How do Baha’is see atheists?

[Exaltist Ethan]

(Part 1 of 2)

I'm going to try to meta this conversation.

The Baha'i Faith restricts sex between the marriage of one man and one woman since Abdul Baha led the religion. In fact, Islam allows three women to one man and Baha'u'llah initially believed in two women to one man. Abdul Baha changed this for Baha'is and made all Baha'i marriages one man and one woman. This was considered normal for the time, and change of this didn't happen because nobody asked for a change since Abdul Baha made it like this. Shoghi Effendi didn't change it, and because the Universal House of Justice isn't really supposed to change the religion in any drastic and unique ways, sex has always been restricted to marriage for Baha'is and marriage is only between a man and woman.

Is the doctrine of the Baha'i Faith homophobic? I would argue that Baha'u'llah and Abdul Baha restricted it in this way not because they wanted to shame or restrict the behavior of homosexuality, but because this was the normal thing to do at the time. Homosexuals are still allowed to join the Baha'i Faith, marry the opposite sex, and have sex with that partner, even if they don't enjoy that sex. I think the problem has less to do specifically with the Baha'i Faith and more to do with the God of Abraham. Baha'u'llah is a Messenger of this God, and according to the messages he received from Him, marriage in his religion was restricted between a man and woman.

This God, this person that Baha'u'llah communicated with, is someone that Baha'u'llah just happens to agree with everything God is telling him. In fact, the atheist or nonbeliever would say that this communication was between Baha'u'llah and himself, given the fact that he was in exile and by himself for so long, he needed to have discussions and used his own intuition to do this. And because intuition would have told most around at that time that marriage should be between one man and one woman, or really with him, one man and two women, he expressed these beliefs as part of a set of unique doctrines that tried to 'modernize' the Islamic faith, ultimately creating a new religion by doing so.

By today's standards, the Baha'i Faith would be considered homophobic for their beliefs, but during the time these beliefs were made, it was considered normal. In fact, in the mid-1990s Democrat President of the United States, Bill Clinton, passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which at that time declared all marriages should be between one man and one woman. That was a federal bill at that time that was only passed less than 20 years ago, and I don't think anyone would say that Bill Clinton is homophobic. The difference between Bill and Baha'u'llah is, Baha'u'llah and his descendants are either now dead or have converted back into Islam. So Baha'u'llah at this point doesn't have ability to change his mind.

I've had multiple personal experiences with members of the Baha'i Faith. Most of them are progressive Democrats with a few conservative social views, including this one. However, I have to and must separate the doctrine of the Baha'i Faith with the Baha'is I have encountered. I have never met a Baha'i in person, on the phone or online that ever expressed any amount of homophobic attitudes or beliefs to me. So, if I were to really answer this question, I would say that the teachings of the Baha'i Faith were considered normal at that time, and apparently even though they should the Universal House of Justice will not adapt to the government now allowing gay marriage legally, Baha'is in general have never appeared to be homophobic to me. Instead of treating people based on their institutions, I treat them candidly from personal interactions. I have a friend that's Catholic, for example, who is completely homophobic, but I've also met Catholics who aren't at the same time.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

(Part 2 of 2)

I am neither gay nor a member of the Baha'i Faith. However, if I were both, I would have gay sex outside of marriage, I would have a partner and be "married" to him outside the confines of my religion, and I would still practice the religion regardless. The Baha'i Faith has religious laws set up but a religious law isn't the same as a secular law. Baha'u'llah's God may look down upon gay Baha'is but it is expected that as a Baha'i you will sin throughout your life. In fact, Baha'is are very similar to Christians by this regard, and nobody at all is really expected in this religion to follow every law written down by the Kitab-i-Adqas perfectly. That's what Baha'u'llah supposedly did himself, but nobody in the Baha'i Faith is currently viewed in the same way as their prophet was.

Simply put, I would say the laws established by the Baha'i Faith would now be considered homophobic, even though at that particular time it was normal, but individual Baha'is themselves have never appeared to be homophobic to me. Baha'u'llah did what he thought was right for the time being, and although there are probably members of the Baha'i Faith who are homophobic, the vast majority of them aren't. In fact, the only "sin" that is unforgiveable for the Baha'is is covenant-breaking, and having gay relationships isn't part of that.

