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

[Spirit of Light]

Even more irony. I would not doubt that if he told us what he believes and how he came to believe it, the Baha'is would disagree with it. Baha'is probably disagree with all the beliefs and practices of every religion that there is in the world today. At best, the liberal versions of most of them kind of all agree that they should all try and get along and put aside their differences. But.. in the end, they are the only ones that have the truth from God for today. If that's so, great... let's all get on board the Baha'i peace train. But... what if it isn't? How would we know unless we question them to see if it holds up?

Why do you need to question them when you in the first place don't believe their teaching anyway?

Baha'i may not be for you.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Who Was Baha’u’llah, and How Can We Evaluate His Claims?
Who do you think he was? The claim is that he is a "manifestation" of God. How would you go about evaluating that claim?

Every prophet is a form of a manifistation of God, they speak the truth at the level of wisdom they have cultivated. Baha'u'llah may have been one of the prophests manifesting Gods wisdom on earth.

 

[CG Didymus]

God asks a lot of different stuff, depending on which scriptures you choose - and some of it is pretty unpleasant. But you have previously admitted that you cherry-pick scriptures to suit your desired outcome, so I guess that's one way of avoiding the unpleasantness.

Yes, by cherry-picking and believing "scriptures" literally is how the snake-handling sect of Christianity got started. By cherry-picking Baha'is can "prove" their prophet is the return of Christ and prove Jesus is not going to return... ever.

 

[CG Didymus]

Why do you need to question them when you in the first place don't believe their teaching anyway?

Baha'i may not be for you.

And how would I know unless I question them and find their answers lacking? You tell them what your "truth" is and see if they support your beliefs. They claim to have the truth for today. Do they?

 

[Spirit of Light]

And how would I know unless I question them and find their answers lacking? You tell them what your "truth" is and see if they support your beliefs. They claim to have the truth for today. Do they?

Yes, I believe Baha'i hold truth in the teaching for today, but Baha'i Faith is only one religion. Others holds truth too.

 

[CG Didymus]

It seems that they actively want others to respond to their posts. Disagreement is an important factor in debate. It is how we learn.

And have Baha'is "attacked" your beliefs? I'd say so. And to people in some of the other religions too.

 

[Trailblazer]

Who Was Baha’u’llah, and How Can We Evaluate His Claims?
Who do you think he was? The claim is that he is a "manifestation" of God. How would you go about evaluating that claim?

Wow. You are post #1500....
Sorry, I could not resist pointing that out, and that is a very useful question you asked.

 

[rational experiences]

If a human tells a human on God earth and heavens truth. Human natural life is first holy as spiritual man and woman.

Not married. No one to marry them by ceremony.

Gods position said as a man I was told don't have sex. Reasoned to be one and only man.

Thinker. Mr theist I know the best advice of a man.

Reason. No baby would be born to carry forward life then death. Real answer.

So sex in the terms is my choice God my witbess...is marriage says a human now. Sex.

Don't have sex unless you expect to be married.

Fake.

As brother sister were told don't have sex too. No marriage for you.

Same advice.

A human hence says we applied ceremony ourself. Said sex is sex. How not to get a really bad minded baby.

Based on a scientist actually.

As one a man first is not a father and said celibacy is my order. We serve humanity then die.

Removing self to owning reowning human and not an eternal life. As human self dies. Human isn't any eternal being. Eternal being gets not to consciously own a human beyond its self.

Advised in total. Reason sciences human death is eternal hell by decomposition advice...living doesn't want to die... we're not eternal hell by science man statement.

So Hebrews said I like my life. We'll have sex separated groups of men women groups living only in their special times of year was sex a ceremony...marriage then. Less likely to get a brain changed baby.

As heavens weren't holy then fallout existed.

Believed too.

So if you tell a human you aren't actually any eternal being they get upset.

As you aren't...you just die

The eternal being part of us gets freed to not be consciously involved with a human.

Logical. I don't want my DNA to be reborn again. Reasoned.

What marriage by sex was first.

Lots of humans religious or not hence by gods terms have been married already lots of times.

Most of those unions human do not want to be stuck hating someone as.

So church said I can absolve that union myself.

As new person you've not yet had sex with.

So human don't remarry in a church so God can't see them. Being sarcastic.

It became a civilisation method of records to keep control and order in population growth. Legal document.

 

[KWED]

I did not say that some of God's word is wrong...
I don't think He's wrong, I think I am wrong when I disagree with him.

So if you think you are wrong to disagree with god, you think god is right - so you don't disagree with him.

You really are getting yourself into a right old muddle. I just looked up "cognitive dissonance" in the dictionary, and it had your profile pic.

 

[KWED]

I do not blindly follow dogma since I do not follow dogma at all....I follow the Writings of Baha'u'llah. The Writings of Baha'u'llah are not dogma, they are the Word of God.

Dogma is man-made rules, Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God, divine and human.

dogma: a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
dogma definition - Google Search

Where does it say in any of those definitions that dogma cannot be a religious belief? The two are often synonymous.

It is a religious belief that God exists and Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God.
It is not a fact because it cannot be proven and facts can be proven.

So you accept that a god existing and Bahaullah being a messenger of it is just your opinion. God might not exist and Bahaullah might have just been a dishonest or delusional man.

That is my opinion and it is also my religious belief.
No explanation I have would be rational to you so why would I waste my time?

