Who was Baha'u'llah?

[CG Didymus]

I know you don't have a thousand years.
The idea is to have that spirit of searching for truth. That eagerness to find it. To become attracted to the light. Whether or not you find it is another story.
It is a difference between someone who is hopeful, and someone who gives up.

Since some people have become Baha'is but then left, then for them the search wasn't over. The light they were seeking was not there.

For you and other Baha'is that have stayed, is your search for the truth and the light continuing?

Unfortunately, I think that for some, and I've seen it in Christianity as well as the Baha'i Faith, there is a stagnation, a contentment with being good enough, with knowing enough, and are now on a sort of spiritual cruise control and just going through the motions of being a Christian or Baha'i. Those nominal believers are a negative for the religion. They are evidence of something lacking. You can blame them, but why aren't they inspired anymore? Is it something built into the religion that causes it?

I think there is. It is the bigness, the "organized" religion of it. They get lost and left behind. A Baha'i becomes inactive or only goes to Feast one in a while. For the Christian, they go to Church on Sunday or maybe not at all or only on Christmas and Easter. They believe they've found the truth, but they don't live the truth.

 

[Trailblazer]

You believe your assertions, don't you?
When you say you believe X, you assert X as true, don't you?
When you assert X, you believe this assertion, don't you?

I do not assert X as true since I cannot prove X is true. If I could prove X is true then X would not be a belief, it would be a fact.

Please tell me in practical terms: is it possible to assert X without believing it? Is it possible to believe X without asserting it?

It is not possible to assert X without believing X, but it is possible to believe X without asserting X.
Nobody should assert X is true unless they can prove that X is true. If they cannot prove that X is true that would be a bald assertion.

Again, consider my example:
"X is true"
"I believe X is true".

What is the practical difference between both?

"X is true" is an assertion. One is stating that as if it is a fact so they should be able to prove it.
"I believe X is true"is a belief. One is stating that because they have trust, faith, or confidence in something even though they cannot prove it.

It seems to me that bickering about this difference, is more then anything else, just an attempt at avoiding a burden of proof by injecting those words "I believe" into it.

That is a good point. When one says "I believe" X is true they have no burden of proof.
When one asserts X as true that is a claim and thus they have have the burden of proof.

But it comes down to the same thing in practice.

Is it possible to assert X without believing it? I guess so. But you'ld be contradicting yourself.
By asserting X, you imply belief.
By expressing belief in X, you imply asserting X.

Imo, you can't have one without the other.

By asserting X, you imply belief, but just because you express belief in X that does not mean you are asserting X.

You can have one without the other. You can believe X without asserting X.
For example, I believe that God is omnipotent and omniscient and benevolent but I cannot prove any of that so I would never assert it.

Belief:
1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

The word "statement" that I bolded and underlined in the second definition, is the claim that is being believed.

That is correct. A statement is believed, based upon an inner certitude, but when a claim is made that is a pronouncement that something is true.
A belief is an inner thing, a claim is an outer thing.

For example, Baha'u'llah did not believe that He got communication from God, He knew that He got communication from God.
Since He knew that He got communication from God, He claimed that He got communication from God, and He also claimed to be God's Messenger.

Baha'u'llah had the burden of proof since He made these claims.

I believe that Baha'u'llah got communication from God and was God's Messenger because I believe what Baha'u'llah claimed.
I do not claim that Baha'u'llah got communication from God since I cannot prove it.

I have no burden of proof since I am not making any claims.

 

[Trailblazer]

I have that. But in order to do so, I require something to be able to distinguish truth from sheer fantasy.
And that something, is valid evidence

Then you have to determine what evidence would be valid for you. I can only tell you what evidence was valid for me, but since you are a separate person what is valid for me won't necessarily be valid for you.

This is why I don't bother with claims where it is crystal clear right out the gates that I won't be able to distinguish it from sheer fantasy.
Such claims are infinite in number. I'ld even say that for such claims, there isn't even anything to properly investigate to begin with...

