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

[KWED]

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

But you have repeatedly admitted that god's existence is not a fact.

 

[KWED]

I never claimed that my belief is factually true.

From your highlighted definition..."to be aware of the truth or factuality of"

You simply do not seem to have the ability to construct a rational argument on this matter, nor to recognise the many flaws in the claims you do make.
What do you do as a job?

 

[KWED]

or maybe he just observes what is going on...
There really is no argument to attack.

And that observation is... people finding faults in religion when they look for them.

@Seeker of White Light said "If you looking for faults you find faults everywhere."
Are you really saying that looking for faults is something we shouldn't do?
Does this apply to every field and discipline? Doctors, engineers, teachers, lawyers, etc... Or just when it comes to religion?

 

[KWED]

No, but when he did answer back we can all see what happened...

So, are you saying that someone must have the last word?
Who?
When?

No one is restricted in their ability or right to respond to argument or criticism with their own.
It is interesting that we only see religionists complaining about their beliefs being criticised.
We don't see sceptics putting religionists on "ignore" because they can't respond to their arguments.
We don't see atheist claiming the right to not be offended.

It is no coincidence how much effort apologists put into arguing about not having to argue.

 

[ajay0]

I pretty much agree. It can be made to fit the Abrahamic religions without too much trouble. Even then, Christianity is still a problem for them. But to fit the Dharmic religions in also?

Their religious philosophy is identical to the Dharmic religion of Sikhism, as well as Hindu sects like the Prajapita Brahmakumaris which similarly regards Krishna, Jesus and Muhammad as prophets of the monotheistic God.

I know Baha'is believe in the Quran. And they say, with some qualifiers, that they believe in the Bible. But I don't know of any Baha'i quote that supports the belief in any Hindu or Buddhist Scripture as being true and from the one God that they believe in.

Bahaullah and the Bahais emerged in an Abrahamic background, so they obviously would have easier access to the bible and quran and corresponding literature, while not having the same with respect to the Dharmic scriptures.

The Ahmediya sect of Islam, noted for their pacifism, emphasis on scholarship, also considers Krishna and Buddha to be prophets of God.

Then about being "progressive"? That is one complaint... is it already outdated?

There are new information and revelations coming up, and consequently the bahai religion is bound to be outdated with time.

But a car from the sixties is still bound to be superior to the horse carriages or bullock carts of the past. There are some who stubbornly cling to obsolete, inefficient technology of the past out of emotional attachment and nostalgia and hence comes across as inefficient and medieval.

The Bahai religion has its relevance in that it showcases progressive attitudes and relinquishing of traditional ideas and baggage of the past in keeping with the times.

 

[samtonga43]

I do not know why you would think I have any expectations.
I have no expectations of anyone on this forum - never had, never will.
I just respond to posts to the best of my ability.

Bye if that is how you want it.

LOL! You couldn't make this up.

 

[ppp]

No, but when he did answer back we can all see what happened...

Which is...?

 

[ppp]

Did i speak about me? Or believers in General?

I have no idea. That's why I used the second person plural.

But some times it look like the religious person has less "right" to "defend" their views but should shut up and let others step on them.

I think you confuse the right to defend a view with the right not to have that view examined and critiqued. You have the first. You don't have the second.

 

[samtonga43]

It is possible that nothing in the NT is accurate, and Jesus was nothing but a man who claimed to speak for God.

No, I know that Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity.

It is possible that someday you will stop pointing out all my deficits...

Life is too short.

Even if something is possible that does not make it true. You cannot prove that Baha'u'llah was delusional or that the UHJ is misogynist to its core You can only believe it.

No, I know it, in the same way you know that God exists. Same kind of knowing.

The hundred million dollar question is why you denigrate the Baha'i beliefs constantly?

Oh, that’s not worth a hundred million dollars! I do not denigrate your beliefs. My criticisms of your beliefs are fair.

Do you see the difference between you and me?

Oh, I sure do, and I thank God for it.

 

[samtonga43]

Opinion: a view or judgment formed about something
"It is my opinion that god exists".

Belief: a state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case.
"It is my belief that god exists".

Exactly. Same meaning.

 

[samtonga43]

You are a lot smarter than me... I should know better...
I mean I do know that when I feed the animals they keep coming back for more food.

Is this nasty analogy how your faith teaches you to treat others?

 

[rational experiences]

If a man says I became holier as a messenger. Wouldn't it mean he was changed personally and bodily?

Hence as men introduced science from bodily change mind change origin whenever it recurred he would prove he caused it.