So you cannot support your claim that modern society is morally bankrupt in a sexual context - other than it does not follow the religious dogma you subscribe to.
(I suspect that you will claim this is not the case, despite clearly stating it to be the case a few lines from now)

That is a red herring because we were not talking about what sometimes happens in marriage, we were talking about having sex outside of wedlock.

You introduced the red herring of abortions. I was simply pointing out your fallacy.

Adultery is sex out of wedlock and adultery is the cause of many divorces.

Adultery doesn't just happen. There are usually underlying causes. If people took a more rational approach to relationships there would likely be less adultery and divorce.

It is immoral in the sense that it does not conform to God's standards of morality.
I do not need any other reasons.

Another clear illustration of "blindly following dogma".
You don't even realise you are doing it, do you?

BTW, I held this same opinion before I became a Baha'i and started to believe in God.
Before I became a Baha'i and after that I never had sex out of wedlock even though I had many opportunities. I just knew it was wrong.

I've never been unfaithful to any of my partners.
Was there a point there?

 

[KWED]

No, the reasonable explanation I gave is that I am in no way responsible to find the evidence and present it just because I said it was there.

I made no claim, I just made an observation. If anyone wants to know what I observed they can look for themselves.

You said that you think Bahaullah was just an ordinary man and not a messenger of god. You admitted that he was either dishonest or delusional.
This is just my observation. The evidence is out there, but don't ask me to present it. That's not my responsibility.

 

[KWED]

But you would not admit you were wrong and concede my point. I know that you would deny it and argue and that is why I am not going to present the evidence.

Try me.

However, you won't, because you can't, because you made it up.

 

[KWED]

I do not CARE what I said previously. Every day is a new day. I do not live in the past.

This is quite the admission.
Firstly, it illustrates your dishonesty as you repeatedly claimed that you had not said that you do not agree with everything Bahaullah wrote, despite actually saying it.
Secondly, it shows that whatever you say is utterly meaningless as you might say the exact opposite the next day (and often do).

I went around this block with another atheist on this forum for over a year. Like you, he could never understand that people say different things at different times because people think different things at different times.

This is literally insane!
How can you expect to debate people on your beliefs if you beliefs change from day to day?
How do you even know what you believe?

I am not changing my position to suit the circumstances, as if this is a game I am playing and trying to win. I am not trying to win a debate, I am only honestly presenting what I think at the time I present my thoughts.

So one day you agree with everything that Bahaullah said and believe he was infallible, the next morning you wake up and you have changed your mind and think he was wrong about some stuff and therefore not an infallible messenger of god. A day later, you have changed your mind again.

People who are growing spiritually change their mind when they gain new insights. @Seeker of White Light understands this quite well.

@Seeker of White Light has a different approach to you. He does not blindly follow dogma. He cherry-picks scripture to suit the circumstances to avoid the kind of mess you keep getting yourself into.
You claim that Bahaullah was the infallible messenger of god and whatever he wrote is the truth and must be followed without question (although you also claim that he was wrong about some things - but you admit that you are wrong to think he is wrong, meaning that you don't actually think he was wrong ).

 

[KWED]

I made no accusation, I only made an observation.
This is not a court of law.

You really do struggle with the meanings of words, don't you?

 

[KWED]

Straw man. I am not making anything up or trying to score points.

The evidence suggests otherwise.

 

[KWED]

Baha'u'llah did not claim to be infallible.
I added 2 + 4 and got 4.
There is no point explaining how I did the math. It is late here and I should not even still be up!

Ah, so he never claimed to be infallible. It is just your opinion.
Why do you claim he was infallible?
Will that opinion change tomorrow?

 

[KWED]

Straw man. @Seeker of White Light never made any demands that anyone respects his views.

Remember that I modified that to "Suggestion, expectation, request, hope, whatever" that we respect the beliefs of others.
Are you really claiming he never did? He started a whole thread on the issue!

Your repeated demands that we respect your views suggests that you are projecting.

Here we go again.
Where have I ever demanded that other people respect my views?
I present arguments and invite people to rebut them. If they cannot, I expect them to accept my argument as valid. What I do demand is that people present evidence or rational argument to support their claims. Seems pretty reasonable imho.

 

[KWED]

No, that is not what @Seeker of White Light said, not unless you can quote him saying it.
As I recall, he said he reads scriptures from various religions and they all have something that helps him grow spiritually. He can correct me if I am wrong.

Erm, selecting only the bits that suit you is the definition of "cherry-picking".

 

[KWED]

@Trailblazer you are correct that I said every scripture can help a seeker and yes my growth has been due to many scriptures

But you do not accept and follow everything in every scripture, do you? You find some bits useful but reject other bits.
Correct?

 

[KWED]

You took my reply out of context, showing your disregard for the truth. Someone who has disregard for the truth will never recognize the truth. You don't care what the truth is, you just want to win. That blinds you. I feel sorry for you. I'm angry, too.

Sorry, but no. You said...
"The context for homosexuality being immoral is this: Homosexuality is highly condemned".
If I then assume that you consider homosexuality to be "immoral" and "highly condemned" - how is that showing "a disregard for the truth"?

No, I don't think homosexuality is a choice,

Never claimed you did. You called it "an affliction". People don't choose to get sick.

and can't be "cured".

So you consider it to be an incurable affliction, but the symptoms of the "handicap" can be suppressed?
Does your wife successfully suppress the symptoms of her affliction?

I notice that you didn't try to defend your position on disenfranchising homosexuals.