Who was Baha'u'llah?

[CG Didymus]

When the validity of evidence depends on the person, then it's not objective evidence.

So, the claim is that God, as described in the Baha'i writings is real, and that Baha'u'llah is a "manifestation" of God as was Jesus, Muhammad and several others. How do we know that? We don't. So, some of us have looked into the things he said and claimed. He claimed he fulfilled all the prophecies from every major religion about the coming of the end-time prophet. I looked into it and disagree. Others have looked at his writings and don't see that they are special.

Those that have become Baha'is believe that his writings are from God, and that he has fulfilled all the prophecies. They look at his character and believe he is an honest man, and so they believe his claims. Great. What the problem is, they are told it is necessary to teach and spread the word... that his word is the truth from God.

We are told by Baha'is to investigate it for ourselves. And we do, and some of us reject his claims. Why? The most common answer is lack of objective, verifiable, credible evidence. For some of us, what they are offering isn't much more than taking his word for it. He said he is from God and is a prophet, and they believe it. Why is it so bad and wrong to want and expect more?

 

[Pete in Panama]

So, the claim is that God, as described in the Baha'i writings is real, and that Baha'u'llah is a "manifestation" of God as was Jesus, Muhammad and several others. How do we know that? We don't. So, some of us have looked into the things he said and claimed. He claimed he fulfilled all the prophecies from every major religion about the coming of the end-time prophet. I looked into it and disagree. Others have looked at his writings and don't see that they are special.

Those that have become Baha'is believe that his writings are from God, and that he has fulfilled all the prophecies. They look at his character and believe he is an honest man, and so they believe his claims. Great. What the problem is, they are told it is necessary to teach and spread the word... that his word is the truth from God.

We are told by Baha'is to investigate it for ourselves. And we do, and some of us reject his claims. Why? The most common answer is lack of objective, verifiable, credible evidence. For some of us, what they are offering isn't much more than taking his word for it. He said he is from and is a prophet, and they believe it. Why is it so bad and wrong to want and expect more?

In other words, what we're working w/ here is that whether one accepts that Baha'u'llah was a manifestation as was Jesus etc. depends on a person's current belief system. Please stop me here if we're not together on this. I'd love explain how I see "objective, verifiable, credible evidence" to this affect but as we've determined, it depends on one's current belief system.

Please share what your belief system is. Are you a Christian or follower of some other religious group? Do you find reality as you proceed w/ it and piece it together on your own? How do you find meaning for yourself and the cosmos?

 

[F1fan]

Yes. I still you have reading and comprehension problem. Its a misunderstanding.

Even with sentences like this I understand what you mean, and I still think he was being honest. Look at all the hoopla the others are making of it. He exposed an uncomfortable truth: the Baha'i beliefs are highly questionable, and he doesn't care.

I think @Trailblazer didnt understand what he said either and calling it a mistake made.

She often makes mistakes.

Listen carefully.
What he said was a direct reply to your telling him to look at the poll.


I will repeat:

You said:


Then he replied to that exact sentence.

He replied "Why should I care? What difference does that make whether He was genuine or not?"

Notice the word he used "that".

He did not use the word "it" which could lead to possibly misunderstanding as it could be interpreted either way about being about the poll or not.

Are you able to tell the difference?

His intention was that he is indifferent to whether Baha'u'llah is genuine of not. He acknowledges it is uncertain, and the means no one can justify the fantastic conclusion that he IS genuine. This is typical of the faithful, they don;t arrive at religious conclusions via facts and reason, but what feels good to them. His indifference to Baha'u'llah being genuine is an embarrassment. These Baha'i are on the forum for a reason, and depite them claiming it isn't to promote their religion it sure appears to be more like sales pitches than arguments for the validity of their religious truth.

And honestly why should he care about the poll?

Because it reflects poorly on beliefs that he supposedly is passionate about being true. As I noted the Baha'i spend a lot of time promoting their religion and it has actually backfired according to numerous members who say they have a worse attitude about Baha'i then before hearing about it. The biggest negative is their homophobic attitudes, which I didn't know about either.

Thats called argumentum ad populum.

Well, not really. Arguing for the validity of an idea due to it's popularity is a fallacy. But pointing out that a religious claim is disregarded by the majority tells us how the idea is received. The whole crux of their belief is that the messenger is genuine, that's it. The Baha'i argue for why they believe in their messenger, but this doesn't even convince other believers let alone atheists. If their arguments were true, rational, had evidence, well they would be making some impact on some folks. But it's all faith based, and even @Truthseeker acknowledges that Baha'u'llah being genuine is unknown.