You cannot just look at the claims. You have to also look at the evidence that supports the claims.
You cannot know that you won't be able to distinguish it from sheer fantasy unless you look.

You are correct that for most religious claims there is nothing to investigate, nothing that is verifiable. For example, for the Christianity you simply have to accept what is written in the Bible, but there is no way to verify any of it. That is not true for the Baha'i Faith since we can investigate the person of Baha'u'llah and the history of His life and what He did on His mission. We also have His original scriptures penned in His own hand.

 

[F1fan]

Not necessarily. Not in all things. It really depends on what you are trying to understand. When it comes to things like love, you'll find reasoning might actually work against you. That is just one example of many where reasoning fails to produce fruit.

Since when is love a reasoned conclusion? This is not a sound example.

You said athletes should avoid focusing on limitations, and rather on what they can achieve. I explained that reason and rationality and critical thinking is based upon limitations.

How so? In my experience critical thinking is a set of rules that a disciplined mind uses via facts and reliable evidence to sound conclusions. I literally never think of limitations in my thinking process. So I'm not sure what you are talking about.

The athlete achieves because they believe they can do something that logic and facts tell them they can't.

This is absurd. If an athlete shows promise they will likely have the natural ability that is the FACT of their biology. Tests can reveal if they have promise, and these tests rely on databases, and these are built on data from other athletes, both good and bad. This is all a scientific process.

There is some luck and and trial and error involved in sport. One of my old teammates was a runner at KU and he was injured. He took up cycling to help recover. That same year he ended up having more talent as a cyclist and won numerous KS state time trial championships, which then progressed to winning the national championship TT, and then being named on the 1988 USA team time trial where the USA won bronze. Nathan Shaefor. In 1984 I had no idea he would go that far in cycling, he had natural talent and followed it. Me? I never had talent to come close to him, no matter much I believed I just didn't have the biology. None of us did.

Faith, in other words is what led to breaking the limitation, or the 'records'.

You make it sound as if a person with average ability can compete at a level their body just can't do. Sorry, you are wrong.

Let's make it more basic that social injustice here. 98% of how we function as humans is in the fuzzy, non-rational, intangible space. Reality is vastly too complex to be able to reduce down to logical equations that the rational mind can process. We just "do it", we don't reason it. And when it comes to human relations, even in just societies where everyone is treated fairly, interacts are all done through 'fuzzy logic", not binary equations of true/false statements.

Do you have any evidence, any expert study to refer to? I ask because you post a statistic, and your comment is vague.

Mr. Spock is a parody of that human/rational paradox. We are human also, and the pure rational Vulcan mind is a fictional reality for the human being. His whole character is based on pointing out this fallacy of logical positivism. This is what the whole Existentialist movement was about. Humans are not rational beings. They are irrational, or rather non-rational in how they actually live. And they seem to do just fine for the most part.

You don't think it ironic that you are trying to argue that humans aren't rational? Argument is a rational process. I suggest you read Daniel Goleman's Emotional Intelligence. He outlines how the human brain evolved to reason but still has a very active emotion center, and without mental discipline we default to acting and reacting like other animals. It is certain skills of mind that help humans behave rationally versus impulsively and irrationally.

As I've said, logic and reason and critical thinking are fine and powerful tools. But that's all they are. Tools. They are not our go-to, modus operandi de facto mode for how we function as human beings.

Logic is a set of rules, and critical thinking is a learned and practiced skill. One reason many people struggle in life and living in balance is because they live impulsively and without adequate maturity.

We use logic and reason to resolve a discomfort with these beliefs. Discomfort is emotional. There is something non-rational that informs us of an issue that need some assistance to resolve. Like finding a tweezers as a tool to pull out of splinter in the skin, we reach for the tool of critical thinking to help fix a non-rationally based discomfort. But sometimes, that tool can't get that splinter removed, and that is when nature herself, the body, uses its own non-rational means to resolve the issue itself over time, non-rationally.

