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

[KWED]

Words that are ment to hurt those who have a personal faith in God who practice according to their understanding of the teaching.

You're still not getting it.
All the words I use are part of reasonable, rational or evidence-based arguments against the validity of religious belief, arguments for god, etc.
It's what happens on religious debate forums!
If people get upset because they can't come up with a cogent response to my arguments, that's not my problem.

You basically seem to want to wrap believers in cotton wool and hide them from reasonable criticism. Sorry, but that ain't happening'.

Not everyone practice 100% every word in the scriptures

That is perfectly clear. Most religionists cherry-pick scripture to suit their circumstances. You claimed that you don't, and yet you also athed that is what you do. The cognitive dissonance of irrational belief strikes again.

 

[KWED]

By bye @KWED i block you now,

Your loss.

due to your lack of understanding

 

[InvestigateTruth]

".

Excluding women from a job they are capable of doing simply because they are women is sexist discrimination. FACT! Go check with your lawyer if you disagree.

Except being on UHJ, is not a job. It is a service!
If women are exempt from a service and duty, is it sexist discrimination against women? Ask your lawyer.

 

[danieldemol]

Except being on UHJ, is not a job. It is a service!
If women are exempt from a service and duty, is it sexist discrimination against women? Ask your lawyer.

It is if that service not only comes with some noteworthy perks
(just think of the prestige that comes from working full time at a place like this;

with a view from the office like this;

It has perks such as having your living expenses paid for.

And most importantly it enacts laws which in a Baha'i world directly effect people (which naturally includes women).

To bar people form a position which has obvious perks and prestige and effects their lives is obviously discrimination regardless of whether you call it service.

But you should ask yourself the question, if somone called being a member of the clergy a "service" then barred women from participating or called being a member of national parliament a "service" then barred women from participating, would you be hoodwinked about such obvious discrimination against women by application of the term service?

If not then it is most probably indoctrination that leads you to be hoodwinked by the application of the term service into your own indoctrinated religion.

In my opinion.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

No, that is NOT what I said.

I said: 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.

I did not say I do not disagree with God. Sometimes I disagree with God.
If I disagree with God, I know I am wrong and God is right.

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.

No cognitive dissonance at all. When I disagree with God I know I am wrong.

 

[KWED]

Except being on UHJ, is not a job. It is a service!
If women are exempt from a service and duty, is it sexist discrimination against women? Ask your lawyer.

You are conflating "exclusion" with "exemption".

Can a woman serve on the UHJ if she wants to?
No.
Therefore she is excluded and it is sexist discrimination.

Hope this helped.

 

[KWED]

No, that is NOT what I said.

I said: 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.

I did not say I do not disagree with God. Sometimes I disagree with God.
If I disagree with God, I know I am wrong and God is right.

No cognitive dissonance at all. When I disagree with God I know I am wrong.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

It is if that service not only comes with some noteworthy perks
(just think of the prestige that comes from working full time at a place like this;
View attachment 64150
with a view from the office like this;

It has perks such as having your living expenses paid for.

True. But there are many other opportunities for everyone including women to serve in Haifa, and thus see these views and gardens every day. Do you think that most Bahais are willing to leave their jobs or homes, and stay in Haifa to serve?

And most importantly it enacts laws which in a Baha'i world directly effect people (which naturally includes women).

Well, maybe. But after all these years, do you know any of such Laws that UHJ enacted that was unfair?

 

[Trailblazer]

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

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

I do not follow any dogma because the Baha'i Faith has no dogma. It only has the Baha'i Writings.

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.

No, I did not say that God might not exist and Baha'u'llah might have just been a dishonest or delusional man
I said:
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 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)

I do not claim that, it is my personal opinion, and the evidence is everywhere. I do not need any religion to see what is there, it is as clear as the noonday sun in Arizona.

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.

If people were more moral there would likely be less adultery and divorce.

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

I do not blindly follow dogma. I follow the Writings of Baha'u'llah with my eyes wide open.,
You don't see it do you?

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

The point I made was about me, not about you.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

You are conflating "exclusion" with "exemption".

Can a woman serve on the UHJ if she wants to?
No.
Therefore she is excluded and it is sexist discrimination.

Hope this helped.

If Baha'u'llah was a sexist, somewhere in His writings we could have found something against women.
But, we cannot find. So No, it is not sexicm, because no where in Bahai writings, it says, women are not as good as men, or women are less worthy.
So, in our view, the reason, is not due to sexicm.
It is simply exempting women from a duty.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

I never said any such thing. That is a big fat straw man.

 

[KWED]

View attachment 64150

It's all about the spiritual, not the material, doncha know!

 

[danieldemol]

True. But there are many other opportunities for everyone including women to serve in Haifa, and thus see these views and gardens every day. Do you think that most Bahais are willing to leave their jobs or homes, and stay in Haifa to serve?