Majority does not necessarily correspond to correctness.

Among the population, yes. Among experts and skilled groups, the majority do have a solidarity of truth.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

Even with sentences like this I understand what you mean

Do you think that I made a mistake in my sentence but you still understood me anyway?


As I said.

Yes. I still you have reading and comprehension problem. Its a misunderstanding.

We all make mistakes.

And you do too.

Do you still I have reading and comprehension problems?

But I still understood what you mean.

 

[CG Didymus]

In other words, what we're working w/ here is that whether one accepts that Baha'u'llah was a manifestation as was Jesus etc. depends on a person's current belief system. Please stop me here if we're not together on this. I'd love explain how I see "objective, verifiable, credible evidence" to this affect but as we've determined, it depends on one's current belief system.

Please share what your belief system is. Are you a Christian or follower of some other religious group? Do you find reality as you proceed w/ it and piece it together on your own? How do you find meaning for yourself and the cosmos?

I would say I used to be "spiritually" gullible. Whatever a religious/spiritual person told me about God and their religion, I assumed was true. After a while, and this included Baha'is, it was obvious that all of them had their own version of "truth" that they believed in. Now I'm very suspicious and skeptical of people that claim their religion is the truth.

I do think that they believe and have what they think are good reasons to believe it. But, as we all know, all these religious beliefs are different and do contradict each other. I like some things about several religions, but I also don't believe some things in every religion. Even the Baha'i Faith has some things I don't believe are true.

Now there are still spiritual people I do still respect... those that live their truth and don't try and get me to believe it. It's like those that say that they are "spiritual" but not "religious". Or the ones that say they don't believe in "organized" religions. Unfortunately, I think in many ways the Baha'i Faith is very much an "organized" religion. And in many ways some Baha'is seem to be trying to convert people... even though they don't think they are. They call it "teaching" the Faith. But it still comes across more like "preaching" the Faith. Thanks for stopping by once in a while and for taking a different approach.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

Among the population, yes. Among experts and skilled groups, the majority do have a solidarity of truth.

No.
Like the experts and skilled groups that thought the earth was flat, or the sun revolves around the earth.
The majority of experts and skilled groups can be wrong too.

Any new idea someone has will instantly be the minority.

 

[F1fan]

No.
Like the experts and skilled groups that thought the earth was flat, or the sun revolves around the earth.

Those were neither experts nor skilled. I'm referring to experts and skilled people today, the sciences and medicine. It's more of people who accept evolution instead of a literalist interpretation of Genesis.

The majority of experts and skilled groups can be wrong too.

Usually errors are from new data that they didn't have. Experts are asked to give assessments on the current data and they do. They are correct at the time because they are using data and reasoning, not faith. Let's note that errors are small, and the experts are not arrogant and refuse to adjust to new data. Look at how experts predicted climate change, and we are seeing the effects despite many fringe people rejecting it.

Any new idea someone has will instantly be the minority.

It depends on the evidence, and whether the person is a skilled thinker or not. Look at how Qanon has gotten popular, but it is disinformation.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

Those were neither experts nor skilled. I'm referring to experts and skilled people today, the sciences and medicine.

And perhaps the experts and skilled of the future will look back and say exactly the same thing about us. Talking about how wrong we were about things.

It's more of people who accept evolution instead of a literalist interpretation of Genesis.

So what is the problem with evolution and the bible?
I heard people say because the earth is said to be 6000 years old. Is that it?

I wonder where does that number actually come from. Where does it say 6000 years old in the bible?

 

[Trailblazer]

His intention was that he is indifferent to whether Baha'u'llah is genuine of not.

That is absolutely false and it is the exact opposite of @Truthseeker actual position.
@Truthseeker, who has been a Baha'i researching and reading about Baha'u'llah for over 50 years, is anything but indifferent.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Why even mention “mistakes” where it comes to slavery and the Holocaust? You claimed good Christians only make mistakes, so the whole Confederacy were bad Christians? All of Nazi Germany were bad Christians? The SS guards in concentration camps would go home to their families at night and live normally. They celebrated Easter and Christmas. So where did Christianity go wrong?

My questions

Which rules of which version of Christianity? You tell me what the rules are SPECIFICALLY. If a Christian gets a blood transfusion are they breaking a rule?

