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

[Spirit of Light]

I completely understand if you are unable to respond to my points. You aren't the first and won't be the last.

You just going in circle no matter what we tell you, you do not take it as our understanding. And you twist question to make it seem as we contradict our self.

No need to discuss that way

 

[rational experiences]

If a human says one word is holy only.... as it's one meaning was natural first.

Example.. a tree named a tree.
Example...a man named a human.

One word the species human. First word.

Straight away you'd ask why does the word say hu....man?

As a man named the words. Why he says by his words he created the word.

Actual. A teaching.

So if a human says I first came from the eternal and was sacrificed what did it? Change the eternal.

God terms is stated. The sacrifice.

Hence you cannot use the word eternal with hell. Dishonest.

What were the highest earth states for life?

Oxygenated stretched water.

Hence a pre living spirit who was not breathing yet existed and was living in the eternal as it's type. Then it left. One way only.

Which makes common sense. Higher than. Isn't evolving. Wasn't changing until entry. Came one way into lower. Hence was bodily changed. Exists by survival. Then dies. A human.

The human.

Why two humans can create a baby. And the baby can grow emerge into an adult.

Yet a baby is nothing like an adult.

And it also dies.

As put into change. By God.

Now you arrive at a man designer. A baby man. Same as his human father then again was sacrificed by Satan. The falling star changes to gods heavens spirit.

Loses his mind of father becomes the designer.

Therefore he says I became man designer by mind. Part machine advice the rest is bio man conscious.

Isn't any status machine by type. Just aware due to stars metal radiations.

Above him.

Wouldn't he have had a visionary designer advice. How to build machines. How to own operate the machines?

Therefore if bahuallah review says my teachings were only of father and God. He wasn't a scientist or of science thesis as proof.

He was just made aware. Law legal bad manners his speech Jesus teachings legal governing. For family.

Proving our rich man designer civilisation slavery criminal brother and science caused life sacrifice. Claim of life was poorly governed. His awareness.

That type of teaching began to be made aware now was ebbing.

So he reminded us.

In the human experience physical biological human owned changes related to artificial visions.

The claims cloning...human sciences.
Test tubes putting human biology within..
Human sciences.

Sciences all human studies of human aware problems on earth about earth life caused by bad human choices. Of humans via science.

Warnings.

Aligned to the human men brothers original excuse....did not need to make the choices they had. As spirituality about choices was in the AI statement also. Proven by what has been heard.

Proving he or the group brothers made the choices as only based on civilisation status. Trade. Human greed.

Not for any other reason. As he knew knows what choices he should have made. Not involving human greed.

He refuses to admit his human greed is the cause of all problems.

He would rather blame God science status. Of which he wasn't involved with originally. An excuse.

So says his man father's consciousness versus baby son man. Theist.

The star fall man human life change was proven the reason. Not any alien.

 

[KWED]

You just going in circle no matter what we tell you, you do not take it as our understanding. And you twist question to make it seem as we contradict our self.

You still don't get it, do you?
I understand what your understanding is, and I accept that you believe it is the correct understanding.
However, I am pointing out inconsistencies and irrationality in your explanations for your understanding.

For example, you claim that you know there is a god because of your personal, spiritual experience (despite admitting that there may not be a god).
I explained why you cannot rely on that experience.
You ignored my explanation.
That may have been because you forgot, or it may have been because you realise that you can't present a cogent argument to support your position. Who knows?

 

[Spirit of Light]

You still don't get it, do you?
I understand what your understanding is, and I accept that you believe it is the correct understanding.
However, I am pointing out inconsistencies and irrationality in your explanations for your understanding.

For example, you claim that you know there is a god because of your personal, spiritual experience (despite admitting that there may not be a god).
I explained why you cannot rely on that experience.
You ignored my explanation.
That may have been because you forgot, or it may have been because you realise that you can't present a cogent argument to support your position. Who knows?

..........

 

[KWED]

..........

So you didn't forget then.
Fair enough.

 

[Trailblazer]

Where has KWED suggested that an opinion with which they agree becomes a fact?

It is all over this thread. Look for it if you want to find it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why? What's the harm?

Again, why?

“The Bahá’í teachings on sexual morality centre on marriage and the family as the bedrock of the whole structure of human society and are designed to protect and strengthen that divine institution. Bahá’í law thus restricts permissible sexual intercourse to that between a man and the woman to whom he is married.”
The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, p. 223

So you disagree with Bahaullah and Shoghi Effendi on the issue.
It's always good to see people breaking the oppressive shackles of their religious dogma.

No, @Truthseeker does not disagree with them, nor did he break any Baha'i Laws.
He is 'married' to a homosexual woman so if he has sex with her that is not against any Baha'i Law.

As an aside, according to the UHJ, if a homosexual has a sex change operation, it is acceptable to marry as a man and a woman and have sex.

