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

[KWED]

The words do not mean 'exactly' the same thing and that is why there are two words.

You really don't understand how language works, do you?
You can say exactly the same thing using completely different words.

"I am eating my lovely dinner"
"One is enjoying a splendid evening repast"

Both convey exactly the same message, despite there being no common words.

 

[KWED]

This is where I describe what I believe happened to me, the reason I am certain. It is not a fact, it is what I believe happened.

I believe that God ordained that certain people will be guided to find and embrace the Truth. Why some of us recognize Baha’u’llah and others do not is not fully known to us, but it is fully known to God. Baha'u'llah in His Writings expressed that those who have joined the Cause have done something in the past that enabled them to receive this gift.

"Be thankful to God for having enabled you to recognize His Cause. Whoever has received this blessing must, prior to his acceptance, have performed some deed which, though he himself was unaware of its character, was ordained by God as a means whereby he has been guided to find and embrace the Truth. As to those who have remained deprived of such a blessing, their acts alone have hindered them from recognizing the truth of this Revelation. We cherish the hope that you, who have attained to this light, will exert your utmost to banish the darkness of superstition and unbelief from the midst of the people. May your deeds proclaim your faith and enable you to lead the erring into the paths of eternal salvation."

(Baha'u'llah, quoted in Shoghi Effendi, The Dawn-Breakers, p. 586)

The Dawn-Breakers: Nabíl’s Narrative of the Early Days of the Bahá’í Revelation, p. 586

So you admit that you do not "know without doubt" that god exists.
You "believe that god exists".

So, why do you believe god exists?
Your explanation that god chose you to believe in him doesn't work because it presupposes the existence of god. Why do you believe that there is a god there to choose you in the first place?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Yes, and neither do some people in other religions. But they believe something totally different than you. Like those Christians that believe the Adam and Eve story. Sin entered the world because of that, and God, thousands of years later, sent his Son to be a sacrifice to pay the penalty for that sin. Should Christians have questioned that, rather than taking it so literal?

They have their choices as well CG.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

You surely have gone far astray.

You are just being a troll, there is no reasonable discussion we can have. Please leave me alone.

Regards Tony

 

[KWED]

You cannot say that none of us know without any doubt because you cannot know what everyone else in the world knows without any doubt.

Yes I can, because "knowledge" has a meaning. And that meaning is not "belief". In fact they often have the opposite meaning.

You (and many others) have no doubt about your belief in god, but you do not know god exists - as you have admitted ("It is possible that God does not exist since it cannot be proven that God exists")
NB: "Belief" is not "knowledge". I suspect this is where you keep tripping yourself up.

You think that everyone should need proof to know that God exists but some of us do not need proof to know.

Again, you are conflating "belief" and "knowledge".

Whenever you tell me what I know this is your ego insisting you can know what I know.
But you cannot know what I know since you are not me.

No. I am telling you what words and concepts mean, and pointing out that you are using them incorrectly.
I understand and accept that you have no doubt in your belief that god exists.
But you cannot know he exists.
It is not my "ego" insisting this, it is the meaning of words. The English language. And logic (if it is possible that god does not exist, you cannot know that he does).

 

[KWED]

You are just being a troll, there is no reasonable discussion we can have. Please leave me alone.

Regards Tony

I am simply using humour to highlight the inconsistency of your position. They are genuine arguments that you can choose to ignore as you see fit.
But I agree that as long are you insist on speaking only in quoted platitudes, reasonable discussion is not possible. However, I will continue to point out flaws in your arguments when I see them.

 

[KWED]

@samtonga43 said:
Tb. It is a possibility that God does not exist.
Tb. I know that God exists.

The above two statements are logically incompatible.
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
It is simple to explain why they are not logically incompatible.
Hypothetically speaking, there is a possibility that God does not exist since it can never be proven that God exists, but I know that God exists according to the following definition of know.

Know: to have information in your mind; to be aware of something: know

All knowledge is not factual knowledge.

Definition of know

1a(1): to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2): to have understanding of importance of knowing oneself (3): to recognize the nature of : discern

b(1): to recognize as being the same as something previously known(2): to be acquainted or familiar with (3): to have experience of

2a: to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of

b: to have a practical understanding of knows how to write

Definition of KNOW

In this context, "knowledge" and "belief" are not the same thing.
From your own definition... "to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of"

So basically, you are stating that you are certain that your belief is true. And I accept and understand that.
But you cannot claim it is factually true. You are conflating your belief in god with knowledge of god - because if god does not exist (which you accept as a possibility), you cannot have any knowledge of him. What you think is knowledge would be merely belief or delusion.

