Is Baha'u'llah true or false Prophet?

[danieldemol]

Let's not fight.

We started w/ me saying that the idea that we need to rescue poor & helpless women is a crock. You have got to know that there really are men who feel that way. You're free to agree w/ me that the idea is a crock. Or not. It's a big world and lots of folks have lots of different points of view. The point is that I'm not fighting w/ you on this but rather I'm interested in sharing thoughts.

We can drop this if it's not important to you and if this is significant we can discuss it. Above in my previous posts are more of my thoughts on the subject and I'd be curious as to what your thinking is.

Fight? I'm not sitting here with clenched fists you know lol.

Agree that its a crock, although I've not heard men speaking up for female representation on the Baha'i UHoJ claim this

 

[danieldemol]

I guess that person as not very logical.

I leave that to the critical thinker to decide whether women being barred from the Baha'i Universal House of Justice (the Baha'is highest governing body) constitutes equality in my view

 

[Trailblazer]

I leave that to the critical thinker to decide whether women being barred from the Baha'i Universal House of Justice (the Baha'is highest governing body) constitutes equality in my view

I thought critical thinkers were supposed to be logical.

A faulty generalization is an informal fallacy wherein a conclusion is drawn about all or many instances of a phenomenon on the basis of one or a few instances of that phenomenon. It is similar to a proof by example in mathematics.[1] It is an example of jumping to conclusions.[2] For example, one may generalize about all people or all members of a group from what one knows about just one or a few people:

• If one meets a rude person from a given country X, one may suspect that most people in country X are rude.
• If one sees only white swans, one may suspect that all swans are white.

Faulty generalization - Wikipedia

So, if one sees 'one' Baha'i institution that disallows women, they might falsely conclude that the Baha'i Faith does not teach the equality of men and women.

This would be like seeing 'one' red car and from that concluding that all cars are red.

This is patently illogical.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

In my view evidently some of them care about female representation enough to leave the Baha'i faith.

I asked an ex-Baha'i community whether the ladies there thought it was fair that women can't be on the Bahai UHoJ, here are 2 of the responses I received;

'It’s sexism, another example of outdated misogyny. It’s one of the main reasons I left. And I’ve since discovered other examples of sexism in its writings that I’d never seen before.'

And

'This was a big shelf item for me since I was told men and women were equal in the Baha'i Faith and I only found out well after declaring that they actually aren't.

This is not the only teaching in the faith they gaslight themselves about.'

Source: Reddit - Dive into anything

You know, Baha'u'llah, Abdulbaha or Shoghi Effendi were not going to be in the UHJ. So, it didnt make a difference for them. Why do you think Baha'u'llah did not include women in UHJ? Whats your take on this?

 

[danieldemol]

I thought critical thinkers were supposed to be logical.

A faulty generalization is an informal fallacy wherein a conclusion is drawn about all or many instances of a phenomenon on the basis of one or a few instances of that phenomenon. It is similar to a proof by example in mathematics.[1] It is an example of jumping to conclusions.[2] For example, one may generalize about all people or all members of a group from what one knows about just one or a few people:

• If one meets a rude person from a given country X, one may suspect that most people in country X are rude.
• If one sees only white swans, one may suspect that all swans are white.

Faulty generalization - Wikipedia

So, if one sees 'one' Baha'i institution that disallows women, they might falsely conclude that the Baha'i Faith does not teach the equality of men and women.

This would be like seeing 'one' red car and from that concluding that all cars are red.

This is patently illogical.

Actually your analogy doesn't hold water in my view because one car doesn't represent all cars whereas one Universal House of Justice represents all Baha'i (or at least all of the majority Baha'i sect.

 

[danieldemol]

You know, Baha'u'llah, Abdulbaha or Shoghi Effendi were not going to be in the UHJ.

Irrelevant, their stations are all above the Baha'i Universal House of Justice in my view.

So, it didnt make a difference for them. Why do you think Baha'u'llah did not include women in UHJ? Whats your take on this?

It is unknown to me precisely why as he doesn't explicitly say, "women can't be on the UHoJ because X" at least in the writings that have thus far been translated, however regardless of why he made this error, the result is in my view inequality as it is hypothetically inevitable in the event of a Baha'i theocracy that the UHoJ would make rulings effecting women without any female representation.

 

[Trailblazer]

Actually your analogy doesn't hold water in my view because one car doesn't represent all cars whereas one Universal House of Justice represents all Baha'i (or at least all of the majority Baha'i sect.

A faulty generalization is an informal fallacy wherein a conclusion is drawn about all or many instances of a phenomenon on the basis of one or a few instances of that phenomenon. It is similar to a proof by example in mathematics.[1] It is an example of jumping to conclusions.[2] For example, one may generalize about all people or all members of a group from what one knows about just one or a few people:
Faulty generalization - Wikipedia

If one sees only the UHJ, one Baha'i institution that doesn't allow women, one may suspect that there are no women serving on any other Baha'i institutions. That is a faulty generalization.