Please, atheists, stop criticizing the Baha'i Faith for its lack of progress. If you want something done about this, become a member of the religion yourself, sit on the council of the nine members of the Universal House of Justice, and try to pass reforms that will amend the laws written by Baha'u'llah to allow same sex marriages. I don't think you'll be able to do it, as this is still a point of contentious debate between half of society that wants it and the other half that doesn't, but at the same time, Abdul Baha was able to reform Baha'u'llah's marriage laws already to restrict marriage between a man and a woman. So, through enough pressure it may actually be able to change the minds of those who are currently in charge of the operations of the religion.

In short, the Baha'i Faith could be viewed as homophobic, but most Baha'is aren't.

 

[Trailblazer]

I find your blindness on this point quite astounding -- I really do.

If I really know someone very well, I can find the way to communicate what I want to them with great clarity. Even if I don't know you very well, most of the time I can make myself quite clear by the simple expedient of asking you to repeat back what I said, but in your own words. If you get it wrong, then I know I got it wrong, and I can reframe the statement.

My understanding of God (at least the Abrahamic one) is that He knows everybody (and everything) very well indeed. Thus, there is no bar at all to His making His message absolutely clear to everyone, individually.

You are comparing God to a human beings which is the fallacy of false equivalence, since God is not a human being.

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1] A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".​

​

This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.[2] False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear scrutiny because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.​

False equivalence - Wikipedia​

Since God is not a human being that means that God does not communicate in the same way that human beings communicate.
There is no reason on earth to think that God could communicate to human beings in the same way that God communicates to Messengers.
The reason that God can communicate to Messengers is because they alone have a divine mind. No ordinary human has a divine mind so no ordinary human could ever understand communication from God.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But just for the sake of argument, let's say that God could make His message absolutely clear to everyone, individually.
Why would God do such a thing? Why would God need to do that when God can make His message clear to a Messenger who can relay that message to everyone in the world? The fact that atheists don't like the idea of Messengers is not a reason for God to alter His time-honored method of communicating to humans through Messengers.

Please bear in mind that it doesn't affect God in any way if some people don't get the message since God is completely self-sufficient and self-sustaining, independent of all His creatures. Only the humans who fail to get the message are affected by rejecting God's Messengers.

Finally, we all know that God has never communicated directly to everyone, and that means that if God exists, that is not God's chosen method of communication. The only other logical possibilities are the ones I posted in the OP, that God does not communicate to anyone (deist) or that God does not exist (atheist).

Something else we all know -- because of all the experiments that have been conducted to show it -- is that information that is given to one person, and then "passed on" to others in an ever-expanding circle, get garbled. Surely, one would expect an omniscient deity to be aware of that little foible of human cognition. After all, He is supposed to have made us.

Scriptures do not get garbled. They are recorded in writing and then people read the scriptures and interpret them.
Of course the All-Knowing God knows that these scriptures will be interpreted a little differently by different people, but so what? People all get the same basic message and the laws are completely clear so that there can be no confusion at all.

But of course, in another sense, I do find your blindness quite understandable -- you've been told "this is how it is, and you must believe it, even if it doesn't make any sense." And so you do.

Nobody told me anything. I did my own research and investigation and came to my own conclusions.

There is no blindness, just perfect logic. Any logical person would understand that there needs to be an *intermediary* between God and humans, since they are so different in kind. By stark contrast, there is NOTHING logical about God communicating directly to everyone. It is just based upon "I want" and cannot be supported by any logical argument.

Questions no atheist can answer, so instead they deflect:

1. How would all of the 7.9 billion people in the world have time to listen to God for 40 years and still make a living?
2. Would all the 7.9 billion people in the world be able to write down everything they heard (as Baha'u'llah did in 15,000 Tablets?)
3. What is God going to say to everyone when He whispers in their ears? Hi, I am God and I exist? What good would that do?
4. How would anyone know it was actually God communicating to them and not an auditory hallicination?

