Who Was Baha’u’llah, and How Can We Evaluate His Claims?

[CG Didymus]

That is not the aim CG, never has been with God. God' Dominion is our hearts in Faith.

To even offer this is a complete lack of understanding of the Message given by all Messengers, none of them what rule over this earth.

Regards Tony

So, the government will not be on his shoulders? Can you explain this quote...

Baha’u’llah envisioned a time in the future when the peoples of the world will live together in peace and unity as members of one faith. Universal justice will be established based on adherence to the law of God. A new civilization based on spiritual values will come into being. He referred to this as the Most Great Peace.
​

What does it mean when it says the people will live in peace and unity as members of one faith? And Universal justice based on the law of God? If the Baha'is aren't who he's talking about then who? And a "complete" lack of understanding? I thought the Messiah was going to rule on the throne of David. I guess I was wrong. Baha'is are going to have their laws, those given by God? And everybody else will make up their own secular laws? And there is going to be peace and unity?

 

[CG Didymus]

What help were you looking for CG?

Regards Tony

The kind that some Baha'is don't have. They claim their prophet has all the answers to today's problems. They claim he fulfilled all the prophecies of all the religions. Does he and did he? Let me guess the answer is "yes" and it's my choice and that's the quandary. When people go to a fireside, is that the kind of answers they are given?

 

[CG Didymus]

You know nothing of them, how can you make such accusations?

Can you see the arrogance is such an accusations?

Regards Tony

What do you think of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad? Why does he have more followers than Baha'u'llah? I don't know. Do you know? Do you care? Or do you automatically reject him as a false prophet? And no fair to now look him up and give me the reasons why you reject him. I wouldn't be surprised if all you had to hear is that he made the same claim as Baha'u'llah, and that is all you needed to know to reject him as a fraud.

 

[rational experiences]

Human choice of peace is no subject in science.

Relativity we say is what is exactly relative to our human self. Surviving in created creation.

O earth reactive no control.
Heavens reactive no control.
Cosmic body reactive no control.
No peace in created or evolving changing creation.

Human peace we identify is one place humans agree upon. To live unified.

Truthfully the Muslim history fallen star science theist history versed teaching wandering star passing holy Christian teaching.

Feared. Said to self don't allow Muslim history to take over earths human status. Reason why was theism. God stories.

Human theism human sciences from stars fall burning of nature on earth.

Bahuallah...terms Muslim quotive.

Baha'i state leader murdered.
Christians said leader murdered.

Moot human argument about leadership. It's about the human challenge of hierarchy.

So they say it has to be an advised type of new yet mutual spiritual ordering. Reasoned.... as life was given ceremony practice prayer meditation gathering to achieve human social behaviours.

As science had removed the mutual family trade society equality. Conscious human feelings emotive motivation.

With nations DNA being the diverse human standing. Not organisation or teaching. DNA type.

Humans are taught earth life only survived by inheritance of the scattering of nations. DNA diversity is what it is. Status.

But not status to take over control life anywhere else.

We live and mutually survive as DNA status is diverse. If it were just one type of human DNA today we would not survive.

And it has a spiritual purpose a lot of humans don't rationalise.

Therefore the only crime committed against God planet earth and it's mass is human technical sciences.

And just about all nations agreement together to utilise its cessation life in attack sacrifice.

So no longer is there some innocent culture on earth by human choice. Technology changing of gods terms holy body of god.

Notified was historic by re emerging scientific theists of our ancient past. Baha'i advice teaching against that emergence changing culture. Who had been taught all human warnings about earth changes were by man's sciences. His history star fall brain mind inherited.

The term loss of spirit 1000 years from Jesus but cooling same event.

To Russia 1901 hit....not the same outcome was already known it would occur. Baha'i warning. Consciousness losses.

The warnings were as messages.

Bahuallah messages involved free speech manners and governing techniques.

It also involved the human reality where human thought messages for humans god science technology had come from. Originally.

