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

[Spirit of Light]

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?

It depend on the situation and it can't be used in every situation.
But in religious and spiritual views it is supernatural situation that often are seen.

 

[Spirit of Light]

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

Personally I haven't found those things in Baha'i faith at this moment. All Baha'is i know are very openminded

 

[KWED]

But it is a difference in challenging a religious belief and down right calling a religious belief evil or hostile.

That depends on the nature of the religion. I would never call a religion "evil" because it is not a concept I recognise, but some religions are definitely hostile to non-believers.

Often people are more open to answer questions asked about their belief when the questionair isn't know for hostility toward religion

Why should that make a difference?
If anything, the apologist should be more eager to "correct misconceptions" than just have someone pitching softballs.

 

[KWED]

But in religious and spiritual views it is supernatural situation that often are seen.

Why do you think god causes so much harm and suffering? Why do you think he sends so many intolerant, cruel, discriminatory and violent messages?
If such a god did exist, why would it be worthy of worship or even respect?

 

[Spirit of Light]

That depends on the nature of the religion. I would never call a religion "evil" because it is not a concept I recognise, but some religions are definitely hostile to non-believers.

Why should that make a difference?
If anything, the apologist should be more eager to "correct misconceptions" than just have someone pitching softballs.

Do religious people need non believers to correct every little move the religious person Do? No

 

[Spirit of Light]

Why do you think god causes so much harm and suffering? Why do you think he sends so many intolerant, cruel, discriminatory and violent messages?
If such a god did exist, why would it be worthy of worship or even respect?

I do not believe any of that, humans may be evil from time to time, in my personal view God is not evil, he created this world, and those who believe trying to obey Gods message.

I can not speak for anyone else, what others believers or non beluevers alike do or say is their views and opinions

 

[Trailblazer]

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?

I said:
The scripture came from the Messengers of God, either directly or indirectly.
The Messengers did not have a belief, they received A revelation from God.

I did not mean that the Messengers did not believe in God before they received a revelation from God, I meant that His scriptures were not based upon a belief, they were based upon a revelation from God.

Baha'u'llah was a Muslim before He got His revelation from God, Jesus was a Jew, so of course they believed in God.

 

[Trailblazer]

With all due respect, you are the one who has been repeatedly and erroneously accusing others of fallacious argument.
This is just another example of you simply denying reality and saying whatever suits you at any given time.

It is true that I call out fallacies that certain people commit, but it is false that I was the FIRST ONE to call them out. All you have to do is use your Search tool to see that @samtonga43 is always the one who starts the dialogues about fallacies she 'believes' that I have committed. It is all over this forum. She has been doing this for over a year.

No, I am not denying reality and saying whatever suits me at any given time, I am just speaking the truth, and the proof is all over this forum. If you can prove me wrong, I will be the first one to admit it.

I only defend myself because it is unjust to accuse me falsely, and I have been accused falsely.

2: O SON OF SPIRIT! The best beloved of all things in My sight is Justice; turn not away therefrom if thou desirest Me, and neglect it not that I may confide in thee. By its aid thou shalt see with thine own eyes and not through the eyes of others, and shalt know of thine own knowledge and not through the knowledge of thy neighbor. Ponder this in thy heart; how it behooveth thee to be. Verily justice is My gift to thee and the sign of My loving-kindness. Set it then before thine eyes. The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 3-4

 

[Muffled]

That's what some Jews said about Jesus. He deceives people, the implication being this is bad fruit.

7:12 And there was much murmuring among the people concerning him: for some said, He is a good man: others said, Nay; but he deceiveth the people.
(King James Bible, John)

I believe they did not have the truth and Jesus did since He is God in the flesh.

 

[Muffled]

You shared naught but your thoughts and proved nothing with them.

Put forward you biblical proof of reincarnation.

Regards Tony

Mat. 11:13 For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John, 14 and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come

 

[Muffled]

@Muffled you are still asked to show what is bad fruit in what Baha'u'llah taught, or in his person even.

One has to show they are not offering the bad fruit in their own views.

Regards Tony

I believe the deception is there is a word of God when there is no word of God.

 

[Trailblazer]

I believe they did not have the truth and Jesus did since He is God in the flesh.

