Baha'i faith is not blind faith.

[Aupmanyav]

The ruling party seems to be hostile that way towards Muslims, which is not good.
That is it's strength. In there past, the Hindu leaders drove out Buddhists from India.

That is a falsehood. That does not explain why BJP won the two Muslim dominated parliament seat very recently - Azamgarh and Rampur.
Muslims in India are divided into two groups. The 'haves' (Ashraf) and the 'have-nots' (Pasmanda). BJP has support among the Pasmanda Muslims.
UP bypolls: BJP wins both Rampur, Azamgarh Lok Sabha seats in big setback to Samajwadi Party

Buddhism fizzled out in India because buddhist monks and scholars made it too difficult for laymen to understand, and their insistence on monkhood. Moreover, Hindus accepted Buddha as the ninth avatara of Lord Vishnu. Buddha was never disrespected in Hinduism. All through the history, they had support of Hindu Kings. Emperor Harsha is an example. He was a Shiva worshiper.

Muslims term for idols 'but' is derived from 'Buddha'. Buddhism was the first religion they encountered in India which had idols. The Muslims were very severe on Buddhism in North-West India. The destruction of Buddhist centers in Peshawar and Taxila are proof of that. Nalanda, the Buddhist university survived till 1,300 CE with support of Hindu kings before it was destroyed completely and the monks put to death. India cannot be made responsible for what Buddhists have done in Myanmar and Sri Lanka. However, let me state that Muslims of Myanmar wanted an independent 'Arakan' Muslim state and were involved in massacres of Buddhists.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. all for the sake of the peace and uniting that would come by all of us believing the same thing.

.. under the Banner of Bahaiism. If Banners are so important for them, they are important for others as well.

 

[Truthseeker]

Buddhism fizzled out in India because buddhist monks and scholars made it too difficult for laymen to understand, and their insistence on monkhood.

I have read some history. There were Hindu favoring rulers that persecuted Buddhists

That is a falsehood. That does not explain why BJP won the two Muslim dominated parliament seat very recently - Azamgarh and Rampur.
Muslims in India are divided into two groups. The 'haves' (Ashraf) and the 'have-nots' (Pasmanda). BJP has support among the Pasmanda Muslims.
UP bypolls: BJP wins both Rampur, Azamgarh Lok Sabha seats in big setback to Samajwadi Party

Interesting, what about what they did to Kashmir? Why are they disenfranchizing Muslims selectively?

Assam is Modi’s grand laboratory, where he is putting Muslims to the litmus test of a citizen verification drive—separating the trueborn from the chaff—before taking it national. The BJP says it simply wants India to be rid of “Bangladeshi migrants”, but it uses it as a code for Indian Muslims. Nearly two million people have been disenfranchised in the state, with no clarity as to what is to happen to them. The closest regional parallel to such large-scale, government-dictated statelessness in recent times was the 1982 mass disenfranchisement of the Rohingya in Myanmar, before the massacres and exodus years later.
Column: Is India Headed for an Anti-Muslim Genocide?

However, let me state that Muslims of Myanmar wanted an independent 'Arakan' Muslim state and were involved in massacres of Buddhists.

Oh, really? A few extremists attacked and in response all of the Rohinga were attacked. There is virulent hatred of them in Myanmar.

 

[KWED]

You only stick with whatever He says if you independently investigate it first. He is exaggerating for effect to demonstrate what true faith is, in my opinion.

But that isn't what he is saying. That is merely what you want him to have said. Not the same thing at all.
Ironically, you are disobeying his command by not accepting what he said because it doesn't make sense to you!

He is quite clear that you are required to accept whatever he says as fact, without questioning, even if it is nonsensical.
The example he gives (that north is now south) is specifically intense to show that you shouldn't investigate, belie if you did, you would find that north is still north.

"Believe what I say only after you have independently verified that I am factually correct" is the opposite of what he actually said.

 

[KWED]

Not very clear thinking on your part. Not believing in God has no bearing on being separated from God if He exists.

Separation for god is only a viable concept if you accept that
1. god exists
and
2. being separated from him is a bad thing.

Without both of those, "hell = separation" is meaningless as a form of punishment.

 

[KWED]

For curiosity's sake, why is let's say "burning an arsonist who killed via burning" is not good?

1. Bahaullah said "He who burns a building shall also be burned", not "He who kills someone..."
2. Miscarriages of justices. They happen, which is why all capital punishment is wrong by default, even if you are comfortable with the concept of killing people.

 

[KWED]

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

Back in BE149 when the Universal House of Justice released the full translation of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, the introduction introduced us to how the Laws will unfold.

An extract.

"... They constitute the kernel of a vast range of law that will arise in centuries to come. This elaboration of the law will be enacted by the Universal House of Justice under the authority conferred upon it by Bahá’u’lláh Himself. In one of His Tablets ‘Abdu’l-Bahá elucidates this principle:

Those matters of major importance which constitute the foundation of the Law of God are explicitly recorded in the Text, but subsidiary laws are left to the House of Justice. The wisdom of this is that the times never remain the same, for change is a necessary quality and an essential attribute of this world, and of time and place. Therefore the House of Justice will take action accordingly…

Introduction to Kitáb-i-Aqdas

Elsewhere it is written about the details and penalties for stated laws will be decided and enacted as needed.

Regards Tony

So when it comes to capital punishment, for example, the UHJ could rule that it is no longer an option, thus negating Bahaullah's infallibility.

 

[Sheldon]

Hell is farness from God. It is not a punishment, but something you inflict on yourself, in my opinion. It is when you deprive yourself of the rewards of heaven, which is nearness to God.

