Where are the people?

[Truthseeker]

Because words don't mean what they really mean am I right?

You can be too literal. But I don't care what you think about this subject, you scorned the Baha'i faith to begin with. This changes nothing.

 

[danieldemol]

Neither Abdu'l-Baha nor Shoghi Effendi are infallible is not contrary to the teachings. Neither one of them ever claimed infallibility.
Even if Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi are considered infallible in a certain sphere, and I don't believe that, that does not make me a Covenant-breaker.
Ask @Truthseeker and he will explain it.

Sure he will, he likes you and is willing to bend the rules, but write to the Baha'i Universal House of Justice explaining that you don't believe Abdul-Baha is infallible with respect to interpreting the writings and don't believe Shoghi Effendi is infallible with respect to the Baha'i teachings and that you not only have publicly proclaimed this but will continue to do so and see how far it gets you in my view.

 

[We Never Know]

Not with respect to my God, but with respect to Trailblazer's God I am in my view.

What sets your god apart from the other gods and makes it believable?

 

[Truthseeker]

Than that would have to mean that Abdu'l-Baha was not infallible.

That is contrary to my understanding as you know. I can't prove that. No, you are not a Covenant Breaker. A Covenant Breaker tries to set up an alternative administration. It doesn't apply to people with unusual understandings, @danieldemol. Maybe you have never understood that?

 

[Trailblazer]

Sure he will, he likes you and is willing to bend the rules, but write to the Baha'i Universal House of Justice explaining that you don't believe Abdul-Baha is infallible with respect to interpreting the writings and don't believe Shoghi Effendi is infallible with respect to the Baha'i teachings and that you not only have publicly proclaimed this but will continue to do so and see how far it gets you in my view.

That doesn't make me a Covenant-breaker. You really need to brush up on what a Covenant-breaker is.

Definition​

Covenant-breaking does not refer to attacks from non-Bahá'ís or former Baha'is. Rather, it is in reference to internal campaigns of opposition where the Covenant-breaker is seen as challenging the unity of the Bahá'í Faith, causing internal division, or by claiming or supporting an alternate succession of authority or administrative structure. The central purpose of the covenant is to prevent schism and dissension.[1]

Covenant-breaker - Wikipedia

 

[danieldemol]

You can be too literal. But I don't care what you think about this subject, you scorned the Baha'i faith to begin with. This changes nothing.

So we can just take words to mean whatever we want them to mean? In that case I choose that by "refer ye whatsoever ye understand not in the Book to Him Who hath branched from this mighty Stock." Baha'u'llah was using Abdul-Baha's title symbolically to refer to me and you Baha'i are just being "too literal" ROFL.

Only half joking of course, I would never appoint myself the sole interpreter of Baha'u'llah's words, but you see the point I'm sure, it is not being "too literal" to assume words mean what they really mean

 

[Trailblazer]

That is contrary to my understanding as you know. I can't prove that. No, you are not a Covenant Breaker. A Covenant Breaker tries to set up an alternative administration. It doesn't apply to people with unusual understandings, @danieldemol.

I cannot believe Abdu'l-Baha was infallible. Only God and Manifestations of God are infallible.
Baha'is are doing the same thing Christians do with the Bible, taking the Writings and trying to make them mean what they want to believe.

 

[Truthseeker]

Sure he will, he likes you and is willing to bend the rules, but write to the Baha'i Universal House of Justice explaining that you don't believe Abdul-Baha is infallible with respect to interpreting the writings

She doesn't believe that. She doesn't believe that Abdu'l-Baha is infallible in everything He says. I do, as do most Baha'is. There is nothing ironclad that supports my position.

 

[Truthseeker]

I cannot believe Abdu'l-Baha was infallible. Only God and Manifestations of God are infallible.
Baha'is are doing the same thing Christians do with the Bible, taking the Writings and trying to make them mean what they want to believe.

We all do that, including you.

 

[danieldemol]

That is contrary to my understanding as you know. I can't prove that. No, you are not a Covenant Breaker. A Covenant Breaker tries to set up an alternative administration. It doesn't apply to people with unusual understandings, @danieldemol.

I think you may be telling only a partial truth here, but as it is not my wish to get @Trailblazer expelled from her community I'm dropping it.

 

[We Never Know]

I think you may be telling only a partial truth here, but as it is not my wish to get @Trailblazer expelled from her community I'm dropping it.