Human living. Human gets his God science message in star fall.

Today hence human consciousness knows part of the Baha'i message is real and part wrong.

As God science terms was always wrong and contradictive. Versus natural life's survival.

It's why natural human life owning no authority has to realise it's new message themselves.

 

[ppp]

It is true that only men can serve on the UHJ.
It is not true that Baha'u'llah is guilty of misogyny/sexist discrimination.

Um. Restricting women from holding positions of power and governance in a society is literally sexism.

 

[Trailblazer]

Um. Restricting women from holding positions of power and governance in a society is literally sexism.

It is not sexism just because women cannot serve on 'one' of the Baha'i institutions, as women serve on all the other Baha'i institutions. And since you do not have a clue as to why they cannot serve, you cannot justly say it is sexism.

sexism: prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=sexism+is

But you are going to believe whatever you want to believe, just like everyone else. It is always easier to toss labels around then to find out the truth.

 

[ppp]

But you are going to believe whatever you want to believe, just like everyone else. It is always easier to toss labels around then to find out the truth.

But I am not just tossing labels around. Not only did I give you the label, but I also gave you the action and reason that makes it sexism. If you want to give the countervailing reason (that you failed to supply in your response) that it is not restricting people from participating on all levels of society based on their genitals, then by all means... please do.

 

[Ella S.]

Like this…
P1. All men are mortal.
P2. Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
?

Yes, that is a deductive argument.

Is it not the case that the belief that the world only began to exist Last Thursday is not baseless.
Is it not the case that everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence?

If we were to observe anything that began to exist, then it would violate the first law of thermodynamics and revolutionize our understanding of physics.

Therefore, claiming that everything that begins to exist has a cause is baseless, because we have never observed anything that began to exist.

 

[KWED]

Yes.

So you agree that you have a "blindly intolerant, religious mindset".
Some refreshing honesty right there!

God supports a just punishment for the crime committed.

You claimed that my morality comes from god, despite not believing in him
You have just agreed that it cannot, as my morality is opposed to that revealed by god. So, where does it come from?

I do not consider capital punishment to be immoral when it is warranted.

So if someone burns down a house it is justified to burn them to death?

No, that is not what I do. I sometimes use scripture to support what I am explaining.

And as you have just illustrated, your explanations are often contradictory - probably because they are based on blind acceptance of dogma rather than carefully considered, rational thinking.

You can only guess. One does need to be God to have perfect foreknowledge.

If I leave metallic iron in the presence of water and oxygen under normal atmospheric conditions, it will rust. That is not a guess. It is perfect foreknowledge.

Nobody except God knows that, since nobody else can see into the future.

So all your efforts to achieve this utopia are pointless. It either will happen or will not, depending on what god knows.

Why does it matter anyway? We live in the present, not in the future.

Just a minute? The whole purpose of the Bahaullah's message seems to be to affect the future. Y'all keep going on about how we can't have world peace and unity without following Bahullah's teaching.
Now you are saying not to worry about the future and live in the moment?

That is a good interpretation. I believe that will happen in the future.

To quote a philosopher most wise... "Why does it matter anyway? We live in the present, not in the future."

No, He is not saying that. Show me where He said that.

So when he said ...
"That which the Lord hath ordained as the sovereign remedy and mightiest instrument for the healing of all the world is the union of all its peoples in one universal Cause"
he wasn't referring to Bahaiism or Bahaullah's message as the means of bringing about global peace and unity?
So what is that "sovereign remedy" then?

I do not know the future, I only know the present. I do not live in the future so I cannot join a religion that does not exist yet.

But you just made a claim about the future - that Bahaiism may not be the faith that saves the world. In which case, why promote or follow it?

I am not preaching the message, I am just responding to posts when I have time.

Ah, is this another "a claim is not a statement" argument?

You ripped what I said out of its context. I was saying that in order to know what is going to happen in the future, we have to go by what was written by Baha'u'llah, and then I posted what was written.

