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

[Spirit of Light]

So you are claiming that before his first "revelation", Bahaullah did not believe in the existence of a god who revealed messages to messengers?
Are you sure about that?

She telling you her understanding of how a prophet get the first message she isn't claiming to hold the only true answer.

What "variables"?
Bahai scripture contains sexist discrimination, homophobia, and barbaric punishment.
No one is claiming that all Bahai scripture is sexist, homophobic and barbaric, so your accusation of hasty generalisation is unfounded.
Would you accuse a dentist of "hasty generalisation" when he points out that one of your teeth is rotten and should be removed? "But what about all the good teeth?" you cry.

Yet again, you demonstrate your inability to correct apply informal fallacies.

Question: why is YOUR understanding of baha'i teaching correct and example @Trailblazer understanding and belief wrong?
Simple question

 

[KWED]

That is not a miracle. It is just a person who lost faith. It happens.

So if a person finds faith, it is a miracle, but when they lose it, it's just stuff that happens?

 

[KWED]

“It would indeed be no exaggeration to say that nowhere in the whole compass of the world’s religious literature, except in the Gospels, do we find any record relating to the death of any of the religion-founders of the past comparable to the martyrdom suffered by the Prophet of Shíráz. So strange, so inexplicable a phenomenon, attested by eye-witnesses, corroborated by men of recognized standing, and acknowledged by government as well as unofficial historians among the people who had sworn undying hostility to the Bábí Faith, may be truly regarded as the most marvelous manifestation of the unique potentialities with which a Dispensation promised by all the Dispensations of the past had been endowed. The passion of Jesus Christ, and indeed His whole public ministry, alone offer a parallel to the Mission and death of the Báb, a parallel which no student of comparative religion can fail to perceive or ignore. In the youthfulness and meekness of the Inaugurator of the Bábí Dispensation; in the extreme brevity and turbulence of His public ministry; in the dramatic swiftness with which that ministry moved towards its climax; in the apostolic order which He instituted, and the primacy which He conferred on one of its members; in the boldness of His challenge to the time-honored conventions, rites and laws which had been woven into the fabric of the religion He Himself had been born into; in the rôle which an officially recognized and firmly entrenched religious hierarchy played as chief instigator of the outrages which He was made to suffer; in the indignities heaped upon Him; in the suddenness of His arrest; in the interrogation to which He was subjected; in the derision poured, and the scourging inflicted, upon Him; in the public affront He sustained; and, finally, in His ignominious suspension before the gaze of a hostile multitude—in all these we cannot fail to discern a remarkable similarity to the distinguishing features of the career of Jesus Christ.”

Cited in (God Passes By)

To Continue: The Execution of the Báb

Sorry, was there an answer to my question in there?
Let's try again...
What was "miraculous" about Bab's execution. (Remember that a "miracle" is something that cannot be explained by natural means).

Let's consider the facts.
1. Baba was hung against a wall by rope.
2. A firing squad fired a volley.
3. Bab was not hit but the rope was severed. (Smoothbore, long muskets were notorious for shooting high. It's why experienced officers told their men to aim low. Therefore it is not unreasonable that if the firing squad all aimed at the heart or head, they might all miss and hit the rope instead. The replacement firing squad which hit Bab may have been better trained. There are many records of executions failing, even after several attempts.).
3. After the smoke cleared (19th century black powder produces huge volumes of smoke) Bab was found hiding nearby.
4. He was brought out again and then successfully executed.

So, explain which part of this could only have happened by supernatural intervention of a god?

 

[KWED]

No, but I believe that are true if they are stated in the Baha'i accounts.

Clear confirmation bias and cherry-picking.

And I know that they are true when they were witnessed by thousands of onlookers.

What they witnessed was not a "miracle". You merely claim it was a miracle. There is nothing about the actual account of the execution that requires supernatural intervention.

Do you think the "Miracle of Fatima" was real?

 

[KWED]

That was a special case

"Special Pleading" fallacy.

and the miracle was offered for a particular purpose.

You said that would be degrading.

I did not say that.
It is God's purpose to make it difficult to recognize a Messenger, but that does not mean it is impossible.

But you admit that god deliberately makes it difficult for people to recognise a messenger.
Why would he do that? It makes no sense. Remember that god said that he created mankind "only to worship him", so why try and prevent that?

 

[KWED]

I was told it was 750 men with rifles... and they all missed. Why didn't they just get one or two guys that could shoot straight?

The claimed size of the firing squad makes no sense, but long muskets were notorious for shooting high (which is why infantry were instructed to shoot low by experienced officers), so not impossible, or even improbable that if they all aimed at the head or heart, they all missed and hit the rope above him. Perhaps the replacement firing squad that killed him were better trained.

Also seems a bit odd that god would demonstrate his powers by saving him, only to then allow him to be killed straight after. A bit like a powerful swimmer diving into a raging torrent to save a child, getting it to the bank and saying "look how good I am at swimming", and then letting it go to be drowned.

 

[KWED]

She telling you her understanding of how a prophet get the first message she isn't claiming to hold the only true answer.

She hasn't addressed my point about scripture coming from existing belief.

Question: why is YOUR understanding of baha'i teaching correct and example @Trailblazer understanding and belief wrong?
Simple question

It is not "my understanding", it is necessary meaning.
1. Excluding women from certain jobs because of their gender is sexist discrimination, by definition.
2. Calling homosexuality "immoral" and "shameful sexual aberration" is homophobia, by definition.
3. Burning people to death is barbaric punishment, by definition.

Now, if you want to claim that those things are all reasonable and acceptable and do not fit the terms stated, feel free. I'd love to hear your arguments.

 

[Spirit of Light]

She hasn't addressed my point about scripture coming from existing belief.