See, there are those of us who believe when we are presented with information that we can assess, evaluate, judge and verify. And others who, sheep-like, follow where they are led unquestioningly.

Anyone can assess, evaluate, and judge who Baha'u'llah was, what He did on His mission, and what He wrote.
Nobody can verify God's existence, which is why it can never be verified that God has Messengers. Logic 101.

So, I guess I haven't answered your question in this thread, but rather turned it around back at you, to "how do atheists see Baha'is (and other religionists)?"

As if I did not know that already?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You are comparing God to a human beings which is the fallacy of false equivalence, since God is not a human being.

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1] A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".​

​

This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.[2] False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear scrutiny because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.​

False equivalence - Wikipedia​

Since God is not a human being that means that God does not communicate in the same way that human beings communicate.
There is no reason on earth to think that God could communicate to human beings in the same way that God communicates to Messengers.
The reason that God can communicate to Messengers is because they alone have a divine mind. No ordinary human has a divine mind so no ordinary human could ever understand communication from God.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But just for the sake of argument, let's say that God could make His message absolutely clear to everyone, individually.
Why would God do such a thing? Why would God need to do that when God can make His message clear to a Messenger who can relay that message to everyone in the world? The fact that atheists don't like the idea of Messengers is not a reason for God to alter His time-honored method of communicating to humans through Messengers.

Please bear in mind that it doesn't affect God in any way if some people don't get the message since God is completely self-sufficient and self-sustaining, independent of all His creatures. Only the humans who fail to get the message are affected by rejecting God's Messengers.

Finally, we all know that God has never communicated directly to everyone, and that means that if God exists, that is not God's chosen method of communication. The only other logical possibilities are the ones I posted in the OP, that God does not communicate to anyone (deist) or that God does not exist (atheist).

Scriptures do not get garbled. They are recorded in writing and then people read the scriptures and interpret them.
Of course the All-Knowing God knows that these scriptures will be interpreted a little differently by different people, but so what? People all get the same basic message and the laws are completely clear so that there can be no confusion at all.

Nobody told me anything. I did my own research and investigation and came to my own conclusions.

There is no blindness, just perfect logic. Any logical person would understand that there needs to be an *intermediary* between God and humans, since they are so different in kind. By stark contrast, there is NOTHING logical about God communicating directly to everyone. It is just based upon "I want" and cannot be supported by any logical argument.

Questions no atheist can answer, so instead they deflect:

1. How would all of the 7.9 billion people in the world have time to listen to God for 40 years and still make a living?
2. Would all the 7.9 billion people in the world be able to write down everything they heard (as Baha'u'llah did in 15,000 Tablets?)
3. What is God going to say to everyone when He whispers in their ears? Hi, I am God and I exist? What good would that do?
4. How would anyone know it was actually God communicating to them and not an auditory hallicination?

Anyone can assess, evaluate, and judge who Baha'u'llah was, what He did on His mission, and what He wrote.
Nobody can verify God's existence, which is why it can never be verified that God has Messengers. Logic 101.

As if I did not know that already?

Sorry, a complete load of....

God's "messengers have a divine mind?" What is that. How do you know. Did you examine it? Wasn't it made of neurons and glial cells and the rest? You are just making a statement purporting to be "profound truth" that has, in fact, no meaning whatever! (But here's a hint -- I'll bet the people who convinced you and others that there was such a thing as a "divine mind" were the same ones who made the claim to have them, and therefore to be "god's messengers." Oh, please!)

And "no ordinary human has a divine mind?" Once again, who told you that? The ordinary humans who claimed they weren't ordinary humans. And by gum, you looked at them (bet you never saw one!) and said "Amen!"

