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

[samtonga43]

That is a bald assertion unless you can back it up with proof. What is "bald assertion?" Well the name says it all, doesn't it? It's stating something without backing it up. Logical Fallacy Lesson 4: Bald Assertion | Rational Response Squad A more correct statement is "I do not believe that Baha'u'llah is the latest Messenger of God."

***
1. Tb says: It is a false belief of islam that Muhammad is the last messenger.
2. Sam says: It is a false belief of Bahai that MrB is the latest messenger.

Tb tells us that both 1. and 2. are bald assertions unless backed up with proof and (being Tb) goes on to explain what a bald assertion is.

The correct statements are:
"I do not believe that Muhammad is the last messenger”.
and
"I do not believe that MrB is the latest Messenger of God.
***
A perfect case of "Physician, heal thyself".

 

[samtonga43]

The reason I stepped in, and started to "fight" you and a few others in RF has to do with, even you do not attack mr personally, I do feel their pain physically when they are attacked for what they believe in.

They are attacked? This is a forum where poster A. presents her /his beliefs and opinions and poster B. responds. I am wondering if 'attack' is the correct word to use in these circumstances.

For example, #1378 is a cogent argument which could not be described by anyone rational as 'attacking'.

If someone feels physical pain when their beliefs are criticized they should not to be participating in this kind of forum.

IMO.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

***
1. Tb says: It is a false belief of islam that Muhammad is the last messenger.

This is something verifiable, if Muhammad said that He is the last Messenger.
But regardless if He said He is the last Messenger or not, the Quran promised of a Day when humanity meets with Allah on the earth. That Day is known as Day of Resurrection or Judgement Day.
Baha'u'llah proclaimed that, He is the fulfilment of this Promised Day, and that He is the Manifestation of God, whose coming was foretold.

2. Sam says: It is a false belief of Bahai that MrB is the latest messenger.

You need to prove that. I don't mean to say, that if you do not prove Baha'u'llah is not a Messenger of God, then you must agree He is. But if you claim that Baha'u'llah is not really who He claims to be, then it is your job to prove this.

Tb tells us that both 1. and 2. are bald assertions unless backed up with proof and (being Tb) goes on to explain what a bald assertion is.

The correct statements are:
"I do not believe that Muhammad is the last messenger”.
and
"I do not believe that MrB is the latest Messenger of God.

These are fair statements, because when you say, you believe, then it means this is what you believe, but you are not asserting them as facts.

***
A perfect case of "Physician, heal thyself".

What!!!!!

 

[samtonga43]

Dear god, it's like pulling teeth!

You made a positive claim - that I consider whatever opinion I agree with to be fact.
When challenged to support your claim, you made another positive claim - that the evidence is all over the thread.
In both cases the burden of proof is on you to support your claim.
However, when again challenged to present one such example, you refuse, claiming that you have no burden of proof. Thus again perfectly illustrating (if any more were needed) that you simply do not grasp how rational thinking works.

I honestly do not understand why Tb finds it so difficult to admit what is patently obvious; she made a mistake when she said that KWED considers whatever opinion he agrees with to be fact.

She was wrong, and we can all see that she was wrong, but she is not big enough to admit she is wrong.

 

[Trailblazer]

I honestly do not understand why Tb finds it so difficult to admit what is patently obvious; she made a mistake when she said that KWED considers whatever opinion he agrees with to be fact.

She was wrong, and we can all see that she was wrong, but she is not big enough to admit she is wrong.

No, I am not wrong and I could easily prove it if I had time to back and look at the posts.
He said that certain things were a fact when they were not factual, they were only HIS opinion.

 

[samtonga43]

But you would not admit you were wrong and concede my point. I know that you would deny it and argue and that is why I am not going to present the evidence.

You are not presenting the evidence because you have none to present.

"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." Abraham Lincoln

 

[Spirit of Light]

They are attacked? This is a forum where poster A. presents her /his beliefs and opinions and poster B. responds. I am wondering if 'attack' is the correct word to use in these circumstances.

For example, #1378 is a cogent argument which could not be described by anyone rational as 'attacking'.

If someone feels physical pain when their beliefs are criticized they should not to be participating in this kind of forum.

IMO.

The reason I feel physical pain when others are physical or mentally critiqued or attacked is because of being an empath.
Its truly unpleasant to see how Baha'is have to go through this every day because others disagree in their beliefs.

 

[samtonga43]

No, I am not wrong and I could easily prove it if I had time to back and look at the posts.

