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

[KWED]

No, I did not say that it is a miracle if someone finds faith, and I did not say that when they lose faith it is just stuff that happens. There are reasons why people lose faith and those reasons vary.,

@TransmutingSoul claimed that people recognising god through the messenger was a miracle.
I then asked about those who realise their recognition of god and acceptance of a messenger was wrong.
You replied "That is not a miracle. It is just a person who lost faith. It happens." Implying that you agreed that people finding faith was a miracle.

Do you agree that people recognising god through the messenger is a miracle? Or is it the same as people who lose faith - "It happens".

 

[KWED]

All of it.

Yes... explain why there is no possible natural explanation.
Do you claim that all failed executions are miracles?

3. is just your personal opinion. I do not share it.

Wrong. "Bab was not hit but the rope was severed" is a fact according to the eyewitness reports.
Long muskets tending to shoot high, and experienced officers instructing their men to "aim low" is an historical fact, with many recorded instances.
The latter is a reasonable explanation for the former. Certainly better than your "god decided to save Bab through miraculous intervention" - especially as he immediately changed his mind and allowed him to be shot on the next attempt.

If god wanted to show a miracle, someone not dying because they were not shot is hardy impressive.
Perhaps being shot many times by firing squad but still not dying would have been better? Or how about being hung three times but still not dying? That truly would be a "miracle"!

 

[KWED]

No, just my belief.

 

[KWED]

No, Baha'u'llah said that

You have previously stated that you have to go by what Bahaullah says, that you have to obey orders because you know your place, etc.
You have no opinion of your own.

Why would God do that? To separate the wheat from the chaff. It makes sense since God only wants the wheat.

But what makes a person "whet" or "chaff" in the first place?
Also seems a pretty discriminatory worldview, that some people are inherently better than others. I though we had moved on from those days.

The phrase "separate the wheat from the chaff" may not be terribly meaningful to you — unless you happen to be a grain farmer. The chaff is the husk surrounding a seed, the part of the grain that is generally thrown away.

You think only grain farmers know that expression?
Are you a grain farmer?

God is not trying to prevent anyone from knowing and worshiping Him. It is all there for the taking, but if you reject it that is your choice, since you have free will.

But you stated that god makes it difficult to recognise a messenger. So he is discriminating against much of humanity on some vague criteria.

"Some were guided by the Light of God, gained admittance into the court of His presence,

and quaffed, from the hand of resignation, the waters of everlasting life, and were accounted of them that have truly recognized and believed in Him. Others rebelled against Him, and rejected the signs of God, the Most Powerful, the Almighty, the All-Wise.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 145

That makes no sense. I haven't rebelled against god of Bahaism because I am certain that it doesn't exist. There are no "signs of god".
I have rebelled against it in the same way you have rebelled against Zeus and Odin and rejected their signs.

 

[KWED]

The problem ensues when people state an opinion as if it was a fact.

You seem to have trouble distinguishing between the two.
Top Tip: A "fact" that you disagree with does not become an "opinion".

 

[KWED]

Or you focus to much in finding faults in other people and their beliefs

This is a religious debate forum. Its purpose is as a place where people present and challenge arguments relating to religion. Really not sure what else to expected to find here. I don't do this with people irl. Kinda like how I don't get pissed at work, or ride at 160mph on public roads.

to recognize your own shortcommings

Which are?
(I know what they are, btw, just wondered if you had assessed them accurately)

 

[Spirit of Light]

This is a religious debate forum. Its purpose is as a place where people present and challenge arguments relating to religion. Really not sure what else to expected to find here. I don't do this with people irl. Kinda like how I don't get pissed at work, or ride at 160mph on public roads.

Which are?
(I know what they are, btw, just wondered if you had assessed them accurately)

The problemis that you dont seek Nswers, because when you get them, you refuse themand call it false or falicy, ot other strawmen.....i do not think you understand religion at all.

 

[KWED]

The problemis that you dont seek Nswers, because when you get them, you refuse themand call it false or falicy, ot other strawmen.....i do not think you understand religion at all.

Are you saying that I should simply accept whatever answer is supplied, even the contradictory ones?
Like @Trailblazer claiming that the exclusion of women was a mistake based on a mistranslation but she agrees with it. But it was also Bahaullah's intention but only meant to be temporary, but might be permanent.
Which of these positions am I supposed to accept?

I seek answers, but those answers must make sense and be consistent. If not, I will ask further questions.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Are you saying that I should simply accept whatever answer is supplied, even the contradictory ones?
Like @Trailblazer claiming that the exclusion of women was a mistake based on a mistranslation but she agrees with it. But it was also Bahaullah's intention but only meant to be temporary, but might be permanent.
Which of these positions am I supposed to accept?

I seek answers, but those answers must make sense and be consistent. If not, I will ask further questions.

Maybe you could accept that you will not always recieve the answer you want to hear.

 

[KWED]

Maybe you could accept that you will not always recieve the answer you want to hear.

I do not have any expectations of the "answer I want to hear" - other than it be rational and consistent and explain whatever it is that needs clarifying.

Has it occurred to you that all answers that presuppose the existence of a particular god my be wrong, by default?
Have you considered that a person who holds two contradictory positions is necessarily wrong on at least one of them?

 

[Spirit of Light]

I do not have any expectations of the "answer I want to hear" - other than it be rational and consistent and explain whatever it is that needs clarifying.

Has it occurred to you that all answers that presuppose the existence of a particular god my be wrong, by default?
Have you considered that a person who holds two contradictory positions is necessarily wrong on at least one of them?

Yes, i consider those things all the time.
But clearly getting a different answer than you do.
I don't have to agree with every religion or religious person, but i don't have to tell them in every single word i use that "You are wrong"

 

[KWED]

Yes, i consider those things all the time.
But clearly getting a different answer than you do.