Baha'is do not believe that God became flesh. Rather, we believe that Jesus was manifested in the flesh.

1 Timothy 3:16 King James Version (KJV)

16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

 

[Trailblazer]

Here we go again...
"I have not refused to support my claim, I have merely said that my claim can't be supported".

You are creating a straw man.
I did not say my claim cannot be supported, I said that there is no proof' that will be universally accepted, and we can only prove the truth of the claim to ourselves.

I said:
That's true, but I have never refused to back up my claims with evidence, always stating that there is no 'proof' that will be universally accepted, and we can only prove the truth of the claim to ourselves.

 

[Trailblazer]

Where does that knowledge come from?

God.

So the knowledge comes from himself. It is therefore subjective and he could have chosen to accept murder as good and love as bad.

The knowledge comes from Himself. God knows everything by virtue of being all-knowing.
What God knows is not subjective.

God could have chosen anything He wanted to choose but what God knows is based upon God being all-knowing and all-wise.

And as scripture is god's message as revealed to his messengers, it is therefore god anthropomorphising himself. Therefore it is the correct way to see him. QED.

No, the Messengers do not anthropomorphize themselves, humans who write scriptures (e.g. the Bible) anthropomorphize God.

God's message is not about the Messengers, it is about God's attributes and God's will which comes via the Messengers.

You just said he doesn't have feelings or emotions.

Not like human feelings and emotions.

If you can't understand them, how can you know what they are like or not like?
I can't know.
Straw man. No sceptic claims that god has a human, physical form.
However, he could have one if he chose to, so it would be wrong to claim that he can't. And if god can appear on earth in human form, how do we know that he hasn't?

It is not a straw man because I did not say that you claimed that God has a human, physical form. I just posted a quote about God in the Baháʼí Faith.

God cannot become a human because it is not within His nature to be human. God is spirit.

You seem confused here. Either...
Good and bad are brute facts that exist independently of any context, in which case it is a force external to god that he is bound by.
Or...
Good and bad originate from god, in which case they are subjective and could be anything.

It is not either one of those.

God is not bound by any external forces.
What is good and bad originates from God, but it is not subjective. God simply knows what is good or bad because God is all-knowing.

 

[Trailblazer]

No so...
Bahaiism is "A very small and new religion, with relatively few followers". That is a demonstrable fact.
"followers, who blindly parrot the meaningless platitudes of their charismatic leader" - we repeatedly see Bahai's here quoting the vague platitudes of Bahaullah. That again is a demonstrable fact.
"Cult" - A system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object. A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange (OED)

You may not agree with all that, but it is not merely opinion. Ironically, that it is just option is just your opinion.

Fact: The Bahai Faith (not Bahaiism) is "A very small and new religion, with relatively few followers". That is a demonstrable fact.

Opinion: "followers, who blindly parrot the meaningless platitudes of their charismatic leader" -
Opinion: we repeatedly see Bahai's here quoting the vague platitudes of Bahaullah.

Fact: Bahai's are here quoting the Writings of Baha'u'llah.

Do you agree with it or not?

I agree with it.

If it is just a mistranslation, why does the Bahai establishment not amend the translation and allow women on the UHJ?

Only the UHJ can answer that question. I would guess they will do so in due time, but there is no hurry because Baha'is are not upset about it. Should the UHJ amend the ruling just because some atheists don't like it.

So at the moment, and until there is a new message, women are excluded.
It is not a "mistranslation".

I did not say "until there is a new message, women are excluded."

I said:
Abdu'l-Baha was referring to what was in place at the time of writing but that does not mean it will be in place forever.

I do not know if it will be in place forever and I don't care. You are free to care about what you care about and I will care about what I care about. We are separate people.

The wisdom of the exclusion of women to date.
Abdu'l-Baha was referring to what was in place at the time of writing but that does not mean it will be in place forever.

1. That is just your opinion.
2. So he did exclude them for an indeterminate time.

Yes, it is just my opinion and the opinion of some other Baha'is who wrote what is on that website I cited.

We judge people on their words and deeds. He showed sexist discrimination by excluding women from the UHJ.

He did not intend to exclude women according to that website. That is what I believe. You can believe whatever floats your boat.