But it would be easy, since the evidence is, you say, all over this thread,

 

[samtonga43]

The reason I feel physical pain when others are physical or mentally critiqued or attacked is because of being an empath.
Its truly unpleasant to see how Baha'is have to go through this every day because others disagree in their beliefs.

It seems that they actively want others to respond to their posts. Disagreement is an important factor in debate. It is how we learn.

 

[Spirit of Light]

It seems that they actively want others to respond to their posts. Disagreement is an important factor in debate. It is how we learn.

Disagreement is not the problem, you are free to disagree with those who believe different than yourself.
But why pushing and pushing to fault someone with a personal belief?

 

[Trailblazer]

But it would be easy, since the evidence is, you say, all over this thread,

I just found three posts with instances of it, so hang onto your hat because the evidence is coming right up!

There is more where that came from but I don't have time to peruse the entire thread.

 

[samtonga43]

I made no accusation, I only made an observation.
This is not a court of law.

You have made an observation which has turned out to be an erroneous assumption. You are unwilling to admit it.

 

[samtonga43]

I just found three posts with instances of it, so hang onto your hat because the evidence is coming right up!

At last!!! Three!!! So not all over the thread but three is better than none.

 

[Trailblazer]

You have made an observation which has turned out to be an erroneous assumption.

It is anything but erroneous. Stay tuned for the evidence that supports my observation.

 

[Trailblazer]

At last!!! Three!!! So not all over the thread but three is better than none.

All over the thread but I do not have all day.
Three will suffice to make my point.

You asked for one and I am giving you three yet you are still complaining.

 

[Trailblazer]

At last!!! Three!!! So not all over the thread but three is better than none.

I never said that or even implied it. Everyone has the right to their opinion.
The problem ensues when people state an opinion as if it was a fact.
#1169 Trailblazer, Friday at 4:09 PM

KWED said: You seem to have trouble distinguishing between the two.
Top Tip: A "fact" that you disagree with does not become an "opinion".
#1225 KWED, Sunday at 4:18 AM

Trailblazer said: You seem to have trouble distinguishing between the two.
Top Tip: An "opinion" that you agree with does not become a "fact".
#1301 Trailblazer, Sunday at 7:08 PM

EXAMPLE #1: Stating opinions as if they are facts

Trailblazer said: Only in your personal opinion.

KWED said: 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 Baha'u'llah. That again is a demonstrable fact.
You may not agree with all that, but it is not merely opinion. Ironically, that it is just option is just your opinion.
#1118 KWED, Friday at 1:05 AM

FACT: The Baha’i Faith is a very small and new religion, with relatively few followers.

OPINION: Bahaiism is "followers, who blindly parrot the meaningless platitudes of their charismatic leader" - we repeatedly see Bahai's here quoting the vague platitudes of Baha'u'llah.

It is a FACT that Baha’is quote the Writings of Baha’u’llah but it is an OPINION that we blindly parrot the meaningless platitudes of our charismatic leader. It is not a demonstrable fact since you cannot prove that the Writings of Baha'u'llah are meaningless platitudes.

EXAMPLE #2: Stating opinions as if they are facts

The gender discrimination, homophobia and barbaric punishments are facts. They are there in black and white in Bahai scripture.
Opinion only comes into it because I think those things are morally unacceptable, but you see than as morally acceptable.
#1217 KWED, Sunday at 3:35 AM

Gender discrimination:

Your claim that the Baha'i ruling that prohibits women from serving on the UHJ is gender discrimination is not a fact. That the exclusion is unjust or prejudicial treatment is nothing more than a personal opinion.

Discrimination: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
discrimination meaning - Google Search

Unjust: not based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.
unjust means - Google Search

Prejudicial: harmful to someone or something; detrimental.
prejudicial means - Google Search

Homophobia:

Homophobia: dislike of or prejudice against gay people.
homophobia means - Google Search

FACT: There is a Baha’i Law that prohibits homosexual sex.

OPINION: The Baha'i Law means Baha'i Faith teaches homophobia, dislike of or prejudice against gay people.

Barbaric punishments:

FACT: Baha’i Law states:

86. Should anyone intentionally destroy a house by fire, him also shall ye burn; should anyone deliberately take another’s life, him also shall ye put to death. # 62

The law of Bahá’u’lláh prescribes the death penalty for murder and arson, with the alternative of life imprisonment (see note 87).
The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, p. 203

OPINION: This is a barbaric punishment. That is not a fact. It is only your opinion, but in my opinion it is not barbaric. Got any facts that prove it is barbaric? If not, it is only a personal opinion.