I don't see many people who can reason well. One part of Emotional Intelligence is being able to monitor emotions and being able to learn how to reason so the person can make responsible decisions in life.

All I am saying, is 'faith' is not the same thing as bad logic. It's more that intuitive, non-rational 'sense', or knowing beyond reason, that 'trusts' in a system beyond its ability to understand. "Things will work themselves out, even though I don't know how. I just trust they will". This is faith.

In what way is faith a better option than reasoning if you need to make important decisions? If you have reasoning skill, why need faith? It's like you have to get to work 8 miles away and it's raining, do you take the car or a skateboard?

This is tangibly real, and can in fact be developed sense to become a very reliable and very trustworthy thing. But wishful, imaginative guessing, is not that. That is not faith. That's wishful thinking. That's magical thinking.

How does this "sense" get developed, and is reliable? Explain, and use facts.

That example is not a valid example. That's just teaching fantasy symbols to children to give a tangible figure for a concrete literal mind to embody happiness in a magical character for them. What I am talking about is adult interactions at the subtle level, that the rational mind doesn't even begin to attempt to reason, and yet we all 'get it' anyway.

Sure it's a valid example. Santa Claus is explained to the young as an actual being that performs certain tasks, and kids believe it. This is similar to Jesus in every way, except trusted adults don't inform us that he's isn't real as imagined, that being a supernatural being that saved mortals. Jesus as savior is not a fact, but the idea is treated as real and true, and children/adults believe it. That's what faith gets you.

And why do they stop to consider what we are doing? The answer to that is that something non-rationally, something intutitively 'felt' wrong to them. Then, and only then, does logic and reason come online to serve as a problem solving tool.

Some folks have an independent moral sense, and even good intuition. This seems rare in my experience. I see that vast majority conform to norms. Look at the Asch experiments and you will see how easily people will conform to the norm due to peer pressure even though they know they are correct. Startling.

Point being, as human beings, non-rational means of living is the primary mode of functionality. We "feel" our way through life, and when we need to problem solve because we feel something is off, then we are "rational" creatures. Once we problem solve, and create a better system, then we non-rationally feel our way through that system.

I don't disagree with this, but again not everyone has learned reasoning skill, or how to manage their emotions. Following emotions will happen when a person lacks the maturity and skill to reason solutions.

You had a feeling something was wrong, and you had a mind that could use reason to examine what was wrong. I'd first congratulate yourself for your intuitive sense on that, rather than being able to deduce the issues. Rationally, I'd bet dollars to donuts I could offer better understandings of the 'why' it didn't work, and later in life, you probably could as well.

Intuition seems to be subconscious problem solving. i think a clarity of mind and reasoning skill allows a person to function subconsciously were there might be conscious distractions.

But the point being, it was not reason that made you question. It was your feelings, your non-rational intuitive knowing something wasn't right. You sensed there was a splinter in your skin.

I disagree. I remember asking my grandmother why we went to church, and her answers were not rational, or just begged more questions. Like questioning any religious person there is no rational answer to be had, and this was my approach. I tested as having a very high IQ in school and I think it was just natural ability that made me ask questions and be skeptical. I saw a lot of inconsistency, and that is definately putting pieces of evidence together.

Reason has limitations. As a Buddhist, you should know this.

Right, if I have gas and need to fart, I'm not going to stop and reason it out. Unless I'm on an elevator, then reason comes in handy.

Buddhism does not deny God.

Theravada Buddism doesn't include any god concepts. Some forms do, and god is more of a sort of divinity than a person like in Western religions.

It simply avoids the mind getting embroiled in that question. My view is that that which is called God by some, actually exists. But it is also known as Emptiness. Nirvana. The Void. The Abyss. Nothingness. The Ground of Being. The Source. The Causal domain. Etc.

This is why we need believers to explain what they think God is, and many of them are caught off guard and can't, or won't, answer.

