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

[CG Didymus]

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".

Unbelievable. Even if people learned about God through some messenger, who is that God they'd be learning about? Or, like some Buddhist and Hindu sects, they don't really on a God-belief. Or, of course, teach about multiple Gods. But then there is good old Christianity... Now what was it I learned? Oh yeah, "The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit". Sorry Baha'is what I learned about God wasn't true... according to Baha'i beliefs. It's very possible that most people learn the wrong things about the messengers and the God who sent him.

 

[CG Didymus]

That would be offering that the mind of a man living 2000 years ago would not need to adapt to the current world situation, that the Message could be the same?

That is not logical CG.

Regards Tony

It's not "logical" that people in ancient times had believe that weren't really true? I'd be okay with Baha'is saying that some of those ancient beliefs were just man-made beliefs about who they believe God to be, and what they thought was the truth. Like with the Ishmael vs. Isaac thing... Why say the Bible got it wrong? What are the chances that it was a true, historically accurate story in the first place? Like I said, it's the Jewish Scriptures. It's their story. Why would they make Ishmael the main character? It's Isaac that is the centerpiece of the story. He becomes the father of Jacob/Israel.

 

[CG Didymus]

Abdul'baha answers that with an interesting thought CG. I would only offer what Abdul'baha did, so....

Here are two links

Some Answered Questions | Bahá’í Reference Library

Extract

"..As you admit that the first man came into being with neither father nor mother, whether it be gradually or in a short period of time, there can remain no doubt that a man without a human father is also possible and logically admissible..."

Some Answered Questions | Bahá’í Reference Library

Extract.

"...A great man is a great man, whether or not he is born of a human father. If being without a father were a virtue, Adam would excel and surpass all the Prophets and Messengers, for He had neither father nor mother..."

Regards Tony

I'm thinking the virgin birth is possibly a myth. Same with Adam. And, as I've asked before... If Baha'is believe the resurrection was "symbolic", then why not the "virgin" birth? It is in only two of the gospel stories and is based on one verse in Isaiah. Who was there to confirm it? The story was written years later. Plus, the birth story in the Quran has Mary under a palm tree. No Bethlehem. No manger. But then the Quran also has the young boy Jesus making birds out of clay and they come to life. Literal or symbolic? Or... just a religious, made-up story to make Jesus bigger than life?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

It's not "logical" that people in ancient times had believe that weren't really true? I'd be okay with Baha'is saying that some of those ancient beliefs were just man-made beliefs about who they believe God to be, and what they thought was the truth. Like with the Ishmael vs. Isaac thing... Why say the Bible got it wrong? What are the chances that it was a true, historically accurate story in the first place? Like I said, it's the Jewish Scriptures. It's their story. Why would they make Ishmael the main character? It's Isaac that is the centerpiece of the story. He becomes the father of Jacob/Israel.

I see that is the concept of progressive revelation CG.

What we learn as a child has more clarity as we become an adult.

Regards Tony

 

[Spirit of Light]

Harassing? That's a strange thing to say. I could ask when will you stop supporting the things Baha'is claim without knowing what they really believe and claim? Like you've been told several times... this is a debate forum. Why don't Baha'is only post threads on Comparative Religion or Same Faith sections? They put threads out there that they know will get a response. I don't believe the claims of the Baha'i Faith. And I'm pointing out those things and why I disagree with them. What's wrong with that?

How do you evaluate the claims of Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i Faith? Do you believe those claims are all true? Has The Christ, "The Promised One of All Ages" returned? And did he return more than 150 years ago? If you don't believe that, then why not? If you choose not to "harass" them and ask questions, that fine, for you. But for me, I'll stand by those people challenging their claims any day.

There is a huge difference in debate an what happens in this thread. You as an example does not accept Baha'is answer, because instead of saying, Thank you for your answer, I may not agree with you, but can you explain further.

You "attack" them in an unpleasant way. Telling them how bad they are for holding a belief you disagree with. Then telling them because the founder of Baha'i faith said something every Baha'i must be evil due to believing in a teaching ypu see as wrong or bad.

That IS harrasment.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I'm thinking the virgin birth is possibly a myth. Same with Adam. And, as I've asked before... If Baha'is believe the resurrection was "symbolic", then why not the "virgin" birth? It is in only two of the gospel stories and is based on one verse in Isaiah. Who was there to confirm it? The story was written years later. Plus, the birth story in the Quran has Mary under a palm tree. No Bethlehem. No manger. But then the Quran also has the young boy Jesus making birds out of clay and they come to life. Literal or symbolic? Or... just a religious, made-up story to make Jesus bigger than life?

I like how Abdul'baha explains it, as it leaves it open to mysterious possibilities, and life is great with those mysteries.

Regards Tony

 

[KWED]

It is all over this thread. Look for it if you want to find it.

IOW "I can't find one".

 

[KWED]

“The Bahá’í teachings on sexual morality centre on marriage and the family as the bedrock of the whole structure of human society

Why "marriage"? What is wrong with a stable, committed, long-term, loving, monogamous relationship that raises happy children? Why is that "immoral"?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

There is a huge difference in debate an what happens in this thread. You as an example does not accept Baha'is answer, because instead of saying, Thank you for your answer, I may not agree with you, but can you explain further.

