Why are “some atheists” so intolerant of religious believers?

[Aupmanyav]

There is no one to blame but humans, most of whom rejected Baha'u'llah, thus rejecting the Divine Physician.
"Every age hath its own problem,.."

Why should people reject the 'divine physician' (sic!)? Why should every age have problems? All because of faulty design and manufacture by God. That is why I said 'no one else to blame'. If you go by Islam (and you do), God has sent thousands of such 'divine physicians' to the world but the problems still exist. What kind of hopeless incompetent 'physicians' is God sending to the world?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I believe what I do because I believe that Baha'u'llah was the Manifestation of God for this age and that whatever He wrote supersedes anything that was written in past ages. I believe that He was Infallible because His will was identical with the Will of God. It is as simple as that.

Why do you believe this? What is the evidence for your belief?
Bahaullah wrote things. Salman Rushdie also wrote "Midnight's Children'. Anyone can write anything.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why should people reject the 'divine physician' (sic!)? Why should every age have problems? All because of faulty design and manufacture by God. That is why I said 'no one else to blame'. If you go by Islam (and you do), God has sent thousands of such 'divine physicians' to the world but the problems still exist. What kind of hopeless incompetent 'physicians' is God sending to the world?

Every age has problems and those problems are ALL because of humans. Humans have free will to choose between good and evil, to be selfish or unselfish, to be spiritual or materialistic. If they choose evil and selfishness and materialism then problems ensue. This is why there are problems in every age.

The reason they continue to choose evil and selfishness and materialism is because they REJECT the Divine Physicians (Messengers of God) that God sends and thus they do not follow their teachings and laws. There is no way you can justly blame God for this. As part of His Covenant with man, God agreed never to leave man alone without Guidance, so God sends Messengers in every age, but man's part in KEEPING that Covenant with God is to recognize and follow these Messengers and their teachings and laws. God has kept His part of the Covenant but man has failed miserably to keep his part, as we can see by the fact that the majority of people in the world have rejected the Divine Physician, Baha'u'llah, and His message.

“My object is none other than the betterment of the world and the tranquillity of its peoples. The well-being of mankind, its peace and security, are unattainable unless and until its unity is firmly established. This unity can never be achieved so long as the counsels which the Pen of the Most High hath revealed are suffered to pass unheeded.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 286​

 

[Shad]

I do not know what comment you are referring to.

This

"but unless they have original scriptures of the Buddha they are spitting in the wind. I cannot say exactly how Abdu’l-Baha (eldest son of Baha’u’llah and the centre of his Covenant) knew this, but here is what he said:"

[quoteI assume the same burden for evidence as anyone else. [/quote]

No you don't. You are blind to your double-standard.

So you hold two different standards. You demand evidence from the Buddhist but do not demand the same evidence for your point as you are condition to accept anything your religion says as fact.

Sorry, you lost me. Are you saying I do not demand evidence for my beliefs but I demand evidence for others’ beliefs?

Exactly.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why do you believe this? What is the evidence for your belief?
Bahaullah wrote things. Salman Rushdie also wrote "Midnight's Children'. Anyone can write anything.

Baha’u’llah explained how we are supposed to establish the truth of His claim. First, we examine His own Self (His character); then we examine His Revelation (everything that surrounds His Mission on earth); and then we look at His words (His Writings). That is what I have done.

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106​

 

[ManSinha]

This

"but unless they have original scriptures of the Buddha they are spitting in the wind. I cannot say exactly how Abdu’l-Baha (eldest son of Baha’u’llah and the centre of his Covenant) knew this, but here is what he said:"

I assume the same burden for evidence as anyone else

No you don't. You are blind to your double-standard.

So you hold two different standards. You demand evidence from the Buddhist but do not demand the same evidence for your point as you are condition to accept anything your religion says as fact.