 

[F1fan]

The theistic personalized God as a deity form, is simply a Face we place upon the Infinite, which actually exists. I am fond of Meister Eckhart's, "God beyond God" to express that. God as an idea, is just that. And idea of the mind, an image for the mind. But what lays beyond that, is Formlessness or Emptiness itself, as the Buddhist calls it.

The more a God becomes an abstration the less likely it's real, and believers have a hard time managing their claims of God existing, and then explaining it's more symbolic or some abstraction of mind. It's depends on the believer, and many haven't really thought it out very well. they have adoted an easy belief, and they haven't subjected their decision to much critical analysis. That's where debate forums are good for them. Do they listen? Not really. Their option. They don't seem ti understand themselves doing it, like animals who fight or flee.

Now, you may not believe that Emptiness or the Formless or Nirvana is anything real, but then I'd be puzzled why you consider Buddhism your religion of choice? Do you accept that as something tangible and real and the Goal of your meditation practices?

One thing Siddartha said was that we are free to accept or reject anything. I'm not dogmatic as Buddist. It offers a set of practices that help me maintain balance. It's also an approach to thinking that is consistent with critical thinking, namely remaining detached.

As to emptiness being "real", it's not a thing to possess, it's whether the self has attained that state, and if so it is a real state, even if momentary. No one reaches Nirvana and then that's where they stay. The mind is always in motion and in flux, and the curent state is where the mind focuses.

Yes, visualization. "Imagination becomes reality", as Master T.T. Liang who was my Tai Chi teacher's teacher used to say. I practice the internal martial arts, and to be sure, imagination does create reality, or rather, unlocks it.

This never worked for me in bike racing because for as much as I could control myself I couldn't control the rest of my competitors. I had some great race finishes where I had to tell myself to stop thinking and just go with raw experience, what we call "read the race". I also had more anxiety before races if I had expectations, so live and learn.

While I do accept some physicals limitations, most of our limitations are simply because we tell ourselves we cannot do something. I can tell you of my own personal experience of practicing Tai Chi and the internal energy work its is based upon of qigong and neigong, that I physically feel and move, and have energy of 30 years younger than when I began practicing it around 7 years ago.

It's hard to be perfect all the time.

This is a tangible, real transformation of the body, though the mind, through visualization and imagination and practice. Not through reading about it, and thinking about it, and reasoning about it, and critically analyzing it. But by simply doing it. And it is not just subjective, but others who see me are shocked by how much younger I look, saying spontaneously, "you look 30 years younger". "imagination becomes reality".

Still, where it comes to athletic performance the biology is a limitation that the mind can't overturn.

That's not true at all.

Well the data in cycling shows that the best athletes have certain biological traits in common, and those who lack these traits will not be able to compete. To compete in cycling you have to train in ccordance to your physical data, and you can't push an athlete beyond that because they will drop in performance due to fatigue and other factors.

As a Buddhist, do you not understand the power of the mind to transform?

Discipline can manage the mind, and allow the self to be the best athlete he/she is capable of being, but it isn't going to make my body perform at a professional level. That is the same story with the vast majority of amateur racers all over the world. The genes count. It still takes a lot of work, but genes count.

 

[CG Didymus]

A belief and a claim are extremely closely related. To the point that I feel they are the same thing, just expressed differently.

"X is a fraud"
"I believe X is a fraud".

What is the practical difference between these two statements?
I say they express the exact same thing. The first statement implies the second. The words "I believe" are just ommitted.
But why would you make that statement, if you did not believe it?

Yeah, let's explore that further...
Claim, the verb... state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.
Similar: assert

Okay, looks see what it says about assert...
verb: assert; state a fact or belief confidently and forcefully.

To state a fact or belief? Yeah, that's pretty similar.

It seems to me that bickering about this difference, is more then anything else, just an attempt at avoiding a burden of proof by injecting those words "I believe" into it.

But it comes down to the same thing in practice.

