Baha'i faith is not blind faith.

[firedragon]

It is more than a verse, it is written into the Covenant.

So your "written into the covenant" supersedes Bahailah's own writing?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Logically it doesn't atone for the sin, because burning somebody doesn't bring the damaged property back. You are practically trying to assert that two wrongs make a right.

In my opinion.

It is not me that has offered this,

#152
"As to the question regarding the soul of a murderer, and what his punishment would be. The answer given was that the murderer must expiate his crime: that is, if they put the murderer to death, his death is his atonement for his crime; and following the death, God in His justice will impose no second penalty upon him, for divine justice would not allow this."

Selections from the Writings of `Abdu'l-Bahá, page 179

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

So your "written into the covenant" supersedes Bahailah's own writing?

No, as under the Covenant they are supplementary to Baha’u’llah's writings, they are all under the Written Authority of Baha’u’llah. That is why both Abdul'baha and Shoghi Effendi's writings are scripture.

No one knew the Message better than Abdul'baha, Baha’u’llah used to get Abdul'baha to reply to many requests. Abdul'baha was the first to embrace Baha’u’llah as a Messenger, he knew from a very young age who His father was.

Regards Tony

 

[danieldemol]

You are right. The sentence only says burning a house. But you have to do understand what he means. Because it is one sentence that says "anyone who intentionally murders someone should be killed". You see I don't know which translation you have read, but in the original text there are no comma's. I truly respect you reading the book. I am only pointing out to you that you were deceived by a comma. I guess that's an honest matter. Also, the arabic word "wa" does not necessarily mean also, so maybe in your translation also should not mean also. It is one sentence. You have misunderstood it.

You are not an authority in the Baha'i Faith, but Shoghi Effendi etc are, so it is their translations english speaking people should be seeking to understand, not yours.

Here is the passage as translated by those considered authoritative in the Baha'i Faith;
'Should anyone intentionally destroy a house by fire, him also shall ye burn; should anyone deliberately take another’s life, him also shall ye put to death. Take ye hold of the precepts of God with all your strength and power, and abandon the ways of the ignorant. Should ye condemn the arsonist and the murderer to life imprisonment, it would be permissible according to the provisions of the Book.' Source: Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, Pages 34-49

I'm not good at semi-colons, (in the english translation it appears to be a semi-colon not a comma) so you may have a point about me being mislead about the degree of seperateness of the two items. But Baha'u'llah's saying, "Should ye condemn the arsonist and the murderer" seems to me to indicate that He sees them as equivalent crimes. Perhaps also the explanatory notes are unhelpful in this regard because it says, "The law of Bahá’u’lláh prescribes the death penalty for murder and arson, with the alternative of life imprisonment" Source: Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, Pages 203-204 If I was trying to say what you are saying it says I would have said, "The law of Baha'u'llah prescribes the death penalty for combined murder and arson" or, "The law of Baha'u'llah prescribes the death penalty for murder by arson". It is funny that I can think of less ambiguous ways of saying that than one supposedly guided by an All-Knowing God.

Also note that in the same verse it says that if you deem prison is good punishment for them it is fine.

This doesn't entirely solve the problem, because if a choice is given to society then a more primitive vengeance based society could choose to burn the arsonist thereby infringing on the arsonist's human rights as it would not be permissable to forbid that which God has allegedly permitted.

I think that's unfair. Death sentence is not always a vengeance based punishment.

I think the whole concept of punishment is vengeance based. If you are not interested in vengeance then you rehabilitate where possible and only kill using the most humane means at your disposal if it is impossible to rehabilitate and unsafe for society to isolate the individual concerned.

And this kind of statement should be made through a lot of research on prison systems and what works as rehabilitation, and if death sentence is bad or good for the world, long term, short term impact on society, peace and harmony etc etc etc.

If you have done that kind of research please do share. Not some opinion piece but analysis of data in retrospect.

Thanks.

Agreed, it should only be done on the basis of retrospective research, and not on the basis of assertions by somone with delusions of grandeur claiming to be the mouthpiece of God.

"It is not enough to compare jurisdictions with the death penalty to those without unless the study controls for the many other variables that could affect the murder rate. For example, lower unemployment rates correlate with lower crime rates. More police involvement in the local community seems to reduce crime. The death penalty affects only a tiny percentage of even those who commit murder. Its effect is very difficult to pinpoint, and the National Academy of Sciences has concluded that past studies have neither proven nor disproven a deterrent effect."
Deterrence | Death Penalty Information Center.