As he is just a man. Born a baby. He would hence re inherit life change.

Now he has two ideas of himself.

Star brain changed survived.

Became the theist. First origin ideas and messages of themes.

Caused a constant fallout himself not star fall. As the machine scientist.

Meaning he would either become the father of science aware or the sacrificed father of science.

Actually.

But never would you be father.

Reason you keep claiming you're special.

Father never did as he was mutual with mother. Wasn't ego expressive as authority.

As I learnt as a mother's presence was with me as I nearly died as a baby. So i learnt about her. She taught me a baby is no longer respected by many father's.

As a baby inherits the exact same life they lived.

She taught me all lies are always revealed... so don't bother trying to lie.

My brother might have become his own adult man he hadn't returned to being our father. Consciously.

It's why no man is God.

You might realise information yet you can't be information and natural in the same moment.

As our parents shared presence as natural advice with themselves and every living natural body of advice.

First.

If anyone cared to be honest.

 

[Trailblazer]

Which is...?

Criticism.

 

[Trailblazer]

You have repeatedly stated that god's existence is not a fact and can never be proven.
So how did you prove it to be a fact?

I already told you that God's existence can never be proven as a fact and that I do not need to have proof to believe in God.

Back to the ol' circular logic.
If there is no god, Baha'u'llah is not his messenger. So how do you know he was a messenger if god's existence if not a fact?

A fact is something that has been proven. I do not need to have proof to believe in God and believe that Baha'u'llah was His Messenger.

After all, the only "evidence" you present for Bahaullah being god's messenger is Bahaullah saying he was god's messenger.

I already told you that Baha'u'llah's claim to be a Messenger is not evidence of any kind.
Anyone can make a claim, the evidence is what backs up the claim.

 

[Trailblazer]

So you admit that there are faults, but you would rather not know about them.

That is not what @Seeker of White Light said.

 

[Trailblazer]

I have repeatedly shown you that they have basically the same meaning, especially in this context. I have provided dictionary definitions and working examples. I have even shown why those two definitions you use are essentially the same.
And yet, you ignore all that and just keep repeating the same refined claim, that "belief" and "opinion" have completely different, non exchangeable meanings. Whether this is through dishonesty or ignorance is anyone's guess. It is hard to believe that even the least capable person still can't grasp the idea after so many explanations, so it suggests that it is deliberate. But on the other hand, you repeatedly show a complete lack of critical faculties and rational thought, so maybe you really just don't get it?

What is the practical difference between
"It is my belief that education should be free"
and
"It is my opinion that education should be free"

"It is my belief that Chelsea are the best team in the league"
"It is my opinion that Chelsea are the best team in the league"

"It is my belief that god exists"
and
"It is my opinion that god exists"

And don't just say "they are different words". You need to explain why the two phrases convey incompatible concepts.
Just have a go. And try block out the little voice in your head repeating "he must be wrong, he must be wrong, he..."

A belief is a state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case whereas an opinion is a view or judgment formed about something. That is the difference between the two.

 

[Trailblazer]

But you have repeatedly admitted that god's existence is not a fact.

2a: to be aware of the truth or factuality of.
Note the word or. God's existence can be true without being factual.
Before 1930 it was not a fact that the planet Pluto existed but it was still true that Pluto existed.

 

[Trailblazer]

From your highlighted definition..."to be aware of the truth or factuality of"

Note the word or.

 

[Trailblazer]

And that observation is... people finding faults in religion when they look for them.

@Seeker of White Light said "If you looking for faults you find faults everywhere."
Are you really saying that looking for faults is something we shouldn't do?

No, that's not what he meant. What he meant is that people can always find faults if they are looking for them and if all you look for are faults that is what you will find.

Does this apply to every field and discipline? Doctors, engineers, teachers, lawyers, etc... Or just when it comes to religion?

Yes, it applies to people in all fields... Some people only look at the negatives, and if they see positives they chase that with something negative in effect squashing the positives.

 

[Trailblazer]

So, are you saying that someone must have the last word?
Who?
When?

No, I am not saying that.

No one is restricted in their ability or right to respond to argument or criticism with their own.
It is interesting that we only see religionists complaining about their beliefs being criticised.
We don't see sceptics putting religionists on "ignore" because they can't respond to their arguments.
We don't see atheist claiming the right to not be offended.

It is no coincidence how much effort apologists put into arguing about not having to argue.

The reason that we see religionists complaining about their beliefs being criticized is because they are the ones being criticized by atheists. If believers criticized atheists the way atheists criticized believers then atheists would be putting believers on ignore.