And I wonder what it says about "burden of proof"?
burden of proof — the obligation to prove one's assertion.

Which they can't. They can believe the claims of their prophet and assert they are true, but if they can't prove it, what do they got? Like with other religions that make claims of being true, Baha'is have committed themselves to believe their stuff is true... all of it. So, if somebody finds something they don't believe about the Baha'i Faith, a "true" believer in the Baha'i Faith can do nothing but assert, claim and believe that it is true and argue against it being false.

That sure looks like what's been going on here for last few years and several threads. No compromise, no middle-ground... just we, the Baha'is are right. And again, if they try and say, "Well, you people are just as bad and won't give an inch either." To that I say, "That it is not us who claim to know The Truth and claim to have the teachings to bring unity to the world." I still believe, claim, assert that the burden of bringing people together and finding the common ground is on the Baha'is... rather than digging in and building walls divisions between people.

 

[Trailblazer]

And I wonder what it says about "burden of proof"?
burden of proof — the obligation to prove one's assertion.

Baha'is have no burden of proof because we make no assertions. We only state our beliefs.

Which they can't. They can believe the claims of their prophet and assert they are true, but if they can't prove it, what do they got?

Baha'is believe the claims of Baha'u'llah but we do not assert they are true because we can't prove they are true to anyone except ourselves.
You STILL don't understand after all these years that it is not the job of the Baha'is to prove that the Baha'i Faith is true to anyone else.

Baha'is have committed themselves to believe their stuff is true... all of it.

We sure have, so what is the problem with that?

So, if somebody finds something they don't believe about the Baha'i Faith...

That's their own problem, not anyone else's.

That sure looks like what's been going on here for last few years and several threads. No compromise, no middle-ground... just we, the Baha'is are right.

No, that is not what has been going on here. Where did we ever say we are right?
What has been going on here is that Baha'is believe what they believe and they are not going to relinquish their beliefs. Why should we, just because people don't believe what we believe? Do you see any Christians or Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists relinquishing their beliefs just because others don't share their beliefs? I sure don't see that.

And again, if they try and say, "Well, you people are just as bad and won't give an inch either." To that I say, "That it is not us who claim to know The Truth and claim to be unity." I still believe, claim, assert that the burden of bringing people together and finding the common ground is on the Baha'is... rather than digging in and building walls divisions between people.

No, the burden to bring people together is not on the Baha'is, and we cannot bring people together who don't want to be together...
No, the Baha'is are not digging in and building walls divisions between people. You are the only one who has been doing that, every chance you get.

Carry on. Nobody can stop you.

 

[CG Didymus]

Here's some quotes about teaching the Baha'i Faith...

Consort with all men, O people of Bahá, in a spirit of friendliness and fellowship. If ye be aware of a certain truth, if ye possess a jewel, of which others are deprived, share it with them in a language of utmost kindliness and good-will.​

​

The teacher, when teaching, must be himself fully enkindled, so that his utterance, like unto a flame of fire, may exert influence and consume the veil of self and passion. He must also be utterly humble and lowly so that others may be edified, and be totally self-effaced and evanescent so that he may teach with the melody of the Concourse on high--otherwise his teaching will have no effect.​

​

If thou wishest to guide the souls, it is incumbent on thee to be firm, to be good and to be imbued with praiseworthy attributes and divine qualities under all circumstances. Be a sign of love, a manifestation of mercy, a fountain of tenderness, kind-hearted, good to all and gentle to the servants of God, and especially to those who bear relation to thee, both men and women. Bear every ordeal that befalleth thee from the people an confront them not save with kindness, with great love and good wishes.​

​

In accordance with the divine teachings in this glorious dispensation we should not belittle anyone and call him ignorant, saying: "You know not, but I know". Rather, we should look upon others with respect, and when attempting to explain and demonstrate, we should speak as if we are investigating the truth, saying: "Here these things are before us. Let us investigate to determine where and in what form the truth can be found." The teacher should not consider himself as learned and others ignorant. Such a thought breedeth pride, and pride is not conducive to influence. The teacher should not see in himself any superiority; he should speak with the utmost kindliness, lowliness and humility, for such speech exerteth influence and educateth the souls.​