I happen to agree with @Shad - other than self proclamation as an incarnation of X, Y and Z - which we have proven over and over, has no basis in reality outside of Baha'i writings - what exactly is Mírzá Ḥusayn-`Alí Núrí's claim to be anything other than an ordinary human being who was skilled at writing? The very fact that he invoked that he was
- a manifestation of Christ
- a manifestation of Muhammad
- a manifestation of Buddha

all at the same time - speaks to me of something else other than "divine"

And as per my conversation with @Jim - apparently there are references in the Baha'i writing that Baha'u'llah is a manifestation of Lord Krishna alluding to something in the Srimad Bhagvad Gita - stuff that only exists in the fertile imagination of the Bahai's - that does not speak to me of a divine manifestation but rather a somewhat insecure person using the names of established religious giants of the past to gain legitimacy for himself.

 

[Trailblazer]

No you don't. You are blind to your double-standard.

So you hold two different standards. You demand evidence from the Buddhist but do not demand the same evidence for your point as you are condition to accept anything your religion says as fact.

First, I do not demand evidence for other religious beliefs or their Prophets, because I am not looking at them to determine if they are the truth from God or not. It is those religious believers who should be demanding the evidence for their Prophets and religions.

Second, this discussion was about having original scriptures written by the Prophet. All I was saying is that we have no original scriptures written by the Buddha, all we have are what people wrote down hundreds of years later, and the religious followers called these the teachings of the Buddha.

What did Buddha write?
The Buddha did not write anything down. The earliest known scriptures were recorded hundreds of years after the Buddha's death. Still, the Buddhavacana (Words of the Buddha) are claimed to be the literal utterances of the Buddha as the Sangha orally maintained them since the Buddha's death.
https://www.quora.com/How-can-we-know-what-the-Buddha-taught-and-how-does-this-...​

Anyone can claim anything, but can they prove it? That is different from the Baha’i Faith in that we have the original scriptures of Baha’u’llah, written in His Own Pen, and the original Tablets reside in a vault in Haifa, Israel. Because He had been poisoned by His enemies, He later had difficulty writing, so some of His Tablets were dictated to His secretary, but Baha’u’llah immediately reviewed them before He stamped them with his Official Seal. Thus all of Baha’u’llah’s Writings are fully authentic.

Third, of course I demand evidence for my religion. I have evidence and I have examined the evidence.

Baha’u’llah explained how we are supposed to establish the truth of His claim. First, we examine His own Self (His character); then we examine His Revelation (everything that surrounds His Mission on earth); and then we look at His words (His Writings).

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106​

 

[Aupmanyav]

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men.

There are millions of good people on earth. That is why the sky stands. What proves that Bahaullah was so and the only one? It is like saying "I am a good man". As for revelation, what he said, there is no evidence that it came from any existent or non-existent God. It neither reveals the reality of any God or any God's word.

Humans have free will to choose between good and evil, to be selfish or unselfish, to be spiritual or materialistic.

Why did God create free-will among humans along with all its ills. Poor design.

 

[Trailblazer]

There are millions of good people on earth. That is why the sky stands. What proves that Bahaullah was so and the only one? It is like saying "I am a good man". As for revelation, what he said, there is no evidence that it came from any existent or non-existent God. It neither reveals the reality of any God or any God's word.

I never said that Baha'u'llah was the only good man. There are many good people in this world, but a Manifestation of God is a higher order of creation; He is more than a man. Baha'u'llah was the Manifestation of God for this age. God only sends one major Manifestation in every age.

No, there is no proof that any Manifestation of God received a revelation from God, there is only evidence that indicates that. Baha'is take it on evidence and faith that Baha'u'llah was who He claimed to be.

Why did God create free-will among humans along with all its ills. Poor design.

So we would have the freedom to choose and thereby learn from our mistakes and become better people and ascend to God that way after we die. Besides that, if we had no free will we could not do anything.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. but a Manifestation of God is a higher order of creation; He is more than a man. Baha'u'llah was the Manifestation of God for this age. God only sends one major Manifestation in every age.

No, there is no proof that any Manifestation of God received a revelation from God, there is only evidence that indicates that. Baha'is take it on evidence and faith that Baha'u'llah was who He claimed to be.

