Who was Baha'u'llah?

[InvestigateTruth]

Well you see this is one of the core problems I have with that system itself. Why do the words of these illuminated individuals need to be taken as infallible? I think this is very wrongheaded. It is also an enormous house of cards that sets up followers of that doctrine for a massive crush upon their faith in God when it turns out these "infallible" prophet's words have errors in them!

For instance, I recall some past discussions with a couple Baha'i here (who I cannot remember), how that evolution is wrong because the prophet said that humans did not evolve from earlier animal species into humans, but were human beings from the very start. Obviously, this is completely erroneous scientifically.

So then what ensues for the faithful becomes this tortured logic to try to make their faith right by making science wrong in order to preserve their beliefs in the prophet being infallible! This is as true for fundamentalist Christians as it it for those in your religion who subscribe to this doctrine of infallibility.

This is bad for faith. This is bad for reason. And when the evidence looked at becomes too overwhelming to continue to deny, they end up becoming atheists, and the like. House of cards. Find one weakness in the infallibility claim, and down comes the whole thing. It is truly building one's house upon shifting sand.

If the words of this illuminate beings is not infallible, then that means they have said a mix of falsehood and truth. That can cause confusion. Thus, how could God leave people with confusions? Unless you say, I don't believe these illuminate people were chosen by God to reveal the truth. That would be understandable. But to say, these illuminate people were chosen by God to show the way, yet, they said false things, I don't understand. You need to elaborate.

 

[Windwalker]

As I already explained, Baha'u'llah never promoted Himself, He only promoted God.
I believe that Baha'u'llah was the return of Christ and the Messenger of God for this age and obviously He had to claim that so people would know who He was claiming to be.

If he proclaimed he was the return of Christ and the Message of God for the Age, that is self-promotion. And I disagree that was necessary. Jesus never went around proclaiming he was the Messiah, did he?

He left that an open-ended question in the minds of others. "Who do men say that I am?," he asked his inner disciples. And yet they came to that conclusion he was the messiah on their own. That's how he wanted it to be done. Not through his own self-promotion, but through their own inner, subjective relalizations.

This strikes at why I find this self-declarations of being the Messenger of the Age to be at odds with the spirit of Truth itself. The lilies of the field do not promote themselves with a fanfare of blaring trumpets. They just silently speak greater glory than all the idols of our ideas of greatness. This is how I believe.

That does not prove a thing about Baha'u'llah. It is the fallacy of hasty generalization to say that just because most prophets are false that means all prophets are false.

You should avoid playing with logic fallacies. You don't apply them very well, nor are you immune to making them yourself, such as in this straw man argument fallacy against me you just made. I am not making a hasty generalization. I have a substantial amount of reasons why I distrust claims of prophethood. Nor do I make the error you suggest that since most are delusional, all are delusional. I've never suggested that there are no such things as truly illuminated souls. In fact I very much believe there are.

I just greet those who blare their own trumpets and declare themselves to the 2nd coming of the Christ, which huge, deserved skepticism. That is a healthy thing to do. But as I've said, that act itself of self-promotion, or self-declarations is to say the least suspicious. Add to this, it runs contrary to the spirit if grace and humility that is inherent in those who are truely, authentically Enlightened.

Again, it is the fallacy of hasty generalization to say that just because many men who claimed to be the return of Christ were false claimants that means that Baha'u'llah was a false claimant.

That is a hasty generalization that I am making a hasty generalization. No, that is not my only justification or rationale for my doubts about his claims. There are many more as well, and I've touched on a few of those.

But do take note here, I never said he was a "false claimant". I don't believe he was a liar. I said it is likely he was simply delusional. I'm sure he may have believed that about himself and was telling the truth as he believed it. But that doesn't mean that self-belief has truth to it.

We can only know if they are true or false by the evidence. The evidence is their character, what they accomplished on their mission and what revealed in scripture.

Not necessarily. People can read scriptures in a wide variety of ways to support whatever they really want in it. I've seen the way Baha'i handles the scriptures of other religions, and to say the least it's pretty inaccurate. There's a lot of forced-fitting going on in order to make the claims of their prophet true.

