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

[Trailblazer]

Is, or is not, Bahaism a small, new religion with relatively few followers?
(Facts - founded 1844, 5 million followers, 0.07 of the world's population)

I never said that is not a fact.
I said:
FACT: The Baha’i Faith is a very small and new religion, with relatively few followers.
#1496 Trailblazer

 

[Trailblazer]

Ah, so the penny finally dropped.

You admitted that your belief in the existence of god and Bahaullah as his messenger was just a belief, an opinion, not a fact and not something that could be proved.

Yes, I did.

Therefore, you must accept the possibility that there is no god and Bahaullah was just a dishonest or delusional man.

No, I do not accept that possibility. Please stop speaking for me and telling me what I must do.

 

[Trailblazer]

So you are claiming that facts are just opinions when they don't suit you.
Which was kinda my point in the first place.

So you are claiming that your opinions are facts just because they suit you.
Which was kinda my point in the first place.

 

[KWED]

No, just because it is not a fact that God exists and Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God that does not mean that I accept the possibility that it could be wrong and that God does not exist and that Baha'u'llah was therefore dishonest or delusional. I do not accept that possibility.

So you are insisting that your opinion is fact.

That is not a logical conclusion at all. It is you taking what I said and turning it into what you think it means. That is called the fallacy of jumping to conclusions.

Of course it is the logical conclusion. Your problem is that you don't understand what basic words and concepts mean, and you have lost the ability to think rationally where your religious beliefs are concerned - as you keep demonstrating.

1. You admit that the existence of god is a belief that cannot be proved, not a fact.
2. Therefore you have to accept that it might me wrong.
3. If god does not exist, Bahaullah cannot be his messenger.
4. Therefore there is a possibility that he was either dishonest or delusional.

Now, point out the flaw in that argument.

I can disagree with Baha'u'llah and still think He is right

1. Bahaullah claims "x".
2. You disagree with "x".
3. But you also agree with "x".
4.

because I can put my ego aside.

No. You have put reason and logic aside.

 

[KWED]

Yes, I did.

No, I do not accept that possibility. Please stop speaking for me and telling me what I must do.

Oh dear god.
You simply don't have the capacity for this, and I no longer have the patience for your absurd responses.

 

[Trailblazer]

So you are insisting that your opinion is fact.

No, I said that my belief (opinion) is not a fact.

I said "it is not a fact that God exists and Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God"

Of course it is the logical conclusion. Your problem is that you don't understand what basic words and concepts mean, and you have lost the ability to think rationally where your religious beliefs are concerned - as you keep demonstrating.

1. You admit that the existence of god is a belief that cannot be proved, not a fact.
2. Therefore you have to accept that it might me wrong.
3. If god does not exist, Bahaullah cannot be his messenger.
4. Therefore there is a possibility that he was either dishonest or delusional.

Now, point out the flaw in that argument.

No, I do not have to accept that it might be wrong just because it cannot be proven as a fact.
The flaw in that argument is that I do not base my belief on what can be proven as a fact. I do not give a tinker's damn if my belief can be proven as a fact. That in no way means it is not true.

fact
something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information:

fact

 

[Muffled]

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.

Duh! Spirit is Spirit and flesh is flesh. God is not going to become flesh. He is in flesh.

 

[Trailblazer]

Duh! Spirit is Spirit and flesh is flesh. God is not going to become flesh. He is in flesh.

God did not become flesh.
God was manifest in Jesus who came in the flesh and preached unto the Gentiles.

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.

manifest: clear or obvious to the eye or mind.
manifest means - Google Search

 

[KWED]

I said "it is not a fact that God exists and Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God"

ok.
So therefore you accept that it is a possibility that god does not exist.

No, I do not have to accept that it might be wrong just because it cannot be proven as a fact.

Erm... yes you do. To do otherwise is simply denying logic and reason.

The flaw in that argument is that I do not base my belief on what can be proven as a fact. I do not give a tinker's damn if my belief can be proven as a fact. That in no way means it is not true.

*sigh*
Ok, let's have one more go...
Admitting that god's existence is not a fact DOES NOT mean that your belief is not true.
However, it DOES mean that it might not be true.
Whether or not you believe god exists does not affect the reality of his existence or non-existence, just as my disbelief does not. Your belief might be wrong.

Understand?
Of course not.

 

[KWED]

God did not become flesh.

Is that a fact or just your opinion?

 

[Trailblazer]

ok.
So therefore you accept that it is a possibility that god does not exist.

It is a possibility that God does not exist, since nobody can ever prove that God exists.
So what is your point?

Ok, let's have one more go...
Admitting that god's existence is not a fact DOES NOT mean that your belief is not true.
However, it DOES mean that it might not be true.
Whether or not you believe god exists does not affect the reality of his existence or non-existence, just as my disbelief does not. Your belief might be wrong.

Understand?
Of course not.

Of course I understand. So what?
My belief might also be right, in which case you will be up the creek without a paddle when you die.
When I die, if my belief was wrong and there is no God and no afterlife, no harm, no foul. I led a moral life and it is over.

But I am not worried at all because I know my belief is true, even though it cannot be proven as a fact. How I know is not something you can understand.

 

[Trailblazer]

Is that a fact or just your opinion?