The Baháʼí teachings state that women are not inferior to men, and should not be subordinate to men in aspects of social life. In fact, the education of daughters is held to be more important than, and therefore to take precedence over, that of sons.

Baháʼí Faith and gender equality - Wikipedia​

The fact that women cannot serve on the UHJ does not mean that women are considered inferior to men in the Baha'i Faith.
The fact that education of daughters takes precedence over the education of sons does not men that men are considered inferior to women in the Baha'i Faith.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Irrelevant, their stations are all above the Baha'i Universal House of Justice in my view.

It is unknown to me precisely why as he doesn't explicitly say, "women can't be on the UHoJ because X" at least in the writings that have thus far been translated, however regardless of why he made this error, the result is in my view inequality as it is hypothetically inevitable in the event of a Baha'i theocracy that the UHoJ would make rulings effecting women without any female representation.

The individual station of the members of UHJ is no different than the starion of any other individuals in the Bahai community, being man or womam. One cannot say, for example, a member of UHJ has a higher station than me, on the basis of being in UHJ assembly. Therefore, women not being on UHJ is not a prove that their station is lower than men, because being in UHJ does not give any special station to that person.

 

[danieldemol]

A faulty generalization is an informal fallacy wherein a conclusion is drawn about all or many instances of a phenomenon on the basis of one or a few instances of that phenomenon. It is similar to a proof by example in mathematics.[1] It is an example of jumping to conclusions.[2] For example, one may generalize about all people or all members of a group from what one knows about just one or a few people:
Faulty generalization - Wikipedia

If one sees only the UHJ, one Baha'i institution that doesn't allow women, one may suspect that there are no women serving on any other Baha'i institutions. That is a faulty generalization.

It is also a strawman in my view, i have never claimed that there are no women on local or national assemblies.

The Baháʼí teachings state that women are not inferior to men, and should not be subordinate to men in aspects of social life.

in "social life" being the key qualifier here. What about in "administrative affairs"? Oh that's right, there they are subordinate to the 9 men governing the Baha'i UHoJ in my view.

In fact, the education of daughters is held to be more important than, and therefore to take precedence over, that of sons.

Sure, but there is a good reason given for this generalisation. We don't have to write a blank cheque of faith by assuming it will become reasonable at an unspecified future time in my view.

The fact that women cannot serve on the UHJ does not mean that women are considered inferior to men in the Baha'i Faith.

Key word being "considered". In reality they are subordinate to the 9 men of the Baha'i Universal House of Justice regardless of how they are considered in my view.

 

[danieldemol]

The individual station of the members of UHJ is no different than the starion of any other individuals in the Bahai community, being man or womam. One cannot say, for example, a member of UHJ has a higher station than me, on the basis of being in UHJ assembly. Therefore, women not being on UHJ is not a prove that their station is lower than men, because being in UHJ does not give any special station to that person.

I suppose one could use the "one in christ" line to argue that christian women are equal to men even though they are subordinate to their husbands and in my view it would be a similar load of whitewash.

It is ridiculous to have a person of superior station subordinate to a person of inferior station - but that is what happens by design when you mandate that superior women must be subordinate to inferior men whether of the household or of the House of Justice in my view.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Let's not fight.

Fight? I'm not sitting here with clenched fists you know lol.

You're talking about what you don't like. Let's focus on what we want.

We started w/ me saying that the idea that we need to rescue poor & helpless women is a crock. You have got to know that there really are men who feel that way. You're free to agree w/ me that the idea is a crock. Or not. It's a big world and lots of folks have lots of different points of view. The point is that I'm not fighting w/ you on this but rather I'm interested in sharing thoughts.

Agree that its a crock, although I've not heard men speaking up for female representation on the Baha'i UHoJ claim this

Not sure how those two thoughts are connected but it still seems you're not happy about something; in this case it's what you don't hear. Please consider that others may be hearing things that you're not hearing.

Misery is a way of life for millions of people and it's not healthy. Let's focus on what we want and then let's make it happen. What is it that you want w/ the men/House thing. Do you want to see women serving there? Are you already happy by w/ having something to criticize? If you're looking for a change pse share just what it is that you want that you'd be happy about on this?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Last LSA election here I was a teller & for 9th place there was a runoff between me & some local lady. As it turned out I ended up casting the deciding vote & I voted for the lady. She's never shown up for a meeting. I deeply regret my vote. Sure I'm limited in my abilities but hell, at least I'd show up so we'd have a quorum. Live & learn.

We can always hope we can live an learn Pete. I see in that case, a vote for oneself would have been good for service, and thus why subsequently it became a disappointment.