​

..refrain, under any circumstances, from involving yourselves, much less the Cause, in lengthy discussions of a controversial character, as these besides being fruitless actually cause incalculable harm to the Faith. Bahá'u'lláh has repeatedly urged us not to engage in religious controversies, as the adepts of former religions have done. The Bahá'í teacher should be concerned above all in presenting the Message, in explaining and clarifying all its aspects, rather than in attacking other religions. He should avoid all situations that, he feels, would lead to strife, to hair-splitting and interminable discussions.​

​

When Baha'is actually do these things, then I will be impressed. "Consort with all men, O people of Bahá, in spirit of friendliness and fellowship." " share it with them in a language of utmost kindliness and good-will. " "He must also be utterly humble and lowly" "Be a sign of love, a manifestation of mercy, a fountain of tenderness, kind-hearted, good to all" "Bear every ordeal that befalleth thee from the people an confront them not save with kindness, with great love and good wishes." "look upon others with respect"

 

[Truthseeker]

Here's some quotes about teaching the Baha'i Faith...

Consort with all men, O people of Bahá, in a spirit of friendliness and fellowship. If ye be aware of a certain truth, if ye possess a jewel, of which others are deprived, share it with them in a language of utmost kindliness and good-will.​

​

The teacher, when teaching, must be himself fully enkindled, so that his utterance, like unto a flame of fire, may exert influence and consume the veil of self and passion. He must also be utterly humble and lowly so that others may be edified, and be totally self-effaced and evanescent so that he may teach with the melody of the Concourse on high--otherwise his teaching will have no effect.​

​

If thou wishest to guide the souls, it is incumbent on thee to be firm, to be good and to be imbued with praiseworthy attributes and divine qualities under all circumstances. Be a sign of love, a manifestation of mercy, a fountain of tenderness, kind-hearted, good to all and gentle to the servants of God, and especially to those who bear relation to thee, both men and women. Bear every ordeal that befalleth thee from the people an confront them not save with kindness, with great love and good wishes.​

​

In accordance with the divine teachings in this glorious dispensation we should not belittle anyone and call him ignorant, saying: "You know not, but I know". Rather, we should look upon others with respect, and when attempting to explain and demonstrate, we should speak as if we are investigating the truth, saying: "Here these things are before us. Let us investigate to determine where and in what form the truth can be found." The teacher should not consider himself as learned and others ignorant. Such a thought breedeth pride, and pride is not conducive to influence. The teacher should not see in himself any superiority; he should speak with the utmost kindliness, lowliness and humility, for such speech exerteth influence and educateth the souls.​

​

..refrain, under any circumstances, from involving yourselves, much less the Cause, in lengthy discussions of a controversial character, as these besides being fruitless actually cause incalculable harm to the Faith. Bahá'u'lláh has repeatedly urged us not to engage in religious controversies, as the adepts of former religions have done. The Bahá'í teacher should be concerned above all in presenting the Message, in explaining and clarifying all its aspects, rather than in attacking other religions. He should avoid all situations that, he feels, would lead to strife, to hair-splitting and interminable discussions.​

​

When Baha'is actually do these things, then I will be impressed. "Consort with all men, O people of Bahá, in spirit of friendliness and fellowship." " share it with them in a language of utmost kindliness and good-will. " "He must also be utterly humble and lowly" "Be a sign of love, a manifestation of mercy, a fountain of tenderness, kind-hearted, good to all" "Bear every ordeal that befalleth thee from the people an confront them not save with kindness, with great love and good wishes." "look upon others with respect"

You've got to realize you are giving us a lot of disrespect, over and over yourself. I don't know myself how to stop you doing that and giving you respect at the same time. It's a difficult task.

