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

[KWED]

Over 10,000 witnesses to the Martyrdom of the Bab, one of the greatest miracles ever seen, was performed in public.

What was "miraculous" about his execution?

 

[KWED]

When one has a full cup, another can not offer anything else.

Of course it can. It offers more that one already has. Obviously one is going to drink that first cup, so more cups are clearly desirable. and effective.
You really should try and think beyond these meaningless platitudes.

 

[KWED]

Baha'u'llah took miracles off the table for the following reason:

Bahá’u’lláh forbade His followers to attribute miracles to Him because this would have amounted to the degradation of His exalted station. Nevertheless, there are many accounts left to posterity by His disciples, describing the circumstances in which He either healed incurables or raised the dead.

Famous Miracles in the Baha’i Faith

Do you assume that all reports of miracles are true?

 

[KWED]

If a miracle was necessary to believe that He was a Messenger of God, that would be degrading, because we should be able to recognize a Messenger without a miracle. I think that is the reason.

But he offered to perform a miracle to the Muhhahs as a means of showing he was a messenger of god.

The Messengers of God have always appeared among men destitute of all earthly dominion. They appeared just like an ordinary man. If a Messenger manifested all that is latent within Him and were He to shine in all His glory, nobody would be found to question His power or repudiate His truth. That defeats God’s Purpose, which is to test humans, not to make it easy to recognize the Messengers.

So god's purpose is not to get people to believe in him, but to get them to reject him.
Yeah, that makes sense.

 

[KWED]

Again one needs to read the personal accounts of those that met Baha'u'llah.

Each one of them will have a story to tell and there was on a lot of those occasions many people at those meetings.

Sorry Baha'u'llah, peace be with you.

Regards Tony

Do you assume that all the stories of people who have met religious leaders are true?

 

[KWED]

An amazing part of the Baha'i Revelation was the 2 years Baha'u'llah spent in Seclusion in the mountains of Kurdistan.

One needs to read the stories of people that met him when he lived as and was seen as a dervish. None knew he was a Manifestation from God.

There is an amazing story of the response Baha'u'llah gave to a request for him to write a poem in the style of a well know poet. A feat no one else had ever achieved.

Regards Tony

Post a link and I will read it, and let you know if I find it miraculous or incredible.

 

[KWED]

My guess is, that it proves for all time that no miracle will be accepted by the later generations as proof of a Messanger.

The greatest miracle is indeed the greatest proof, that is the Quran.

How many will now see that as a miracle? A Baha'i embraces that miracle.

Regards Tony

What is "miraculous" about the Quran?

 

[samtonga43]

It is not necessarily true that caring for a family and serving on the UHJ 'would not' create a conflict. It might create a conflict or it might not.. If you do not know what the duties of service on the UHJ are, you cannot know if it would create a conflict or not. This is called logical reasoning.

Logical reasoning leads to the understanding that women can perform exactly the same duties of service as men. Heavy weight-lifting is not one of the duties, is it?

You really need to bone up on the logical fallacies. I did not create a straw man because I did not misrepresent your argument because it was easier to defeat than your real argument..

Of course you created a straw man. Here's why. I did not say that my job is the SAME as the job of being on the UHJ. You misrepresented my argument, and not for the first time. I believe that if you think more carefully you will not succumb to these fallacies.

What is an example of fallacy fallacy?

Your logical fallacy is the fallacy fallacy
It is entirely possible to make a claim that is false yet argue with logical coherency for that claim, just as it is possible to make a claim that is true and justify it with various fallacies and poor arguments. Example: Recognizing that Amanda had committed a fallacy in arguing that we should eat healthy food because a nutritionist said it was popular, Alyse said we should therefore eat bacon double cheeseburgers every day.

What you committed in the post I responded to was the red herring fallacy.
I said that duties are duties, a job is a job and all jobs are different....
This has nothing to do with me living in the past. You bringing that up is the red herring fallacy because me living in the past (even if that was the case) is unrelated to what we were discussing. It is a red herring because it misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue..

No red herring there; it is not unrelated to living in the past.

Do you see how this works? When I accuse you of committing a fallacy I explain how you committed it.

And, as I have shown, your ‘explanation’ often highlights your misunderstanding.

I don't just throw out names of fallacies like you do. If you think I am wrong and you did not commit the fallacy you can explain why I am wrong, like I do when you accuse me of committing fallacies I did not commit..

I have found that you don’t seem to understand when I try to explain where you are going wrong. Since you have this obsession with logical fallacies, It is better to let you work out your errors for yourself, because you tie yourself in knots when you attempt to explain why my (and certain others') assessment of your cognitive ability with respect to logic is wrong.