So we would have the freedom to choose and thereby learn from our mistakes and become better people and ascend to God that way after we die. Besides that, if we had no free will we could not do anything.

All things in the universe are manifesttion of the undefined, even a grain of sand. And that too equally, none is greater or lesser than the other. You seem to know each and everything about your God or perhaps Bahaullah did. You are saying something beyond what Bahaullah said.

There is a contradiction and obfuscation in your second paragraph. You say that there is no evidence. Then you go on to say that you believe Bahaullah on basis of 'evidence and faith'. What evidence are you talking about? It is just your faith, however misplaced it may be.

If we had no free-will, we would not engaged in evil deeds. Free- will created all the problem. There is no 'you' and no ascending anywhere after death, it is only going down. Of course, Hindus and some other groups do go up in smoke, some from the monotheistic religions too who choose to go that way.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The reason they continue to choose evil and selfishness and materialism is because they REJECT the Divine Physicians (Messengers of God) that God sends and thus they do not follow their teachings and laws. There is no way you can justly blame God for this.

It's not God's fault for making his "Messengers" utterly unconvincing for the vast majority of humanity? How could this not be God's fault?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yeah, who else can we blame?
BTW, it is not God who sends Messengers. Bahaullah says they were sent by him.
What a glob of ego! There are many jewels in what Bahaullah says.

 

[Aupmanyav]

First, I do not demand evidence for other religious beliefs or their Prophets, because I am not looking at them to determine if they are the truth from God or not. It is those religious believers who should be demanding the evidence for their Prophets and religions.

That is different from the Baha’i Faith in that we have the original scriptures of Baha’u’llah, written in His Own Pen, and the original Tablets reside in a vault in Haifa, Israel. Because He had been poisoned by His enemies, He later had difficulty writing, so some of His Tablets were dictated to His secretary, but Baha’u’llah immediately reviewed them before He stamped them with his Official Seal. Thus all of Baha’u’llah’s Writings are fully authentic.

Third, of course I demand evidence for my religion. I have evidence and I have examined the evidence.

There is no God, no ambassadors from God, no revelations. These are all beliefs of people. Society ascribed what it wanted from people to various Gods/Goddesses. Society wanted that people should speak truth between themselves, that became a rule from God. Society wanted that no person should covet what another had, that too became the rule and society ascribed it to God. What revelation is, is morals and ethical code of a particular society. That is why historicity of God/Goddesses is not important for us. What Krishna is supposed to have said in Gita is near about the ideal for Hindu society. These ambassadors just crop up and try to take all the credit for themselves.

You do not demand evidence from other religions because you have no evidence to show for your own religion except belief/faith. A seal, anybody could use the seal. Who knows if Abdul Baha used the seal in that way. Any opposition and he would stamp a paper. That is the way Mohammad came up with new Surahs as and when required. When he wanted to marry the wife of his step-son or when a month away from his wives became too much for him. Aisha mentioned that his God was very partial to him. In Buddha's time (around 500 BCE), India did not have writing.

 

[Woberts]

Religion is antithetical to a caring and just society. Until religion, be it Christianity, Buddhism, or Satanism is eliminated, society will forever be held back.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then this is our main difference. I think justice is what's in the best interest for those involved, including society, which is based on evidence, and judgements passed down need to be as impartial and objective as possible. You think justice is based on religion.

I think justice is based in both society and religion. Tell me why the best interests of criminals should be considered? Did they consider anyone else’s interested when they perpetrated the crimes? No. Part of justice has to be punishment, another part can be rehabilitation.

I didn't say you could change criminals with psychotherapy, but psychology actually studies human behaviour and it is a science. Therefore, the best way to approach the most appropriate and objective justice is to use what we know of reality. For example, science started to tell who was incapable of making sensible decision(E.G. the mentally insane). Just to let you know, if you didn't know, psychology is a science and psychoanalyse is a pseudoscience.

There is (a) changing human behavior (psychology), and (b) punishing human behavior (justice). The criminal justice system is not a psychotherapy office. The time to address that would have been before the crimes were committed.

