There is no division within the Baha'i Faith and the ONLY reason there is no division is because Covenant-breakers are removed from the rolls.
What I was referring to is the division that led to the shunning. What does it say when a religion that thinks it has access to the divine path to peace fragments within requiring expulsion? Isn't it a bit like people that give marital advice ending up in divorce, or somebody giving financial advice to others going bankrupt?
There is nothing arbitrary about it, it is a Law of God. If one believes in Baha'u'llah one believes the Laws come from God so that supersedes humanist values.
That's your faith-based perspective. To me, there is no "Law of God," just the pronouncements of men, and none of these ideas supersede anything except in those willing to let them. Nothing can be considered a Law of God unless one can demonstrate that a god exists and is the source of the commandment, and I suspect you agree that that's not going to happen.
'Concerning your question whether there are any legitimate forms of expression of the sex instinct outside of marriage: According to the Bahá'í Teachings no sexual act can be considered lawful unless performed between lawfully married persons. Outside of marital life there can be no lawful or healthy use of the sex impulse…….
I disagree. For example, a couple needs to determine if they are sexually compatible before committing to marriage. I know this from experience. Why would I or any unbeliever take life advice from these people? Because it is good or wise? It isn't.
My advice is to have as much sex as you like as long as it is with consenting adults, nobody is being betrayed, and one takes precautions against STDs and unwanted pregnancies. There is no rational reason to advise otherwise.
'Amongst the many other evils afflicting society in this spiritual low water mark in history is the question of immorality, and over-emphasis of sex...'
In my opinion, the overemphasis on sex comes from the religions that try to control its expression. Just look at the Catholic church and its pedophilia scandals and their cover ups, easily mitigated by allowing priests to have sexual relations of a more wholesome nature.
As I am sure I have explained to you before, Baha’is do not believe that Messengers of God are mere men. If they were only men then there would be no reason to believe them over any other man.
Yes, but as many of the people posting to you have explained, skeptic DO believe that they are mere men and that there IS no reason to believe them or take advice from them not inherent in the advice whatever its source.
If you would expect all of what you refer to as 'critical thinkers' to agree, I guess you don’t know much about human nature and what causes people to believe something is true, how complex that is.
What I said is that most if not all critical thinkers will come to compatible conclusions. The conclusions of other kinds of thinkers will vary widely and contradict one another as well as the opinions of those who receive theirs through this very prescribed, constrained manner of processing information, which when properly applied, generates only sound conclusions. These never contradict other sound conclusions.
I've given you the example of addition, which method is also sharply prescribed and constricted. There is only one correct sum, and short of counting, only one system of rules for generating correct sums. But there are unlimited ways to make errors and come up with wrong sums. I expect all critical thinkers skilled in arithmetic to to agree on that sum. Somebody may make an error and come up with an incorrect answer, but he won't insist it's correct in the face of a consensus of other skilled adders who agree among themselves and disagree with him, and when shown his error, will agree that it was an error, correct it, and arrive at the correct sum.
One of my relatively recent insight gleaned from participating in RF is how many people don't know what critical thinking is or does. Formerly, I thought they did. Even if they couldn't do it themselves, they understood that others can think in ways the reliably generates truth, and that there was such a thing as expertise in reasoning.
I no longer have that belief. People like that recognize that others may have expertise and seek it. There are many such people, but what came as an eye opener is just how many that don't understand even that. They are unaware that there is a way of knowing that generates correct ideas that those holding them can know are correct. Those unaware of this other way of thinking only know one way of arriving at opinions - believing by faith, that is, guessing - and they assume that all other opinions are equally unfounded, although they don't actually think or express themselves in such terms. They would say equally valid. To them, all opinions are equal. Using the addition metaphor, they aren't aware that there is a method of adding that reliably generates correct sums, nor that there are correct and incorrect answers.
Are you such a person. How many times have you written, "That's just your opinion" following a comment, generally unaware that that opinion is demonstrably correct to any critical thinker? If so, it's not surprising that you are unaware that even though the majority fit your description, there is a group of people who actually have learned to think alike and come to equivalent conclusions, and that they can be correct and know it even if others don't. When I have suggested this possibility in the past, you called the opinion arrogant, which also indicates to me that you don't make the distinction between these two populations.
So, when you suggest that I don't know much about human nature or how people think, I'd say that the opposite is the case. Have you not noticed how many people disagree with you in the same way? How do you think that happens? That they all are imitating one another, taking opinions from one another? That would be a mistaken belief.
One final insight: Dunning-Kruger syndrome, which is often stated in terms of people overestimating their ability relative to others. That phrase implies the recognition of expertise and gives himself credit for being such an expert. What I discovered is not that this person elevates himself. He's unaware that it is possible to be elevated. What he has done is not so much overestimating himself as underestimating others. These opinions manifest more or less the same - a false sense of equality or superiority - but they are not the same thing. The latter derives from being unaware of what critical thinking is and what it confers on those who successfully apply its principles.
