Which is one definition of a "cult", as I showed.
That does not mean that all very small and new religions with relatively few followers are cults.
Cult is just a word. Early Christianity was also considered a cult but now Christianity is considered a religion.
So we agree on the substance, it is merely the description of scripture that varies.
It is the opinions of the scripture that vary.
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.
No, I did not admit that, I said I think I know why.
You claim that the exclusion is an error, but you still agree with it.
I did not say I agree. I said I accept it, because it is not MY decision to make. I might not agree with a decision my boss makes but I accept it because he is at a higher level than I am.
Can committees of Bahais decide to change the messages of Bahaullah?
No, they can never do that.
*flip*
You just claimed that you agree with the exclusion.
Now you are saying that it is wrong.
No flip.
I said: He did not intend to exclude women according to that website. That is what I believe.
I did not say I
agree with the exclusion, I said I
accept the exclusion because it is not MY choice to make.
I though that was "Messenger of God"?
BTW, does Bahaullah ever refer to men as "handmen" or other similar lowly pejoratives?
No, but handmaidens is not a lowly pejorative.
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.
No, I have just been responding to posts, I am not arguing.
But you don't "blindly parrot"?
No, I don't do anything blindly, I do it because I can see.
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?
No, that is not what I mean because that is not what I said.
I said: It has become obvious to me that all you want to do is argue and I am not interested.
I did not say I do not want to debate about religion, I only said I don't want to argue.
A debate does not have to be acrimonious but it becomes acrimonious when a person goes over the same things over and over and over and keeps insisting I am right and you are wrong and keeps criticizing the other person.
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.
No, an opinion is not a claim. Get a dictionary.
That's actually quite sad.
No, it is actually quite good.
That's why I have never been in any conflict with a boss and I have never been fired from a job in all the 45 years I have been employed.
If you cite a website in support of your argument, you are necessarily claiming it as an acceptable source.
No, not at all, especially when I say up front that it is not a legitimate source.
If a source is generally not reliable, one does not use it as a source, even it it might get a few things right.
How about I will do what I want to do and you can do what you want to do?
I cited it as a source because it was the best way to explain what I believe happened with the UHJ being all men, the most detailed explanation and the one that made the most sense.
Because it isn't that difficult.
Not only difficult, but impossible.
So, if highlighting morally questionable elements of Bahaism is not "good publicity", why did you claim that it was?
I never claimed that it was. It is neither good or bad, it is just publicity, becaue it draws attention to the Faith.
People are free to decide if there are any morally questionable elements.
So he cared about what I think. So you have to as well.
I said: We defend the Faith because that is what Baha'u'llah has enjoined us to do.
I did not say he cared about what you think. He did not care what you think, but He cared what you say if it is false. The same applies to me.
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.
Yep, I am happy to ignore or reject what society deems to be moral if it conflicts with what Baha'u'llah said, but I do not ignore what the law says because Baha'is are enjoined to obey the laws of the countries they live in.
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*
No flop. I support the UHJ as the authority to decide, my choice.
Not so.
The gender discrimination, homophobia and barbaric punishments are facts. They are there in black and white in Bahai scripture.
That is your personal opinion of what is IN the scripture,
nothing more.
There is no gender discrimination, homophobia or barbaric punishments, that is only how YOU interpret the laws.
Opinion only comes into it because I think those things are morally unacceptable, but you see than as morally acceptable.
Morally unacceptable to
who? To a society which is patently immoral and disintegrating before our very faces?
I consider the issues on the basis of a variety of rational elements like empathy, altruism, Golden Rule, social benefit, etc.
So do I.
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).
Straw man.