Apparently you cannot defend yourself, so you throw out another fallacy in order to further confuse the issue and that is called deflection.

If it confuses the issue for you, maybe you should sort it out by yourself?

If you don't want to get called out on misapplying the fallacies I suggest that you either stop accusing me is committing fallacies or learn the fallacies.

You are ‘calling me out’ because you assume that I am misapplying the fallacies.
This is the fallacy of Unwarranted Assumption.


To be continued....

 

[Trailblazer]

Since you have this obsession with logical fallacies

A clear cut case of psychological projection.
The reason it is projection is because you are the one who keeps calling out fallacies you 'believe' I commit.
The evidence that you are doing this is plastered all over this forum, no need for me to present it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Where did the scripture come from, if not from someone with existing belief is what the scripture is saying?

The scripture came from the Messengers of God, either directly or indirectly.
The Messengers did not have a belief, they received A revelation from God.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, obviously. However - if someone makes an extraordinary claim (like magic happening), and then refuse to back up that claim, people will rightly suspect that thy have nothing to back it up, rather than they have supporting evidence but want to keep it secret.

That's true, but I have never refused to back up my claims with evidence, always stating that there is no' proof' that will be universally accepted, and we can only prove the truth of the claim to ourselves.

 

[Trailblazer]

So what is good or bad simply "is". It is not god deciding. Therefore god is subject to an external concept that he must adhere to ie. "good and bad".
(I predict that will also be "not what you meant". )

God does not have to decide, as if He was thinking it over ... God just knows.
God is not subject to any external concepts since God is not subject to anything external to Him.
God does not have to adhere to anything except what He chooses to adhere to.

No. I am talking about him as if he is as described in scripture.

You make a good point. Scripture tends to anthropomorphize God.

So god does not feel "love" or "mercy" or "anger", etc.

God has feelings, but they are not the same as human feelings. We cannot understand how God experiences or expresses feelings since we cannot understand God's intrinsic nature.

"While the Baháʼí writings teach of a personal god who is a being with a personality (including the capacity to reason and to feel love), they clearly state that this does not imply a human or physical form.[2] Shoghi Effendi writes:

What is meant by personal God is a God Who is conscious of His creation, Who has a Mind, a Will, a Purpose, and not, as many scientists and materialists believe, an unconscious and determined force operating in the universe. Such conception of the Divine Being, as the Supreme and ever present Reality in the world, is not anthropomorphic, for it transcends all human limitations and forms, and does by no means attempt to define the essence of Divinity which is obviously beyond any human comprehension. To say that God is a personal Reality does not mean that He has a physical form, or does in any way resemble a human being. To entertain such belief would be sheer blasphemy.[15][16] "

God in the Baháʼí Faith

So good and bad is something that exists independently of god. God is merely passing on that information to us. So morality is not from god, it just exists without him as a brute fact.

God knows what is good or bad because God is all-knowing and all-wise.
What is moral 'according to God' is revealed by God through the Messengers.
But good and bad exists in humans as a brute fact, independently of God.

 

[Trailblazer]

A very small and new one, with relatively few followers, who blindly parrot the meaningless platitudes of their charismatic leader. Sounds a lot like a cult to me.

Only in your personal opinion. We all have personal opinions.

But presumably you support it.

I do not support it, I accept it.

Interesting. So anything you quote from Bahaullah could be completely wrong?

I did not say that... The mis-translation of one word does not imply that.
Sure, there could be other mistranslations of words, but the overall message is what is important, not the details.

Wait! So now you are saying that he did exclude women?
Wish you'd make your mind up Dave.

The wisdom of the exclusion of women to date.
Abdu'l-Baha was referring to what was in place at the time of writing but that does not mean it will be in place forever.

Ok. So you admit that Baha'u'llah did indeed exclude women, but you think it might not have been permanent.
So Bahaullah did prescribe sexist discrimination. The idea that he might reverse that decision doesn't make it not sexist discrimination. Also, as he is dead, surely you have to wait for the next messenger to reverse god's instruction?

No, not that at all... Read that again.

and since it is known that the meaning of the Tablet was that women should be excluded only temporarily from the Chicago House, the assumption that women will be permanently excluded from the current Universal House of Justice may be a faulty one. A temporary exclusion may be intended.

The point is that Baha'u'llah never intended to exclude women from the UHJ permanently.

You hope. Also, you are assuming that it will resolve itself in the favour of gender equality. What if the next messenger is even more sexist that Bahaullah?

Baha'u'llah was not sexist, quite the contrary. Many of His most eloquent prayers refer to handmaidens and I keep wondering why He left the guys out.