Oh. So you don't have to go by what Bahaullah has written concerning the past or present? How does that work?

I try to follow what was written by Baha'u'llah, but I see both sides since I have a tendency to listen and question and analyze everything, rather than just believing everything because it is in scripture.

Have you found anything in his writings that you disagree with?

 

[KWED]

First, what you stated is only your own opinion of the Baha'i Laws.

Not my opinion at all.
Bahaullah excluded women from the UHJ. This is the definition of sexist discrimination.
Buahullah prohibited and condemned homosexuality. Shoghi Effendi called it a "shameful sexual aberration". That is the definition of homophobia.
Bahaullah proclaimed that some people should be burned alive. That is the definition of brutal and barbaric.

If you disagree, please explain why.

Second, Baha'i Laws are not for the purpose of bringing about global peace and unity.

We can disregard this now as you have claimed that you only have to go by what Bahaullah says concerning the future. You can just ignore his laws for the present. (I predict that you will soon contradict your earlier statement and claim that you do have to abide by what he says about the present).

 

[KWED]

By not including the context.

So what was the "context" that changed the implication of his statement?

A congenital disorder is a condition that is present from birth. Congenital disorders can be inherited or caused by environmental factors.

So as I said, it is not an issue of "inheritance".

No, Abdu'l-Baha was not admitting that, I was doing the math so I concluded that.

He said...
"But there are certain things to which man is forced and compelled, such as ...sickness; these are not subject to the will of man, and he is not responsible for them, for he is compelled to endure them."
So who "compels him to endure them", if not god?

God does not kill babies, babies die. Lots of other people also suffer and die, that's the way God designed the material world. If you want to blame God at least blame Him for what He actually did.

You have Bahaullah saying that only god can dispose of life, in the way he deem best. He also said that we are compelled to suffer things like illness. Plus god knows the future and can do anything.
So given all that, how do you claim that god is not responsible for babies dying in agony from congenital conditions? How does it happen if he isn't?

Indirectly, God is responsible for all suffering and death that is not freely chosen by humans since God created a world that is a storehouse of suffering.

So to use an analogy, god may not be convicted of murder, but he would go to jail for manslaughter or negligent homicide.

This also implies that there is stuff happening in the world that god has no control over. Of that he could prevent the agonising death of those babies, but he choses not to.
So either way, he is still a monster only worthy of condemnation, not worship.

Why harp on babies, God is also responsible for the suffering and death children and adults.

I use the example of babies suffering from congenital conditions to avoid apologists blaming the suffering on "sin", personal responsibility, external neglect, or other factors.

 

[KWED]

Not the same at all.

The claim is that the religions of the past were actually valid and from god at one point, but are no longer valid or applicable. Whether this is through redundancy or corruption, the end result is the same.

BTW, are you now claiming that earlier messages were not corrupted?

 

[samtonga43]

Yes, that is a deductive argument.

If we were to observe anything that began to exist, then it would violate the first law of thermodynamics and revolutionize our understanding of physics.

Therefore, claiming that everything that begins to exist has a cause is baseless, because we have never observed anything that began to exist.

It seems to me that “Everything that begins to exist has a cause”, is more obviously true than its negation.

Did you just pop into the world un-caused? Do you sit down for dinner and find that your food has appeared on the plate by magic? I am sure we can all think of many more examples.

I believe that the idea that something just cannot come into being from nothing, comes from the general metaphysical intuition. It is constantly confirmed in our experience.

 

[samtonga43]

The kind that some Baha'is don't have. They claim their prophet has all the answers to today's problems. They claim he fulfilled all the prophecies of all the religions. Does he and did he? Let me guess the answer is "yes" and it's my choice and that's the quandary. When people go to a fireside, is that the kind of answers they are given?

CG, you have mentioned this 'fireside' before. What is it?

 

[KWED]

"I" do not have to since I do not know more than a Messenger of God.