 

[CG Didymus]

You've got to realize you are giving us a lot of disrespect, over and over yourself. I don't know myself how to stop you doing that and giving you respect at the same time. It's a difficult task.

The point is... who's responsible for bettering the situation? for finding the common ground and points of agreement? Baha'is are essentially saying in thread after thread "Our concept of God is real" and "Our prophet is real and the promised return of every other prophet" "Our teachings alone can unite the world."

Those of us that question and doubt the validity of Baha'i claims aren't going to always be or sound respectful. But have the Baha'is been respectful to Christians when they say the Bible is fictional and compared it to a Harry Potter novel? Or another Baha'i blaming priests and the clergy? Are Baha'is respectful to Buddhism when they say they have lost their original teachings? Or to Hindus when they say reincarnation isn't true? Or when they tell Atheists they are blind? Is that the way to build bridges and relationships with people that believe differently than Baha'is?

If Baha'is took to heart those quotes from Baha'u'llah and Abdul Baha, what could we say? "Gee, I don't agree with them and think their religion is false, but they are so kind and loving... So humble and respectful" That's not what some of us are seeing in Baha'is.

Even you have ignored some of my follow up questions, that I feel had nothing to do with debating. So, what am I to think? Unfortunately, I'm thinking that Baha'is are just another religion that thinks it has the truth and is here to promote their beliefs and will stand firm and argue against anyone who thinks differently. Oh, and one more quote... "Let deeds, not words, be your adorning." I'm telling Baha'is a better way of doing things. It is apply your own teachings. Then, I still might not believe you, but you will get my respect.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Do you think the Southern Baptists of the Confederate States were good Christians as they held black people in slavery?

Do you think Lutherans and Catholics of Nazi Germany were good Christians even as they rounded up and murdered Jews?

Were they making a mistake, or was it purposely hurting others?

Good Christians make mistakes, but they shouldn’t be involved in practicing hurtful things. And adamantly refuse any coercion to do so.

Jesus said “you are my friends if you do what I tell you.”(John 15:14)
“Love your enemy.” - Matt.5:44

The club has rules to follow.

Why isn't there a consistent pattern of Christians being moral? Explain.

Because they don’t follow the rules.
Jesus said there would be, and that he would deny them. - Matt. 7:21-23.

Have a good day.

 

[F1fan]

Were they making a mistake, or was it purposely hurting others?

Are you seriously asking whether enslaving people and exterminating people was just a mistake? Like, oops? Do you really have to ask if these victims were harmed?

Good Christians make mistakes, but they shouldn’t be involved in practicing hurtful things. And adamantly refuse any coercion to do so.

So then why did Christians enslave black people, and exterminate Jews? These acts go direct against being a decent human, but als against what jesus taught. These Christians failed at two levels, why?

Realize this wasn't just a few misguided people making an error, these were state polices and enacted by Christians. Both resulted in war.

Jesus said “you are my friends if you do what I tell you.”(John 15:14)
“Love your enemy.” - Matt.5:44

The club has rules to follow.

Give us an example of an enemy of yours that you love, and how do you show them love?

Because they don’t follow the rules.
Jesus said there would be, and that he would deny them. - Matt. 7:21-23.

Given Christians are attracted to accept Christianity for the afterlife benefits why would Christians ganble on losing them with being criminally immoral?

 

[Truthseeker]

The point is... who's responsible for bettering the situation? for finding the common ground and points of agreement? Baha'is are essentially saying in thread after thread "Our concept of God is real" and "Our prophet is real and the promised return of every other prophet" "Our teachings alone can unite the world."

Those of us that question and doubt the validity of Baha'i claims aren't going to always be or sound respectful. But have the Baha'is been respectful to Christians when they say the Bible is fictional and compared it to a Harry Potter novel? Or another Baha'i blaming priests and the clergy? Are Baha'is respectful to Buddhism when they say they have lost their original teachings? Or to Hindus when they say reincarnation isn't true? Or when they tell Atheists they are blind? Is that the way to build bridges and relationships with people that believe differently than Baha'is?