This is not a unique phenomena. You see this all the time with people mangling scripturas to preserve their beliefs. Just look at Creationists, for one example of many.

That is completely illogical. How would anyone know that He was the return of Christ if He did not proclaim it?

Matthew 16:13-17 answers this for you very clearly:

When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”​

​

Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.​

Do you note here how Jesus did not going around proclaiming who he was? It was a mystery to everyone, because he never told them! And you ask how would they know if he didn't tell them? Here is the very answer to your question. It was not revealed because Jesus told them, but because it was realized subjectively, in Peter's own inner being, in his heart, through his faith. Not because of the claims of Jesus.

Now are you starting to see my point in this?

He was not in the presence of that many people, as he has a lot of work to do completing Hid mission and writing tablets. After He died how would anyone know who He was if He did not write about it?

Jesus never wrote one single word of scripture. Yet doesn't everyone know who he was?

I do not believe anyone can be One with God in the sense you describe.

Sorry to tell you, but I've experienced this, and countless others as well. This is not "what I believe". It is what I have experienced. You may not believe this, but then are you saying I am a liar in speaking of my own personal experiences? Or that I did not experience it, but only believe I did?

I believe that the only way to know God is through what the Messengers of God reveals, not through personal experience.

I told you I did not want to argue about this. I will never see it your way and you will never see it my way. This is not something that can ever be proven, it is only a matter of belief. You have your beliefs and I have mine.

As I said, it is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of experience. The only thing I could say is a belief is that I believe it is possible for everyone to experience what I have, because I have. But it's not a belief that I experienced what I did. It is an experience, not an idea. I don't believe I ate cereal for breakfast today. I did eat cereal for breakfast. How do I know? Because I ate it. I experienced it. End of story.

I cannot explain that in a post. It has transformed my entire life. It is the only reason I have any hope for my life in this world and the next world.

Okay, so then you have had some experience you can draw upon that informs your beliefs? Then you cannot dismiss the experience of others when they tell you of their own experiences. The only difference being is that you have not experienced what they have, and you don't understand what their experience is. Then you are left with trying to explain to yourself how your ideas differ from theirs based upon their experiences. Right?

No, my post was not a challenge to you. I now know your position and you know mine. What more is there to discuss? I don't want to argue about who is right or wrong.

But yet, you are still doing so. I don't mind discussing this with you. And clearly you aren't unwilling to discuss it either, as you continue to post your arguments in response. So I'm not sure why you are tacking this on here.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Actually, anybody that vote for any option other than 3 is not Baha'i

It discredits his claims that he speaks for a god or that a god speaks through him. If that were the case, the message would be something no human could have written.

This was written about Christianity, but applies with Baha'ism as well:

"We have heard talk enough. We have listened to all the drowsy, idealess, vapid sermons that we wish to hear. We have read your Bible and the works of your best minds. We have heard your prayers, your solemn groans and your reverential amens. All these amount to less than nothing. We want one fact. We beg at the doors of your churches for just one little fact. We pass our hats along your pews and under your pulpits and implore you for just one fact." - Ingersoll

Yeah. It's worse now. 3/16 believe, 13/16 (81%) do not.:

View attachment 74145

Yes they were.

Number two. How could he more grandiose than that? I suppose by claiming to be a god himself. Of course, delusional here means holding a false belief, especially ones unsupported by evidence, and especially if one is in a very small minority rather than part of an indoctrinated group.

Maybe this will help:

A Zen master walked up to the hotdog concession outside of Costco and asked the vendor to make him one with everything. This miffed the vendor, so when he was asked for change, the hotdog vendor informed the Zen master that change must come from within.

God speaks with mankind in the level of their understanding, and not as an absolute truth, or infinite wisdom. (This is the Bahai view)
In fact God does not have a mouth or tongue to speak, thus, eveytime God wants to talk to humanity, He creates a Person who apparently has a body of human, but is the Spirit of God. This Person is referred as Manifestation of God. Baha'u'llah is a Manifestation of God (in Bahai View)

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

God speaks with mankind in the level of their understanding

He must be speaking to the simplest minds. More effective would be to speak to the best minds. These would be the people that would realize that they are speaking with a transhuman intelligence and explain its message to the rest, dumbed down for those who require it, but deeper for those who can understand it. Imagine a tri-omni god speaking to man, but only the least sophisticated, and giving nothing better to the brilliant. One might start to suspect that the source wasn't that sophisticated itself.

eveytime God wants to talk to humanity, He creates a Person who apparently has a body of human, but is the Spirit of God.