I see quite literally no difference between the things about what your "messengers" have made you believe and those of a whole lot of other "messengers" have made other people believe:

• Marshall Applewhite, and Heaven's Gate (see all the lovely dead people with purple cloths covering their faces)
• Keith Raniere and his NXIVM (pronounced NEX-ee-um) cult
• Lou Castro and the Angel's Landing cult
• David Berg and his Children of God cult
• Ervil LeBaron and his Church of the Lamb of God cult
• Charles Manson and you know all you need to about that rubbish
• Jim Jones and his People's Temple, and 900 dead folks who drank cyanide because -- well the "messenger" said so
• David Koresh and his Branch Dravidians -- and massacre in Waco, Texas

There are so many more, why should I bother. But you've chosen the one you like. And the reason you chose it has nothing to do with logic, reason, evidence -- and everything to do with you. Just like all the people who died in the cults I listed above.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Since there are many 'logical reasons' why Baha'u'llah's word has only reached 8 million out of almost 8 billion people, I think it is illogical to question God's infallibility.

My position holds. Only humans can make mistakes. If God can make mistakes then God is not God.

Of course God knew, because God is All-Knowing so God has perfect foreknowledge.

Yes, it is true that most people do not believe that God spoke through Baha'u'llah, not uness they are Baha'is.

I suppose He could have if He had wanted to, but God only does what He wants to do, which is why He didn't do that.
I believe that God wants everyone to find the knowledge themselves, by searching for it, not because God gave it to them.
If God did not make it easy, that is because God did not want it to be easy.

I agree with what you said there. I would only disagree that God wants us to search for the knowledge from a messenger, but instead within ourselves by our own path, and for some that is through messengers if they find that beneficial.

 

[Trailblazer]

I see quite literally no difference between the things about what your "messengers" have made you believe and those of a whole lot of other "messengers" have made other people believe:

That's pretty bad if you cannot 'see the difference' between these self-proclaimed false prophets and a real Messenger of God/Prophet.
Here, let me help:

Matthew 7:15-20 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.​

Fruits: the pleasant or successful result of work or actions: fruit

There are so many more, why should I bother. But you've chosen the one you like. And the reason you chose it has nothing to do with logic, reason, evidence -- and everything to do with you. Just like all the people who died in the cults I listed above.

I notice you could not refute what I said about a divine mind so instead you poked fun of it. Typical atheist rhetoric.

Don't bother listing any other false prophets, because there have only been a small number of true Messengers of God and none of these false prophets even come close to meeting the qualifications.

Everything I believe has to do with logic and reason, and especially evidence.
Anyone who would compare the Baha'i Faith to these cults has no familiarity with world religions.
Here, let me help.

Behind the Bahá'í faith, one of the fastest growing new religions

In our World of Worship series, we're exploring different ways people practice faith and religion around the globe. In this installment, we're looking at one of the fastest growing religions in the world, the Bahá'í faith. There are now more than 100,000 Bahá'í communities worldwide. Dana...

www.cbsnews.com

 

[Trailblazer]

I see quite literally no difference between the things about what your "messengers" have made you believe and those of a whole lot of other "messengers" have made other people believe:

• Marshall Applewhite, and Heaven's Gate (see all the lovely dead people with purple cloths covering their faces)
• Keith Raniere and his NXIVM (pronounced NEX-ee-um) cult
• Lou Castro and the Angel's Landing cult
• David Berg and his Children of God cult
• Ervil LeBaron and his Church of the Lamb of God cult
• Charles Manson and you know all you need to about that rubbish
• Jim Jones and his People's Temple, and 900 dead folks who drank cyanide because -- well the "messenger" said so
• David Koresh and his Branch Dravidians -- and massacre in Waco, Texas

There are so many more, why should I bother. But you've chosen the one you like. And the reason you chose it has nothing to do with logic, reason, evidence -- and everything to do with you. Just like all the people who died in the cults I listed above.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I am a Baha’i, and I have posted to a lot of atheists over the last 10 years on various forums so I am well aware of their position about God’s existence.

As I see it, regarding God’s existence there are three mutually exclusive logical possibilities, given the evidence we have.

1. God exists and sends Messengers to communicate to humans (theist), or​

2. God exists and doesn’t communicate to humans (deist), or​

3. God does not exist (atheist)​

Atheists hold the third logical position, that God doesn’t exist. I consider that to be a logical position since there is no proof that God exists.