What of those who have no jobs or homes, are they excluded from serving on the universal house of Justice?

What of the prestige of serving on the Universal House of Justice? Not everyone is motivated by prestige, that is just the same as not everyone wants to be president of the US, I know I wouldn't want the job but some people dream of it.

Well, maybe. But after all these years, do you know any of such Laws that UHJ enacted that was unfair?

For the most part they haven't enacted any laws because we are not in a Baha'i world hence they don't have the power to do so.

However with power over any hypothetical Baha'i world comes great responsibility, and you are not only judged for the unjust laws you do enact, you are also judged for the just laws you failed to enact when it was timely for you to do so.

Unfortunately for the Universal House of Justice it has failed that first test by not enacting law that non-Baha'i will be guaranteed political representation (im talking about being allowed to vote etc) in any hypothetical Baha'i Commonwealth. That is a grievous injustice on the part of the current "Universal House of Justice" since if it fails to guarantee non-Bahai a vote now while it is impotent enough to be forced to listen to non-Bahai needs it is unlikely that it would do so after it gains power.

In my opinion.

 

[Trailblazer]

Try me.

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

I already did.
#1496 Trailblazer

You said:
If you point to a post where I stay (as you claim I have) that "an opinion I agree with becomes fact", then I would have to admit I was wrong and concede your point.
That's how debate works!
#1450 KWED, Yesterday at 1:18 AM

I said:
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.
#1470 Trailblazer, Yesterday at 1:50 PM

Prove me wrong by admitting what you had were opinions, not facts

 

[Trailblazer]

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?

My beliefs do not change from day to day. I have new insights about my beliefs as time goes on.
I know exactly what I believe.

Why all this focus on me? Do I focus on you?
Why can't you stick to the debate topic? The topic is Who was Baha'u'llah and how can we evaluate His claims?

 

[Trailblazer]

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

You really do struggle to stop finding fault with me and look at your own faults, don't you?

26: O SON OF BEING! How couldst thou forget thine own faults and busy thyself with the faults of others? Whoso doeth this is accursed of Me.
The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 10

 

[Trailblazer]

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?

I believe, not claim, that Baha'u'llah was infallible.
That belief will not change tomorrow because it is based upon the Writings of Baha'u'llah.

Messengers of God are not only human. They have a twofold nature so they are both divine and human. Because of their divine station they perfectly represent the Will of God so they are infallible.

“The essence of belief in Divine unity consisteth in regarding Him Who is the Manifestation of God and Him Who is the invisible, the inaccessible, the unknowable Essence as one and the same. By this is meant that whatever pertaineth to the former, all His acts and doings, whatever He ordaineth or forbiddeth, should be considered, in all their aspects, and under all circumstances, and without any reservation, as identical with the Will of God Himself.” Gleanings, p. 167

 

[KWED]

I do not follow any dogma because the Baha'i Faith has no dogma. It only has the Baha'i Writings.

Dogma: a fixed, especially religious, belief or set of beliefs that people are expected to accept without any doubts (Cambridge Dictionary)

The beliefs of most religions are dogmatic, especially those with divine revelation and infallibility.

No, I did not say that God might not exist and Baha'u'llah might have just been a dishonest or delusional man

But that is what you implied with the words you used....
"It is a religious belief that God exists and Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God. It is not a fact"
If you admit that it is not a fact, but merely an opinion, a belief, then you must accept the possibility that it could be wrong and that God does not exist and that Bahaullah was therefore dishonest or delusional.
It is the logical conclusion of rational thought.

it is my personal opinion, and the evidence is everywhere.

If there is conclusive evidence everywhere, then it is not merely opinion. It is a demonstrable fact.
So, what is all this "evidence"?

I do not need any religion to see what is there,

But it seems you do, because you earlier claimed that you reject society's morals because they conflict with Bahaullah's.

If people were more moral there would likely be less adultery and divorce.

"Moral" in what way?

I do not blindly follow dogma. I follow the Writings of Baha'u'llah with my eyes wide open.,

You have repeatedly stated that you are obliged to follow what he wrote, that you don't have the authority to question the rules, that you just accept god's law. That is blindly following dogma. Obviously you don't accept that, because it would shake the very foundation of your belief. Cognitie dissonance protects your little bubble of certainty.
Which is why, despite the above, you also claim to disagree with Bahaullah, but still think he's right.

The point I made was about me, not about you.

*sigh*
You gave your own personal fidelity before getting religion as an example of moral behaviour.
I gave an example of my own.
These two examples prove that religion is not required for "moral" behaviour.

 

[Trailblazer]

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!

@Seeker of White Light never made any demands that anyone respects his views.
That is not what his whole new thread was about.

 

[KWED]

If Baha'u'llah was a sexist, somewhere in His writings we could have found something against women.

Whuh?!
We have! He excluded women from serving on the UHJ!
Have you not been following this?