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

[Trailblazer]

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

You seem to have trouble distinguishing between the two.
Top Tip: An "opinion" that you agree with does not become a "fact".

 

[Trailblazer]

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

That is a valid position, but that is not what you have been doing. You have not been asking further questions. You have just been presenting your opinions over and over and over again, and not listening to the other side of the issues we are discussing.

In short, it is your way or the highway.

 

[ppp]

That is a valid position, but that is not what you have been doing. You have not been asking further questions. You have just been presenting your opinions over and over and over again, and not listening to the other side of the issues we are discussing.

In short, it is your way or the highway.

Or the other side has simply been falling short.

 

[KWED]

One correction. He forbade homosexual sex.

Why? What's the harm?

He also forbids sex outside of marriage, including before marriage.

Again, why?
And now gay marriage is legal, that should make homosexual sex ok, yes?

I'm married to a woman who is homosexual, and to me that makes no difference in how I see her.

So you disagree with Bahaullah and Shoghi Effendi on the issue.
It's always good to see people breaking the oppressive shackles of their religious dogma.

As to sexist discrimination in the Baha'i Faith, you can't just single out one thing. You have to look at the whole picture.

You mean, the homophobia and barbaric punishment as well?
And again, the Jimmy Savile defence.
"Your Honour, you can't just single out the child abuse, you have look at all the charity work".

It's not a matter of rationality.

I agree. It is about confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, wishful thinking, etc..

It's a matter of investigating Baha'u'llah, determining whether He is who He says he is, then if you believe He is what He says He is, what He says goes. There is some misunderstanding of the issues above by you, but it is useless because in the end I can't effect you see this as a whole.

So you can't provide any rational argument or evidence to support the claim that A) there is a god and B) Bahaullah was his messenger. You admit that it is purely a matter of belief. So Bahaism is no different to any other religion on the planet, and your claims carry no more weight than theirs.

 

[KWED]

To the first question :Yes my belief could be wrong.

Well, that's a start.

To the second question : I dont tell you what to do, if you dont want to respect that they hold a belief thaat contradict yours, thats your issue.

You seem to be missing or avoiding the point here. It is not about respecting someone's right to hold whatever beliefs they choose - it is about respecting (or not) those actual beliefs.
I believe slavery is fundamentally, morally wrong. If someone claims that it is morally acceptable, an I supposed to "respect" that belief? Of course not. I rightfully condemn and challenge it.

The third answer: I Don't tell God what is right or wrong, i live my life as best i can and try to do as little wrong as possible, without telling others what they should or should not do in the bed.

This is just the Nuremberg Defence. You should try thinking for yourself about what is right and wrong, rather than just blindly following orders.

Fourt answer: because i have faith in the existence of God

But you just admitted that god might not exist.

Fifth answer: where i live taxes are payed automatically, so no in that setting i would not trust you.

So you would base your response on scepticism, evidence and rational thinking. So why not use the same process when it comes to a supposed god and messengers? Why do you simply accept unsupported claims?

Sixt answer: because i have personal experiences that indicate there are other worlds unseen to the human eyes. And no i can not prove it to others since it is personal experiences.

What kind of "personal experiences" were there?
You should bear in mind that we know that the brain can produce imaginary experiences that seem absolutely real to the subject. So how do you know whether your "experience" was generated inside or outside your physical brain?
As we have conclusive evidence that the physical brain produces such experiences, but we have zero evidence that such experiences are caused by "other worlds", which do you think is the more reasonable explanation?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Well, that's a start.

You seem to be missing or avoiding the point here. It is not about respecting someone's right to hold whatever beliefs they choose - it is about respecting (or not) those actual beliefs.
I believe slavery is fundamentally, morally wrong. If someone claims that it is morally acceptable, an I supposed to "respect" that belief? Of course not. I rightfully condemn and challenge it.

This is just the Nuremberg Defence. You should try thinking for yourself about what is right and wrong, rather than just blindly following orders.

But you just admitted that god might not exist.

So you would base your response on scepticism, evidence and rational thinking. So why not use the same process when it comes to a supposed god and messengers? Why do you simply accept unsupported claims?

What kind of "personal experiences" were there?
You should bear in mind that we know that the brain can produce imaginary experiences that seem absolutely real to the subject. So how do you know whether your "experience" was generated inside or outside your physical brain?
As we have conclusive evidence that the physical brain produces such experiences, but we have zero evidence that such experiences are caused by "other worlds", which do you think is the more reasonable explanation?

Honestly you do not understand anything about religious faith and belief. Or you making your self stupid to gain your "victory" in a discussion that is going nowhere.

 

[KWED]

Yes indeed, I would have said the greatest miracle is a change of heart in the recognition of the Messenger of God,

"A change of heart" can work both ways. Therefore by your argument, recognising that Bahaullah was just a deluded or dishonest man is also a miracle.
(This is where your lack of rational thinking and reliance on platitudes trips you up).

Thus the greatest sin is subsequently turning away from the Messenger back to self, when one had recognised them.

What is the appropriate punishment for "the greatest sin"?

"The greatest miracle of the Manifestation of God is that He changes the hearts of people and creates a new civilization merely through the influence of His word.

