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

[KWED]

I like how Abdul'baha explains it, as it leaves it open to mysterious possibilities

In which case, it is not an "explanation".

Explain: Make (an idea or situation) clear to someone by describing it in more detail or revealing relevant facts. (Oxford English Dictionary)

 

[KWED]

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

You made the initial accusation - that I think "an opinion with which they agree becomes a fact".

Therefore it is your responsibility to support that accusation with evidence when challenged.
As you clearly cannot provide any such evidence, the rational conclusion is that you were making it up.
You're welcome.

 

[KWED]

Why NOT marriage, if the couple is committed to each other?

Because many people don't want to get married, for a variety of reasons.
So... why is their relationship "immoral"?
(Note: you cannot provide a rational argument, because there isn't one).

I am not the one who reveals the Laws of God, I just try to obey them.

So just blindly following again?

 

[KWED]

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

Bahaullah was a Muslim before he invented Bahaism. He claims that Muhammad was a messenger of god and the Quran is god's word. Therefore his writings came from previous belief. (Obviously not all of it. He invented some new stuff, but much of it is based on existing Judeo-Christian-Islamic belief.

It is a false belief of Islam.

That claim is just your opinion.

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

"Interpretation" is just another word for "opinion".

 

[KWED]

I am definitely not disagreeing.

But they called homosexuality "immoral" and a "shameful sexual aberration".
Do you agree or disagree with those statements?

You would have to investigate.

I have done. In great depth. Thus far, no one has provided any evidence or rational argument for the existence of gods of any sort, never mind any specific version of god.

Rational proofs for the existence of God convince very few people.

In which case, they are not "rational proofs", by definition.

Baha'u'llah said this about this in a prayer: O people, if ye deny these verses, by what proof have ye believed in God? Produce it, O assemblage of false ones.
Nay, by the One in Whose hand is my soul, they are not, and never shall be able to do this, even should they combine to assist one another.
(Compilations, Baha'i Prayers, p. 209)

So Bahaullah is basically saying that if you don't believe what he says, you do not believe in god. Seems reasonable. I don't believe what he is saying and I don't believe in god.

The verses of God are one of the proofs of a Manifestation of God, and once the Manifestation of God is proven to yourself, the existence of God is proven to yourself.

None of those verses are proof of anything other than some people's willingness to believe any old nonsense.

 

[KWED]

I have "freedom of expression" because i do no longer hold on to a religiius label that say , Muslim, Sufi, Christian, Baha'i and so on.

I do not have to agree 100% with Baha'i'ullah and his teaching because i am not a Baha'i,
In every religious scripture there will be parts One does not agree fully with, or fully understand, but that is not a wrong thing. It means there are more to learn, more to understand within that teaching.

A very sensible approach. That way you don't have to rationalise the intolerance, violence, irrational claims, factual errors, contradictions, etc in any particular scripture.

A bit like saying you don't support any football team, you just cheer for the one that is winning at any particular moment.

 

[KWED]

I have no burden of proof because I am not trying to prove anything...

Dear god, it's like pulling teeth!

You made a positive claim - that I consider whatever opinion I agree with to be fact.
When challenged to support your claim, you made another positive claim - that the evidence is all over the thread.
In both cases the burden of proof is on you to support your claim.
However, when again challenged to present one such example, you refuse, claiming that you have no burden of proof. Thus again perfectly illustrating (if any more were needed) that you simply do not grasp how rational thinking works.

 

[KWED]

Fully agree with @Trailblazer

As you disagree with the principle of "the burden of proof", do you mind explaining why? It is such a well-established rational and legal principle that you will certainly become world renowned if you can successfully dismantle it. And if you aren't interested in fame and fortune, I'll happily present a paper under my name.
Look forward to hearing your argument.

 

[rational experiences]

The teachings temple science was sacrificing life.

Two testimonials.

Before science no testimonial. Natural life. Humans were living.

Whose correct? Natural man owning equality of life.

Atmosphere is not a Solid.

So it's not one God. O first God planet. Mass owning no space is the only humans one God.

Space separate to mass is exact.

In the past mass got held and no gases.

Therefore a heavens is biologies only.

