph over adversity and establish Their Cause all over the world?

Statues, Churches, Temples, Pagodas, Mosques and Synagogues are built all over the world to pay tribute to these Great Souls.

Are they from another world? Did they pre exist? Without a special power how could they have accomplished what they did and who is their equal in influence?

And aren't we in dire need of another Great Spiritual Teacher to revive us spiritually?

 

[loverofhumanity]

What are Baha'is trying to accomplish? What is their priority? To "prove" the unprovable that God exists, and Baha'u'llah is his messenger? Or is it to promote peace and unity between all the people on the planet? Baha'is say if a religion causes division that it's better to not have religion. Yet, Baha'is consistently say things that are controversial and cause people to argue against them.

Baha'is want peace. They want the world to unite and disarm, the "lesser peace." If it is not a religious thing, but a secular thing, then why not say things that bring people together to support the things needed to bring about the lesser peace? Are we one people? Do we need to make some changes? What are those changes that Baha'i say are needed? A first step towards unity would be not to promote one religion over another, and that includes the Baha'i Faith. Do Baha'is want to include people that don't believe in God or any religion? I would hope so. Then peace and unity can't be dependent on belief in God. Later, after the lesser peace, then Baha'is can start talking about God and the "greater" peace. But now is not the time. Other religions and Atheists are already against you. You're not going to convince them that you are right, and they are wrong.

So, what do Baha'is want? To help move the world towards the lesser peace? Or promote their belief in God and that Baha'u'llah is the latest messenger from that God? Which you already know that you can't prove.

To assist in the establishment of the oneness of humankind so that all will be comfortable and have their needs met and can live in a world without fear of war or things like murder, terrorism, rape, drug addiction etc.

But people keep bringing the topic back to why we believe in God. It doesn’t matter what people believe, atheists are included in the oneness of humanity. Baha’is are just a group of people working for the oneness and equality of all. We encourage all people to have in their hearts love for not only their own race, religion or nationality but extend that care to all humanity so all can live in comfort and prosperity.

It’s not important for people to become Baha’is but to solve many problems such as wars, the environment, terrorism, covid - the world working together is essential.

 

[ppp]

I did a search on Baha'is and evil.

The source of all evil is for man to turn away from his Lord and set his heart on things ungodly.
Bahá’u’lláh, Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 156

Evil is non-existent; it is the absence of good; sickness is the loss of health; poverty the lack of riches. When wealth disappears you are poor; you look within the treasure box but find nothing there. Without knowledge there is ignorance; therefore ignorance is simply the lack of knowledge. Death is the absence of life. Therefore on the one hand we have existence; on the other, nonexistence, negation or absence of existence.
‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Foundations of World Unity, p. 76-79

In creation there is no evil; all is good. Certain qualities and natures innate in some men and apparently blameworthy are not so in reality. For example, from the beginning of his life you can see in a nursing child the signs of desire, of anger, and of temper. Then, it may be said, good and evil are innate in the reality of man, and this is contrary to the pure goodness of nature and creation. The answer to this is that desire, which is to ask for something more, is a praiseworthy quality provided that it is used suitably. So, if a man has the desire to acquire science and knowledge, or to become compassionate, generous and just, it is most praiseworthy. If he exercises his anger and wrath against the bloodthirsty tyrants who are like ferocious beasts, it is very praiseworthy; but if he does not use these qualities in a right way, they are blameworthy. ... It is the same with all the natural qualities of man, which constitute the capital of life; if they be used and displayed in an unlawful way, they become blameworthy. Therefore it is clear that creation is purely good.
‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, pp. 250- 251​

Sure. That is not dissimilar to the many of the Christian attempts at theodicy. I am not sure how you think that negates my point. Or, wait, do you think that negates my point?

 

[Trailblazer]

Then what DID they see then, since what they SAID they saw, you say they couldn't see because it is invisible to the naked human eye.

I believe that the angels who were standing there could "see" the spirit of Jesus ascending, because angels unlike ordinary humans, can see spirits, but don't ask me to prove that.

Yeah, it DOES stink....and oftentimes, your explanations do not do much in alleviating the stench either. As in THIS case, your explanation, is just about as bad as what those characters wrote in the bible.
So therefore to take it LITERALLY, when Jesus DOES ever come back, NONE OF US will ever actually KNOW, because it will only be the SPIRIT of JESUS and we should all know by now, that SPIRITS are INVISIBLE, right?

No, the spirit of Jesus is not going to come back as it went up, UNattached to a body. I believe it came back the way I explained.

Allow me to try to make that a little more understandable. The body of Jesus was born from Mary, but the spirit of Jesus came down from heaven. Then when the body of Jesus died, the spirit of Jesus ascended back up to heaven. Likewise, Baha'u'llah was born from the womb of His mother but His spirit came down from heaven. That is what the Baha'is mean by the return of the Christ Spirit. It is the return of the Christ Spirit in another human body.

 

[Trailblazer]

Sure. That is not dissimilar to the many of the Christian attempts at theodicy. I am not sure how you think that negates my point. Or, wait, do you think that negates my point?

Personally, I don't think it negates your point.