So a people in some nations have moved away from god and created better, safer, more equal and just societies, that is a miracle from god?

Every word that He utters is creative and endowed with such potency that all the powers of the world will not be able to resist the world-vivifying forces that are released through it. Like the animating energies of the spring season which are let loose in abundance and penetrate to the core of all living things, the creative Word of the Manifestation of God revolutionizes human society and by its resistless force breaks down man-made barriers of opposition, creating a new race of men and a new civilization."

The problem you have is that in general, the less reliant on the "word of god" a society is, the better it ranks on all social benefit measures.
The evidence suggests that the most religious and god-fearing societies tend to be more oppressive, restrictive, intolerant, unjust, violent, etc...

(This is where you claim that all those religious societies aren't doing it properly )

 

[KWED]

It is offered the Message is suited to the age CG.

But the evidence shows that the message is more suited to the place, and that messages don't really change over time.
How is Bahaism suited to 21st century liberal secular democracies?

Pick an issue the world now has, issues that the 1800's did not have, nor were they considering, like National disarmament.

Which countries are currently considering national disarmament?
Also, there were arms limitations treaties in the 1800s. You have been misinformed (or are just making it up).

Baha'u'llah has given the solutions.

What is Bahaullah's "solution" to international armed conflict? Let me guess, a world government and global unity?

 

[KWED]

God has always given us our choices CG.

The Baha'i are changing their own selves and then offering community based programs. Children's classes, youth empowerment, all virtue based.

The more we teach, the better chance the next generation has the chance of change.

There is nothing else we can do. People have to find the motivation themselves, I am no different.

Regards Tony

Why is "Be good to each other because a god tells you to" better than "Be good to each other because it is the right thing to do"?

 

[KWED]

The Messengers warn us to be aware that our own selves are very deceptive.

Indeed.
Therefore each messenger could be deceiving themselves that they are a messenger.

So if someone claims to be a messenger of god, don't believe them.

 

[KWED]

The only answer i csn give you is that those personal experiences i have haf csn not be duplicated or shown to anybody else, due to the reason I experienced them was to evolve spiritual in my own life, those experience was ment only for me.

Just like the experiences that other religious or spiritual people have in their own life.

So just like all the others, you have no way of knowing if those experiences were real or merely delusional.

Given that we have conclusive evidence of delusional experiences that seem entirely real to the subject, but zero evidence for the existence of the supernatural - which do you think is the better explanation for your experiences?

 

[KWED]

I accept that Baha'u'llah had an existing belief in a God who sent the Messenger Muhammad because He was raised as a Muslim, but I do not know what His other existing beliefs were.

If he was raised as a Muslim, why would he have any other existing beliefs?

All I know is that after He received His Revelation from God, He was aware that God has sent many Messengers throughout human history and God will continue to do so. I know that because that is what He wrote.

Erm, that is part of Islamic doctrine, so that was what he was raised to believe. His "existing belief".
Obviously, if he then claims to be the next messenger of god, he has to reject a part of Islamic doctrine, thus committing an act of kufr/invalidating Muhammad as one of god's messengers.

 

[KWED]

I can support Baha'u'llah's claims with evidence

But you can't, because you don't understand what "evidence" is. You merely have claims and assertions.

but there is nothing I can say that will convince others of the truth of His claims.

If you have real evidence, you could. You know, like how in a court of law people are convinced of the innocence or guilt of the defendant, or how others are convinced that the Higgs Boson exists or that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor.
That's how "evidence" works.

 

[KWED]

No, it is based upon God's knowledge and God's will. God does not reason, only humans reason.

It is knowledge that God has by virtue of being God. God is all-knowing by nature, God does not have to determine anything. Only humans have to determine things because thye do not know everything.

God is not constrained by anything external to Him.
God did not decide that "x is good or x is bad" so that is not a subjective determination.
God does not decide what is good or bad, God inherently knows what is good or bad because God is all-knowing.

Nope. God's choices are not based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions, they are based upon God's knowledge..

Baha'u'llah wrote stuff attributed to Himself but that was not anthropomorphism because Baha'u'llah never claimed to be God.

Some of them did, because they were trying to reach man at his own level, so they were appealing to man's limited ability to understand an unknowable God..

1. Some Messengers do describe the that way for the reason I just stated above.
2. We cannot know what they are like because we can never understand how God thinks and feels.

The Wiki article was written that way because Christians claim that Jesus was God in a physical form.

That is all we can know about God's nature, that God is spirit, but we cannot understand what it means to BE spirit. We simply know it means that God cannot be a physical being (thus God cannot be flesh).

I never said "God can do anything." That is an atheist belief. Omnipotent means God is all-powerful, not God can do anything.

Only in your mind does it have to be one of those.

AGAIN...
God is not bound by any external forces.
What is good and bad originates from God, but it is not subjective.
God simply knows what is good or bad because God is all-knowing.

You are anthropomorphizing God...
No, God does not decide what is right and wrong, God knows what is right and wrong, so no decisions are necessary. Only humans have to decide things because humans don't know everything.