If a god can speak to Baha'u'llah, it can speak to us all.

 

[Trailblazer]

I have to admit out of all the religious figures I have investigated Bahaullah is probably the one I know the least about.
For awhile I disregarded him because I knew he thought Muhammad was a prophet and I have had more than a few doubts about that. You have prompted me to take another look at Bahauallah so I think I will check him out. If you want to tell me where I could look up more information about the guy feel free to tell me.

Here is a place to start, it is some general information.

Bahá’u’lláh – The Divine Educator

The website of the worldwide Bahá’í community

www.bahai.org

The Life of Bahá’u’lláh

The website of the worldwide Bahá’í community

www.bahai.org

 

[Trailblazer]

Many times I write in forum when I am at work, so, I miss my typos. My eyes are not helping either recently. Maybe I need glasses

I have several pairs of glasses but I still miss my typos at some times, although I usually find them before I post the post.

 

[Trailblazer]

If a god can speak to Baha'u'llah, it can speak to us all.

He did.

 

[Windwalker]

If the words of this illuminate beings is not infallible, then that means they have said a mix of falsehood and truth. That can cause confusion.

Here is the entire crux of the problem. You are trying to look at spirituality in terms of black and white Answers; with a capital A! This is not the nature of the spiritual. That is the nature of the analytical rational mind, not the nature of the heart of the soul within us. The nature of spirituality is to find trust or rest in the unknown. It is not about having Answers with a capital A you can look to in the hope of finding rest and security for the soul.

I have pointed this out to others in similar contexts, how that even if some teachings or scriptures are held to be infallible, everyone, without exception, must interpret the meanings of said teachings or writings, and no interpretation ever is itself infallible! So the claim that just because you read certain words a certain way is "Not my words, but God's words", is a total fallacy. At the very best, it is your fallible interpretation of supposedly infallible words.

So to claim one's source is infallible has no value at all, if the one trying to understand them is fallible. That is the weak link in the chain, and the fallibility claim snaps apart at that weak link.

But furthermore, the very expectation itself, looking for it to be "infallible" is a spiritually misguided approach itself at the outset. It is looking for a sense of security for the anxious mind by being "told" what the Answer is, rather than finding rest in the spirit, in the face of the Unknown. The latter is the nature of spirituality. The former is the nature of fear and anxiety.

Thus, how could God leave people with confusions?

Being told answers is not the way of God. It is the expectation of anxious minds. "For the heavens declare the glory of God, the firmament sheweth his handiwork. Day unto day, uttereth speech. Night unto night sheweth knowledge" Psalm 19. We are not left without knowledge. It is there in the nature of creation itself.

If people are confused, it is because they are looking in the wrong place to find Peace. They are seeking to be told Answers with a capital A, authorities and black and white absolutes, in order to try to hold off their anxious and doubting minds, rather than confronting fear itself. All of that is an avoidance of facing their own existential anxieties.

Unless you say, I don't believe these illuminate people were chosen by God to reveal the truth. That would be understandable. But to say, these illuminate people were chosen by God to show the way, yet, they said false things, I don't understand. You need to elaborate.

I believe everyone is chosen to illuminate the Light of the Divine, just as all the lilies of the field do. Our job is to simply get our fear and anxieties out of the way, setting aside our egos and it's existential dread of non-existence. I do not believe elevating others to be beyond us and utterly unattainble to anyone else, which is how Baha'u'llah and all these other "Messengers of the Age" are made out to be is helpful.

It's fine if someone sees some Master as inspiration for their own path, but I dislike greatly this notion that their so-called "station" is unattainable to others. The greatest Teachers are those whose own students surpass themselves. Even Jesus taught, "greater works than these will you do". I appreciate those who show the way, but then don't say, 'oh no, but you can't ever hope to see what I see or know what I know". Those who say that, are speaking from their egos, not from Divine Light which is open to all.