Hold on. Are you saying that committees of Bahai's can decide that Bahaullah was wrong if they disagree with what he said? Seems to make a mockery of the whole "perfect messenger of god" schtick.

No, the quote does not say that. Read it again, in context:

since it is known that the meaning of the Tablet was that women should be excluded only temporarily from the Chicago House, the assumption that women will be permanently excluded from the current Universal House of Justice may be a faulty one. A temporary exclusion may be intended.

The elements of dialogue, struggle, persistence and anguish which are so evident in the history of the gradual participation of women on local Baha'i administrative bodies will, no doubt, all attend the working out of that answer in the future. These elements are all present today.

A temporary exclusion may be intended. working out of that answer in the future implies that we will gradually come to better understand what Baha'u'llah's intentions were with regard to women on the UHJ and put them in place.

Bahai's cannot decide that Baha'u'llah was wrong if they disagree with what He said. They can only strive to understand what He meant by what He said.

Did you even read that?
1. Nowhere does it provide a reason for excluding women.
2. It states that the exclusion in "neither amenable to change nor subject to speculation about some possible future condition", which contradicts that it is not permanent and will change in the future.

Articles say different things....This is only one article with one perspective. Other articles give possible reasons.
The UHJ says "the exclusion is "neither amenable to change nor subject to speculation about some possible future condition", which contradicts that it is not permanent and will change in the future" because we are not supposed to speculate.
But I can speculate if I want to.

This is getting ridiculous. Both you and @TransmutingSoul condemned that website as false and fraudulent.
Now you are citing it as a reference.
You have truly jumped the shark!

As I said, "bear in mind it is not an official Baha'i website and these is misinformation on other parts of the website. However, I think what it says about women on the UHJ is correct."

Just because some information on the website is incorrect that does not mean that all of the information on the website is incorrect. To think that way is black and white thinking and it is a fallacy.

You said that revelations about Bahaiism's sexism, homophobia and barbaric punishments was good publicity and you welcomed it.

No, I did not say that.
I said "disinformation about the Baha'i Faith gives the Baha'is an opportunity to present correct information, which provides free advertising."

The ones on here seem to.

How would you know if they care?

Excluding women from top positions because they are women = Sexist discrimination
Calling homosexuality "Immoral" and "a shameful sexual aberration" = Homophobia
Burning people to death = Barbaric punishment.

Those aren't my opinions. Those are simple facts based on accepted meanings and definitions.

Accepted by whom? A morally corrupt society?

Aside from that, you are misrepresenting the Baha'i position.
There is no sexism and there is no homophobia and there is no burning people 'to death.'
We already covered this so no need for a recap.

Whataboutery - the last resort of a failed argument.

A good attempt at avoidance.
A failed argument only in your opinion.

 

[Trailblazer]

But you are assuming, without any evidence, that there is a reason, and it is a good one.

You are responding to a post I wrote on Monday. Time marches on and as a result of some research I think I now know what the reason was.

Before that discovery, I believed (not assumed) that there was a reason because Abdu'l-Baha said that the reason would be revealed in the future.

 

[Trailblazer]

You are misunderstanding the hasty generalisation. That would be if we said that because Bahaullah was a sexist homophobe, therefore all Bahai's are sexist homophobes. That is not the accusation. It is simply that the system (the rules laid down by god through Bahaullah) are sexist and homophobic.

There is more than one way the fallacy can be applied. It is a hasty generalization because you have made hasty conclusions without considering all of the variables.

Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence—essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables.

Faulty generalization - Wikipedia

That the rules laid down by God through Baha'u'llah are sexist and homophobic is only your personal opinion, it is not a fact. That is what completely eludes you.

 

[Trailblazer]

What about the miracle of people changing their mind and realising that it is all just a load of superstitious nonsense?

That is not a miracle. It is just a person who lost faith. It happens.

 

[Trailblazer]

What was "miraculous" about his execution?

“It would indeed be no exaggeration to say that nowhere in the whole compass of the world’s religious literature, except in the Gospels, do we find any record relating to the death of any of the religion-founders of the past comparable to the martyrdom suffered by the Prophet of Shíráz. So strange, so inexplicable a phenomenon, attested by eye-witnesses, corroborated by men of recognized standing, and acknowledged by government as well as unofficial historians among the people who had sworn undying hostility to the Bábí Faith, may be truly regarded as the most marvelous manifestation of the unique potentialities with which a Dispensation promised by all the Dispensations of the past had been endowed. The passion of Jesus Christ, and indeed His whole public ministry, alone offer a parallel to the Mission and death of the Báb, a parallel which no student of comparative religion can fail to perceive or ignore. In the youthfulness and meekness of the Inaugurator of the Bábí Dispensation; in the extreme brevity and turbulence of His public ministry; in the dramatic swiftness with which that ministry moved towards its climax; in the apostolic order which He instituted, and the primacy which He conferred on one of its members; in the boldness of His challenge to the time-honored conventions, rites and laws which had been woven into the fabric of the religion He Himself had been born into; in the rôle which an officially recognized and firmly entrenched religious hierarchy played as chief instigator of the outrages which He was made to suffer; in the indignities heaped upon Him; in the suddenness of His arrest; in the interrogation to which He was subjected; in the derision poured, and the scourging inflicted, upon Him; in the public affront He sustained; and, finally, in His ignominious suspension before the gaze of a hostile multitude—in all these we cannot fail to discern a remarkable similarity to the distinguishing features of the career of Jesus Christ.”