I know what I think about atheists, but I never knew what other Baha’is think, so I was happy to see this thread posted on a Baha'i Forum.
For any Baha’is or atheists who are curious what Baha’is think about atheists you can read on this thread:
https://www.reddit.com/r/bahai/comments/13vz3t2

As a Baha'i I try to see the good in people regardless of beliefs, nationality, race, gender and sexual idenity.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Don't bother listing any other false prophets, because there have only been a small number of true Messengers of God and none of these false prophets even come close to meeting the qualifications.

Okay, you've made the claim.

So, please tell us who are that "small number of true Messengers of God," and how you know it. And then, explain how you know that the other "false prophets" are false?

And then, I can hardly wait, please give us the list of "the qualifications."

 

[F1fan]

You are free to believe whatever you want to believe but I don't want to argue about it so I consider this a dead subject.

It's not a matter of belief, the things you cite and describe about baha'i in regards to gay people is bigotry. You offer no credible explanation as to why gays are targeted, they pose no threat. If Baha'is said they have a problem with pedophiles, well that is understandable. Do the Baha'i text mention pedophiles at all? If not then they are more accepted than gay people.

I will only say one more thing: God needs no justification for the laws He puts in place because God is not answerable to humans.

Cop out. This is nonsense when all you Baha'i have to understand God is a guy you can't verify actually communicated with any God.

 

[Trailblazer]

You offer no credible explanation as to why gays are targeted, they pose no threat.

I already told you that gays are not targeted since the the laws that prohibit sex out of wedlock apply to both heterosexuals and homosexuals.
The difference is that homosexuals cannot be married as Baha'is, since a Baha'i marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

If Baha'is said they have a problem with pedophiles, well that is understandable. Do the Baha'i text mention pedophiles at all? If not then they are more accepted than gay people.

Yes, the Baha'i laws do mention pedophiles and I think that is how the ban on homosexuality got started.

Baha'u'llah wrote:

It is forbidden you to wed your fathers’ wives. We shrink, for very shame, from treating of the subject of boys. Fear ye the Merciful, O peoples of the world! Commit not that which is forbidden you in Our Holy Tablet, and be not of those who rove distractedly in the wilderness of their desires.
The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, p. 58

In explanatory notes in the Aqdas, it says:

134. the subject of boys # 107

The word translated here as “boys” has, in this context, in the Arabic original, the implication of paederasty. Shoghi Effendi has interpreted this reference as a prohibition on all homosexual relations.
The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, p. 223

 

[Trailblazer]

Okay, you've made the claim.

So, please tell us who are that "small number of true Messengers of God," and how you know it. And then, explain how you know that the other "false prophets" are false?

And then, I can hardly wait, please give us the list of "the qualifications."

Please bear in mind that the following criteria are my criteria which is based upon who I believe were Messengers of God, who met all these criteria. My criteria narrow the playing field and it will eliminate the "false prophets."

The minimum criteria would be:

1. He had good character as exemplified by his qualities such as love, mercy, kindness, truth, justice, benevolence, gracious, merciful, righteous, forgiving, patient.

2. He believed he had been given a mission by God and did everything he could to see that it was carried out. He was completely successful before his death, and he accomplished everything that He set out to do.

3. He wrote much about God and God's purpose for humans both individually and collectively, or scriptures were written by others who spoke for him. He firmly believed that the work he was doing was for the Cause of God.

4. He had many followers while he was alive, and there are still millions who follow his teachings and gather in groups based on the religion he founded.

5. His followers have grown more numerous in recent times.

This is a starting point but there are other questions we would want to ask ourselves before we would be able to believe that a man was a true Messenger of God because that is a bold claim so there should be a lot of evidence to support such a claim.

Another criterion I believe a true Messenger of God would have to meet is that his religion could not contradict or be in opposition to any of the world religions that are already established and he could not talk down any of those religions and say his religion is the only true religion from God.

 

[PureX]

I fully agree. Humanity is now facing a choice, to allow that divine spirit within us to be manifested or to live in selfishness.
How do you think that is going to come about with no religion, one by one, or don't you have a vision of hope?