 

[George-ananda]

No category in the survey fits:

He was a minor prophet/manifestation of God

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Here is the entire crux of the problem. You are trying to look at spirituality in terms of black and white Answers; with a capital A! This is not the nature of the spiritual. That is the nature of the analytical rational mind, not the nature of the heart of the soul within us. The nature of spirituality is to find trust or rest in the unknown. It is not about having Answers with a capital A you can look to in the hope of finding rest and security for the soul.

I have pointed this out to others in similar contexts, how that even if some teachings or scriptures are held to be infallible, everyone, without exception, must interpret the meanings of said teachings or writings, and no interpretation ever is itself infallible! So the claim that just because you read certain words a certain way is "Not my words, but God's words", is a total fallacy. At the very best, it is your fallible interpretation of supposedly infallible words.

So to claim one's source is infallible has no value at all, if the one trying to understand them is fallible. That is the weak link in the chain, and the fallibility claim snaps apart at that weak link.

But furthermore, the very expectation itself, looking for it to be "infallible" is a spiritually misguided approach itself at the outset. It is looking for a sense of security for the anxious mind by being "told" what the Answer is, rather than finding rest in the spirit, in the face of the Unknown. The latter is the nature of spirituality. The former is the nature of fear and anxiety.


Being told answers is not the way of God. It is the expectation of anxious minds. "For the heavens declare the glory of God, the firmament sheweth his handiwork. Day unto day, uttereth speech. Night unto night sheweth knowledge" Psalm 19. We are not left without knowledge. It is there in the nature of creation itself.

If people are confused, it is because they are looking in the wrong place to find Peace. They are seeking to be told Answers with a capital A, authorities and black and white absolutes, in order to try to hold off their anxious and doubting minds, rather than confronting fear itself. All of that is an avoidance of facing their own existential anxieties.

I believe everyone is chosen to illuminate the Light of the Divine, just as all the lilies of the field do. Our job is to simply get our fear and anxieties out of the way, setting aside our egos and it's existential dread of non-existence. I do not believe elevating others to be beyond us and utterly unattainble to anyone else, which is how Baha'u'llah and all these other "Messengers of the Age" are made out to be is helpful.

It's fine if someone sees some Master as inspiration for their own path, but I dislike greatly this notion that their so-called "station" is unattainable to others. The greatest Teachers are those whose own students surpass themselves. Even Jesus taught, "greater works than these will you do". I appreciate those who show the way, but then don't say, 'oh no, but you can't ever hope to see what I see or know what I know". Those who say that, are speaking from their egos, not from Divine Light which is open to all.

So, what you are saying is, you cannot completely trust Jesus, because sometimes He made mistakes as He was not infallible. So, you are left to yourself to figure out, what things Jesus said was true, and what things Jesus said was wrong or false, or somewhat true, but not wholly true...., is that a fair description of what you are saying?

 

[F1fan]

Just some facts:
Bahai Faith is not a cult. It does not fall under the definition of cults.

I am more and more convinced it is a cult, or at least more a cult than a religious tradition. One thing I noticed is how two of the three prominent Baha'i have RF names with the word "truth" in them, you being one with Truthseeker being the other. Additionally the rigid nature of your belief, and low standard for being convinced that Baha'u'llah was what he claimed, all suggests to me rather cultish attitudes. I consider cults to be a religious organization that influences its followers to a degree that they are unable to examine their beliefs with some degree of critical thought. That it is a fringe religion is important. That it has over-exagerated importance in the world and in history is another issue I use in my assessment. Cults do exploit believers who want some exclusive truth, and causes division from more mainstream belief. Baha'i seems to fit this.

I'll note the irony that Baha'i often claim their goal is unity, but in the reality of their comments unity is a low priority. The primary priority sems to be getting converts, and/or defending the belief in a way that implies non-Baha'i are "not getting it" some way.

Baha'u'llah provided many evidences but the investigation and conclusion is on everyone.

Yes it is, and critical thinkers test these claims and concepts, and the conclusion is that Baha'i is just an invention by a guy in the Middle East in the 19th century, and either was delusional and/or tried to dupe others. I'm leaning that he was delusional as I can't see any benefit of a deliberate fraud in the mid 1850's. There really is no extraordinary evidence that is required to be impressed with what he wrote and claimed. the default is to not believe claimants and ask them to demonstrate their claims are true. Religious claims have the BIGGEST burden of proof since they are extraordinary clkaims, and Baha'u'llah does not deliver for 21st century minds.

