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

[Trailblazer]

The problem is in a hypothetical "most great peace" one could be a global citizen and not have a vote in Baha'i elections as they are non-Baha'i and if the Baha'i Universal House of Justice is to be the supreme governing body of the planet that is very concerning amongst lovers of justice.

Doesn't matter what the majority are, the minority still deserve a vote.

Also the Baha'i writings have not anticipated any reversal, for example suppose the majority of people wanted the universal house of justice at first, then it was established as Supreme, then the majority lost their faith - you would end up with a majority of people having no vote in a world supreme body as they are no longer Baha'i.

Can you see the design flaw in the Baha'i "most great peace"?

Politically, I do not know what will happen in the future and I don't think there is any clearly laid out plan for the New World Order. Maybe @Truthseeker or @TransmutingSoul know something I don't.

Meanwhile, here is an interesting perspective on what is envisioned by some Baha'is.

What Does the “New World Order” Mean?

 

[danieldemol]

Yes, you are correct with this quote, it is about the minorities that come under the umbrella of the teachings and laws of Baha'u'llah.

I would think it fair to assume, that if you are not a Baha'i, that you would not want to be subject to Baha'i Law? Is that Correct?

Correct, but more importantly I would want to have a vote in the law of the land, even as a non-Baha'i minority living under a so-called "most great peace"

If so, I am offering that is the case, well into the future, those that are not a Baha'i and all Baha'i will have to obey the laws of the land. It is only the Baha'i, as each governments allows, that will be subjected to Baha'i law in addition to the laws of the land, if they have not been made the same.

So what happens in a Baha'i village or whatever when a Baha'i wants to apostatise to avoid being punished under Baha'i law? It would appear to make Baha'i law unenforceable without alienating Baha'i. Are the Baha'is envisioning that they will allow this to go on forever - all those found in breach of the law simply apostatise? Are there villages where Baha'i have managed to mark any Baha'i theives or burn any Baha'i arsonists?

In my opinion.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Then I think it would be worth your time to go to some Baha'i meetings and get to know some of the local Baha'is in your area. One thing that they do have is a world-wide community of people that all share the same beliefs. Unlike some religions that if you go from one group to another, even in your own town, they might not agree with the other group.

I am going already on monday next week

 

[Spirit of Light]

Yeah I would recommend joining a "study circle", @Seeker of White Light will soon find out how much he agrees with Baha'i that way.

In my opinion.

I have already thought of that and I go there on on monday.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

So what happens in a Baha'i village or whatever when a Baha'i wants to apostatise to avoid being punished under Baha'i law? It would appear to make Baha'i law unenforceable without alienating Baha'i. Are the Baha'is envisioning that they will allow this to go on forever - all those found in breach of the law simply apostatise? Are there villages where Baha'i have managed to mark any Baha'i theives or burn any Baha'i arsonists?

This is a fruitless conversation, as the future state of humanity, after the approaching calamity, is not known.

My guess is we will have an entirely different mindset to faith and God's laws.

How about we Imagine a village where love and service dominate, where all have a fair chance at education and necessities of life.

Regards Tony

 

[danieldemol]

This is a fruitless conversation, as the future state of humanity, after the approaching calamity, is not known.

My guess is we will have an entirely different mindset to faith and God's laws.

How about we Imagine a village where love and service dominate, where all have a fair chance at education and necessities of life.

Regards Tony

I think we can get that under a village run by social democracy without risk of burning any arsonists

In my opinion.

 

[KWED]

I think I must be a follower of Baha'u'llah because I agree with him...mankind added certain things in to the teachings from the past, to fit to today and by that the teaching is not true to the original anymore.

There is no evidence that message of Christianity or Islam or Judaism is substantially different to that in their original scriptures.
Also, by the same token, Bahaullah is just a man changing the teachings of the past to fit his time and place.

 

[KWED]

As usual, you take what I say and create a straw man.
I said I do not have to accept anything I do not choose to accept because I have free will to choose what I am willing to accept.

I do not have to choose what you believe is correct.
Reality, logic, and reason is not defined by you.

Again, you have just demonstrated that you do not understand how logic and reason work (as well as what a straw man is).

