Fact: The Bahai Faith (not Bahaiism)
Different terms for the same thing.
is "A very small and new religion, with relatively few followers". That is a demonstrable fact.
Which is one definition of a "cult", as I showed.
"followers, who blindly parrot the meaningless platitudes of their charismatic leader" -
Opinion: we repeatedly see Bahai's here quoting the vague platitudes of Bahaullah.
Fact: Bahai's are here quoting the Writings of Baha'u'llah.
So we agree on the substance, it is merely the description of scripture that varies.
You have admitted that you do not understand why women are excluded from the UHJ, but you agree with the exclusion.
Thus confirming my "blindly parroting" claim.
Only the UHJ can answer that question. I would guess they will do so in due time, but there is no hurry because Baha'is are not upset about it. Should the UHJ amend the ruling just because some atheists don't like it.
You claim that the exclusion is an error, but you still agree with it.
I did not say "until there is a new message, women are excluded."
I said:
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.
Can committees of Bahais decide to change the messages of Bahaullah?
He did not intend to exclude women according to that website. That is what I believe.
*flip*
You just claimed that you agree with the exclusion.
Now you are saying that it is wrong.
That's right, we are Servants of God, the highest station a human can ever attain.
I though that was "Messenger of God"?
BTW, does Bahaullah ever refer to men as "handmen" or other similar lowly pejoratives?
I don't know and I don't care. It is not my job to run the Baha'i administration.
But you have spent much time here arguing that not only did Bahaullah intend a temporary exclusion, but also that he didn't intend an exclusion at all.
I accept whatever the UHJ decides upon.
But you don't "blindly parrot"?
It has become obvious to me that all you want to do is argue and I am not interested.
If you mean that I intend to challenge your irrational or contradictory or dubious claims, then yes. This is a religious debate forum. If you don't want to debate religion, then with all due respect - what are you doing here?
I did not claim it might change, it was only an opinion I have.
When you state your opinion on an issue, you are making a claim about it. You should spend less time on flawed semantics and pay more attention to your actual arguments.
I do not question authority as I know my proper place.
That's actually quite sad.
That is a straw man. I did not say "it's suddenly an acceptable source." I said the website is not a legitimate Baha'i website but there might be accurate information on the website.
If you cite a website in support of your argument, you are necessarily claiming it as an acceptable source.
Either/or is black and white thinking.
Indeed. Which is often not only valid, but necessary.
"But miss, marking 2+2=5 as wrong is just the black and white thinking fallacy".
There can be accurate information on a source that is not generally reliable. For example, some Christian websites post accurate information about the Baha'i Faith, but there is also much inaccurate information about the Baha'i Faith on those websites.
If a source is generally not reliable, one does not use it as a source, even it it might get a few things right.
Why do you speak for me as if you know what I am thinking?
Because it isn't that difficult.
No, I did not say that. I do not assume the publicity is favourable because I assume everyone will accept my arguments. It is fully their choice what to accept or not accept.
So, if highlighting morally questionable elements of Bahaism is not "good publicity", why did you claim that it was?
That in no way implies tat we care what you think of the Baha'i Faith.
Kinda does.
We defend the Faith because that is what Baha'u'llah has enjoined us to do.
So
he cared about what I think. So you have to as well.
I do not care what 'society in general' accepts, because I consider society corrupt and misguided.
The secular law has nothing to do with religion.
I only care what God accepts. I am therefore doing what God wants me to be doing since I try to follow what God has revealed through Baha'u'llah.
So basically the Nuremberg Defence. You are happy to ignore or reject what society or the law deems to be moral if it conflicts with what some 19th century Persian bloke said. Which is obvious by your support for sexist discrimination, homophobia and barbaric punishment.
But hold on. You have claimed that Bahaullah did not exclude women from the UHJ, but you still agree with and support the exclusion. *flop*
Nothing is conclusive. ALL you have is
a personal opinion of the Baha'i Laws,
nothing more. It is sad that you cannot understand that
because it demonstrates that you can ONLY see one perspective -- yours.
I see it from your perspective, I just disagree with your perspective; but you don't just disagree with my perspective, you continually state your opinions about the Baha'i Faith as if they are facts. It is all throughout your posts.
Not so.
The gender discrimination, homophobia and barbaric punishments are facts. They are there in black and white in Bahai scripture.
Opinion only comes into it because I think those things are morally unacceptable, but you see than as morally acceptable.
I consider the issues on the basis of a variety of rational elements like empathy, altruism, Golden Rule, social benefit, etc.
Your position is based simply on obeying orders because you "know your place". (Although even then you seem confused as to what those orders actually are).