 

[KWED]

Tony said that only Baha'is can vote in Baha'i elections. Tony did not say anything about a Bahai world government that is coming with an elite ruling class based on membership of a religion, where the majority will be disenfranchised and without representation. This is where you jumped to conclusions, a fallacy, and made a straw man argument.

*sigh*
This is about language and words again.

The logical implication of @TransmutingSoul's statement (that only Bahais can vote in Bahai run elections) is that once Bahaullah's dream of a world united under a single Bahai government comes true, the world will be run by a privileged group based on religious belief.

Just because someone does not make a specific statement doesn't mean that it is not implied by what they did say.
"You must have testicles in order to vote"
"So women aren't allowed to vote?"
"I didn't say that"

 

[TransmutingSoul]

*sigh*
This is about language and words again.

The logical implication of @TransmutingSoul's statement (that only Bahais can vote in Bahai run elections) is that once Bahaullah's dream of a world united under a single Bahai government comes true, the world will be run by a privileged group based on religious belief.

Just because someone does not make a specific statement doesn't mean that it is not implied by what they did say.
"You must have testicles in order to vote"
"So women aren't allowed to vote?"
"I didn't say that"

The implications of this reply is that you are indeed intent on trolling the Baha'is.

I will not feed your behaviour by offering any reply, but to point out that obvious intent if you continue in this manner.

 

[KWED]

Of course my belief that God exists has no bearing upon whether God exists or not.
Conversely, your disbelief that God exists has no bearing on whether God exists or not.

Correct.

True. I admitted that to @danieldemol last night.

So you now accept that you unquestioningly follow dogma.

No, that is not an illogical contradiction since Baha'u'llah was both human and divine since He had a twofold nature.

“Unto this subtle, this mysterious and ethereal Being He hath assigned a twofold nature; the physical, pertaining to the world of matter, and the spiritual, which is born of the substance of God Himself. He hath, moreover, conferred upon Him a double station. The first station, which is related to His innermost reality, representeth Him as One Whose voice is the voice of God Himself. To this testifieth the tradition: “Manifold and mysterious is My relationship with God. I am He, Himself, and He is I, Myself, except that I am that I am, and He is that He is.” …. The second station is the human station, exemplified by the following verses: “I am but a man like you.” “Say, praise be to my Lord! Am I more than a man, an apostle?” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 66-67

"Human" and "divine" (godly) are two separate and contradictory concepts.
Simply quoting some who claims that they are both human and divine does not resolve this.
If I told you I was both dead and alive, would you accept it as a fact?

 

[KWED]

There is no similarity whatsoever. One is a fraud, a self-proclaimed messenger, the other is a Messenger of God who got a message from God.

Which one are you talking about here, because from my position I could be listening to a Bahai and an Ahmadi. There is no objective difference.

They can 'believe' anything they want to believe, but they cannot 'show' that he fulfilled any prophecies since he didn't do what the prophecies say. By contrast, Baha'is can show exactly how Baha'u'llah fulfilled the Bible prophecies for the return of Christ and the Messiah.

Once again, Ahmadis will make exactly the same claim.
Neither of you can present any evidence or rational argument.
To the objective observer, there is no reason to accept either's claim.

 

[KWED]

He was not incapable. He clearly expressed what He meant.

@TransmutingSoul said "[Bahaullah's writing] can have many meanings."
If something can have "many meanings", it is not clear, by definition.

Also, you have several times admitted that you don't understand god's message, so again, it cannot be clear.

 

[KWED]

“Beseech ye the one true God to grant that all men may be graciously assisted to fulfil that which is acceptable in Our sight. Soon will the present-day order be rolled up, and a new one spread out in its stead. Verily, thy Lord speaketh the truth, and is the Knower of things unseen.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 7

He was not wrong. The rolling up of the old world order began soon after that as written and it has continued at an ever increasing pace. We can already see the beginnings of a new world order.

What was the OWO that was rolled up, and what was the NWO that replaced it? And was it the Bahai utopia that Bahullah promised, or does that NWO become another OWO that in turn must be rolled up and replaced? If do, how many times will this happen and how will we know e=when we have reached the final, actual NWO>

As his writings are clear, you will be able to give me a clear answer.

According to Shoghi Effendi, "The unity of the human race, as envisaged by Baháʼu'lláh, implies ...