Cited in (God Passes By)

To Continue: The Execution of the Báb

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you assume that all reports of miracles are true?

No, but I believe that are true if they are stated in the Baha'i accounts.
And I know that they are true when they were witnessed by thousands of onlookers.

 

[Trailblazer]

But he offered to perform a miracle to the Muhhahs as a means of showing he was a messenger of god.

That was a special case and the miracle was offered for a particular purpose.
So god's purpose is not to get people to believe in him, but to get them to reject him.

Yeah, that makes sense.

I did not say that.
It is God's purpose to make it difficult to recognize a Messenger, but that does not mean it is impossible.

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.

 

[CG Didymus]

My personally view is that Baha'u'llah is one of the prophets who have lived yes. Does that make me a Baha'i? No personally i do not hold on to any religious lable anymore.

If it was just a matter of believing he was a spiritual teacher like or spiritual master where people could take what they wanted or needed and apply his teaching to their lives that would be different. But the claim is he is The Return of everybody ever promised. His message is The Message that is to fulfill everything. So, he is much more than a prophet, he is The Prophet. And if that is true, then the whole world should turn to him and follow his teachings. Because part of the claim is that those teaching will heal the world, that they will bring peace and unity to the world. If that's true, it would be stupid to reject him.

Yet, some of us do. How do we evaluate his claims? For the Jews, what was supposed to happen when the Messiah come? For the Christians, what was supposed to happen when Jesus returned? And so on down the list of religions. Did this person who took the title of Baha'u'llah fulfill all those things? On one hand Baha'is say "yes" he did, then they turn around and downplay the importance of the prophecies.

But something else is important in all this, and that is what you're saying about religious "labels". Just what have people committed themselves to when they sign a card declaring their belief in Baha'u'llah? They are part of a religious community that expects them to behave certain ways and to believe certain things. But the depth of knowledge and commitment varies greatly between Baha'is. Some become "inactive". Some only attend feasts occasionally. Others get involved and serve on their LSA's. They teach the faith. Some become pioneers and go off to far off places.

Taking that label, and saying they believe Baha'u'llah is a manifestation of God, should mean a total commitment to the Cause. But because that is not what happens. Too many people just do the minimum, and some, the inactive ones, who knows? Is the Baha'i Faith even something they even think about anymore? This same thing happens in other religions where a declaration of beliefs is expected. I think it's a problem with all "organized" religions. It's too easy to get lost in the crowd and just become a nominal believer. The Baha'i Faith has that problem. And what I think might be happening is some people don't totally believe. They've signed a card that says they believe, but they don't know for sure. So definitely, people shouldn't take the label until they know for sure. But how does a person ever know for sure?

Baha'is here say they "know" for sure, but all they know for sure is that they believe it... on faith... 'Cause they can't prove or show any objective evidence. So, what do they have that any other similar religion that has a prophet making claims that he has been sent from God? Like Born-Again Christians, they've committed themselves to believing the Bible very literally. So now they have to say they believe in Creation, the Flood, Jesus walking on water and rising from the dead and ascending into the clouds. How they going to prove any of that? All they can say is, "The Bible says it and I believe it." It's nonsense to some of us to believe those things that literally and strongly, but it works. It changes their lives. They believe in a three-part God, a devil and hell, and that they inherited sin because of Adam. Crazy stuff to some of us. But they feel it, believe it, and live it.

And how different is their beliefs to the claims and beliefs of the Baha'is? I'm sure when they apply the teachings of Baha'u'llah that their lives change. They can feel it, and they become more spiritual. But it completely contradicts what those Born-Again Christians believe. That's why I don't necessarily believe any of these beliefs are true, but because they are believed to be true, they become true to the Baha'i or to the Christian, and it changes their lives. They both work, but they both might not be true. And, definitely, each believes the other is false. So yeah, I don't what to take that kind of label for myself. But I still think that if Baha'u'llah is who he claims to be, everyone should follow him. But is he?