Who was Baha'u'llah?

[Trailblazer]

Can we be sure what he really thinks given his waffling at this point?

Yes, we can be sure, by believing what @Truthseeker says he really thinks.

He wrote a clear post until you criticized it's honesty, and then he tried to change it.

He did not write a clear post and that is why he went back and edited it to make it clear.

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.

No, nobody can PROVE that Baha'u'llah received messages from God, and any critical thinker would immediately understand why.

How could I ever prove that unless I can prove that God exists? Many other atheists have picked up on this, telling me I would have to prove God exists first, before I can prove anyone is a Messenger of God. That is true, but it is impossible to prove that God exists so we either settle on the evidence that God provided, which is the Messenger of God, or we take our toys and go home.

As I noted the handle "truthseeker" is ironic for a person who is so easily convinced that a fantastic idea is true

I do not know is @Truthseeker was easily convinced. All I know is what he has told me. He studied the Baha'i Faith for over 50 years but he had some doubts along the way, as he told you.

I was easily convinced because everything about the Baha'i Faith is so logical and that is why I believe it. I only had doubts about Baha'u'llah one time in over 50 years, but that was because of a misconception I had about something Baha'u'llah wrote. When I considered whether the Baha'i Faith was a true religion or not, I did not look very much at Baha'u'llah, I looked at everything else surrounding the religion. All this is evidence that indicated (not proves) that the religion is a true religion. In my mind, there is no way the Baha'i Faith can be false, therefore it has to be true. There is too much evidence that indicates that it is true, and I could never discount all that evidence. Even if I had no other evidence that Baha'u'llah was who He claimed to be, the fulfillment of the Bible prophecies that show He was the return of Christ and the messiah would suffice.

I will now tell you a secret. About eight or so years ago, I used to post on a primarily atheist forum and I can remember saying when asked that I believe 80-90% that the Baha'i Faith is true. Now I believe 100%. The reason I am so sure now is thanks to all the atheists and Christians who I have debated over the years. Every point of contention they had was refuted and their unbelief led me to do more research, only to find out they were wrong. As a result, I learned more and more things about the Baha'i Faith that I had never known before, and the more I learned the more my belief became solidified.

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,

That is as much as calling him a liar because he has told you that he does care that Baha'u'llah is genuine.

he's a believer, not a truth seeker.

He is a believer who sought the truth and found it.

He wants to believe, not understand what is true about how things are.

You do not know what anyone wants except yourself so I suggest you only speak for yourself.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

Here you are again, completely misinterpreting what @Truthseeker wrote.

Firstly, @Truthseeker does not dismiss others. You are the one who dismisses others, so that is psychological projection.

Secondly, @Truthseeker said that he did reconcile his beliefs to truth when he said: 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.

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.

This is all false and it is based upon your own psychological projections, what you imagine @Truthseeker was thinking and doing.

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.

That is what Baha'is are, truly courageous, since they swam against the tide. Fearful of nothing and nobody, they learned about the Bahai Faith and found the truth.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

That is false.

 

[Pete in Panama]

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.

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

This sounds to me as anger and unhappyness. That may or may not be a reflection of your true mindset. You may feel that you're being neutral and it's me who's generating misinformation. I don't know. (fyi)

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.

That suggests that you have chosen a side on current events. My preference is to see the value in all sides but just the same we'd probably do well to stay clear of politics. I'd really hate to step on a hot button, antagonze you, and poisoning our convo.

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.

My thinking here is that we'd be better off determining truth not by comparing phenomena to our doctrinal beliefs but by identifying what can be observed. That would mean in the case of the football player who thanked God, you could say whether or not you observed God during the game or whether you saw the skill borne of hard practice. If there was observable skill on both teams, you could either say it was probably luck, God (if you witnessed luck or God), or perhaps you could just say you don't honestly know. Please forgive my wandering off topic.

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

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?