That passage clearly shows that Bahullah's message was not clear and its implication needed to be clarified.
QED.

the establishment of a world commonwealth in which all nations, races, creeds and classes are closely and permanently united, and in which the autonomy of its state members and the personal freedom and initiative of the individuals that compose them are definitely and completely safeguarded. This commonwealth must, as far as we can visualize it, consist of a world legislature, whose members will, as the trustees of the whole of mankind, ultimately control the entire resources of all the component nations, and will enact such laws as shall be required to regulate the life, satisfy the needs and adjust the relationships of all races and peoples. A world executive, backed by an international Force, will carry out the decisions arrived at, and apply the laws enacted by, this world legislature, and will safeguard the organic unity of the whole commonwealth. A world tribunal will adjudicate and deliver its compulsory and final verdict in all and any disputes that may arise between the various elements constituting this universal system."[6]

Once again, that is rather vague and allows all sorts of interpretations. For example, it sounds not dissimilar to the old British Empire.

 

[KWED]

The Writings can be interpreted in various ways.

Whoah there!!
You just claimed that god's message was clear. Now you are saying that in can have different meanings.
*flip*
*flop*

 

[KWED]

The implications of this reply is that you are indeed intent on trolling the Baha'is.

I will not feed your behaviour by offering any reply, but to point out that obvious intent if you continue in this manner.

In a future state run by a Bahai government, would non-Bahais be able to vote in elections run by that government?
Yes or no?

Simple question requiring only a one word answer.

 

[rational experiences]

If I say science won't ever know God.

It means no man knows God.

Science is who claimed it knew.

So we ask a theist what God do you discuss. His God is Satan.

He'll burning bodies cooled.

As his thought he will. He being man's owned objective. The will to want to know God as a substance.

For one purpose all evil motivations of controlling men.

Hence its science that mocks derided spiritual humans trying to find a human understanding to research about God.

What they claim is their ultimate goal.

They aren't looking for the highest or greatest. Which was to be as theirselves spiritual loving kind equal mutual caring.

I understand what father taught me. It's basically acceptable. We aren't the eternal.

It was taught we aren't.

I do understand that my bio human self ends. As my holy human mother's self experience.

A one of story owned by all her daughter's.

I know that by her memory she left the eternal body to be human.

Yet the highest self eternal is gained to exist when we die. As it's the part of us that never left its body.

That status says no scientist will own it. As you're just humans too.

Science said to science it had killed earths living God in stone. By removing its water that owned living micro organisms.

You can also say hence in gods earth image the machine scientist changed our living heavens and did the same to our human bodies. Killed us off.

So thanks for being the nasty human you prove yourself to be.

Once an innocent baby who conned our human mother into believing you were innocent.

If you need to be honest.

 

[CG Didymus]

I see the Bible is full of prophecy that is offering that 2 will come.

Regards Tony

For the benefit of those here on this thread that my not have heard them before, can you name a few of them?

 

[CG Didymus]

No it is not. Regards Tony

So, none of the current UHJ members were not members of the ITC just prior to getting elected to the UHJ? Or... were there a few?

And if there is, I don't see it as necessarily a bad thing. Why would you want to elect people that aren't qualified and haven't proven themselves as being able to handle the task.

 

[CG Didymus]

In a future state run by a Bahai government, would non-Bahais be able to vote in elections run by that government?
Yes or no?

Simple question requiring only a one word answer.

I don't know how much power a vote by an ordinary Baha'i really has.

Elected bodies make all of the legislative decisions in the Baha’i Faith—no individual Baha’i has any power. At the local level, elected Local Spiritual Assemblies direct the affairs of the community; and at the national level, National Spiritual Assemblies are elected by delegates each year. Those National Spiritual Assembly members elect the Universal House of Justice every five years.​

The NSA members elect the UHJ. The NSA members are elected by delegates that represent a district. I guess at that district level a Baha'i can vote for anybody to be a delegate. But probably the best known, best liked person will get nominated. Do they represent all the people in that district or are they going to vote for whom they think is best to serve on the NSA? Then you have the NSA's elect just anybody to the UHJ? I would imagine that the field of candidates is rather small, and the "best", meaning the ones that won't cause trouble and go along with the "best" interests of the Faith, meaning keeping the status quo, will get elected.

Where will non-Baha'is ever really have a voice in a world run by the Baha'i Faith? God's law will rule. But then if those non-Baha'is want to drink, take drugs, have sex with whomever they please, where they going to go? It's going to be illegal behavior. What are Baha'is going to do with them? Put them away somewhere on an island or something?

And will people really be happy? Or will there be the "thought" police out there making sure everyone truly believes in God and Baha'u'llah? I'm afraid, although they have the best of intentions, it could easily break down into an authoritarian religious rule.

 

[CG Didymus]

I consider dogma is building upon a teaching that has not been explained by a Messenger from God.

I don't see that in the definition. Dogma just sounds like religious beliefs that people take as a certainty.