Not owning mass it's already owner of a large amount of Empty space that mass doesn't own. To be a gas.

Was the teaching life and future in a spirit heavens.

No future with one God mass. It's the past. So don't look back.

Exact.

Men were given a changed consciousness life sacrificed by falling star. Exact. How they understood visionary conversions.

No man is God. Discussing God as a man thinking is separate by terms.

So by the time Bahu Allah was life mind body changed in his country DNA type.....it was minimal.

The change and the advice just for his culture only as exampled.....
Russia was hit the forest flattened. One country. The atmosphere as one mass body changes. Someone elsewhere is life changed.

Pretty basic why argue?

So Muslims argue about book data that was exact to their time. When it was written.

No one updated any advice yet the atmosphere changed by both new star fall and evolution.

Hence bahuallah their claim went against a book. Why it angered them.

He was writing an updated heavens change that he experienced personally

Why any new written advice is personal by presence body type consciousness atmospheric causes of change only.

As humans life body is expressively varied by birth only.

So the advice said by the newly born baby is the sacrificed life advised by the adult. Learning as they grow.

Science by new branch legal was outlawed.

As it's not science
It's not religious science
It's not spiritual.

Legal. Life owned future by human sex the new born human life

Science was by term only any past reasoning as you don't bring mass through a gas.

 

[samtonga43]

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

And sometimes it is the other way around.

 

[KWED]

I can find more than one example,

No you can't!

but it is not my job to do your homework for you.

If I make a shocking claim about your private life, is it your responsibility to prove that I am wrong, or my responsibility to back up my claim?

 

[KWED]

I do not agree with everything Baha'u'llah wrote

Earlier, you said that you have to go with whatever Bahaullah wrote.
You also said that you don't have the authority to even question the UHJ on any issue, that you know your place.

So, which parts of Bahaism do you disagree with?
Which specific writings of Bahaullah do you not agree with?

(I suspect that you will respond that you do actually agree with all his writings. How could you not? He is god's messenger!).

 

[samtonga43]

No, I did not say I agree, I said I accept.
I don't know and I don't care. It is not my job to run the Baha'i administration. I accept whatever the UHJ decides upon.

You accept something with which you disagree because a group of men-in-charge have decided it is so?
This is cultish behaviour.

 

[samtonga43]

I can find more than one example, but it is not my job to do your homework for you.

You have it the wrong way around. It is YOUR homework to back up YOUR statements, if asked to do so.

You are being asked to do so..

 

[TransmutingSoul]

You accept something with which you disagree because a group of men-in-charge have decided it is so?

Statements such as these are so born out of self inflicted ignorance, that is why Jesus the Christ has disowned the Christianity that is practiced by many today.

I am sad for you and all that would make such ignorant statements, but nothing we can offer will change the hearts that are motivated to do just that.

The acceptance for @Trailblazer is in obedience to God. God does as God so Wills and guides us, as God so chooses.

It is Baha'u'llah that has offered we do not need to understand every aspect of our Faith, as we are not all knowing, but we are told we will know enough truth about God to "...Cling thou to the hem of the Robe of God, and take thou firm hold on His Cord, a Cord which none can sever.... (and that we).......Beware that the clamor of them that have repudiated this Most Great Announcement shall not deter thee from achieving thy purpose. Proclaim what hath been prescribed unto thee in this Tablet, though all the peoples arise and oppose thee. Thy Lord is, verily, the All-Compelling, the Unfailing Protector..."

What Baha'u'llah did prescribe in that Tablet, in part, is this.

"...Say: Follow, O people, what hath been prescribed unto you in Our Tablets, and walk not after the imaginations which the sowers of mischief have devised, they that commit wickedness and impute it to God, the Most Holy, the All-Glorious, the Most Exalted. Say: We have accepted to be tried by ills and troubles, that ye may sanctify yourselves from all earthly defilements. Why, then, refuse ye to ponder Our purpose in your hearts? By the righteousness of God! Whoso will reflect upon the tribulations We have suffered, his soul will assuredly melt away with sorrow. Thy Lord Himself beareth witness to the truth of My words. We have sustained the weight of all calamities to sanctify you from all earthly corruption, and ye are yet indifferent..."

Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 306-308

All IMHO Regards Tony

 

[Truthseeker]

But they called homosexuality "immoral" and a "shameful sexual aberration".

The context for homosexuality being immoral is this:
Homosexuality is highly condemned and often a great trial and cause of suffering to a person, as a Bahá'í. Any individual so afflicted must, through prayer, and any other means, seek to overcome this handicap. But, unless the actions of such individuals are flagrantly immoral, it cannot be a pretext for depriving them of their voting rights.
(6 October 1956) [6]
(The Universal House of Justice, 1993 Jun 05, Homosexuality, p. 3)

Homosexuality being condemned in this context is about their actions. We are also to sympathise with a Baha'i who has this orientation. Overcoming this handicap in my opinion is about not acting on our desires in this respect. Even if my opinion is wrong, Shoghi Effendi, who is being quoted here is infallible in matters of science according to Shoghi Effendi himself.

I don't remember that ever being said. Homosexual sex is what is immoral. In context, the actual quote is
. . .Bahá'u'lláh has spoken very strongly against this shameful sexual aberration, as He has against adultery and immoral conduct in general. We must try and help the soul to overcome them.
(25 October 1949)
(The Universal House of Justice, 1993 Jun 05, Homosexuality, p. 3)

As you can see, it about conduct.

None of those verses are proof of anything other than some people's willingness to believe any old nonsense.

This is what Baha'u'llah says about that:

No man shall attain the shores of the ocean of true understanding except he be detached from all that is in heaven and on earth. Sanctify your souls, O ye peoples of the world, that haply ye may attain that station which God hath destined for you and enter thus the tabernacle which, according to the dispensations of Providence, hath been raised in the firmament of the Bayan.

THE essence of these words is this: they that tread the path of faith, they that thirst for the wine of certitude, must cleanse themselves of all that is earthly -- their ears from idle talk, their minds from vain imaginings, their hearts from worldly affections, their eyes from that which perisheth. They should put their trust in God, and, holding fast unto Him, follow in His way. Then will they be made worthy of the effulgent glories of the sun of divine knowledge and understanding, and become the recipients of a grace that is infinite and unseen, inasmuch as man can never hope to attain unto the knowledge of the All-Glorious, can never quaff from the stream of divine knowledge and wisdom, can never enter the abode of immortality, nor partake of the cup of divine nearness and favour, unless and until he ceases to regard the words and deeds of mortal men as a standard for the true understanding and recognition of God and His Prophets.
(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 1)

If you see that the verses of God are nonsense, that is because you are not "detached from all that is in heaven and on earth".

Jesus also said

5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
(King James Bible, Matthew)

This is my final statement.

 

[Trailblazer]

You accept something with which you disagree because a group of men-in-charge have decided it is so?
This is cultish behaviour.

No, it is adherence to the will of God instead of relying upon my own personal opinion.

 

[Trailblazer]

You have it the wrong way around. It is YOUR homework to back up YOUR statements, if asked to do so.

You are being asked to do so..

No, I am not obligated to do what YOU ask me to do. You are not my boss.

 

[Trailblazer]

Because many people don't want to get married, for a variety of reasons.
So... why is their relationship "immoral"?
(Note: you cannot provide a rational argument, because there isn't one).

I am only saying that Baha'is have to be married if they want to have sex, according to Baha'i Law, and that Law only applies to Baha'is.

It is not a fact that sex out of wedlock is immoral. All I can ever have is a personal opinion.
It is not a fact that sex out of wedlock is moral. All you can ever have is a personal opinion.

So just blindly following again?

When you stop for a red light, are you 'blindly following' the law?

 

[Trailblazer]

Bahaullah was a Muslim before he invented Bahaism. He claims that Muhammad was a messenger of god and the Quran is god's word. Therefore his writings came from previous belief. (Obviously not all of it. He invented some new stuff, but much of it is based on existing Judeo-Christian-Islamic belief.

No, His Writings came from a revelation from God. Nothing was invented or based upon pre-existing beliefs. What He knew as either from His innate knowledge or from God.

That claim is just your opinion.

No, it is my belief.