Equally, just because religion worked for you does not mean it'll work for others. And I honestly don't know what to say with this reply, "It is religion that teaches to treat people with dignity and respect, compassion and loving kindness" when you have things like Sharia law and the western world is secular, not theroracies.

That is what religion is supposed to do but religion should also deal with justice.

“O ye beloved of the Lord! The Kingdom of God is founded upon equity and justice, and also upon mercy, compassion, and kindness to every living soul. Strive ye then with all your heart to treat compassionately all humankind—except for those who have some selfish, private motive, or some disease of the soul. Kindness cannot be shown the tyrant, the deceiver, or the thief, because, far from awakening them to the error of their ways, it maketh them to continue in their perversity as before. No matter how much kindliness ye may expend upon the liar, he will but lie the more, for he believeth you to be deceived, while ye understand him but too well, and only remain silent out of your extreme compassion.” Selections From the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, p. 158​

I disagree, but what you said was an assertion, unless you have evidence, nor do I think this is relevant for justice.

So you disagree that a rapist or murderer should be punished?

For these hypothetical scenarios, it doesn't really matter what the crime is as long as it's atrocious. So, 4 murders, or say whatever you want to say.

I'd like you to consider a bit of philosophy before you answer: if someone changes significantly, are they the same person? Are you punishing the same person that committed the crime or someone new. I put emphasis in bold. Are you always the same person?

The question is: Is a hardened criminal going to change significantly? Has there been any research on this?

Unfortunately, it's you that's not seeing clearly. Norway has one of the lowest crime rates in the world and its justice system is designed for rehabilitation. Since they changed their criminal justice system, their repeat rates have dropped. You place your religion above humanity and are unable to see clearly. Your need to seek revenge and punish people has blinded any sense of actual evidence that's right in your face. I suggest you look at this evidence and I can give so many studies that support positive reinforcement as the best method for behavioural change. If you think people should still be punished, which increases crime and repeatable offences, then you are indirectly responsible for the suffering of innocent lives. This makes this line of thinking dangerous. Here are some quotes from Wiki concerning Norway and I've highlighted the important bits, which is about everything, that just confirm everything I've said. Other countries are following suit. - Incarceration in Norway - Wikipedia

No, I place justice above all, and justice must be served. These are not innocent lives, they are guilty lives, murderers who ruined the lives of innocent people by killing their loved ones. The line of thinking that people should not be punished for wrongdoing is really strange and it is a dangerous way to think.

"Incarceration in Norway's criminal justice system focuses on the principle of restorative justice and rehabilitating prisoners. Correctional facilities in Norway focus on the care of the offender and making sure they can become a functioning member of society again. Norway has one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world, currently 20%,[1] with approximately 3,933 offenders in prison,[2] and one of the lowest crime rates in the world.[3] Norway’s prisons are renowned for being some of the best and most humane in the world. Norway does not have the death penalty or sentence people to life imprisonment."

If you ignore this and cannot offer a good rebuttal based on evidence, then I'm arguing my evidence vs your faith. Hence, we can only agree to disagree and I see no reason to go any further.

Sorry, I do not have time to look for statistics right now, maybe later.... But for now....

Restorative justice is an approach to justice in which the response to a crime is to organize a meeting between the victim and the offender, sometimes with representatives of the wider community. The goal is for them to share their experience of what happened, to discuss who was harmed by the crime and how, and to create a consensus for what the offender can do to repair the harm from the offense. This may include a payment of money given from the offender to the victim, apologies and other amends, and other actions to compensate those affected and to prevent the offender from causing future harm.
Restorative justice - Wikipedia

I am sorry to say that the offender cannot repair the harm that was done to a family that has lost their loved one – forever.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It is not. Dao is not, Hinduism is not, Buddhism is not. This malaise belongs only to the monotheist religions and their propounders right from the time of Zoroaster to Judaism to Christianity to Bahais to Ahamdiyyas and others.