IOW - "We have to go by what was written by Baha'u'llah"
And yet, you just claimed that this only applies to the future. As usual, your position changes with the wind.

Too bad you do not LIKE the Baha'i Laws. That is what this is all about, what YOU like and consider appropriate.

So, are you saying that you support sexual discrimination, homophobia, and barbaric punishments?
Or are you just using the Nuremberg Defence ("We have to go by what was written by Baha'u'llah")

YOU know better than Baha'u'llah, who is a Messenger of God.

Mere question begging.
You are assuming he was a messenger of god and so you have to accept whatever he says.
But what is he was just a man of his place and time, subject to the same prejudices as those around him. What if he was just a bit of a sexist homophobe because that's generally how people were?

But if He is a Messenger of God it is logically impossible for you to KNOW MORE since nobody can know more than an all-knowing God.

Again, you are just assuming that if there is a god, that god is entirely morally good. If his message includes sexism, homophobia and barbarism, then he is clearly not entirely morally good, by my moral standards.

If Baha'u'llah was not a Messenger of God anything goes

Of course it doesn't. What a ridiculous claim. Look at any secular, liberal democracy. Does "anything go" there?

but that does not mean what YOU believe is good for society is what is actually good. You don't set the standards, nor do the prevailing socially acceptable norms.

You seem to have fundamentally misunderstood how social morality works. We have moved away from things that are condoned or prescribed by religion, like sexism, homophobia and barbaric punishments, precisely because civilised society is no longer prepared to accept them.

 

[KWED]

That is covered because Baha'is believe that Hinduism is a true religion of God.

So polytheism is a true religion on the one true god? How does that work? (Don't tell me, it was corrupted)

I do not agree with it. Nobody should pretend to believe in God just to cover their bases, avoid hell and get to heaven. God knows what is in all our minds and hearts so pretending would not work anyway.

Believing in Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism just to cover your bases would seem to be the definition of Pascal's wager.

Why isn't it sincerity? What does one have to do with the other?

You can't believe in monotheism and polytheism at the same time. One of those beliefs must be insincere. So, which is it?

 

[KWED]

These changes were 'stimulated' by the Holy Spirit which was released in the world by the Bab and Baha'u'llah.
A similar thing happened when Jesus released the Holy Spirit into the world.

The Enlightenment, Industrial Revolution and the beginnings of socialism happened before Bab was born.

You have both lost touch with reality.

 

[KWED]

It is not sexism just because women cannot serve on 'one' of the Baha'i institutions, as women serve on all the other Baha'i institutions. And since you do not have a clue as to why they cannot serve, you cannot justly say it is sexism.

sexism: prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.
sexism is - Google Search

But you are going to believe whatever you want to believe, just like everyone else. It is always easier to toss labels around then to find out the truth.

You posted a link and gave a description that literally confirm that excluding women from a job on the basis of their gender is sexism!
The cognitive dissonance is strong with this one.

 

[samtonga43]

Only men on the UHJ, and there us a reason for that which will be revealed in due time. Women serve on all the NSAs and all the other Baha'i institutions. Just because women don't serve on the UHJ that is not misogyny. Get a dictionary.

Use your dictionary intelligently
Definition of misogyny
: hatred of, aversion to, or prejudice against women

Yes, they do have to jump to that conclusion since they do not know the real REASON women do not serve on the UHJ.

Do you know the 'real reason'?
If you do not, then you are jumping to the conclusion that it is not because of prejudice against women. Don't preach if you can't practise.

No, the Light of God comes through all the Messengers of God, then, now, and forever. Your exclusivist Christian beliefs will never change God's Method of revealing Himself.

The Triune God reveals Himself in Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity, and infinitely more than a mere messenger. There is no comparison. IMO.

 

[samtonga43]

You are free to take your chances as we all are because you have free will.

Did you look upon your acceptance of MrB as 'taking a chance'?