Some arguments are irrational and illogical by default, eg. a married bachelor.
Now, you can choose to believe that a bachelor can be married, but your belief would be illogical and irrational. When I point this out to you, it is not "my opinion". It is a simple fact.

You claim that god's existence is not a fact and cannot be proven. Therefore it must be possible that god does not exist. That is a simple fact, not my opinion.
If you then claim that there is no doubt that god definitely does exist, despite admitting than he might not, then you are being irrational and illogical.
Of course, you can believe god exists, but you cannot claim any certainty.

When I say that you "have to" accept something, it is in the context of being rational and logical. As I said, you don't "have to" accept that the earth orbits the sun. But if you don't, you are clearly being irrational.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, you are correct with this quote, it is about the minorities that come under the umbrella of the teachings and laws of Baha'u'llah.
I would think it fair to assume, that if you are not a Baha'i, that you would not want to be subject to Baha'i Law? Is that Correct?

If so, I am offering that is the case, well into the future, those that are not a Baha'i and all Baha'i will have to obey the laws of the land. It is only the Baha'i, as each governments allows, that will be subjected to Baha'i law in addition to the laws of the land, if they have not been made the same.

There are minorities that do not come under the banner of Bahais. For example Shias, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Ahmadiyyas, Daudi Bohras, Zoroastrians, Jews and others in India. Bahais are not the only minority.
Yeah, I am a Hindu atheist and not a Bahai. True, Bahais in India follow the Indian law.
Please note that Indian law restricts people of one religion to speak against another religion. If anyone says that the current Hindu, Muslim, Christian or any other belief is outdated and needs to be replaced, that will be against Indian law and the person will be liable for punitive action.

"First Amendment of Indian Constitution:

Under Indian law, the freedom of speech and of the press do not confer an absolute right to express one's thoughts freely. Clause (2) of Article 19 of the Indian constitution enables the legislature to impose certain restrictions on free speech under following heads:

• I. security of the State,
• II. friendly relations with foreign States,
• III. public order,
• IV. decency and morality,
• V. contempt of court,
• VI. defamation,
• VII. incitement to an offence, and
• VIII. sovereignty and integrity of India.

Reasonable restrictions on these grounds can be imposed only by a duly enacted law and not by executive action"
Freedom of expression in India - Wikipedia

 

[KWED]

No, a belief is different from an opinion.

Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty.
Belief - Wikipedia

Opinion: a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. opinion meaning - Google Search

The difference is that an opinion can be based upon fact or knowledge whereas a belief is not based upon facts.

You say that the key difference is that opinion is based on fact or knowledge while belief isn't. Did you even read your definitions?

"Belief... the state of mind...with or without there being empirical evidence"
"Opinion...a view...not necessarily based on fact or knowledge"

They are saying the same thing!
I have already explained this in detail, with references. Why do you keep repeating the same refuted argument?
This fits with @Seeker of White Light's complaints about sceptics presenting the same argument. Its because you keep presenting the same flawed claims, despite them being clearly explained to you. Whether it is through ignorance or dishonesty is anyone's guess.

 

[Aupmanyav]

My guess will be that eventually the governments of the elected world legislative will turn to the Universal of Justice for Guidance. ..
Village chiefs discuss the future at unprecedented gathering in India | BWNS

You are good at building castles (in air). Kudos.
In India even the marriage of a dog may also become a festive occasion.
All about a paw-wedding! Dogs married off in Uttar Pradesh's Hamirpur

 

[KWED]

According to my understanding Hinduism is just a name for religions of the Indus Valley and India more generally.

As such it seems to be the name for religions from a geographical location rather than a family of theologically related religions.

In my opinion.

Indeed, but in all the years of chatting religion both online and irl, my use of the concept of Hindu polytheism has never been challenged before.
In future when I am referring to Hinduism, I will specify that I am using it in the context of the four main devotional denominations as practiced by the vast majority of "Hindus". Kinda like when I say "Muslim" I am referring to the general majority rather than just Quranists or Ahmadiyya.

 

[KWED]

There is no lack of logic.
My knowing that God exists is not based upon proof.