It is not "my understanding", it is necessary meaning.
1. Excluding women from certain jobs because of their gender is sexist discrimination, by definition.
2. Calling homosexuality "immoral" and "shameful sexual aberration" is homophobia, by definition.
3. Burning people to death is barbaric punishment, by definition.

Now, if you want to claim that those things are all reasonable and acceptable and do not fit the terms stated, feel free. I'd love to hear your arguments.

You are aware that the scriptures was written in an other time frame (past time)
The reason you and many others react negatively to spiritual scriptures has to do with, you see everything as free to do, because you want it.
Spiritual practice see it differently.

Oe should not be cruel to others

 

[Aupmanyav]

You are aware that the scriptures was written in an other time frame (past time).

Mid 19th Century is not all that old. If Bahaollah was educated, then he might have questioned his God on these points. But he had studied Tanakh, Injeel and Quran only. Bahaollah died in 1892.
19th-century philosophy - Wikipedia
List of philosophers born in the 19th century - Wikipedia

 

[Spirit of Light]

Mid 19th Century is not all that old. If Bahaollah was educated, then he might have questioned his God on these points. But he had read only Tanakh, Injeel and Quran.

I am sure Baha'i"ullah was teaching what he gained through connection with God. He gave his message.
If you dont like it, then dont follow it, simple as that

 

[Aupmanyav]

I am sure Baha'i"ullah was teaching what he gained through connection with God. He gave his message.
If you dont like it, then dont follow it, simple as that

Of course, I do not like it and do not follow it. It had nothing new. It was just a rehash of old sermons. Jesus and Mohammad said just the same things. In 19th Century, his views went back to 7th Century. You are easily impressed by these platitudes, flowery words, I am not like that.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Of course, I do not like it and do not follow it. It had nothing new. It was just a rehash of old sermons. Jesus and Mohammad said just the same things. In 19th Century, his views went back to 7th Century. You are easily impressed by these platitudes, flowery words, I am not like that.

I am equally impressed by many religious scriptures, not only Baha'i faith.
I just don't put a lable on what my belief are.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I am equally impressed by many religious scriptures, not only Baha'i faith.
I just don't put a lable on what my belief are.

I see you are a lover of the Light, no matter where it shines from. With caring heart.

Regards Tony

 

[Spirit of Light]

I see you are a lover of the Light, no matter where it shines from. With caring heart.

Regards Tony

Yes, this is true Tony, where ever we see there will be light and glory if we looking for it, but at the exact same place there will be suffering and harm if that is what our mind seek.
Both good and evil exsists on the same place.

 

[KWED]

You are aware that the scriptures was written in an other time frame (past time)

They were written in the present - when they were written. But don't see why that is in any way relevant.

The reason you and many others react negatively to spiritual scriptures has to do with, you see everything as free to do, because you want it.

I "react negatively" because of their content.

Spiritual practice see it differently.

How do you think "spiritual" people see sexism, homophobia and barbaric punishment as "positive"?

Oe should not be cruel to others

I agree - which is one of the reasons I react negatively to scripture if it promotes cruelty to others (like sexism, homophobia and barbaric punishment). Don't see how anyone with any human empathy could do otherwise.

 

[Spirit of Light]

They were written in the present - when they were written. But don't see why that is in any way relevant.

I "react negatively" because of their content.

How do you think "spiritual" people see sexism, homophobia and barbaric punishment as "positive"?

I agree - which is one of the reasons I react negatively to scripture if it promotes cruelty to others (like sexism, homophobia and barbaric punishment). Don't see how anyone with any human empathy could do otherwise.

Religion has certain views, some to strong some more right.

 

[KWED]

I am sure Baha'i"ullah was teaching what he gained through connection with God. He gave his message.

Except it sounds just like it was written by someone from the 19th century Middle East, who had been influenced by the existing customs and beliefs of the region.
Also bear in mind that there is zero evidence that any god actually exists. Bahais on here claim that because Bahaullah claimed to be a messenger of god, it is therefore evidence for that god, but I'm sure you can see the fatal flaw in that argument.

If you dont like it, then dont follow it, simple as that

I don't follow it.
However, I think it is necessary to challenge ideas that promote irrational thinking, intolerance, cruelty, violence, etc. Don't you?
And bear in mind that this is an open, public, religious debate forum, so the whole point of it is for people to debate religion. So your position should be "If you don't want your beliefs challenged, don't present them on a religious debate forum".

 

[KWED]

Yes, this is true Tony, where ever we see there will be light and glory if we looking for it, but at the exact same place there will be suffering and harm if that is what our mind seek.
Both good and evil exsists on the same place.

Do you think this "light and glory" and "suffering and harm" are just innate expressions of human nature, or do you think that there is a supernatural force influencing and guiding events?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Except it sounds just like it was written by someone from the 19th century Middle East, who had been influenced by the existing customs and beliefs of the region.
Also bear in mind that there is zero evidence that any god actually exists. Bahais on here claim that because Bahaullah claimed to be a messenger of god, it is therefore evidence for that god, but I'm sure you can see the fatal flaw in that argument.

I don't follow it.
However, I think it is necessary to challenge ideas that promote irrational thinking, intolerance, cruelty, violence, etc. Don't you?
And bear in mind that this is an open, public, religious debate forum, so the whole point of it is for people to debate religion. So your position should be "If you don't want your beliefs challenged, don't present them on a religious debate forum".

I dont mind my belief challenged, it is a part of the path anyway.
But it is a difference in challenging a religious belief and down right calling a religious belief evil or hostile.
Often people are more open to answer questions asked about their belief when the questionair isn't know for hostility toward religion

 

[KWED]

Religion has certain views, some to strong some more right.

Do you think the sexist, homophobic and barbaric views of Bahaiism are "light and glory" or "suffering and harm"?