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

[CG Didymus]

The more I read Baha'i scriptures the more clear it becomes

Have you read and studied their concept of "progressive" revelation yet? I, of course, have a problem with it, but you might like it and agree with it. But it's definitely an important part of Baha'i beliefs, because it ties in all the major religions.

 

[rational experiences]

Life as a human is earth stated.

A human stands on the earth.

You think.

Your answers as natural life are for survival. You live balanced with nature.

Your only correct answers. Survival wisdom.

Then you can make thoughts about where did I come from. Why aren't I still there. What personally did I do wrong. To be a human. Strange thoughts to own.

Not telling any truth. We know we are innocent. Natural.

As we are where we are. Change is change. You are meant to accept your life. Changing history is a story. Just thoughts.

So why don't you,? Think correctly for safety survival?

Answer historic ...your brother gained brain change by atmospheric fall. As star burning entry.

His thoughts feelings changed. Theist different thinking emerged. So the falling star was named Satan...evil.

Yet our human brother he was our life equal.

Then he did a second evil act. Theories for a machine. Then a machines nuclear reaction.

Hurt everything on earth proven by earth opening its non alight sealed mass. Into a sin..sink hole.

K he symbolically said was his constant.

So a natural man but is a scientist asks where is God. Seeing he said he as a man thinking was searching for beginnings. Substance.

Straight away we know we aren't that substance. Known....no man is God.

Now you do another review. Not a man not a father not your male baby history.

You see them both arguing as thinking types of men. One argues to try to save life on earth from very bad evil man choices...by science.

The other says his science is correct as it's god science.

The same man says his science is not about God is correct.

So we are suppose to state. Science by a man's human ideal is science. The basis of which is earth products. And then a man's wisdom about earths heavens gases.

By the way gases were never associated to Rock as it was between volcanic erection and empty space.

As an earth history.

Hence just a man can ask another man where is your god as a being who you claim gives you all the advice.

As just a man who loves lives thinks and talks.

So then he uses he him his man terms. Says he is gods messenger. As a man thinks and then says he gets told. Advice. Never not just being a conscious human.

Now you know you are consciousness. Self personal memory begins as a baby developing belief choices. Human only.

Where is your god?

A brother says to his brother it is his father. Meaning spiritual higher living natural man make memories. He no longer uses rationally.

As a baby hadn't created maths or science terms. Adult man had.

So you are talking to yourself.

So then one scientist says I own the power of God within.

So he's looking for his power as a God to resource burn it up. As science was invented direct for machine technology only.

What he does.

So he says today we are part machine. So he can pretend we have and own a resource in our body to burn us up. Part machine terms... metals or radiating mass.

Is the teaching which you ignore as a relative safety advice.

No man is God said we are not of O earths energy mass as it's planet gain holding in cosmic history.

Nor are we beginnings reason a heavens that exists anywhere.

For human survival reasons.

You are proven as a theist human storyteller to be your own worse enemy.

The I don't use god terms anymore man theist scientist says I know there is no man god deity...just planet history as status. Scientific human reasoning.

Humans claiming God science arguing for lifes rights holiness aren't arguing the correct argument.

As it's human science theories any type who is wrong.

Natural human using no theories knows my human life has natural rights to not be unhealthy. By environmental conditions is correct.

Reasoned as just a new baby emerging human to adult consciousness. Remembering our human parent whose memory was healthy exact. Who was extremely kind caring loving. Balanced life mind body in a natural nature.

A reason to argue.

As science is just a humans choice by topic or subject. No machine ever existed. Theorising earth just for the machines term is exact.

Artificial human choices.

Theorising theories for the machine status hence are fake. As natural is only natural with no argument allowed.

Natural law was legal said humans fighting about life survival. On earth.

So if you say your argument is named God earth as a human.

Then you own no thesis.

As a human didn't instruct earth how to create a human life.

 

[Truthseeker]

If you looking for faults you find faults everywhere.

I think you seek to find faults in all religions and say "AHA HERE YOU SEE" but all you see in your own fear of not being in controll of your own destiny

He's a confused person. Has been for years, I think. It began in the 70's apparently. It's true though that he finds fault in every religion. I don't see any independent investigation either.

 

[ppp]

If you looking for faults you find faults everywhere.

I think you seek to find faults in all religions and say "AHA HERE YOU SEE" but all you see in your own fear of not being in controll of your own destiny

This is a perfect exemplar of an ad hominem fallacy. "Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

 

[Trailblazer]

This is a perfect exemplar of an ad hominem fallacy. "Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

or maybe he just observes what is going on...
There really is no argument to attack.

 

[ppp]

or maybe he just observes what is going on...

You miss the point.

There really is no argument to attack.

I see one. Arguably two.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Have you read and studied their concept of "progressive" revelation yet? I, of course, have a problem with it, but you might like it and agree with it. But it's definitely an important part of Baha'i beliefs, because it ties in all the major religions.

I have read, and at the moment have not made a firm conclusion to it, as a new person in study of Baha'i teaching, there is a lot to take in. Certain area of the teaching are easy to understand, other areas take more time and study.

 

[Spirit of Light]

This is a perfect exemplar of an ad hominem fallacy. "Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

Its an comment based out of observation of the persons earlier comments. Its not an attack only comment on what can be clearly seen.

 

[ppp]

Its an comment based out of observation of the persons earlier comments. Its not an attack only comment on what can be clearly seen.