Then take up this...

Not with respect to my God, but with respect to Trailblazer's God I am in my view.

What sets your god apart from the other gods and makes it believable?

 

[danieldemol]

She doesn't believe that. She doesn't believe that Abdu'l-Baha is infallible in everything He says. I do, as do most Baha'is. There is nothing ironclad that supports my position.

I think you have not gotten her point exactly. I think she believes that Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi are not infallible with respect to Baha'i teaching or prophecy.

Do you mean nothing ironclad in the writings of Baha'u'llah to support the above? There certainly seems to be ironclad support in the claims made by Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi in my view.

 

[danieldemol]

Then take up this...



What sets your god apart from the other gods and makes it believable?

Nothing makes it believable, but since you asked what sets it apart is that it doesn't intervene in the material realm, this includes not sending Messengers etc.

 

[Truthseeker]

So we can just take words to mean whatever we want them to mean? In that case I choose that by "refer ye whatsoever ye understand not in the Book to Him Who hath branched from this mighty Stock." Baha'u'llah was using Abdul-Baha's title symbolically to refer to me and you Baha'i are just being "too literal" ROFL.

Only half joking of course, I would never appoint myself the sole interpreter of Baha'u'llah's words, but you see the point I'm sure, it is not being "too literal" to assume words mean what they really mean

I am trying to get it to mean what I want it to mean, but the reason I'm doing that is because I've found over about 52 years that the evidence overwhelming in favor of Baha'u'llah being the real deal in my view, so a detail like this doesn't change that for me. You can overlook a forest if you just look at a few trees. I used to do that, look at a few trees and overlook the forest. I'm not doing that any more.

Notice how I've looked for the flaw in what @Trailblazer was saying. I've always done that, because I am a truth seeker, and want to know the truth.

 

[danieldemol]

I am trying to get it to mean what I want it to mean

'Nuff said lol

 

[We Never Know]

Nothing makes it believable, but since you asked what sets it apart is that it doesn't intervene in the material realm, this includes not sending Messengers etc.

"Nothing makes it believable"

Then why do you believe in it?

"but since you asked what sets it apart is that it doesn't intervene in the material realm, this includes not sending Messengers etc."

So have you learned about it by speaking to it directly? Or have others played a part in your learning? Those others could be messengers in your teaching. People that talk/teach about a god are pretty much messengers to others for that god IMO

 

[Truthseeker]

'Nuff said lol

That's you all over. You only quote a person's post which you want to post. You don't even acknowledge any virtue I may have. That seems to be impossible for you. That's why you are in the dark.

 

[danieldemol]

"Nothing makes it believable"

Then why do you believe in it?

I'm not entirely sure, it may simply be because i was indoctrinated to believe in God and post-hoc rationalised the rest, but I'm feeling certain it doesn't strictly involve critical thinking.

"but since you asked what sets it apart is that it doesn't intervene in the material realm, this includes not sending Messengers etc."

So have you learned about it by speaking to it directly?

No, it doesn't intervene in the material realm.

Or have others played a part in your learning? Those others could be messengers in your teaching.

Only if there was a God speaking directly to them, otherwise they are simply the messengers of their own speculations about a God they too have never met in my view.

 

[Trailblazer]

I am trying to get it to mean what I want it to mean,

So what you are saying is that you want it to be true? What is "it"? The whole Baha'i Revelation?

but the reason I'm doing that is because I've found over about 52 years that the evidence overwhelming in favor of Baha'u'llah being the real deal in my view, so a detail like this doesn't change that for me.

So the reason you are doing that is because you believe it is true, not because you want it to be true even if it is not true.

You can overlook a forest if you just look at a few trees. I used to do that, look at a few trees and overlook the forest. I'm not doing that any more.

It is completely illogical to look at a few trees in a forest, things that you disagree with and may not even be wrong, and overlook the entire forest.
There is no way the Baha'i Revelation can be false, it is logically impossible, and that is why I believe it, not because I want to believe it.

 

[danieldemol]

That's you all over. You only quote a person's post which you want to post. You don't even acknowledge any virtue I may have. That seems to be impossible for you. That's why you are in the dark.

So because I dont praise you I'm in the dark. Are you a needy person who needs the praise of others? If not I can't see why it matters if I dont praise you in my view.