EXAMPLE #3: Stating opinions as if they are facts

However, it is a demonstrable fact that Bahai scripture contains sexist discrimination, homophobia and barbaric punishment. For people who fundamentally disagree with those things, maybe Bahaiism isn't the right ideology for them. For those genuinely seeking peace, unity and equality I would recommend Humanism.
#1209 KWED, Sunday at 2:24 AM

See EXAMPLE #2: Stating opinions as if they are facts

It is not a demonstrable fact that Baha'i scripture contains sexist discrimination, homophobia and barbaric punishment. It is only a personal opinion held by @KWED and others.

 

[rational experiences]

The review old Muslim texts exact was only to era.

Asteroids cooled stopped fall were holy. Passed by earth.

Asteroid changed fell again as star.

Isn't any humans right to argue I'm right you're wrong.

It fell again as Roman technology updated Stonehenge model failed too. Set it alight again our holy star.

So as Egyptians used the dust thesis earth by pressure is no dust rock.

Rome updated Christ revelations God is rock in zero space not dusts.

As they had believed in Egyptian dust theme.

Correctly advised. Forbade science.

Years of new brain burn star fall. The church was founded. To try to medically assist hurt brain human behaviour very bad is exact.

Legal was given status said by new branch ....no science allowed. Exact.

Continued brain attacks brings us to Baha'i fall notified.

They told Muslims you are wrong Jesus was right. You aren't correct in science.

So he was murdered for challenging a book. Science thesis.

Pretty basic advice.

DNA was constantly changing. Muslims didn't want to be changed.

Yet they resought temple rebuilding in Jerusalem. War fought to stop science re emerging. The Baha'i warning conscious mind changed again. Proven.

By how he spoke.

So he said the attack will continue to return again in future mind changes be warned its deceptive.

Ignored.

Russia got hit. Nuclear technology advanced. Is exact advice. Mind of man changed.

Consciousness the topic.

Reason. Father's spirit water mass body memory. Very spiritual.
Bio conscious human not very spiritual.

He learnt who father as a man was originally. Not by his new speech but how exactly spiritual natural man once was.

Just as my mother who saved my new born baby life showed me.

Today however our brains so damaged language is changing and so are our man nerisms.

How you learnt why you were not being our holy fathers man origin self anymore.

 

[CG Didymus]

By believing that some of god's word is wrong, you are negating the whole concept of an infallible god.

(I predict something along the lines of... "I don't think he's wrong, I just disagree with him")

I wonder if the religions of the people that included human and animal sacrifices to their gods ever doubted that their gods really needed human and animal blood? I wouldn't be surprised if the religious leaders told the people that god or some infallible prophet told them that "yes" it was necessary.

With the Baha'is, though, their belief that science and religion must agree and be inharmony, you'd think Baha'is would have some scientific support for some of their beliefs. But no... "How do you know God exists?" It kind of comes down to, "Because our prophet said so." And, "How do you know Baha'u'llah was a manifestation of God?" Again, it's essentially because he "said" so.

But does it really sound like some of the things Baha'u'llah has said, like burning arsonists, tattooing thieves, and pretty much saying that homosexuals have a screw loose, really came from an all-knowing, all-loving etc, etc God? Not to me, it sounds very much man-made concepts based on a person's culture. Maybe not, though... Maybe Baha'is are absolutely right. But how can we know for sure unless we ask for the evidence and proof and examine it and evaluate it for ourselves. And that is what we are doing. Can we and should we trust a man who claims to be sent from some unknowable, invisible, unprovable god?

 

[CG Didymus]

Careful with that irony, it burns.
As I have already explained to you multiple times, I completely understand what she (and you) believes, and why. I am simply pointing out the errors and contradictions in the arguments used to support those beliefs.
Hope this helped.

Even more irony. I would not doubt that if he told us what he believes and how he came to believe it, the Baha'is would disagree with it. Baha'is probably disagree with all the beliefs and practices of every religion that there is in the world today. At best, the liberal versions of most of them kind of all agree that they should all try and get along and put aside their differences. But.. in the end, they are the only ones that have the truth from God for today. If that's so, great... let's all get on board the Baha'i peace train. But... what if it isn't? How would we know unless we question them to see if it holds up?

 

[CG Didymus]

Only here to share my understanding of the topic in discussion or debate.

Who Was Baha’u’llah, and How Can We Evaluate His Claims?
Who do you think he was? The claim is that he is a "manifestation" of God. How would you go about evaluating that claim?