I find the thing we are yet to do as Baha'i is to really get to know all the candidates, in many cases an impossible task. Our delegate area is millions of square kilometres and most people we have never met. How can one follow the guidance of how to cast your vote!

All the best Pete, I will you, family and community well and safe in this time of rapid change.

Regards Tony

 

[danieldemol]

Misery is a way of life for millions of people and it's not healthy.

It is perfectly possible (and in my case actual) to criticise an injustice without feeling misery. If you've never criticised an injustice i suggest you give it a go sometime. It can give similar feelings to any other service to humanity in my view.

Let's focus on what we want and then let's make it happen. What is it that you want w/ the men/House thing. Do you want to see women serving there?

Having women permitted on the Universal House of Justice would be a good move as I see it, although it would expose the alleged infallibility of Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi if it were allowed and found to work (which I suspect is the reason it will never be tested).

 

[Trailblazer]

If you've never criticised an injustice i suggest you give it a go sometime.

You mean what 'you believe' is an injustice.

 

[danieldemol]

You mean what 'you believe' is an injustice.

I added "in my view" to the paragraph so saying it over and over again just seems redundant to me.

 

[Pete in Panama]

We can always hope we can live an learn Pete. I see in that case, a vote for oneself would have been good for service, and thus why subsequently it became a disappointment.

I find the thing we are yet to do as Baha'i is to really get to know all the candidates, in many cases an impossible task. Our delegate area is millions of square kilometres and most people we have never met. How can one follow the guidance of how to cast your vote!

All the best Pete, I will you, family and community well and safe in this time of rapid change.

Regards Tony

you're absolutely right that there's a lot to it. Ah well, Abdul Baha says I have to be happy, fine w/ me.

 

[Trailblazer]

you're absolutely right that there's a lot to it. Ah well, Abdul Baha says I have to be happy, fine w/ me.

Franky, I do not like Abdu'l-Baha saying 'we have to be happy' as I consider it insensitive as well as lacking in awareness.
Not to be disrespectful of him, but I think he needs to bone up on psychology. It is basic psychology why you shouldn't say this to people.
I have been over and over this with my friend @Truthseeker who knows how I feel and why I feel this way.

 

[Pete in Panama]

It is perfectly possible (and in my case actual) to criticise an injustice without feeling misery. If you've never criticised an injustice i suggest you give it a go sometime. It can give similar feelings to any other service to humanity in my view.

There's a lot to be said for that point of view, iirc Abdul Baha said that hatred of tyrants was a good thing as it leads to their downfall. It's a problem for me in that not liking something bad just isn't enough, that we have to want and work to build something better. To me there's just so little good to come from complaining about injustice while sitting on one's fanny and allowing it to continue.

Having women permitted on the Universal House of Justice would be a good move as I see it, although it would expose the alleged infallibility of Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi if it were allowed and found to work (which I suspect is the reason it will never be tested).

Neat --a lot of interesting topics there. First is having women on the House. Next is the infallibility of Abdul Baha and Shoghi Effendi. Finally is the idea that women on the House would somehow expose that fallibility. Where should we start.

How about first we understand the nature of the infallibility that Baha'is assign to the central figures. What I understand (any Baha'is w/ a pertinent reference would be welcome) is that Abdul Baha was infallible as he interpreted the writings of Baha'u'llah. He was fallible in other areas. Shoghi Effendi was infallible as he translated the Sacred Text into other languages. In other areas he was fallible. The House is infallible in how/when it chooses to apply the laws of the Bab and Baha'u'llah. In other areas they're fallible.

We good here?

Question: My assumption is that you agree that men and women are equal. Do you feel that men/women roles should be 100% equal everywhere all the time? Yeah, I know that you very well may say there has to be limits and ofcourse I agree but what I'm asking about is how you explore this conundrum.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Franky, I do not like Abdu'l-Baha saying 'we have to be happy' as I consider it insensitive as well as lacking in awareness.
Not to be disrespectful of him, but I think he needs to bone up on psychology. It is basic psychology why you shouldn't say this to people.
I have been over and over this with my friend @Truthseeker who knows how I feel and why I feel this way.

Good news: Abdul Baha never said that we have to be happy. His command of English was far to limited and whatever he said in Persian/Arabic/Turkish/French had to have been somewhat different. The garbage ur getting from me is my take, everyone has their own take...

 

[Trailblazer]

Good news: Abdul Baha never said that we have to be happy.

Then what did he say?

His command of English was far to limited and whatever he said in Persian/Arabic/Turkish/French had to have been somewhat different.

Whatever I am reading is a translation into English, so my next question is how we can we trust anything that has been translated into English, if some things were mistranslated. Were some things he said misconstrued by people who heard what he said and then later written down?

The garbage ur getting from me is my take, everyone has their own take...

No, I found it in texts like Portals to Freedom long before you said anything.