Atheism and greed are other mindsets which lead us astray.
Really? Is this another of your faith-based beliefs, or do you have some evidence for this this time? I'm referring to the atheism part, not the greed part. Because I see the transformation from a largely theistic population to a reason-based one as perhaps the most important change any community can make. Where we see theistic societies, we see ugliness. We see inquisitions, holy wars, and crusades. We see witches executed, homosexuals pushed off of towers, and people burned in cages alive for impiety. We see mass suicides in societies like Jonestown, Heaven's Gate, and the Branch Davidian complex. Humanists don't do those kinds of things. Where humanist values dominate, all of that is forbidden. Is that what you meant by atheists leading man astray? I think you have that backwards.
Human reasoning is flawed you admit. That’s what I have been trying to get across all along, that the idea that there is no God is flawed reasoning.
Agnostic atheists, who comprise the majority of atheists, do not make that claim. Why do so many theists fixate on this? Have you not read repeatedly that that is a minority position in atheism? Can you speak to the majority - agnostic atheists - who do not say that? Yes, the gnostic (strong) atheist is making a claim of knowledge that it is understood that he cannot possess. YOUR reasoning is flawed in exactly the same way. The idea that a god exists is a flawed idea, an idea that can only be held by faith, the same faith you bemoan when it's faith that there are no gods, but praise as virtue when the faith-based choice is the opposite - a god exists.
Baha’u’llah made the laws and I trust in His wisdom. Accepting Baha’u’llah and His laws is fundamental to Baha’i belief. One cannot be a Baha’i and at the same time be against Baha’u’llah.
Here's a strong argument against belief by faith. You have committed yourself to an ism right or wrong, although you do not see it that way. To you, it is right because - well, just because. Because you liked how it sounded - isn't that what it means to say the messenger's message is evidence that he channeled a deity, that it sounded like it might be from God? - and it made you feel like part of a peaceful community, so it's now the truth to you.
I have all the objective evidence for myself that proves to me that God sent Baha’u’llah. It is for each to investigate the matter for himself and go with that.
Thanks. I have. But I used different standards for belief than you did. I have found no evidence that this isn't just another manmade religion. The critical thinker doesn't consider anything evidence for a god that doesn't make the existence of that god more likely than its nonexistence and a godless universe. None of the words of Baha'u'llah couldn't have been written by millions of human beings. None of the ideas of Baha'u'llah aren't common in human societies.
I see It needs us to embrace dialogues about hygiene, cleanliness and purity.
Why do we need Baha'u'llah's advice on hygiene or cleanliness? Or his ideas of what constitutes purity?
The only way we can address these topics is education and the best education is the examples we set for our children. That comment will also open a can of worms!
I agree that morals are taught by example or words reinforced by example. When the example contradicts the verbal lesson (hypocrisy), the example IS the lesson, not the words.
This is my objection to Christianity calling itself a religion of love because it has a scripture that says love another, yet doesn't do that itself by humanist standards of love, which wouldn't include blood sacrifice, crucifixion, damnation, or hell. There'd be no apple dangling before children to see if they can resist (Spoiler: they can't) then punishing them for being human. There also would be no global flood, a gratuitously cruel attack on all terrestrial life plant or animal.
Apart from the homophobic doctrine, I don't know enough about what the Baha'i believe to critique it analogously. Do they accept original sin, damnation, and hell theology? Do they even believe in an afterlife? A paradise? If so, who goes where and according to what rules? The Christian versions of justice (eternal hell for not believing an unevidenced claim?) and mercy (there are no appeals for the damned) are just as deformed as the example given of love.
The issue we have, is a lot of people have been born this side of the sexual revolution, which was a liberty carried way to far, another can of worms.
Here's where I disagree with you. Theists are willing to make such statements on faith, but the critically thinking empiricist is evidence-based in his beliefs. The evidence suggests the opposite to me, and much of that was observed first-hand. I was a teenager in California in the late sixties and early seventies. Oral contraceptives were relatively new in the world. Women were burning their bras. I was at university and in the Army in those years, and saw an incredible amount of free love with no significant consequences in anybody I knew or heard about until AIDS came along a decade later. I have a half dozen friends still from high school, all of whom emerged unscathed from those years as well. So, it's not surprising that somebody who has seen it first-hand might reject the unevidenced claims of those presenting their received morals from their religions.
Isn't that your job to be an emissary and spokesperson for what you believe to be a God-given message? The humanists don't hesitate to say anything that they feel strongly about.