 

[F1fan]

He must be speaking to the simplest minds.

Yes you are.

More effective would be to speak to the best minds. These would be the people that would realize that they are speaking with a transhuman intelligence and explain its message to the rest, dumbed down for those who require it, but deeper for those who can understand it. Imagine a tri-omni god speaking to man, but only the least sophisticated, and giving nothing better to the brilliant. One might start to suspect that the source wasn't that sophisticated itself.

If a god can speak to Baha'u'llah, it can speak to us all.

This is a good point. Of course Baha'u'llah is dead but we have his writings to examine and I find them tedious, superficial, and lacking any practical information. Have these writtings impressed the most skeptical minds? Not in this forum, and with a prophet with a God on his side I would expect extraordinary wisdom and clarity, and some plan to accomplish goals. The majority dilemma is utilizing an idea of God at all because that causes immediate conflict with both other theists and atheists alike.

 

[F1fan]

So, what you are saying is, you cannot completely trust Jesus, because sometimes He made mistakes as He was not infallible. So, you are left to yourself to figure out, what things Jesus said was true, and what things Jesus said was wrong or false, or somewhat true, but not wholly true...., is that a fair description of what you are saying?

There is no actual Jesus to trust. All we have is various comflicting stories and interpretations of what Jesus was and is supposed to be. Christianity doesn;t agree, let alone Jews and Muslims having an even less crucial view of the character. For such an important person in all of human history the stories are so vague and incomplete that even Christianity can't settle the truth. To thinkers there is no truth to any of the many versions of the Jesus myth. The various faithful have no problem with this any more than Baha'i have with similar problems surrounding Baha'u'llah. Massive doubt is rampant with any given religious claim, and truth can't be argued for to any important degree.

 

[Windwalker]

So, what you are saying is, you cannot completely trust Jesus, because sometimes He made mistakes as He was not infallible.

But trust what? His knowledge of science and natural history? Or his knowledge of the ways of the Divine? There is a difference in subject matter here. I do not believe Jesus the human who lived two thousand years ago had supernatural knowledge of science and industry. He would not have known about black holes, quantum physics, or even about evolutionary theory. But, when speaking of the timeless nature of the Divine, yes, he had profound and trustworthy insight and knowledge of this.

So yes, of course. Jesus the person, Jesus the human would have made mistakes now and then, just like the rest of us mere mortals. Scripture itself says he was in all ways tempted like us. He was not so high and elevated that we could not relate to him. That is the problem with this whole infallible business. Who can relate to that??

So, you are left to yourself to figure out, what things Jesus said was true, and what things Jesus said was wrong or false, or somewhat true, but not wholly true...., is that a fair description of what you are saying?

We are left to discern truth from error, using the tools God gave us, mentally and spiritually. Our mission, should we choose to except it in this life, is to learn and to grow in knowledge and Wisdom. How does that happen if you're just spoon fed the answers without ever figuring out how to walk on your own two feet and determine it reliably on your own??

That's not spirituality. That's escapism. "Just tell me the answers". I believe God's answer to that is, "Learn how to know that for yourself. I've given you the tools."

 

[InvestigateTruth]

But trust what? His knowledge of science and natural history? Or his knowledge of the ways of the Divine? There is a difference in subject matter here. I do not believe Jesus the human who lived two thousand years ago had supernatural knowledge of science and industry. He would not have known about black holes, quantum physics, or even about evolutionary theory. But, when speaking of the timeless nature of the Divine, yes, he had profound and trustworthy insight and knowledge of this.

So yes, of course. Jesus the person, Jesus the human would have made mistakes now and then, just like the rest of us mere mortals. Scripture itself says he was in all ways tempted like us. He was not so high and elevated that we could not relate to him. That is the problem with this whole infallible business. Who can relate to that??

So, you believe whatever Jesus said is infallible as long as it is related to the ways of knowledge of divine. How do you know this for sure?
But when it comes to history Jesus was not infallible? So, for example when He talked about Moses or the events of the past, which was history He made mistakes?