You are free to correct any errors I make in quoting you.

Ok, your questions:

“Why even mention “mistakes” where it comes to slavery and the Holocaust?”

I wasn’t using the word ‘mistakes’ in the context of slavery or the Holocaust; my intent was solely to imply that Christians are imperfect: they may at times say or do unkind things, lose their temper, or become impatient. But those times should be the exception, not the norm. And they should be willing to apologize.

It’s a good feeling to hang around people like that.


“Which rules of which version of Christianity?”

There’s really only one; Jesus Christ’s version….To love your brothers, and be concerned for others’ well-being. A good outline of Christ’s moral code is exemplified in Luke 10:25-37… to ‘love God, & love your neighbor as yourself.’ Jesus expanded the neighbor concept, to include everyone. See Matthew 5:44,45.

After Jesus was killed, his apostles led the first-Century Christians. And those Christians followed the Apostles’ decrees. Acts 2:42

“So where did Christianity go wrong?”

Well, even in the first century, there were those promoting teachings that “deviated from the Truth”; and Paul indicated “their word will spread like gangrene.” - 2 Timothy 2:17,18

Basically though, it began at Christendom’s inception, when it’s leaders preferred to please men instead of God, the opposite of what they should have done. (Acts 5:29) When they began to support the conflicts of their respective nations, joined the world and got involved in slaughter.


“If a Christian gets a blood transfusion are they breaking a rule?”
Above, I wrote: “And those Christians followed the Apostles’ decrees. Acts 2:42”
One of those decrees - there were very few - is found at Acts 15:28,29, where the Apostles (and the older men) stated: “For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things: to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!”

You might say, “eating blood is not the same as a tranfusfusion.”
But if a doctor tells someone to “abstain from alcohol,” is it ok to take it intravenously?

Of course not.

There are quite a few alternate therapies available now in medicine, instead of blood transfusions.

Abstaining from blood is as important as abstaining from fornication, ie., “sexual immorality”.
As the Scripture states.

You won’t find other Biblical passages for Christians, that contradict these edicts.

I doubt that most professed Christians live up to these standards today….but we (JW’s), as followers of Chist, strive to.
IMO

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am not sure what you mean by 'independently verifiable.'

I know. It's partially why we keep having this nonsense converstation.

Do you mean evidence you can verify independently?

"independently" means "regardless of biases, culture, a priori beliefs, etc"

Subjective evidence is evidence that we cannot evaluate. In fact, we have two choices; to accept what somebody says or reject it. ...
Objective evidence is evidence that we can examine and evaluate for ourselves.
Objective evidence - definition and meaning - Market ...

The very first line in your link:

Objective evidence is evidence that we base on provable facts.

We can examine and evaluate the evidence for the Baha'i Faith for ourselves thus it is objective evidence. For example, we can examine and evaluate the evidence for Baha'u'llah for ourselves because there are actual facts surrounding the Person, the Life, and the Mission of Baha'u'llah.

That's true. The evidence does not depend on the person but it is about the person. Otherwise, how could it be evidence for the person?

There is evidence.

It is as I said. For Christianity's claims about Jesus you simply have to accept what is written in the Bible, but there is no way to verify that any of it is factual. That is not true for the Baha'i Faith since He lived in contemporary history, so we have actual facts about Baha'u'llah and facts about what He did on His mission. As such, we can investigate the person of Baha'u'llah and the history of His life and what He did on His mission. We also have His original scriptures penned in His own hand. We don't have any of that for Jesus. We only have what the gospel authors wrote about Him decades after He lived and thse writers did not even know Jesus personally.

There are no provable facts here. There are just beliefs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How do you find meaning for yourself and the cosmos?

I think this is an important question in this conversation.

The answer, for me, is that I don't have any a priori assumptions that such "cosmic" meaning exists.
To ask what that "meaning" is, is in my view thus a loaded question. It assumes there is such meaning that exists outside of our own brains.

I don't see any evidence of such.

Meaning for my life, seems to be whatever meaning I myself develop for it.
*I* give meaning to my life. There doesn't seem to be any "cosmic" meaning that exists independently of my own thoughts.

 

[Pete in Panama]

I would say I used to be "spiritually" gullible. Whatever a religious/spiritual person told me about God and their religion, I assumed was true. After a while, and this included Baha'is, it was obvious that all of them had their own version of "truth" that they believed in. Now I'm very suspicious and skeptical of people that claim their religion is the truth.