Though I do not go with Adbul Baha with all his blah-blah but I do agree that criminals should be punished appropriately. It is not fair that the society should bear the cost of a criminal living in luxury and undue facilities. The criminal should be charged for the expenses. For repeat offenders, I think it is better to put them to gallows. India has a large population and consequently a larger number of criminals. If we are not strict with the criminals, the society will suffer. I put no faith in reforming the criminals.

 

[Trailblazer]

For your viewing pleasure. This documentary basically answers your questions.

If you don't watch it, there's one quote I wanted to give in the documentary from Karianne Wolfer - The director of correctional practices North Dakota -

"But if you were the victim of a really heinous crime, how would you feel about the perpetrator of that crime living in such a luxurious setting? And my response was, "I'd be pissed off." But what is that when I say I'm pissed off? The group kind of takes a minute and says, "it's a feeling, it's an emotion." That's right. And we're not The Department of Emotional Responses. We're the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation."

I will try to watch the video when I have more time. Meanwhile, can you briefly explain what that quote above means to you? Does it means that peoples’ feelings do not matter, only the criminal matters?

Those criminals are lucky God is more merciful than He is wrathful. I guess I am not as forgiving as God is... We were talking about forgiveness and here is part of a post I posted to a Christian on another forum last night:

I do not think that the Baha’i beliefs about God’s mercy and forgiveness are altogether different from Christian beliefs, although there are some differences, such as confession. From Wikipedia:

The Bahá'í concept of God is both just and merciful. God is seen as being "He Who forgiveth even the most grievous of sins".[3]Bahá'ís are meant to refrain from focussing on the sins of others, and are meant to have a "sin-covering eye".[4]Bahá'ís are also forbidden to confess their sins to others in order to have their sins removed. Forgiveness is between a person and God alone, and is thus a very personal affair.

Should anyone be afflicted by a sin, it behoveth him to repent thereof and return unto his Lord. He, verily, granteth forgiveness unto whomsoever He willeth, and none may question that which it pleaseth Him to ordain. He is, in truth, the Ever-Forgiving, the Almighty, the All-Praised. — Bahá'u'lláh[5]

Bahá'í views on sin​

I have a certain bias; probably because I watch so many true crime programs and I see the pain caused by heinous crimes, I tend to side with the victims. However, please note that I do not represent the position of the Baha’i Faith, I am just one Baha’i. The following represents the Baha’i beliefs. Bold was added by me.

Does Society have a Responsibility to Punish People in this World?

Someone once asked ‘Abdu’l-Baha: Should a criminal be punished, or forgiven and his crime overlooked?

His Answer:

There are two sorts of retributory punishments. One is vengeance, the other, chastisement. Man has not the right to take vengeance, but the community has the right to punish the criminal; and this punishment is intended to warn and to prevent so that no other person will dare to commit a like crime. This punishment is for the protection of man’s rights, but it is not vengeance; vengeance appeases the anger of the heart by opposing one evil to another. This is not allowable, for man has not the right to take vengeance. But if criminals were entirely forgiven, the order of the world would be upset. So punishment is one of the essential necessities for the safety of communities, but he who is oppressed by a transgressor has not the right to take vengeance. On the contrary, he should forgive and pardon, for this is worthy of the world of man. (Abdu’l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, p. 268)

We can provide penalties, imprisonment, beating, expulsion and banishment:

The other kind of torment is gross — such as penalties, imprisonment, beating, expulsion and banishment. (Abdu’l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, p. 265)

But penal institutions, houses of detention and places of torture only increase depravity and the desired aim can’t be achieved:

Observe how many penal institutions, houses of detention and places of torture are made ready to receive the sons of men, the purpose being to prevent them, by punitive measures, from committing terrible crimes — whereas this very torment and punishment only increaseth depravity, and by such means the desired aim cannot be properly achieved. (‘Abdu’l-Bahá, The Compilation of Compilations vol. I, p. 262)

Justice and Punishment​

 

[Trailblazer]

All things in the universe are manifesttion of the undefined, even a grain of sand. And that too equally, none is greater or lesser than the other. You seem to know each and everything about your God or perhaps Bahaullah did. You are saying something beyond what Bahaullah said.