Attack, in this sense means to criticize and oppose publicly. You are saying that they are wrong because they "seek to find faults " have "fear" of whatever. Which makes it an attack against the person, and not against the argument.

The motives of the person making the argument do not impact the soundness of the argument. You understand that, right? If I seek fault in white supremacists, and fear their reign, I can still compose a sound argument against their positions. Right? Right!?!?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Attack, in this sense means to criticize and oppose publicly. You are saying that they are wrong because they "seek to find faults " have "fear" of whatever. Which makes it an attack against the person, and not against the argument.

The motives of the person making the argument do not impact the soundness of the argument. You understand that, right? If I seek fault in white supremacists, and fear their reign, I can still compose a sound argument against their positions. Right? Right!?!?

A person is free to hold their view and opinion for sure, but i believe there is a right for the person who follow a religion to answer back too,

But some times it look like the religious person has less "right" to "defend" their views but should shut up and let others step on them.

 

[ppp]

A person is free to hold their view and opinion for sure, but i beli3ve there is a right for the person who follow a religion to answer back too,

But some times it look like the religious person has less "right" to "defend" their views but should shut up and let others step on them.

No one has denied you your right to answer back. Now did they?

 

[Spirit of Light]

No one has denied you your right to answer back. Now did they?

Did i speak about me? Or believers in General?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

But Baha'u'llah is an "authority" and what he says is taken as the incontrovertible truth. So, should we be "dogmatic" about the beliefs that say that homosexuals have something wrong with them? If you're a Baha'i, I think the answer has to be "yes". Like some Christians say, "The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it." The Bible is their authority. With Baha'is, if Baha'u'llah said it, that's it. It is the truth from God himself. I think the word fits, but if you don't like it, that's fine with me. It's not a word I normally use, even with Christians.

The Bible interpretation is not given any Authority CG.

Yes Baha'u'llah is the Authority. Abdul'baha and Shoghi Effendi and Universal House of Justice have been given their Authorisations under the Covenant.

For the Bible, we do not have any Covenant passing on the Authorisation of interpretation after Jesus. There are many passages to explore on this topic CG.

It's been a long day 700k drive, 4 hrs shopping in the big smoke Bunnings Hardware to get all the Bathroom Renovation items!

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

No one has denied you your right to answer back. Now did they?

No, but when he did answer back we can all see what happened...

 

[KWED]

Opinion: a view or judgment formed about something
"It is my opinion that god exists".

Belief: a state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case.
"It is my belief that god exists".

Hope this helped.

Did you notice how swapping around the terms and definitions made absolutely no difference to the meaning?
(Yeah, sorry. I can't seem to help myself. I'm like a moth to a flame, a pin to a magnet, a something to a something else.)

 

[KWED]

If you looking for faults you find faults everywhere.

So you admit that there are faults, but you would rather not know about them.

I think you seek to find faults in all religions and say "AHA HERE YOU SEE" but all you see in your own fear of not being in controll of your own destiny

Ironically, it is you who is taking the irrational approach, by not looking for faults in case you find them. That is a position based on fear of the outcome.
It's like the person who won't go to the doctor in case they find out they are seriously ill.

 

[KWED]

dogma
/ˈdɒɡmə/

1. a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

Regards Tony

You do realise that this perfectly describes Bahai belief?
No, of course you don't.

"a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority" - the writings of Bahaullah, who is god's messenger

"as incontrovertibly true." - Bahaullah's writings are god's infallible message.

So, dogma, by definition.

 

[KWED]

We have the chance to implement laws in this age that can build strong loving communities CG.

The community I live in suffers as these laws are not part of the way of life here.

Regards Tony

Which laws currently in place where you live prevent strong, loving communities?
Which Bahai laws would you replace them with?

Specifics please, not vague platitudes.
Thanks

 

[KWED]

You can say exactly the same thing using completely different words.
However, that does not change the fact that belief and opinion have different meanings.

A belief is a state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case whereas an opinion is a view or judgment formed about something. That is the difference between the two.

I have repeatedly shown you that they have basically the same meaning, especially in this context. I have provided dictionary definitions and working examples. I have even shown why those two definitions you use are essentially the same.
And yet, you ignore all that and just keep repeating the same refined claim, that "belief" and "opinion" have completely different, non exchangeable meanings. Whether this is through dishonesty or ignorance is anyone's guess. It is hard to believe that even the least capable person still can't grasp the idea after so many explanations, so it suggests that it is deliberate. But on the other hand, you repeatedly show a complete lack of critical faculties and rational thought, so maybe you really just don't get it?

What is the practical difference between
"It is my belief that education should be free"
and
"It is my opinion that education should be free"

"It is my belief that Chelsea are the best team in the league"
"It is my opinion that Chelsea are the best team in the league"

"It is my belief that god exists"
and
"It is my opinion that god exists"

And don't just say "they are different words". You need to explain why the two phrases convey incompatible concepts.
Just have a go. And try block out the little voice in your head repeating "he must be wrong, he must be wrong, he..."

 

[KWED]

I know without a doubt that God exists.

You have repeatedly stated that god's existence is not a fact and can never be proven.
So how did you prove it to be a fact?

I believe there is a God because of Baha'u'llah, who was a Manifestation of God.

Back to the ol' circular logic.
If there is no god, Bahaullah is not his messenger. So how do you know he was a messenger if god's existence if not a fact? After all, the only "evidence" you present for Bahaullah being god's messenger is Bahaullah saying he was god's messenger.
Answer: it is just your opinion/belief.