Erm...ok

There are other ways of knowing.

So how do you "know" without doubt, that a god exists?
(This is where you describe a belief/opinion)

 

[KWED]

You and KWED have to make this about right and wrong. Whether God exists or not is not about who is right and who is wrong, that is ego.

Either exists or he doesn't. None of us know without any doubt.
The only one displaying "ego" here is you, by insisting that you know, without doubt, that god exists, simply because you believe he does.

No, I do not accept that God might not exist because I have absolute certitude of His Reality. You cannot take that away from me, no matter how hard you might try, because it was conferred upon me by God through Baha'u'llah.
I do not need God to be proven as a fact in order to know that God exists. Any God that could be proven as a fact would not be God.

You have just illustrated your lack of rational thinking better than all my explanations.
Thanks.

 

[KWED]

No, they are not logically incompatible. Try to figure out why and if you can't I will tell you.

Oh, this should be good!

 

[Trailblazer]

This is a fruitless conversation, as the future state of humanity, after the approaching calamity, is not known.

The 'approaching' calamity?

 

[KWED]

Tony said no such thing. As usual you created a straw man.

That was the implication of what he said. Pointing this out is not a "straw man".

People who are not Baha'is cannot vote in Baha'i elections because one has to be a Baha'i to vote in a Baha'i election.

So under this great Bahai world government that is supposed to be coming, only Bahais get to vote.
Which is exactly what I said.

That is no different than saying that one has to be a United States citizen to vote in a United States election.

Of course it is different. The US is a nation that contains many different faiths even though it has one government, just as the world would have many different faiths, even under one government.

To correct your analogy, it would be like saying that one has to be a Christian to vote in US elections. Which I'm sure even you can see is outrageous discrimination and a fundamental abuse of human rights.

 

[KWED]

So what? That does not mean they are right and the others are wrong.
What people believe has no bearing on what is actually true or false.

So you accept that your belief that god exists has no bearing on whether he actually does.

A dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by humans as incontrovertibly true.

You have inserted "by humans" there where it is not required.
Even if god laid down the laws, it is still dogma if we are required to unquestioningly follow them. The source is irrelevant.

Baha'u'llah was human but also divine.

Another illogical contradiction.

He had the authority to speak for God because that authority was given to Him by God.

So he claimed. But as you admit that god might not exist, he might have been dishonest or delusional. Either way, it is still dogma.

By contrast, the men who created Church doctrines did not have any authority given to them by God.

That's just your opinion. They will disagree and say the same about your beliefs.
To paraphrase Stephen Roberts... "When you understand why you dismiss other beliefs, you will understand why I dismiss yours".

 

[KWED]

What was his character, his writings, his message?
He did not have what Baha'u'llah had. All one has to do is investigate in order to realize that.

I have investigated, and they are strikingly similar. Neither has any evidence or rational argument to support their claims. Their followers rely on belief - as you keep explaining.

Having many followers is not what makes a belief true. that would be the fallacy of ad populum.

Did I claim or imply that Ahmadiyya is true because it has a lot of followers? (Now that was a "straw man" )

He fulfilled no prophecies for the return of Christ or the Messiah. He couldn't have since Baha'u'llah fulfilled them.

Ahmadis believe in his fulfilled prophesies just as you believe in Bahaullah's. This is due to confirmation bias. Unbiased observers, with no need to confirm a pre-existing belief, see no fulfilled prophesies from either.
(This is all going right over your head, isn't it? You are going to respond with something along the lines of "but Bahaullah was a messenger of god, Ahmad was not" )

 

[KWED]

The full quote is needed, it can have many meanings.

"The beginning of all things is the knowledge of God, and the end of all things is strict observance of whatsoever hath been sent down from the empyrean of the Divine Will that pervadeth all that is in the heavens and all that is on the earth."

So one thought is that the beginning of all things is is the knowledge of the Messenger and the end of all things is submission unto all that Faith has to offer.

Mostly humanity is only at the beginning.of all things.

This is a choice which is never, and I say again, never enforced upon any person.

Regards Tony

Why do you think that god's infallible messenger was incapable of clearly expressing what he meant?