It is my belief.

 

[KWED]

It is a possibility that God does not exist, since nobody can ever prove that God exists.
So what is your point?

Of course I understand. So what?

But you just said...
"No, I do not have to accept that it might be wrong just because it cannot be proven as a fact."

I'm just trying to get you to think rationally. To accept the logical, inevitable implications of your arguments.
To try and get a little consistency.

The thing is, I just know that you will newcomer back with something that contradicts one or both of the positions you have just taken.

But I am not worried at all because I know my belief is true, even though it cannot be proven as a fact. How I know is not something you can understand.

Aaand, there it is. Claiming your belief is fact. Denying that it could be wrong.
Of course, you will now say that you accept that it could be wrong, but immediately claim that it is definitely not wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Aaand, there it is. Claiming your belief is fact. Denying that it could be wrong.
Of course, you will now say that you accept that it could be wrong, but immediately claim that it is definitely not wrong.

I feel you. Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt.

 

[KWED]

It is my belief.

Same thing.
You just don't currently have the ability to accept it.

Remember I showed you all those definitions and thesauruses proving that "belief" and "opinion"are synonymous?
Do you want me to show you them again?
Pointless anyway, because you will just deny reality.

 

[Trailblazer]

But you just said...
"No, I do not have to accept that it might be wrong just because it cannot be proven as a fact."

I'm just trying to get you to think rationally. To accept the logical, inevitable implications of your arguments.
To try and get a little consistency.

The thing is, I just know that you will newcomer back with something that contradicts one or both of the positions you have just taken.

To be clear, I do not have to accept anything I do not choose to accept because I have free will to choose what I am willing to accept.

That is why I said:
"No, I do not have to accept that it might be wrong just because it cannot be proven as a fact."

I know it is not wrong even though it cannot be proven as a fact. I already explained that to you but you did not acknowledge that.

IOWs, it does not have to be proven as a fact in order for me to know that I am not wrong.
There are 'other ways' of knowing something is true that have nothing to do with facts.

Aaand, there it is. Claiming your belief is fact. Denying that it could be wrong.
Of course, you will now say that you accept that it could be wrong, but immediately claim that it is definitely not wrong.

Straw man. I never claimed that my belief is a fact. I have said many times that it is only a belief.
I have said it could be wrong but I do not believe it is wrong.
I know it is not wrong even though it cannot be proven as a fact. That is what you are failing to acknowledge.

 

[Trailblazer]

Same thing.
You just don't currently have the ability to accept it.

To be clear, I have the ability to accept it if I want to accept it because I have free will to choose.

However, I do not have to accept anything I do not choose to accept because I have free will to choose what I am willing to accept.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

What of the prestige of serving on the Universal House of Justice? Not everyone is motivated by prestige, that is just the same as not everyone wants to be president of the US, I know I wouldn't want the job but some people dream of it.

That to me is the key. I see there is no desire for prestige. If one has this desire, they are not suited to be elected to the Universal House of Justice in the first place.

Abdul'baha was the perfect example, a life of pure service.

Before Baha'i can effectively serve the world, the buildings to where all can turn and gather for help and the administrative structures to maintain and co-ordinate it all, need to be in place. You can not treat patients long term, if there is no hospital building's and administration.

That is the goal, too serve all humanity. If all the Nations turned tomorrow to the Universal House of Justice for advice. They would get sound and effective God given advice. The foundations of the administrative order are still being built, so that time is yet to come.

Earn a living to serve the world

The above Message is from the Universal House of Justice in 2017 to the Baha'is of the World. It is my heading, it has good economic advice contained within, about why we work and earn money.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Unfortunately for the Universal House of Justice it has failed that first test by not enacting law that non-Baha'i will be guaranteed political representation (im talking about being allowed to vote etc) in any hypothetical Baha'i Commonwealth. That is a grievous injustice on the part of the current "Universal House of Justice" since if it fails to guarantee non-Bahai a vote now while it is impotent enough to be forced to listen to non-Bahai needs it is unlikely that it would do so after it gains power.

In my opinion.

I see this oponion is based on a part misunderstanding of the Revelation of Baha’u’llah. The most great peace will contain a structure yet to envisaged, so it cannot really be part of the discussions we can now have.

The lesser peace on the other hand is the next step in the evolution of humanity. In the lesser peace we can consider that Baha’u’llah did not come to rule the Earth. That is always left to men. Baha'u'llah who sits on the throne of David, came to win our hearts.

So in this age, the Baha'i Administrative order is just that. The Administrative order for the Baha'i Faith.

It is a model system that could be adopted by the Nation's.

Much can be considered, but we are yet to see how the Lesser Peace will be built, the structure that will be chosen. I am thinking the Universal House of Justice may be asked for advice by the World Legislative.

Regards Tony

 

[danieldemol]

I see there is no desire for prestige.

Ultimately we don't know if there desire is for prestige, respect in the eyes of their peers etc Tony because you and I cannot see into the hearts.

What can be seen however is the UHoJ's stubbornly clinging to a religious agenda in the face of the progress being made in wider society with respect to gay rights and the like and this leads an open minded person to suspect that their inner interests are not really to serve the best interests of all, but likely more self serving.

In my opinion.