 

[Trailblazer]

If he was raised as a Muslim, why would he have any other existing beliefs?

I did not say that He did.

Erm, that is part of Islamic doctrine, so that was what he was raised to believe. His "existing belief".
Obviously, if he then claims to be the next messenger of god, he has to reject a part of Islamic doctrine, thus committing an act of kufr/invalidating Muhammad as one of god's messengers.

He did reject a part of Islamic doctrine but He did not invalidate Muhammad as one of God's messengers. He only went against an Islamic doctrine that states that Muhammad was the last and final Messenger of God. That belief is based upon a misinterpretation of the Qur'an. See the post below.

#2 Dawnofhope, Jan 29, 2020

 

[Trailblazer]

Oh dear god
I asked "Do you agree with it or not?"
Your replied "I agree with it".
There really is no point trying to debate with you because you simply change your position depending on the question.

I never changed my position, you just keep misinterpreting what I say.
Please quote me saying "I agree with it" and cite the link to the post.

So if Bahaullah said that women are excluded, then they are excluded until someone with sufficient authority (ie. another messenger) comes to end the exclusion.

That is correct.

Yes you did. #1155

No, I did not say I agree, I said I accept.

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.
#1155 Trailblazer, Friday at 10:28 AM

But you just claimed that Bahaullah did not exclude women. You also claimed that Bahais cannot change Bahaullah's message. So why would you accept the word of Bahais over the word of Bahaullah?

I accept the word of Baha'u'llah but I do not have the 'authority' to interpret it and enforce it, and I accept the decisions of the UHJ.

You are not interested in examining if society's morals may be superior to Bahaullah's. You simply reject them because they are different.

No, that is not the case. When did I ever say that, and if I did not say that you are speaking for me.
I reject 'some' of society's morals because I consider them patently immoral and not good for society as a whole.

Did you just call my claim, an opinion?

That is all it is, an opinion.

 

[Trailblazer]

Bahaullah said "Should anyone intentionally destroy a house by fire, him also shall ye burn".
Are you claiming that the person should be killed before being burned? If so, please provide the reference for this.

I am saying that I do not know what Baha'u'llah intended as the punishment, as I told you before.
If you are claiming that the person should be "burned alive" please provide the reference for this.
Please find anything in the Writings of Baha'u'llah that contains the phrase "burned alive".

 

[Trailblazer]

Not so. Most people who believe in a particular god or gods have been raised to believe in that god from infancy. "Childhood indoctrination" is not "recognition".

That's true.

 

[CG Didymus]

Luke 1:26-38, “Jesus Was Conceived by the Holy Spirit, and Born of the Virgin Mary”

Regards Tony

Is that the "official" Baha'i position? That Jesus had no human father? And again, just to remind you, the birth stories in the two gospels have contradictions, and they both contradict the story in the Quran about Mary giving birth to Jesus under a palm tree. Which story do Baha'is go by? Or are all of them symbolic, fiction? If so, why take the virgin birth, Jesus not having a human father, literally?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Is that the "official" Baha'i position? That Jesus had no human father? And again, just to remind you, the birth stories in the two gospels have contradictions, and they both contradict the story in the Quran about Mary giving birth to Jesus under a palm tree. Which story do Baha'is go by? Or are all of them symbolic, fiction? If so, why take the virgin birth, Jesus not having a human father, literally?

When will you stop harass Baha'is for their belief?
Why not accept that their view are different from your own, and move on? And no you are not alone doing this in RF.

 

[CG Didymus]

The Message of Baha'u'llah, is also the Message of Krishna, made new in this age.

That is the fundamental way the Oneness of God and the Messengers works CG. Every past Message finds its fulfillment in the subsequent Messages.

Regards Tony

Fulfillment? Or gets changed to match the new teachings? I don't see why ancient religious/spiritual beliefs have to be changed. Compared to Baha'i beliefs, why can't they just be wrong and be the product of what those people in those days believed? Baha'is have to change so many things... Like the thing about Isaac and Ishmael, Satan being real, Buddha teaching about there being one God, and Jesus not literally resurrecting. Baha'i don't have to believe those things are true, but Baha'is go back and change them all to fit their beliefs and teachings.

 

[CG Didymus]

When will you stop harass Baha'is for their belief?
Why not accept that their view are different from your own, and move on? And no you are not alone doing this in RF.

Harassing? That's a strange thing to say. I could ask when will you stop supporting the things Baha'is claim without knowing what they really believe and claim? Like you've been told several times... this is a debate forum. Why don't Baha'is only post threads on Comparative Religion or Same Faith sections? They put threads out there that they know will get a response. I don't believe the claims of the Baha'i Faith. And I'm pointing out those things and why I disagree with them. What's wrong with that?

