Only in your personal opinion.
No so...
Bahaiism
is "A very small and new religion, with relatively few followers". That is a demonstrable fact.
"followers, who blindly parrot the meaningless platitudes of their charismatic leader" - we repeatedly see Bahai's here quoting the vague platitudes of Bahaullah. That again is a demonstrable fact.
"Cult" - A system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object. A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange (OED)
You may not agree with all that, but it is not merely opinion. Ironically, that it is just option
is just your opinion.
I do not support it, I accept it.
Do you agree with it or not?
I did not say that... The mis-translation of one word does not imply that.
Sure, there could be other mistranslations of words, but the overall message is what is important, not the details.
If it is just a mistranslation, why does the Bahai establishment not amend the translation and allow women on the UHJ?
The wisdom of the exclusion of women to date.
Abdu'l-Baha was referring to what was in place at the time of writing but that does not mean it will be in place forever.
So at the moment, and until there is a new message, women are excluded. It is
not a "mistranslation".
The point is that Baha'u'llah never intended to exclude women from the UHJ permanently.
1. That is just your opinion.
2. So he
did exclude them for an indeterminate time.
Baha'u'llah was not sexist,
We judge people on their words and deeds. He showed sexist discrimination by excluding women from the UHJ.
quite the contrary. Many of His most eloquent prayers refer to handmaidens
You do realise that "handmaiden" is a term for a female servant.
A female servant. A subservient partner or element. - (Oxford English Dictionary)
"the term
handmaiden generally implies lowly status."
Handmaiden - Wikipedia
No, the quote does not say that. Read it again, in context:
since it is known that the meaning of the Tablet was that women should be excluded only temporarily from the Chicago House, the assumption that women will be permanently excluded from the current Universal House of Justice may be a faulty one. A temporary exclusion may be intended.
The elements of dialogue, struggle, persistence and anguish which are so evident in the history of the gradual participation of women on local Baha'i administrative bodies will, no doubt, all attend the working out of that answer in the future. These elements are all present today.
A temporary exclusion may be intended. working out of that answer in the future implies that we will gradually come to better understand what Baha'u'llah's intentions were with regard to women on the UHJ and put them in place.
Bahai's cannot decide that Baha'u'llah was wrong if they disagree with what He said. They can only strive to understand what He meant by what He said.
So if "
A temporary exclusion may be intended" then the answer may be a permanent one.
Articles say different things....This is only one article with one perspective. Other articles give possible reasons.
You cited that article as support for your claim that the exclusion was a mistake, or accurate but temporary (you seem unclear which). It actually confirms that is is accurate and permanent.
The UHJ says "the exclusion is "neither amenable to change nor subject to speculation about some possible future condition", which contradicts that it is not permanent and will change in the future"
because we are not supposed to speculate.
But I can speculate if I want to.
So the UHJ Staes that Bahaullah's exclusion will not change (so is permanent), and you should not claim that it
might change - but you disagree with them. Good for you. You should always question authority.
As I said, "bear in mind it is not an official Baha'i website and these is misinformation on other parts of the website. However, I think what it says about women on the UHJ is correct."
Just because some information on the website is incorrect that does not mean that all of the information on the website is incorrect.
So you earlier criticised the site for being fraudulent and containing fabrications - but if there is something you agree with, it's suddenly an acceptable source?
That is the very definition of "cherry-picking"!
To think that way is black and white thinking and it is a fallacy.
Sometimes it
is a question of "either/or".
Either the source is reliable, or it isn't. To accept an known unreliable source simply because it corresponds to your existing position is committing a basket of fallacies.
No, I did not say that.
I said "disinformation about the Baha'i Faith gives the Baha'is an opportunity to present correct information, which provides free advertising."
IOW, people pointing out that Bahaiism promotes sexism, homophobia and barbaric punishment provides free publicity. And you assume the publicity is favourable because you assume everyone will accept your arguments. However, it is clear that not everyone does accept your arguments - probably because they are contradictory, nonsensical, or merely confirm the initial accusation.
How would you know if they care?
Because you spend so much time trying to defend it.
Society in general. Dictionaries The law. You know, inconsequential stuff like that.
A morally corrupt society?
"Morally corrupt" because it refuses to consider sexist discrimination, homophobia and barbaric punishment as "morally acceptable"?
Aside from that, you are misrepresenting the Baha'i position.
There is no sexism and there is no homophobia and there is no burning people 'to death.'
We already covered this so no need for a recap.
Yet again, you demonstrate simple denial. The evidence is conclusive from Bahai scriptures.
A good attempt at avoidance.
I am not avoiding your point because not is not a point at all...
because I do not claim that Christianity is free from sexism, homophobia and barbaric punishments.
A failed argument only in your opinion.