I don't find this notion very compelling, even if anyone could demonstrate a shred of objective evidence for a deity, which they have not, the culpability for this awful plan going awry in any way, would logically rest with the omniscient deity, an not with one species of evolved primates.

It always strikes me as odd, that people who would view torturing another human being with repugnance in any circumstances, would try to defend the vile notion that it's ever just to torture them when they die, forever.

 

[Sheldon]

Christ had a revelation. He catered His Message according the culture around Him. I don't dispute, for instance that Christ wrote down the Gospels. The same with Moses. Ordinary men who may or may not have had inspiration wrote much of the rest.

The gospel were written anonymously, the names Mathew Mark Luke and John, are fictional, and were added centuries later. There is no objective or independent evidence to verify that Jesus said or did anything. There is no historical figure of Moses, and no reason from archaeology or history to suppose any of the exodus story is true.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

So when it comes to capital punishment, for example, the UHJ could rule that it is no longer an option, thus negating Bahaullah's infallibility.

It means that is can remain a maximum penalty and the lesser charges can be given, there is no conflict with what Baha'u'llah offered.

Baha'u'llah allowed for Life imprisonment over the Death Penalty.

Regards Tony

 

[KWED]

There is a lot more to consider with the law than what is stated in you reply.

There are many laws yet to be clarified by the Universal House of Justice and are meant for a future age.

Regards Tony

Bahais keep telling us that god always sends a messenger with a message appropriate for their age, which is why we can discard earlier messages.
Now you seem to be claiming that Bahaullah's message was not appropriate for his time, but for some undetermined future age - so people in a time yet to come will have to accept an easier messenger.

 

[KWED]

It means that is can remain a maximum penalty and the lesser charges can be given, there is no conflict with what Baha'u'llah offered.

Baha'u'llah allowed for Life imprisonment over the Death Penalty.

Regards Tony

Bahaullah said death or life imprisonment. So what you are saying is that the UHJ will have to stick to what Bahaullah said. They cannot change it. So death will always remain an option. It can never be abolished the way most of civilised, caring, rational society has done.

 

[KWED]

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

There is an important difference between "appeal to authority" and "defer to expertise".
After all, you would not call quoting Einstein on his theory of relativity, or the Archbishop of Canterbury on Anglican doctrine "an appeal to authority fallacy", would you?

 

[Sheldon]

There is an important difference between "appeal to authority" and "defer to expertise".
After all, you would not call quoting Einstein on his theory of relativity, or the Archbishop of Canterbury on Anglican doctrine "an appeal to authority fallacy", would you?

Though it's surprising how often people don't appear to recognise the difference. For a example claiming "scientists" have evidence disproving evolution, then citing some middle school humanities teacher, and and someone with a PhD in engineering, all peddling creationism. As opposed to citing all experts in the field of species evolution accepting it is a scientific fact that all living things evolved slowly over time.

 

[KWED]

Though it's surprising how often people don't appear to recognise the difference. For a example claiming "scientists" have evidence disproving evolution, then citing some middle school humanities teacher, and and someone with a PhD in engineering, all peddling creationism. As opposed to citing all experts in the field of species evolution accepting it is a scientific fact that all living things evolved slowly over time.

Indeed, some of the most blatant cherry-picking is the blanket rejection of evidence-based, scientific consensus by religionists on the ground that "science can be wrong" or "science doesn't have all the answers", but then citing one outlier claim by someone with a science qualification in an unrelated field as "scientific proof" or "science shows us...".

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Bahais keep telling us that god always sends a messenger with a message appropriate for their age, which is why we can discard earlier messages.
Now you seem to be claiming that Bahaullah's message was not appropriate for his time, but for some undetermined future age - so people in a time yet to come will have to accept an easier messenger.

If one does not commit the crime, then one does not have to face the time.

I will not reply to any comment you may make about this, as you mock what you have no understanding of.

Regards Tony

 

[Spirit of Light]

If one does not commit the crime, then one does not have to face the time.

I will not reply to any comment you may make about this, as you mock what you have no understanding of.

Regards Tony

Justice system in Baha'i does sound right, one do not need to give the hardest punishment just because they are there

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Justice system in Baha'i does sound right, one do not need to give the hardest punishment judt because it are there

The book of Laws requires study, as there are many provisions we must be aware of.

It is a big tropic, it always produces interesting discussions when one is participant in a deepening on the contents of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas.

There are lots of notes that accompany the Kitáb-i-Aqdas.

I have read it a few times, but have we have been remote and have not been in a community to attend a deepening on it for many years.

Regards Tony

 

[Spirit of Light]

The book of Laws requires study, as there are many provisions we must be aware of.

It is a big tropic, it always produces interesting discussions when one is participant in a deepening on the contents of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas.

There are lots of notes that accompany the Kitáb-i-Aqdas.

I have read it a few times, but have we have been remote and have not been in a community to attend a deepening on it for many years.

Regards Tony

As a new baha'i i have a lot of study in front of me it's not just just like "Hey now i am a Baha'i i believe" it is hours after hours of deep study

 

[TransmutingSoul]

As a new baha'i i have a lot of study in front of me it's not just just like "Hey now i am a Baha'i i believe" it is hours after hours of deep study

Well after 40 years I have found one is always a beginner, as the study of one's Faith never ends. The challenges we face also do not end.

It's always a great journey though, the good and the bad move into the past and it is the effort towards a better future for all humanity we look and work towards.

Off to work, have a great day, regards Tony