It's not a religious choice. It's a personal spiritual choice regardless of what religion one is, or if they are any religion at all. Good and evil (love and selfishness) are apparent to anyone with eyes willing to see it. We can act for our mutual benefit, or we can act for our own benefit at the expense of others. The choice has always been ours.

Again, I agree. We cannot understand God at all. All I believe we can understand is the message that comes through the Messengers of God.

No messages are needed. The choice is obvious and it always has been. It's fine that some of us have pointed it out poetically, for others to better recognize, but it was never hidden from us. If we are not seeing it it's because we have closed our eyes, hearts, and minds to love, forgiveness, kindness, and generosity. As sadly, many of us have.

I believe that there are special divine messengers, but I also believe that the truth can come from anyone's mouth at any time if we are speaking from the divine spirit within us.

I don't think the message ever comes from anyone else. I think what happens is that sometimes the words of others helps us recognize the truth that is already within ourselves. It's like reading a book. There's no information contained in the paper or the ink, or in the ink splotches on the pages. The information is ALL in our minds. And the printed text is just a mechanism to help us organize it, there. So that we can recognize and make sense of it. There are no divine messengers or divine messages. There is only the divine truth within us. And that can be illuminated for us by anyone at any time. Even unintentionally; when we become ready and willing to recognize it.

If I show you the claims of Baha'u'llah all you will show me is a man who 'you believe' is a delusional phony, but you will never be able to prove that is what He was,

I don't care what he was. I don't care what Jesus was. Those truths aren't the truth that matters. Absolutely nothing changes in the world or in my life by Baha'u'llah being a divine messenger, or not, or by Jesus being a god or not. The revelation and the promise is already here for me to recognize, and to choose. That's what matters to us, and to the world. The rest is just religion. And we all know that religion is used to resist spiritual change more often than it's used to actually change us for the better.

So you don't believe that Jesus existed or did anything that is recorded in the New Testament?

I don't "believe" things that I can't possibly know to be so. That would be foolish (and dishonest). All I can do is trust in the hope that they are so, if I do hope that they are so. But in the case of Jesus I have no need to hope that the story is historically accurate. Because that's not the point nor the value if the story. The point and value of the story is in it's ability to help me recognize that truth within. And I feel that it has done it's job. Now it's up to me.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Humanity is now facing a choice, to allow that divine spirit within us to be manifested or to live in selfishness.
How do you think that is going to come about with no religion, one by one, or don't you have a vision of hope?

That is just such a ridiculous statement. The choice, so you seem to think, is "be religious" or "be selfish." Got news for you -- I've known some very, very selfish religious types, and I've known a lot of generous and loving atheists. Religion has ZERO to do with it.

I don't know how some religious people live with themselves -- you know the ones, those who suppose, "gosh, if I didn't believe in God, I'd be out there killing and raping." That tells me everything I'd ever want to know about that person. It's only terror for himself that prevents him from doing harm to others.

Do you know why I don't harm anyone? Because I don't want to -- God or no God.

 

[Kfox]

You can call God whatever you want to. What's in a name?

A description is often in the name. There are those who worship the Sun. Are Atheists supposed to claim the Sun does not exist simply because there are those who choose to call it God? What about those who worship nature, or other people as human as you or I? Am atheists supposed to deny their existence because those who choose to call them God? No, we call the Sun a Star, nature our environment, and people who are worshipped people just like us. IOW Atheism is not about denying the existence of God, it's about not calling something God.

 

[Kfox]

Please bear in mind that the following criteria are my criteria which is based upon who I believe were Messengers of God, who met all these criteria. My criteria narrow the playing field and it will eliminate the "false prophets."

The minimum criteria would be:

1. He had good character as exemplified by his qualities such as love, mercy, kindness, truth, justice, benevolence, gracious, merciful, righteous, forgiving, patient.

2. He believed he had been given a mission by God and did everything he could to see that it was carried out. He was completely successful before his death, and he accomplished everything that He set out to do.

3. He wrote much about God and God's purpose for humans both individually and collectively, or scriptures were written by others who spoke for him. He firmly believed that the work he was doing was for the Cause of God.