When you say you have a "good moral sense" are you saying that there is an external universal morality that you are sensing with others, or are you saying that you can come up w/ your own private morality that may or may not resemble anyone elses?

My take is that there are some very good trans people and some very good conservatives, and that it's unhealthy to allow hatred against one group fester. The trans issue is passionate and that would be a nice topic for another thread. The topic of this thread is "Who was Baha'u'llah".

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.

What you said about a search for truth depending on character is excellent.

Aside from all the ways the search can go wrong, my thinking is we want to focus on what can go right. How about we agree that tools for seeing the truth include reason, the senses, intuition, consensus, etc., and while all these tools are limited they all can help. Whats needed seems to be the use of all these tools together guided by a spirit of honesty and acceptance of reality on its own terms.

We're together?

 

[CG Didymus]

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.

To me, you're trying to make things much more complicated than they are. I listened to religious people about their different beliefs, and even tried a few. Like I said, when Baha'is told me about what they believed, I took their word as being true. Later, people in other religions told me their truth and why they believe it. They're all different. After a while, I stopped trusting those religious people that believe their religion is The Truth. I think the Baha'i Faith is one of those types of religions.

Baha'is say the past religions were all true. They were all from God. But now a new manifestation has come with a new message and has replaced those teachings of all those other religions. Were those Baha'is that said that telling the truth about the Baha'i Faith, or were they wrong?

 

[CG Didymus]

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

Fact... a man named Mírzá Ḥusayn-ʻAlí Núrí took the title Baha'u'llah and claimed to be a manifestation of God. He was exiled and imprisoned, and he wrote a lot. Those people that believe his claim and join his religion are called Baha'is. They believe there is evidence for the claims made by their prophet. Many non-Baha'is have questioned that belief, and don't see what Baha'is call "evidence" to be anything substantial or meaningful to warrant their belief.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

I have not voted on the poll yet.

Can any bahai or non-bahai help me to assess the possible truth in the words of Baha'u'llah?


He speaks of words that are also used in the Bible.

For examples:

"Say: He hath kindled the lamp of utterance, and feedeth it with the oil of wisdom and understanding". Baha'u'llah

"O thou who hast quaffed the wine of Mine utterance from the chalice of My knowledge!" Baha'u'llah

"be subdued by the sword of utterance, of wisdom and of understanding. Thus, whoso seeketh to assist God must, before all else, conquer, with the sword of inner meaning and explanation" Baha'u'llah


But he seems to be explaining the words without really explaining them. The only thing he is saying is that those words were said.


I will need to see a sentence where Baha'u'llah puts more than one keyword in his sentence so I can scientifically measure and assess it.
The other keyword in a sentence could seem to be unrelated. Thats ok. Thats what i want to look at.


Because I cant measure and assess singular keyword sentences.


I will need to see sentences like this:

The words of his mouth were smoother than butter, but war was in his heart: his words were softer than oil, yet were they drawn swords. Psalm 55:21


I can assess that sentence and check its alignment.

I know the oil is also the sword. So I can verify the sentence is correct. The two keywords share the same positioning.

Bread - Oil - Wine
Spear - Sword - Bow


As I can verify this sentence:

"As he clothed himself with cursing like as with his garment, so let it come into his bowels like water, and like oil into his bones". Psalm 109:18

Bread - Oil - Wine
Spear - Sword - Bow
Flesh - Bone - Blood


And this sentence:

As with a sword in my bones, mine enemies reproach me; while they say daily unto me, Where is thy God? Psalm 42:10


Those sentences do have their keywords in alignment. They further verify and confirm each other.

If you look at the three columns of alignments, it can also be seen that what Jesus said could be true. The bread is the flesh, and the wine is the blood.

Bread - Oil - Wine
Spear - Sword - Bow
Flesh - Bone - Blood

Bread and flesh is in alignment, just as wine and blood is in alignment.

That is what i need to see in the sentences of Baha'u'llah.


So out of all the writings by Baha'u'llah are there any sentences where he says more than one keyword?
I have not read all his writings so would like to know if there are any multiple keyword sentences that exist.