I do think that they believe and have what they think are good reasons to believe it. But, as we all know, all these religious beliefs are different and do contradict each other. I like some things about several religions, but I also don't believe some things in every religion. Even the Baha'i Faith has some things I don't believe are true.

Now there are still spiritual people I do still respect... those that live their truth and don't try and get me to believe it. It's like those that say that they are "spiritual" but not "religious". Or the ones that say they don't believe in "organized" religions. Unfortunately, I think in many ways the Baha'i Faith is very much an "organized" religion. And in many ways some Baha'is seem to be trying to convert people... even though they don't think they are. They call it "teaching" the Faith. But it still comes across more like "preaching" the Faith. Thanks for stopping by once in a while and for taking a different approach.

You have not shared with us what your belief system is.

You're hinting that you are not a Christian or follower of some other religious group. That describes what you are not. We have determined that whether one accepts that Baha'u'llah as a manifestation as was Jesus etc. depends on a person's current belief system. That would mean that any further discussion would depend on whether you find reality as you proceed w/ it and piece it together on your own. How do you find meaning for yourself and the cosmos?

If you do not want to share then that's ok too. However if we were to continue then we'd have a situation where you'd want to criticize other people, suggesting they're "gullible", and then refuse to say what your beliefs are. Somehow that seems unhealthy.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You have not shared with us what your belief system is.

You're hinting that you are not a Christian or follower of some other religious group. That describes what you are not. We have determined that whether one accepts that Baha'u'llah as a manifestation as was Jesus etc. depends on a person's current belief system. That would mean that any further discussion would depend on whether you find reality as you proceed w/ it and piece it together on your own. How do you find meaning for yourself and the cosmos?

If you do not want to share then that's ok too. However if we were to continue then we'd have a situation where you'd want to criticize other people, suggesting they're "gullible", and then refuse to say what your beliefs are. Somehow that seems unhealthy.

You again ask that loaded question of "how do you find meaning for yourself and the cosmos".

Why must the cosmos have any meaning?

 

[Pete in Panama]

I think this is an important question in this conversation.

The answer, for me, is that I don't have any a priori assumptions that such "cosmic" meaning exists.
To ask what that "meaning" is, is in my view thus a loaded question. It assumes there is such meaning that exists outside of our own brains.

I don't see any evidence of such.

Meaning for my life, seems to be whatever meaning I myself develop for it.
*I* give meaning to my life. There doesn't seem to be any "cosmic" meaning that exists independently of my own thoughts.

What I'm talking about is external observable truth and understanding.

The question of meaning came to me from the Humanist (example: ABC News Harvard's humanist chaplain speaks on finding meaning and purpose without a religious faith --a link from a simple search w/ the humanists). The question here is whether we accept together any universal observable common truth/reality or are you saying anything you want one moment only to say the opposite the next. Do we recognize a common truth or are you making it up as you go along?

What you believe is your own business and it's your right. The constraint is that your having your own private reality would make our consulting difficult.

 

[F1fan]

That is absolutely false and it is the exact opposite of @Truthseeker actual position.

Can we be sure what he really thinks given his waffling at this point? He wrote a clear post yntil you criticized it's honesty, and then he tried to change it.

@Truthseeker, who has been a Baha'i researching and reading about Baha'u'llah for over 50 years, is anything but indifferent.

What more is there to research? None of you can show that Baha'u'llah was truly a messenger of God, and you even admit it's something you believe but can't prove. Critical thinkers need better evidence than you and @Truthseeker. As I noted the handle "truthseeker" is ironic for a person who is so easily convinced that a fantastic idea is true with such insufficient evidence for critical thinkers. Like I said, I think he was being honest when he wrote that he doesn't care if Baha'u'llah is genuine or not, he's a believer, not a truth seeker. He wants to believe, not understand what is true about how things are. Actual truth seekers are skeptical, and they have rules and methods to determine what is true, or most likely true. And that's critical thinkers, not those on a religious path who rely on all sorts of unwarranted assumptions.

 

[Truthseeker]

Like I said, I think he was being honest when he wrote that he doesn't care if Baha'u'llah is genuine or not, he's a believer, not a truth seeker. He wants to believe, not understand what is true about how things are. Actual truth seekers are skeptical, and they have rules and methods to determine what is true, or most likely true. And that's critical thinkers, not those on a religious path who rely on all sorts of unwarranted assumptions.