So you don't think that answers that presuppose the existence of a specific god could be wrong?
You don't consider that one of two contradictory positions must be wrong?
Hardly objective or critical thinking there.

I don't have to agree with every religion or religious person, but i don't have to tell them in every single word i use that "You are wrong"

I'm not going to agree with an argument that I disagree with. Again, you seem to be forgetting that this is a religious debate forum. The whole point is an adversarial exchange of ideas.

Also, don't see you having a go at the religionists for disagreeing with me on every issue and telling me I am wrong - despite their positions often being irrational or contradictory. Hmm...

 

[Spirit of Light]

So you don't think that answers that presuppose the existence of a specific god could be wrong?
You don't consider that one of two contradictory positions must be wrong?
Hardly objective or critical thinking there.

I'm not going to agree with an argument that I disagree with. Again, you seem to be forgetting that this is a religious debate forum. The whole point is an adversarial exchange of ideas.

Also, don't see you having a go at the religionists for disagreeing with me on every issue and telling me I am wrong - despite their positions often being irrational or contradictory. Hmm...

I have a belief that God exist, but i do not have a solid physical evidence of the being we call God. So as i said, it is my personal belief God exists.

In my research of religious truths, i come to the answer that each religion looking toward the truth from different P.O.V, so even they see somewhat different answers and speak about it, it does not mean one is right and another one is wrong. They just have reached different levels of how close to Gods truth they see and understand.

I know it is a part of the debate forum, where i disagree with your methodes of debate is whenever a religious person debate you. You don't even slightly accept their answers as what they themselves believe to be true according to their faith.
They hold a belief, not a 100% solid answer to everything they believe, neither do I.

 

[Truthseeker]

What about the ones before Jesus?

They are also Jesus Christ in essence. All the Prophets are one in one sense, though they are also distinct in another sense.

 

[KWED]

I have a belief that God exist,
In my research of religious truths,

So you don't consider that an answer that involves the non-existence of gods, or that religion is a human fabrication, can be right.

i come to the answer that each religion looking toward the truth from different P.O.V, so even they see somewhat different answers and speak about it, it does not mean one is right and another one is wrong. They just have reached different levels of how close to Gods truth they see and understand.

But you reject the possibility of there being no "god's truth"?

You don't even slightly accept their answers as what they themselves believe to be true according to their faith.

Whuh? Of course I do.
I accept that most religionists genuinely believe what they claim to believe, and that they consider it to be the actual truth. Still don't see why you think I should have to accept it as a reasonable explanation.

They hold a belief, not a 100% solid answer to everything they believe, neither do I.

And this is what it boils down to. I am trying to establish what they base their belief on. Can they justify it with evidence-based, rational argument. Or is it merely a belief acquired through cultural means, like childhood indoctrination.
What becomes clear it that in most cases it is the latter rather than the former. It is also quite common that religionists get defensive, even angry when pressed to explain their belief beyond simply "because my religion says so".[/quote]

 

[KWED]

They are also Jesus Christ in essence.

Why are they all "Jesus"? What aren't they all Abraham or Moses or Muhammad or Bahaullah?

All the Prophets are one in one sense, though they are also distinct in another sense.

Well, they are clearly all different, but not sure how they are all the same as well.

 

[Truthseeker]

And that message includes sexist discrimination, homophobia and barbaric punishment.

From an outsider who has not investigated the claim of Baha'u'llah as a whole, it is not surprising it could look that way. There's nothing I can do, I don't believe, to dissuade you of looking at this that way.

What is your basis for that claim?

That is my own personal opinion which anyone is free to disagree with. I don't intend to try to prove this.

 

[Truthseeker]

Why are they all "Jesus"? What aren't they all Abraham or Moses or Muhammad or Bahaullah?

We could them all of those Prophets as well.

 

[Spirit of Light]

So you don't consider that an answer that involves the non-existence of gods, or that religion is a human fabrication, can be right.

But you reject the possibility of there being no "god's truth"?

Whuh? Of course I do.
I accept that most religionists genuinely believe what they claim to believe, and that they consider it to be the actual truth. Still don't see why you think I should have to accept it as a reasonable explanation.

And this is what it boils down to. I am trying to establish what they base their belief on. Can they justify it with evidence-based, rational argument. Or is it merely a belief acquired through cultural means, like childhood indoctrination.
What becomes clear it that in most cases it is the latter rather than the former. It is also quite common that religionists get defensive, even angry when pressed to explain their belief beyond simply "because my religion says so".

[/QUOTE]
Personally i believe God exist, i can not answer for those who do not believe God exists.
I do not reject, i only speak of my personal belief of God's existence.

If you had respected their answers when given to you, you would not twist and turn everything in a negative way when people telling you what their personal belief is.
Religion isn't about solid physical evidence, it is about putting our faith toward God, and living according to what God ask of us, in a good way (not harming others or our selves in the prosess)

To explain a personal belief, is not as easy as you think, especially when speaking with people who only accept the physical world as "real"

 

[KWED]

From an outsider who has not investigated the claim of Baha'u'llah as a whole, it is not surprising it could look that way.

He decreed that women can not serve on the UHJ. How do you see that as not being sexist discrimination?
He forbade homosexuality and called it an "evil passion" (Shoghi Effendi called it "a shameful sexual aberration"). How do you see that as not homophobic?
He said that anyone guilty of arson should be burned. How is that not a barbaric punishment.

There's nothing I can do, I don't believe, to dissuade you of looking at this that way.

Of course there is. Present a rational argument for why they are not what they appear to be.

That is my own personal opinion which anyone is free to disagree with. I don't intend to try to prove this.

So just an assertion. You could be wrong.