Yes, all things are manifestations of the divine.

“Whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth is a direct evidence of the revelation within it of the attributes and names of God, inasmuch as within every atom are enshrined the signs that bear eloquent testimony to the revelation of that Most Great Light. Methinks, but for the potency of that revelation, no being could ever exist.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 177​

No, I do not know everything about God and it is questionable whether Baha’u’llah knew everything. We cannot know what Baha’u’llah knew because He did not reveal everything to us. Of what He did know, He only revealed what we were able to understand and what we were ready to hear. I do not say anything about God beyond what Baha’u’llah revealed, because there would be no way for me to know anything about God unless it had been revealed.

There is a contradiction and obfuscation in your second paragraph. You say that there is no evidence. Then you go on to say that you believe Bahaullah on basis of 'evidence and faith'. What evidence are you talking about? It is just your faith, however misplaced it may be.

I did not say there is no evidence. I said “there is no proof that any Manifestation of God received a revelation from God, there is only evidence that indicates that. Baha'is take it on evidence and faith that Baha'u'llah was who He claimed to be.”

Baha’u’llah explained what the evidence is and how we are supposed to establish the truth of His claim. First, we examine His own Self (His character); then we examine His Revelation (everything that surrounds His Mission on earth); and then we look at His words (His Writings).

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106​

If we had no free-will, we would not engaged in evil deeds. Free- will created all the problem. There is no 'you' and no ascending anywhere after death, it is only going down. Of course, Hindus and some other groups do go up in smoke, some from the monotheistic religions too who choose to go that way.

If we had no free will, we would not be engaged in anything, be it good or evil. You cannot blame free will for the choices people make.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's not God's fault for making his "Messengers" utterly unconvincing for the vast majority of humanity? How could this not be God's fault?

Why would it be God’s fault?

If God had wanted to be convincing, He would have used a different method. Thus we can logically conclude that God did not want to be convincing. God wanted humans to convince themselves, by doing their homework. Some people will be convinced of the truth of the Messenger, others won’t. It has always been that way in the beginning and for a long time after a “new” Messenger appears. Only a numbered few recognize Him.

Matthew 7:13-14 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.”

The religion at the narrow gate is the religion God wants us to find and follow, and it is the gate that leads to eternal life. But it is not that easy for most people to find this gate because most people are steeped in religious tradition or attached to what they already believe. If they do not have a religion, most people are suspicious of the new religion and the new Messenger. If they are atheists they do not like the idea of Messengers of God or they think they are all phonies.

It is difficult to get through the narrow gate because one has to be willing to give up all their preconceived ideas, have an open mind, and think for themselves. Most people do not normally embark upon such a journey. They go through the wide gate, the easy one to get through – their own religious tradition or their own preconceived ideas about God or no god. They follow the broad road that is easiest for them to travel.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yeah, who else can we blame?
BTW, it is not God who sends Messengers. Bahaullah says they were sent by him.
What a glob of ego! There are many jewels in what Bahaullah says.

No, Baha’u’llah did not say that He sent Messengers. He said that God sent Messengers.He (God) hath ordained that in every age and dispensation a pure and stainless Soul (Messenger) be made manifest in the kingdoms of earth and heaven.

“And since there can be no tie of direct intercourse to bind the one true God with His creation, and no resemblance whatever can exist between the transient and the Eternal, the contingent and the Absolute, He hath ordained that in every age and dispensation a pure and stainless Soul be made manifest in the kingdoms of earth and heaven. Unto this subtle, this mysterious and ethereal Being He hath assigned a twofold nature; the physical, pertaining to the world of matter, and the spiritual, which is born of the substance of God Himself. He hath, moreover, conferred upon Him a double station. The first station, which is related to His innermost reality, representeth Him as One Whose voice is the voice of God Himself.....The second station is the human station, exemplified by the following verses: “I am but a man like you.” ” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 66-67