For your information, though maybe you won't think what I am going to say now is untruthful, I have been skeptical , and have had doubts when I critically thought about some aspects of Baha'i, I addressed those doubts by my own investigation, and have come to the conclusion that those doubts that I had don't warrant me not believing in the Baha'i Faith. It doesn't in the end though matter to me whether you believe what I am saying is truthful. I know I'm being truthful, that's what matters.

 

[Pete in Panama]

...None of you can show that Baha'u'llah was truly a messenger of God, and you even admit it's something you believe but can't prove. Critical thinkers need better evidence than you and @Truthseeker. As I noted the handle "truthseeker" is ironic for a person who is so easily convinced that a fantastic idea is true with such insufficient evidence for critical thinkers...

This is like what CG Didymus and I were discovering, that the question of whether someone sees sufficient evidence that Baha'u'llah is a messenger of God hinges to a great extent on the nature of one's current beliefs. Tomas Paine pointed out hundreds of years ago that trying to convert an atheist by quoting scripture is like giving medicine to the dead. iow,there has to be a level connection where everyone's on the same page.

That's why I need to ask you what your beliefs are, how you determine reality, do you find meaning, how you see what's right and wrong. That kind of info would make all the difference in any further consultation.

 

[F1fan]

This is like what CG Didymus and I were discovering, that the question of whether someone sees sufficient evidence that Baha'u'llah is a messenger of God hinges to a great extent on the nature of one's current beliefs. Tomas Paine pointed out hundreds of years ago that trying to convert an atheist by quoting scripture is like giving medicine to the dead. iow,there has to be a level connection where everyone's on the same page.

To adjust the metaphor, it's like giving placebos to those with serious medial conditions. There won't be any natural effects.

The issue of religious belief ignores the evolutionary and biological forces on brains, and how people are influenced to believe in the lore of their social environment. Critical thinkers are uncommon, with few having the skill to think beyond the natural human impulse to belong and believe. If believers really had good evidence for their beliefs then critical thinkers would be convinced. But believers don't have good evidence, and they don't use reason. This is the bottom line, religious belief is a conditioned and natural human phenomenon, and to transcend it requires a lot of discipline and interest in truth.

That's why I need to ask you what your beliefs are,

I believe OJ killed his ex-wife and Ron Goldman. I don't believe in supernatural concepts.

how you determine reality,

We sense the environment. How we make sense of our sensory data depends on our knowledge base and reasoning skill. Science is reputable. Qanon is not. The Associated press and Rueters are reputable. Newsmax and FOX are not. It is not difficult to discern real from fake if you have an interest in knowing real from fake. When a football player says their team won due to hard work that is truthful. When a player says they won becaue God wanted them to win, that is dubious and and an unsupportable claim.

do you find meaning,

By setting goals worthy of myself. Accomplishing goals. Or even falling short.

how you see what's right and wrong.

I have a good moral sense, and a sense of fairness. It doesn't take much effort for me to recognize what is right or wrong. Look at the trans issue with conservatives, they are targeting young trans people for political cred, but they don't consider how these policies harm trans kids. They don't care. They should be following Jesus and loving these people instead of exploiting a rare state of gender uncertainty for their own gain. Do you agree?

That kind of info would make all the difference in any further consultation.

It's all open to discussion. But the info had better be true, not dogma, not tradstion, not hate, not disinformation, etc. The search for truth begins with the self's level of integrity, and if that character is flawed it will be revealed in what these people say. Many don't value respect these days, nor care about reputation. This is the failure of understanding and introspection, and a collapse of values.

 

[F1fan]

For your information, though maybe you won't think what I am going to say now is untruthful, I have been skeptical , and have had doubts when I critically thought about some aspects of Baha'i, I addressed those doubts by my own investigation, and have come to the conclusion that those doubts that I had don't warrant me not believing in the Baha'i Faith. It doesn't in the end though matter to me whether you believe what I am saying is truthful. I know I'm being truthful, that's what matters.

Here you are again not caring. I suspect your motive to dismiss others is because you can't reconcile your beliefs to truth, and you retreat into more self-deception and the masquerade. Like I said you had a brief moment of telling the truth and your bellow believers attacked you. You wanted to abandon the truth and retreat to the safety of your tribe. The truly courageous seek truth, and they find it by learning what is the most likley true about how things are. the fearfulk retreat into dubious concepts and believe using denial.