If I can see the alignment in his words then i will become Bahai.

 

[F1fan]

This sounds to me as anger and unhappyness. That may or may not be a reflection of your true mindset.

What, do you think OJ is innocent? I didn't realize you were a fan.

You may feel that you're being neutral and it's me who's generating misinformation. I don't know. (fyi)

I notice you didn't even try to rebut anything i wrote, so I take it you accepted what I wrote as true.

That suggests that you have chosen a side on current events.

Truthful, rational, compasssionate. Do you not value this side?

My preference is to see the value in all sides but just the same we'd probably do well to stay clear of politics. I'd really hate to step on a hot button, antagonze you, and poisoning our convo.

OK, what value do you see in the rise of white supremacy?

My thinking here is that we'd be better off determining truth not by comparing phenomena to our doctrinal beliefs but by identifying what can be observed. That would mean in the case of the football player who thanked God, you could say whether or not you observed God during the game or whether you saw the skill borne of hard practice. If there was observable skill on both teams, you could either say it was probably luck, God (if you witnessed luck or God), or perhaps you could just say you don't honestly know. Please forgive my wandering off topic.

Well athletic skill is known to exist. Gods are not known to exist. I think you missed my point

When you say you have a "good moral sense" are you saying that there is an external universal morality that you are sensing with others, or are you saying that you can come up w/ your own private morality that may or may not resemble anyone elses?

No, basic moral sense. It is something many humans have. There is actually a book called The Moral Sense that is pretty good.

My take is that there are some very good trans people and some very good conservatives, and that it's unhealthy to allow hatred against one group fester. The trans issue is passionate and that would be a nice topic for another thread. The topic of this thread is "Who was Baha'u'llah".

Trump said there were were good people on both sides, too. I take this as a deflection from those who are not good citizens.

Aside from all the ways the search can go wrong, my thinking is we want to focus on what can go right. How about we agree that tools for seeing the truth include reason, the senses, intuition, consensus, etc., and while all these tools are limited they all can help. Whats needed seems to be the use of all these tools together guided by a spirit of honesty and acceptance of reality on its own terms.

We're together?

Sure, sounds good. We aren't machines, and we often make mistakes. I think it takes a lot of courage to be flawed and not let that dictate how the self is judged. That said we do need to endeavor towards doing good for others so that our character what we are worthy of.

 

[Truthseeker]

Baha'is say the past religions were all true. They were all from God. But now a new manifestation has come with a new message and has replaced those teachings of all those other religions. Were those Baha'is that said that telling the truth about the Baha'i Faith, or were they wrong?

We didn't say that as far as replacing the teachings of all those other religions. The social teachings were changed, but the eternal truths did not change is our position. I guess you misspoke.

 

[Truthseeker]

I listened to religious people about their different beliefs, and even tried a few. Like I said, when Baha'is told me about what they believed, I took their word as being true. Later, people in other religions told me their truth and why they believe it. They're all different. After a while, I stopped trusting those religious people that believe their religion is The Truth. I think the Baha'i Faith is one of those types of religions.

In my opinion, you were being overly credulous to take the Baha'is word without investigating, then when other religious people told you what they believe your lack of investigating yourself ended up shattering your faith in Baha'i, and after that devastating experience you didn't believe in any faith. Sorry, that's what I see here. Poor guy.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

I feel like you are changing the goal posts.

First you were talking about "meaning". Now you are talking about "truth/reality".
"Truth" about what?

Reality is what it is, regardless of our beliefs or opinions.
"Meaning" seems to be what we impose on reality ourselves. And yes, that can change as we grow older, go through new experiences, etc.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is false.

So you keep claiming

 

[Muffled]

I see that as a bit of a stretch. I don't see the Holy Spirit as person taking notes and telling someone else events of history behind the scenes. It's much easier to read this as the author of the gospel telling a story about Jesus from stories others were tell each other to inspire one another.