You do realise that "handmaiden" is a term for a female servant.
A female servant. A subservient partner or element. - (Oxford English Dictionary)
"the term handmaiden generally implies lowly status." Handmaiden - Wikipedia

That's right, we are Servants of God, the highest station a human can ever attain.

So if "A temporary exclusion may be intended" then the answer may be a permanent one.

I don't know and I don't care. It is not my job to run the Baha'i administration. I accept whatever the UHJ decides upon.

You cited that article as support for your claim that the exclusion was a mistake, or accurate but temporary (you seem unclear which). It actually confirms that is is accurate and permanent.

Believe whatever you want to believe.
It has become obvious to me that all you want to do is argue and I am not interested.

So the UHJ Staes that Bahaullah's exclusion will not change (so is permanent), and you should not claim that it might change - but you disagree with them. Good for you. You should always question authority.

I did not claim it might change, it was only an opinion I have.
I do not question authority as I know my proper place.

So you earlier criticised the site for being fraudulent and containing fabrications - but if there is something you agree with, it's suddenly an acceptable source?
That is the very definition of "cherry-picking"!

That is a straw man. I did not say "it's suddenly an acceptable source." I said the website is not a legitimate Baha'i website but there might be accurate information on the website.

Sometimes it is a question of "either/or".
Either the source is reliable, or it isn't. To accept an known unreliable source simply because it corresponds to your existing position is committing a basket of fallacies.

Either/or is black and white thinking. There can be accurate information on a source that is not generally reliable. For example, some Christian websites post accurate information about the Baha'i Faith, but there is also much inaccurate information about the Baha'i Faith on those websites.

IOW, people pointing out that Bahaiism promotes sexism, homophobia and barbaric punishment provides free publicity. And you assume the publicity is favourable because you assume everyone will accept your arguments. However, it is clear that not everyone does accept your arguments - probably because they are contradictory, nonsensical, or merely confirm the initial accusation.

Why do you speak for me as if you know what I am thinking?
No, I did not say that. I do not assume the publicity is favourable because I assume everyone will accept my arguments. It is fully their choice what to accept or not accept.

Because you spend so much time trying to defend it.

That in no way implies tat we care what you think of the Baha'i Faith.
We defend the Faith because that is what Baha'u'llah has enjoined us to do.

“It is incumbent upon all men, each according to his ability, to refute the arguments of those that have attacked the Faith of God. Thus hath it been decreed by Him Who is the All-Powerful, the Almighty.” Gleanings, p. 329

Society in general. Dictionaries The law. You know, inconsequential stuff like that.

I do not care what 'society in general' accepts, because I consider society corrupt and misguided.
The secular law has nothing to do with religion.
I only care what God accepts. I am therefore doing what God wants me to be doing since I try to follow what God has revealed through Baha'u'llah.

Yet again, you demonstrate simple denial. The evidence is conclusive from Bahai scriptures.

Nothing is conclusive. ALL you have is a personal opinion of the Baha'i Laws, nothing more. It is sad that you cannot understand that because it demonstrates that you can ONLY see one perspective -- yours.

I see it from your perspective, I just disagree with your perspective; but you don't just disagree with my perspective, you continually state your opinions about the Baha'i Faith as if they are facts. It is all throughout your posts.

 

[Trailblazer]

So, can you finally explain, concisely, the reason for excluding women from the UHJ. Because so far you have presented a scatter-gun of vague, contradictory or illogical claims.

I can only guess it was because of a misunderstanding as to what Baha'u'llah intended based upon the mistranslation of the word rijal.

 

[Trailblazer]

What "variables"?
Bahai scripture contains sexist discrimination, homophobia, and barbaric punishment.

ONLY in your opinion.
It is amazing you are so wrapped up in your own opinion that you cannot understand that other people have different opinions of the same Laws - A-mazing!

 

[Trailblazer]

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

Because he thinks his understanding, which is only his opinion, is a fact.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

No, I did not say that it is a miracle if someone finds faith, and I did not say that when they lose faith it is just stuff that happens. There are reasons why people lose faith and those reasons vary.,

 

[Trailblazer]

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

All of it. 3. is just your personal opinion. I do not share it.