How do you evaluate the claims of Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i Faith? Do you believe those claims are all true? Has The Christ, "The Promised One of All Ages" returned? And did he return more than 150 years ago? If you don't believe that, then why not? If you choose not to "harass" them and ask questions, that fine, for you. But for me, I'll stand by those people challenging their claims any day.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Is that the "official" Baha'i position? That Jesus had no human father? And again, just to remind you, the birth stories in the two gospels have contradictions, and they both contradict the story in the Quran about Mary giving birth to Jesus under a palm tree. Which story do Baha'is go by? Or are all of them symbolic, fiction? If so, why take the virgin birth, Jesus not having a human father, literally?

Abdul'baha answers that with an interesting thought CG. I would only offer what Abdul'baha did, so....

Here are two links

Some Answered Questions | Bahá’í Reference Library

Extract

"..As you admit that the first man came into being with neither father nor mother, whether it be gradually or in a short period of time, there can remain no doubt that a man without a human father is also possible and logically admissible..."

Some Answered Questions | Bahá’í Reference Library

Extract.

"...A great man is a great man, whether or not he is born of a human father. If being without a father were a virtue, Adam would excel and surpass all the Prophets and Messengers, for He had neither father nor mother..."

Regards Tony

 

[rational experiences]

I did not say that He did.

He did reject a part of Islamic doctrine but He did not invalidate Muhammad as one of God's messengers. He only went against an Islamic doctrine that states that Muhammad was the last and final Messenger of God. That belief is based upon a misinterpretation of the Qur'an. See the post below.

#2 Dawnofhope, Jan 29, 2020

They weren't wrong.

Men in their times in their man's experience

As star fall stopped. Exact advice.

They never knew new scientists would in. Future rebuild temple pyramid.

So the asteroid wandering star proved them correct.

They were not wrong by text historic position. Notified.

So when it changed so did their natural advice.

Historic. Why did Muslim men want to rebuild temple science themselves.

Holy wars over temple rebuild.

After law review Jesus and legal?

Church for healing not science practice?

Baha'i teaching.

So it's not wrong to re advise by star watching.

Russia hit was another new event.

So then we see a whole lot of new changed human minds for new religious groups using the same old teachings.

As it's what occurs.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Fulfillment? Or gets changed to match the new teachings? I don't see why ancient religious/spiritual beliefs have to be changed. Compared to Baha'i beliefs, why can't they just be wrong and be the product of what those people in those days believed? Baha'is have to change so many things... Like the thing about Isaac and Ishmael, Satan being real, Buddha teaching about there being one God, and Jesus not literally resurrecting. Baha'i don't have to believe those things are true, but Baha'is go back and change them all to fit their beliefs and teachings.

That would be offering that the mind of a man living 2000 years ago would not need to adapt to the current world situation, that the Message could be the same?

That is not logical CG.

Regards Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

But the evidence shows that the message is more suited to the place, and that messages don't really change over time.
How is Bahaism suited to 21st century liberal secular democracies?

But, supposedly, this is God talking. And those things that God said through the guy who took the title, "The Glory of God" are to last 1000 years.

So, God's truth is that thieves should get a tattoo on their face and arsons burned. And for us to be "right" with God, we should get all Homosexuals the help they need to get over their problem. And when have "God's" laws ever actually worked to prevent and stop the undesirable behavior in people? God's have tried stoning them to death and sending fire from heaven to destroy whole cities of "evil" people. He even tried killing all of them by flooding the whole world. His mistake... He let one family survive. It's almost like God made people flawed and prone to "sinning" just so he could punish them.

 

[CG Didymus]

Correct. If Bahaism ever gain many more followers and becomes more mainstream and accepted, it may also move from cult status to religion.
Similarly, despite Christianity being a mainstream, established religion, new offshoots with new claims can be considered cults.

Yes, those small groups of Christians are considered cults. And why is that? Because they have weird and extreme beliefs and do crazy things. But... what do Baha'is think of a Christian group that worships Mary and has statues and eats a wafer thinking it is really the body of Jesus? That confesses their sins to a priest. And believes their leader is infallible. And has rituals to cast out demons? If that was a small, insignificant group of Christians, they'd probably say it was a cult... But it's the largest sect of Christianity.

Or a Christian group whose founder spoke to an angel, something that Baha'is might believe that only manifestations can do, and that angel told him where to find some golden plates that had the writings of an ancient people on them. A cult? Other Christians still think they are a cult. I wonder what Baha'is think? Actually, I've never heard Baha'i call either of those Christian sects a cult. But I doubt very much they believe much, if anything, about their beliefs and claims.

But there is something just as bad for the Baha'is as being called a "false" religion or a "cult"... And that would be to get accepted and still be ignored by most people. They'd just become another one of the many religions that meet together once in a while and then go about their daily lives. One thing that doesn't help their cause... that's what several of them already do. "Christ has returned!" "A new day has dawned!" You'd think more Baha'is would be out proclaiming the "good news". Especially here on a Religious Forum. But there's just a few. Where's the rest of the millions of Baha'is? They don't care about all us lost souls?