4. He had many followers while he was alive, and there are still millions who follow his teachings and gather in groups based on the religion he founded.

5. His followers have grown more numerous in recent times.

This is a starting point but there are other questions we would want to ask ourselves before we would be able to believe that a man was a true Messenger of God because that is a bold claim so there should be a lot of evidence to support such a claim.

Another criterion I believe a true Messenger of God would have to meet is that his religion could not contradict or be in opposition to any of the world religions that are already established and he could not talk down any of those religions and say his religion is the only true religion from God.

What's the worse that could happen if God himself addressed the entire world at once, in a language each of us could understand, and cleared up all the misunderstandings we have of him, rather than depending on some flawed human who lacks credibility? IOW why not give his message himself?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

A description is often in the name. There are those who worship the Sun. Are Atheists supposed to claim the Sun does not exist simply because there are those who choose to call it God? What about those who worship nature, or other people as human as you or I? Am atheists supposed to deny their existence because those who choose to call them God? No, we call the Sun a Star, nature our environment, and people who are worshipped people just like us. IOW Atheism is not about denying the existence of God, it's about not calling something God.

That one is not unique to the word "God". The same one can be done in effect with the claim that the universe is natural, physical and so on.

 

[F1fan]

I already told you that gays are not targeted since the the laws that prohibit sex out of wedlock apply to both heterosexuals and homosexuals.

It's too late for damage control. Gays are still prejudiced against by Baha'i'llah even though gays can marry, so it's more than "sex out of wedlock". And why is sex out of wedlock an issue at all for a revelation by God that is concerned about bigger issues, like world unity?

The difference is that homosexuals cannot be married as Baha'is, since a Baha'i marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

And that is another layer of prejudice against gays that makes no sense. Secular law values equality and has legalizes gay marriage, so what's the problem with God, assuming Baha'u'llah isn't a fraud and isn't his idea? The ban on gay marriage is bigotry, as it targets this category of human in a way that harms them. And them being gay, and being married hurts no one else.

Yes, the Baha'i laws do mention pedophiles and I think that is how the ban on homosexuality got started.

Do you? Based on what?

Baha'u'llah wrote:

It is forbidden you to wed your fathers’ wives. We shrink, for very shame, from treating of the subject of boys. Fear ye the Merciful, O peoples of the world! Commit not that which is forbidden you in Our Holy Tablet, and be not of those who rove distractedly in the wilderness of their desires.
The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, p. 58

In explanatory notes in the Aqdas, it says:

134. the subject of boys # 107

The word translated here as “boys” has, in this context, in the Arabic original, the implication of paederasty. Shoghi Effendi has interpreted this reference as a prohibition on all homosexual relations.
The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, p. 223

I don't see any clear language against pedophilia. Baha'u'llah seems to think there was a problem with sons marrying their moms? How big a problem was this in his era?

 

[F1fan]

That is just such a ridiculous statement. The choice, so you seem to think, is "be religious" or "be selfish." Got news for you -- I've known some very, very selfish religious types, and I've known a lot of generous and loving atheists. Religion has ZERO to do with it.

I don't know how some religious people live with themselves -- you know the ones, those who suppose, "gosh, if I didn't believe in God, I'd be out there killing and raping." That tells me everything I'd ever want to know about that person. It's only terror for himself that prevents him from doing harm to others.

Do you know why I don't harm anyone? Because I don't want to -- God or no God.

Right. I find it odd how more fervent believers insist that morality comes directly from belief in God, and then these same people show rather questionable morals. What they really are doing is claiming a God has authority over their bad moral views, and the believer is just obedient, so not accountable. What believers avoid is how THEY are accountable for deciding a God exists, and what they decide to follow as morals. In essence these believers are using "God" as window dressing for poor morals, and how else can they get away with it? Being accountable MEANS introspection and due moral consideration for others.

 

[Kfox]

That one is not unique to the word "God". The same one can be done in effect with the claim that the universe is natural, physical and so on.

My point is; you can't define Atheism as a belief concerning God's existence because often what someone calls God does exist.