So since we should not be subjecting people to cruel or unusual punishments without proof that it is beneficial, and since no research has been provided which determines it to be beneficial we should *not* burn either arsonists or murderers as it is not a compassionate thing to do.

In my opinion

 

[danieldemol]

It is not me that has offered this,

#152
"As to the question regarding the soul of a murderer, and what his punishment would be. The answer given was that the murderer must expiate his crime: that is, if they put the murderer to death, his death is his atonement for his crime; and following the death, God in His justice will impose no second penalty upon him, for divine justice would not allow this."

Selections from the Writings of `Abdu'l-Bahá, page 179

Regards Tony

Divine justice would not allow a second punishment under either circumstance as arsonists and/or murderers are a product of nature (allegedly the way they were created) and nurture (their environmental influences) and an alleged creator God would be responsible for both their creation and the environments that creator placed them in, thus if any just punishment is due it is due to the deity at fault. *Not* the creations.

In my opinion.

 

[Nimos]

Then you should go back and look at the exact quote because jumping into someone else's conversation and defending someone else without knowing what in the world was the discussion is pretty lame.



Irrelevant.



Not referring to Gehenna. It's "Ajjaahimi". So that's also irrelevant.



Quote Bahaullahs book directly and show where he gives another interpretation and then explain why he conflicts with the Bab and the Quran since this discussion is purely about the Bahai faith and what these people have said about hell right here in this thread.

Im not going to read his whole book to find you a quote, besides that im not saying you are wrong in what you say, I don't know.

I weren't even replying to that part of what you wrote, but about the part regarding blind faith.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Divine justice would not allow a second punishment under either circumstance as arsonists and/or murderers are a product of nature (allegedly the way they were created) and nurture (their environmental influences) and an alleged creator God would be responsible for both their creation and the environments that creator placed them in, thus if any just punishment is due it is due to the deity at fault. *Not* the creations.

In my opinion.

If you offer you understand justice better than what Abdul'baha has offerd, then that is your prerogative.

Regards Tony

 

[firedragon]

No, as under the Covenant they are supplementary to Baha’u’llah's writings, they are all under the Written Authority of Baha’u’llah. That is why both Abdul'baha and Shoghi Effendi's writings are scripture.

No one knew the Message better than Abdul'baha, Baha’u’llah used to get Abdul'baha to reply to many requests. Abdul'baha was the first to embrace Baha’u’llah as a Messenger, he knew from a very young age who His father was.

Regards Tony

Right. So the covenant is making their own things not uttered by Bahaullah. Serious things. Bahaullah did not leave "Baha'u'llah has left the enactment of many Laws to the Universal House of Justice." as you claimed, the UHJ assumed it. If Bahaullah left it to them, he should have directly said it. Otherwise you have assumed authority without his leave.

Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

Im not going to read his whole book to find you a quote

Then you are making things up.

 

[firedragon]

You are not an authority in the Baha'i Faith, but Shoghi Effendi etc are

That's irrelevant to the argument I made. This is a fallacy called appealing to authority.

Agreed, it should only be done on the basis of retrospective research, and not on the basis of assertions by somone with delusions of grandeur claiming to be the mouthpiece of God.

Are you referring to yourself? You made a claim with out any research. So this applies to you.

 

[firedragon]

I'm not good at semi-colons, (in the english translation it appears to be a semi-colon not a comma) so you may have a point about me being mislead about the degree of seperateness of the two items. But Baha'u'llah's saying, "Should ye condemn the arsonist and the murderer" seems to me to indicate that He sees them as equivalent crimes. Perhaps also the explanatory notes are unhelpful in this regard because it says, "The law of Bahá’u’lláh prescribes the death penalty for murder and arson, with the alternative of life imprisonment" Source: Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, Pages 203-204 If I was trying to say what you are saying it says I would have said, "The law of Baha'u'llah prescribes the death penalty for combined murder and arson" or, "The law of Baha'u'llah prescribes the death penalty for murder by arson". It is funny that I can think of less ambiguous ways of saying that than one supposedly guided by an All-Knowing God.

You are absolutely wrong.

Anyway, in the original script, there is no semi-colon. And what "seems to you" is just your lack of knowledge of the language and you wanting it to be your way since you have already committed yourself to your agenda right up there.

Anyway, I just was looking for your reason to your claim about death sentences. Now I know there is no real research or any proper reason and you just resorted to use words like delusional etc etc to escape that fact.

Thanks for responding.

 

[danieldemol]

That's irrelevant to the argument I made. This is a fallacy called appealing to authority.