I believe that is what Jesus said would happen. The paraclete would inform the writers. I believe you concept is mere speculation.

 

[Muffled]

That is what critical thinkers do, and they can't find evidence that supports a rational conclusion that any gods exist.

And what does "wishing to know" affect what can be known? All we can do is follow facts. Wanting to know that the Tooth Fairy exists will only result in delusion.

And they explain that the evidence is not credible, or adequate, or anything that allows proper reasoning to any religious conclusion. That's the fault of the religious who claim they have evidence to support their judgments that a God exists. They don't.

I believe you are making my point. It is'nt worth telling you because you have already dismissed what I could say.

 

[F1fan]

In my opinion, you were being overly credulous to take the Baha'is word without investigating, then when other religious people told you what they believe your lack of investigating yourself ended up shattering your faith in Baha'i, and after that devastating experience you didn't believe in any faith. Sorry, that's what I see here. Poor guy.

What is there to investigate that hasn't been revealed in these debates? I keep hearing Baha'i talk about investigating, but what? There are no facts. There is just the wrtings and claims, and there is nothing that compels a critical thinker to conclude it's likely Baha'u'llah is genuine as a messenger for a God. It's more likley he believed he was, which suggests a sort of delusional mind. There is a lot of example of religious frauds. You reject Joseph Smith, yes? You reject the Urantia Book, yes? Mormons and the Urantia folks are convinced of their revelations, too. Why would any observer be more impressed by your texts and prophet?

 

[F1fan]

I believe you are making my point. It is'nt worth telling you because you have already dismissed what I could say.

This sounds like a person not confident in their beliefs or argument. Why bother posting that you feel defeated?

I have been debating theists since 1996 so I have seen most every claim, evidence, and arguments. If you have nothing more to offer then you know it is dismessed for being inadequate as evidence, not due to bias.

So, is all you have the same faith-based beliefs and lack evidence? If so, then that explains why you have nothing to offer. And that is your bias and dilemma, not for critical thinkers.

 

[Muffled]

That is all fair and well and I agree, but that is a subset of the problem of the universe is Y and not Z. The same problem is so, for that the universe is natural/material/physical.
So you speak for your kind of critical thinkers and I will still do it differently.
The game we are playing is this. If just like that human mobility is limited as to what we can do in that sense, rationality is limited to what we can do in that sense.
There is a rational reason, it is methodological naturalism and not philosophical naturalism.

The joke is that the answer to the universe is from God or the universe is natural, is the same: No!
Both are neither true not false, but too simple in practice.

Logic has its limitations. A light bulb shining light is illogical. It is quite mysterious unless one knows the science behind it. However if a person who does not believe in science dismisses any explanation as illogical then that explanation will never be told.

 

[Pete in Panama]

In my last post I said...

This sounds to me as anger and unhappyness. That may or may not be a reflection of your true mindset. You may feel that you're being neutral and it's me who's generating misinformation. I don't know. (fyi)

--and in your next post you responded w/...

What, do you think OJ is innocent? I didn't realize you were a fan.

Off hand, it sounds like you want to quarrel and since I'm not interested in that whole confrontation thing I'll just take a pass on the convo.

Cheers.

 

[Muffled]

I would follow the first line of reason with the second as stated in the first. "A" manifestation is more accurate than "the" manifestation. I might suggest he was much like Jesus in being fully human and acknowledged awareness of his oneness with God.

The B man can't be one with God because he does not always speak the truth. Jesus stated that He is the truth.

 

[Pete in Panama]

...Reality is what it is, regardless of our beliefs or opinions...

That's my take and (as I understand it) the view of many others too. Please correct me if I misinterpret but my guess is that you are not at war w/ reality, that you accept reality as it is and you work to understand more and more of it. For me I'd go so far as to say that reality is good, I actually like the way things are.

Are we together on this? Please confirm if we're in agreement because I see this line of thinking (believe it or not) as being the key to this thread.