We are left to discern truth from error, using the tools God gave us, mentally and spiritually. Our mission, should we choose to except it in this life, is to learn and to grow in knowledge and Wisdom. How does that happen if you're just spoon fed the answers without ever figuring out how to walk on your own two feet and determine it reliably on your own??

That's not spirituality. That's escapism. "Just tell me the answers". I believe God's answer to that is, "Learn how to know that for yourself. I've given you the tools."

But you are saying Jesus was infallible with regards to the ways of knowledge divine. So, based on what you are saying then, God did not leave you alone to rely merely on your own guesses rather He sent you Jesus to tell you about the ways of knowledge of God. Right?

 

[Trailblazer]

So to claim one's source is infallible has no value at all, if the one trying to understand them is fallible. That is the weak link in the chain, and the fallibility claim snaps apart at that weak link.

I understand what you are saying, and I agree that since the one trying to understand them is fallible that is the weak link in the chain.
Even with infallible Messengers there is never a perfect understanding of scriptures, just as there is never a perfect understanding of God, since humans are fallible, thus prone to be wrong.

 

[Windwalker]

So, you believe whatever Jesus said is infallible as long as it is related to the ways of knowledge of divine. How do you know this for sure?

I don't see anyone's perceptions of the Divine to be "infallible" for a very good reason. They are perceptions of the Transcendent, and not something that can be contained and defined in language or ideas of any kind. We are talking about the Ineffable, which means that it is beyond words and comprehension. God cannot be defined infallibly, so no one can be infallible for something that is not possible to do in the first place.

But when it comes to history Jesus was not infallible?

Correct. He was fallible, just like every human being who has ever been alive is. In his humanness, he was a man of his time and a man of his culture.

When it came to be being taught things about the world, he had teachers who taught them what they knew at that time. So he would have been as limited by the knowledge of his day, the same as any other human being. Right?

So, for example when He talked about Moses or the events of the past, which was history He made mistakes?

I wouldn't call them mistakes. I would say they reflected the understanding of what they believed back then to the best of their abilities. That wasn't making a mistake, like saying it was Aaron who received the 10 commandments. That would have been a mistake, because that's not what he would have been taught.

Was what he was taught infallible? Of course not. They did not have the information we do today, and therefore there are things we know today that Jesus could never have known. Exact same thing with Bahaullah. Do you believe he knew everything we know today, and wasn't a product of his generation like any other human being?

But you are saying Jesus was infallible with regards to the ways of knowledge divine.

Again, I would not use the term infallible, because that assumes God can be defined and spoken about in terms of proposition truths. I would say that he spoke from a place of Truth, which means unaffected by ego. So what is said from that place, is about the nature of the Divine speaking of timeless Truth itself.

That is not a matter of the product of the age one lives in. That is not a matter of history and science. That is not a matter of facts and figures. This is why using the term "infallible" is misplaced. It's like trying to ask "how tall is God?" That's the wrong kind of question.

So, based on what you are saying then, God did not leave you alone to rely merely on your own guesses rather He sent you Jesus to tell you about the ways of knowledge of God. Right?

I would put it this way. God gives us guides. I can be a guide to others as well, as I am here in trying to point you in the right direction. Some guides, or teachers are Enlightened Masters, others are less far on their path, others further along. We learn from each other, and we learn from our own experiences. This is the way.

But ultimately, you need to become your own teacher. Others can point you in the right direction, and their teachings are sound. But simply believing in a teacher, does not make you graduate the class.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I don't see anyone's perceptions of the Divine to be "infallible" for a very good reason. They are perceptions of the Transcendent, and not something that can be contained and defined in language or ideas of any kind. We are talking about the Ineffable, which means that it is beyond words and comprehension. God cannot be defined infallibly, so no one can be infallible for something that is not possible to do in the first place.


Correct. He was fallible, just like every human being who has ever been alive is. In his humanness, he was a man of his time and a man of his culture.

When it came to be being taught things about the world, he had teachers who taught them what they knew at that time. So he would have been as limited by the knowledge of his day, the same as any other human being. Right?