No, not at all. You are assuming that God has to get His knowledge from somewhere outside Himself, but that is not true, because God is all-knowing, as that is part of God's intrinsic nature.

This is all pointless because you simply don't seem to have the capacity to comprehend the issues involved here. As you repeatedly demonstrate, you will simultaneously propose two conflicting positions. You also seem to not understand the meanings of words.

 

[samtonga43]

To the first question :Yes my belief could be wrong.

It would be interesting to how many of us can say the same. I certainly can.
Anyone else?

 

[samtonga43]

You seem to have trouble distinguishing between the two.
Top Tip: An "opinion" that you agree with does not become a "fact".

Where has KWED suggested that an opinion with which they agree becomes a fact?

 

[KWED]

That does not mean that all very small and new religions with relatively few followers are cults.

Yes, pretty much.

Cult is just a word.

All words are just words. And they all have meanings and definitions.

Early Christianity was also considered a cult but now Christianity is considered a religion.

Correct. If Bahaism ever gain many more followers and becomes more mainstream and accepted, it may also move from cult status to religion.
Similarly, despite Christianity being a mainstream, established religion, new offshoots with new claims can be considered cults.

It is the opinions of the scripture that vary.

"Description" and "opinion" are synonymous in this context.

No, I did not admit that, I said I think I know why.

But you haven't told us what your theory is.

I did not say I agree.

Oh dear god
I asked "Do you agree with it or not?"
Your replied "I agree with it".
There really is no point trying to debate with you because you simply change your position depending on the question.

No, they can never do that.

So if Bahaullah said that women are excluded, then they are excluded until someone with sufficient authority (ie. another messenger) comes to end the exclusion.

No flip.
I said: He did not intend to exclude women according to that website. That is what I believe.

The website that you criticised as fraudulent.

I did not say I agree with the exclusion,

Yes you did. #1155

I said I accept the exclusion because it is not MY choice to make.

But you just claimed that Bahaullah did not exclude women. You also claimed that Bahais cannot change Bahaullah's message. So why would you accept the word of Bahais over the word of Bahaullah?

No, but handmaidens is not a lowly pejorative.

Yes it is. I provided references that clearly explain this. You are just denying reality again.

No, I have just been responding to posts, I am not arguing.

There you go again...
"I'm not arguing, I am just responding to your argument with a different argument".

No, I don't do anything blindly, I do it because I can see.

You have repeatedly stated that you just accept what Bahaullah says, that you do not question the rules. That is the definition of "blindly following".

No, an opinion is not a claim. Get a dictionary.

"Bahaullah was just a deluded or dishonest man". It that claim an opinion?

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.

You say you do not "blindly follow". Then you say that you do not question authority as you know your proper place
Once again, you attempt to hold contradictory positions.

No, not at all, especially when I say up front that it is not a legitimate source.

Hells teeth!
You cannot rely on a source that you admit is unreliable and not legitimate.

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.

In what world do organisations publicise their own corruption, immorality, lawbreaking, etc just in case someone might see it in a favourable light?

[/quote] He did not care what you think, but He cared what you say if it is false. [/quote] So he cared what I think about Bahaism. Do you think I don't say what I think?

Yep, I am happy to ignore or reject what society deems to be moral if it conflicts with what Baha'u'llah said,

So another example of you "blindly following". You are not interested in examining if society's morals may be superior to Bahaullah's. You simply reject them because they are different.

No flop. I support the UHJ as the authority to decide, my choice.

But you just said that Bahais cannot change or revoke what Bajaullah said.
If he didn't exclude women, the UHJ cannot exclude them.
If he did exclude women, the UHJ has no authority to include them.

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.

Yes, we get it. You don't think discriminating against women because of their gender is "sexist discrimination".
You don't think intolerance of and prejudice against homosexuals is "homophobia".
You don't think burning people alive is barbaric.
And you are welcome to your opinion on the issue, but you are just denying reality.

That is your personal opinion of what is IN the scripture,

Did you just call my claim, an opinion?

Morally unacceptable to who? To a society which is patently immoral and disintegrating before our very faces?

The consensus of civilised society. The law. The Declaration of Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights, etc
But you think the opinions of some Persian ex-Muslim in the 19th century hold more weight than all that.

So do I.

Straw man.

It is not a straw man because I used not only your argument, the very words you used, verbatim.
Once again, you show that you really don't understand the application of informal fallacies, along with many other things.

 

[KWED]

The Law does not say "burning alive" and this is a deliberate attempt to calumniate the Baha'i Faith.

Bahaullah said "Should anyone intentionally destroy a house by fire, him also shall ye burn".
Are you claiming that the person should be killed before being burned? If so, please provide the reference for this.

 

[KWED]

Most people in the world who believe in God have recognized God through a Messenger, so it is not unusual. Moreover, it has an explanation, as we know what people recognize God through a Messenger.

Not so. Most people who believe in a particular god or gods have been raised to believe in that god from infancy. "Childhood indoctrination" is not "recognition".

 

[KWED]

Honestly you do not understand anything about religious faith and belief. Or you making your self stupid to gain your "victory" in a discussion that is going nowhere.

I completely understand if you are unable to respond to my points. You aren't the first and won't be the last.