According to my understanding if I were asserting that your interpretation is not the true interpretation due to it not being authoritative I would be committing that fallacy.

But I was not doing that. I was saying we should be seeking to understand Shoghi Effendi's english translation. And the reason why is not because it is necessarily the truest, but simply because it is the most widely accepted and therefore most likely to have an impact on English speaking peoples lives in a hypothetical Baha'i world.

Are you referring to yourself? You made a claim with out any research. So this applies to you.

No it doesn't because I never claimed to be the mouthpiece of God, but Baha'u'llah did.

In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

According to my understanding if I were asserting that your interpretation is not the true interpretation due to it not being authoritative I would be committing that fallacy.

All you did was appeal to authority. It's blind faith. "He said so" thus "I believe what he says" is blind faith. Appropriate to a thread on blind faith.

No it doesn't because I never claimed to be the mouthpiece of God, but Baha'u'llah did.

That's irrelevant to the verse you quoted and/or my response.

 

[danieldemol]

All you did was appeal to authority. It's blind faith. "He said so" thus "I believe what he says" is blind faith. Appropriate to a thread on blind faith.

I never said I believed him, so strawman.

That's irrelevant to the verse you quoted and/or my response.

Perhaps you have forgotten what you responded to?
I said it should be left to retrospective research to decide the punishment *not* the deluded claims of one claiming to be the mouthpiece of God.
You said this applies to me.
I replied it doesn't because I'm not claiming to be the mouthpiece of God.

If you can provide *retrospective* studies proving that burning arsonist murderers is beneficial to society over other means im all ears. But ill certainly stand in the way of you committing such atrocities until you can prove its beneficial through retrospective research.

In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

I never said I believed him, so strawman.

Then engage with the argument and not just say "he said so". Appeal to authority. That's exactly what you did. And if you don't believe him, why are you quoting him as "Authority" while saying I am not authority?

Perhaps you have forgotten what you responded to?
I said it should be left to retrospective research to decide the punishment *not* the deluded claims of one claiming to be the mouthpiece of God.
You said this applies to me.

It does. Because you don't have any research. blaming someone else, calling them delusional etc etc because "he also should have research" applies to you as well. Otherwise that's the definition of hypocrisy.

 

[danieldemol]

Then engage with the argument and not just say "he said so". Appeal to authority. That's exactly what you did. And if you don't believe him, why are you quoting him as "Authority" while saying I am not authority?

Because an audience of one is unlikely to have an effect on my life. I am more concerned about what would have an effect on my society in a hypthetical Baha'i world than I am by one person's opinion.

It does. Because you don't have any research. blaming someone else, calling them delusional etc etc because "he also should have research" applies to you as well. Otherwise that's the definition of hypocrisy.

It is clearly not hypocrisy. If we get to make up cruel and unusual punishments for people without evidence of benefit to society and those who stand in our way are hypocrites then I hererby sentence you to being burnt to death for creating strawmen without evidence of benefit to society and if you dare to stand in my way I charge you with hypocrisy (that is the essence of your argument ROFL!)

 

[Nimos]

Then you are making things up.

What am I making up, I think you lost me?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Right. So the covenant is making their own things not uttered by Bahaullah. Serious things. Bahaullah did not leave "Baha'u'llah has left the enactment of many Laws to the Universal House of Justice." as you claimed, the UHJ assumed it. If Bahaullah left it to them, he should have directly said it. Otherwise you have assumed authority without his leave.

Cheers.

It would require a person to read and consider the entire Kitáb-i-Aqdas. This is very clear.

It is like a power station and the lines to the source. The power (authority) is from the source and flows through the lines.

Regards Tony

 

[firedragon]

Because an audience of one is unlikely to have an effect on my life. I am more concerned about what would have an effect on my society in a hypthetical Baha'i world than I am by one person's opinion.



It is clearly not hypocrisy. If we get to make up cruel and unusual punishments for people without evidence of benefit to society and those who stand in our way are hypocrites then I hererby sentence you to being burnt to death for creating strawmen without evidence of benefit to society and if you dare to stand in my way I charge you with hypocrisy (that is the essence of your argument ROFL!)

).

 

[firedragon]

What am I making up, I think you lost me?

Yes. You said that Bahaullah came and gave another interpretation. The topic was that no one goes to hell according to Bahaullah. So if you claim bahaullah gave another interpretation, which verse is it? Since you said "you don't know a verse", you just made up that "Bahaullah gave a new interpretation".

Cheers.