I wouldn't call them mistakes. I would say they reflected the understanding of what they believed back then to the best of their abilities. That wasn't making a mistake, like saying it was Aaron who received the 10 commandments. That would have been a mistake, because that's not what he would have been taught.

Was what he was taught infallible? Of course not. They did not have the information we do today, and therefore there are things we know today that Jesus could never have known. Exact same thing with Bahaullah. Do you believe he knew everything we know today, and wasn't a product of his generation like any other human being?

Again, I would not use the term infallible, because that assumes God can be defined and spoken about in terms of proposition truths. I would say that he spoke from a place of Truth, which means unaffected by ego. So what is said from that place, is about the nature of the Divine speaking of timeless Truth itself.

That is not a matter of the product of the age one lives in. That is not a matter of history and science. That is not a matter of facts and figures. This is why using the term "infallible" is misplaced. It's like trying to ask "how tall is God?" That's the wrong kind of question.

I would put it this way. God gives us guides. I can be a guide to others as well, as I am here in trying to point you in the right direction. Some guides, or teachers are Enlightened Masters, others are less far on their path, others further along. We learn from each other, and we learn from our own experiences. This is the way.

But ultimately, you need to become your own teacher. Others can point you in the right direction, and their teachings are sound. But simply believing in a teacher, does not make you graduate the class.

So, in your view, even God is fallible?
God is not omnipotent and omniscient? He has been from the beginning that has no beginning, is not true?

 

[Trailblazer]

So, in your view, even God is fallible?
God is not omnipotent and omniscient? He has been from the beginning that has no beginning, is not true?

@Windwalker said: I don't see anyone's perceptions of the Divine to be "infallible" for a very good reason. They are perceptions of the Transcendent, and not something that can be contained and defined in language or ideas of any kind. We are talking about the Ineffable, which means that it is beyond words and comprehension. God cannot be defined infallibly, so no one can be infallible for something that is not possible to do in the first place.

Baha'is believe is that God is infallible: Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 143

I just assumed that the Bible says that God is infallible but I cannot find anything in the Bible that says that. I also cannot find anything in the Qur'an that says God is infallible. However, Christians and Muslims both believe their scriptures are the infallible and inerrant word of God.

The Baha'i belief is that Manifestations of God (who we also refer to as Messengers of God) were not just ordinary men; they had a twofold nature, one nature divine and one nature human, and because of their divine nature perfectly manifested God they were the Voice of God, and thus what they revealed was the infallible Word of God.

As a Baha'i, I believe that God was infallible, so that means that Manifestations of God are also infallible. The reason why is explained in the following passage. God and His Manifestation are one and the same; as far as all His acts and doings, whatever He ordains or forbids should be considered as identical with the Will of God Himself. That is the sense in which a Manifestation of God is infallible.

“The essence of belief in Divine unity consisteth in regarding Him Who is the Manifestation of God and Him Who is the invisible, the inaccessible, the unknowable Essence as one and the same. By this is meant that whatever pertaineth to the former, all His acts and doings, whatever He ordaineth or forbiddeth, should be considered, in all their aspects, and under all circumstances, and without any reservation, as identical with the Will of God Himself. This is the loftiest station to which a true believer in the unity of God can ever hope to attain. Blessed is the man that reacheth this station, and is of them that are steadfast in their belief.” Gleanings, p. 167

I agree with @Windwalker that nobody's 'perceptions' of God are infallible since all humans are fallible, and as such there is no way we can infallibly understand the Word of God. God is Ineffable, which means that God is beyond words and comprehension, so that means that God cannot be defined infallibly or understood infallibly.

 

[CG Didymus]

Just some facts:
Bahai Faith is not a cult. It does not fall under the definition of cults.
Baha'u'llah provided many evidences but the investigation and conclusion is on everyone.

Hmmm? He took the title, "Baha'u'llah", the Glory of God, and claimed he was the return of every promised one of every religion and claimed he can communicate with God and God tells him what to say and write. Sure, nothing like what a cult-leader would do and say.

Oh, but there is the infallibility claim that is part of what he said. That's why I'm worried about over-zealous, true believers in the Baha'i Faith could become overly authoritarian. Like they might start abusing the power to shun and kick people out of the Baha'i Faith.