CG and I have been chatting for a few years now. I am never hurt by what is offered, though, I can say I am sad with the result of some of our exchanges.

I also do expect replies that are not so favourable and even negative. In the end we can only control our own responses.

Just know, I am always happy that I am alive to be able to share, not matter the response.

Regards Tony

 

[Spirit of Light]

CG and I have been chatting for a few years now. I am never hurt by what is offered, though, I can say I am sad with the result of some of our exchanges.

I also do expect replies that are not so favourable and even negative. In the end we can only control our own responses.

Just know, I am always happy that I am alive to be able to share, not matter the response.

Regards Tony

I am glad you don't feel affected negativily by CG.

 

[KWED]

I did not say that He did.

So you accept that Bahaullah's writings came from previous belief.

He did reject a part of Islamic doctrine but He did not invalidate Muhammad as one of God's messengers. He only went against an Islamic doctrine that states that Muhammad was the last and final Messenger of God. That belief is based upon a misinterpretation of the Qur'an. See the post below.

In Islam, Muhammad is the last messenger. This is based on what Allah revealed and what Muhammad said. Bahaullah can't just re-invent Islam or re-write Muhammad's message to suit his own purposes. The whole concept is incoherent.

 

[KWED]

I never changed my position, you just keep misinterpreting what I say.
Please quote me saying "I agree with it" and cite the link to the post.

You first said you agree with it, then when that position clashed with something else, you changed it to not agreeing.
I gave you the quote and the post number. This is beyond ridiculous now.

That is correct.

But earlier you said that it does not require another messenger to change Bahaullah's message. You also said that ordinary Bahais cannot change Bahaullah's message.

No, I did not say I agree, I said I accept.

You may not bother to keep track of the various positions you have taken, but some of us do...

No, that is not the case. When did I ever say that, and if I did not say that you are speaking for me.

You said...
"I am happy to ignore or reject what society deems to be moral if it conflicts with what Baha'u'llah said"
You don't even realise you are doing it, do you?

I reject 'some' of society's morals because I consider them patently immoral and not good for society as a whole.

And on what basis do you consider them to be "immoral"?
Well, according to your own words...
"if it conflicts with what Baha'u'llah said"

That is all it is, an opinion.

I made a claim. That claim is my I=opinion.
You have literally no idea what you are on about.

 

[KWED]

I am saying that I do not know what Baha'u'llah intended as the punishment,

Nonsense. He clearly said that "him also shall ye burn" - meaning that the person should be burned.

If you are claiming that the person should be "burned alive" please provide the reference for this.
Please find anything in the Writings of Baha'u'llah that contains the phrase "burned alive".

It is the logical conclusion. The only other option is that the person is killed before being burned, which 1. makes no sense, and 2. was never mentioned by Bahaullah.

"Bahá'u'lláh prescribes that a person who burns a house intentionally is to be burned or imprisoned for life" (UHJ). You can't imprison someone for life if they are dead. Therefore they are alive when burned.
The idea that Bahaullah intended that punishments be carried out on dead people is just more of your incoherent nonsense and shows how far down the rabbit hole you will go to defend the indefensible.

 

[KWED]

There is a huge difference in debate an what happens in this thread. You as an example does not accept Baha'is answer, because instead of saying, Thank you for your answer, I may not agree with you, but can you explain further.

You really doesn't understand how debate works, do you?
You seem to think that apologists on here are "teachers" of some kind, and sceptics should accept whatever they say are reasonable, rational and factual. And thank them for it.

 

[Trailblazer]

IOW "I can't find one".

No, IOW, it is not my job to find one because I was not the one who wanted one.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why "marriage"? What is wrong with a stable, committed, long-term, loving, monogamous relationship that raises happy children? Why is that "immoral"?

Why NOT marriage, if the couple is committed to each other?
I am not the one who reveals the Laws of God, I just try to obey them.

 

[Trailblazer]

So you accept that Bahaullah's writings came from previous belief.

No, I never said that. I said that Baha'u'llah's writings came from A revelation from God

In Islam, Muhammad is the last messenger.

It is a false belief of Islam.

This is based on what Allah revealed and what Muhammad said.

No, it is based upon a misinterpretation of what Muhammad said.
#2 Dawnofhope, Jan 29, 2020

 

[samtonga43]

Matthew 7:3-5 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

I do not read prose which is 300-years-old. Get with the times, Bahais!

Why not just stop criticizing and calling out fallacies? Why are you compelled to do it? Only you can answer those questions.

Thank you for asking. The answer is easy; I am not compelled to do anything.

You have been criticizing and calling out fallacies since long before I began to post here.

I am trying to help you (with the encouragement of others) by pointing out that this obsession of yours can actually make you irrational. Are you beginning to understand?

 

[samtonga43]

Sorry I do not see this as a doctrine called the Trinity.

No need to be sorry, Tony. I am used to misunderstanding of the Christian concept of the Triune God.

Thus we have God, unknowable, unaccessible.

God is only knowable and accessible because He is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Three-in-One
NOT 1 + 1+ 1= 3
BUT 1 x 1 x 1= 1

 

[samtonga43]

It is a false belief of Islam.

It is a false belief of Bahai that MrB is the latest messenger.