If Baha'is took to heart those quotes from Baha'u'llah and Abdul Baha, what could we say? "Gee, I don't agree with them and think their religion is false, but they are so kind and loving... So humble and respectful" That's not what some of us are seeing in Baha'is.

Even you have ignored some of my follow up questions, that I feel had nothing to do with debating. So, what am I to think? Unfortunately, I'm thinking that Baha'is are just another religion that thinks it has the truth and is here to promote their beliefs and will stand firm and argue against anyone who thinks differently. Oh, and one more quote... "Let deeds, not words, be your adorning." I'm telling Baha'is a better way of doing things. It is apply your own teachings. Then, I still might not believe you, but you will get my respect.

We have our opinions and they have theirs. We have just as much right to express what we think as they do. Frankly, I don't believe you understand our teachings though you know enough to understand what our teachings mean, your knowledge is incomplete, and we can't spoon feed all the answers you seek. Sometimes there are so many question in one our posts that it is very hard to address every one of them. You need to do some of your own work now on this by reading and pondering, and I may be wrong but I have the impression you don't do what you need to do on that front. As a result, without realizing it, I believe, you pass on misconceptions that we feel it is our duty to correct:

Warn, O Salman, the beloved of the one true God, not to view with too critical an eye the sayings and writings of men. Let them rather approach such sayings and writings in a spirit of open-mindedness and loving sympathy. Those men, however, who, in this Day, have been led to assail, in their inflammatory writings, the tenets of the Cause of God, are to be treated differently. It is incumbent upon all men, each according to his ability, to refute the arguments of those that have attacked the Faith of God.
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 329)

I don't mean to say with this quote that you are assail the Baha'i teachings with malice aforethought. Nevertheless what are in our opinion damaging to the perception of the Baha'i faith, we need to address that.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Mr. Spock is a parody of that human/rational paradox. We are human also, and the pure rational Vulcan mind is a fictional reality for the human being.

I’m pretty Vulcan lol

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Were they making a mistake, or was it purposely hurting others?

OMG. Losing your keys is a mistake. Slavery is a willful act of evil.

 

[F1fan]

We have our opinions and they have theirs. We have just as much right to express what we think as they do. Frankly, I don't believe you understand our teachings though you know enough to understand what our teachings mean, your knowledge is incomplete, and we can't spoon feed all the answers you seek.

Why can't you "spoon feed" us answers? If we skeptics don't understand something about your religion why can't you Baha'i explain what we aren't getting?

Since you admit you have an opinion about baha'i being the truth, could you be mistaken?

Sometimes there are so many question in one our posts that it is very hard to address every one of them. You need to do some of your own work now on this by reading and pondering, and I may be wrong but I have the impression you don't do what you need to do on that front.

If thinkers have questions about your religion why do you think there are so many doubts, and why can't you answer them if you have found the truth?

Not only are you not convincing atheists, you can't even convince other believers. Do you think the huge majority of people are not getting something that you do?

Look at the poll, the majority doubt he was genuine.

As a result, without realizing it, I believe, you pass on misconceptions that we feel it is our duty to correct:

Warn, O Salman, the beloved of the one true God, not to view with too critical an eye the sayings and writings of men. Let them rather approach such sayings and writings in a spirit of open-mindedness and loving sympathy. Those men, however, who, in this Day, have been led to assail, in their inflammatory writings, the tenets of the Cause of God, are to be treated differently. It is incumbent upon all men, each according to his ability, to refute the arguments of those that have attacked the Faith of God.
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 329)

I don't mean to say with this quote that you are assail the Baha'i teachings with malice aforethought. Nevertheless what are in our opinion damaging to the perception of the Baha'i faith, we need to address that.

What makes this true and not a fraud? Anybody can write fake religious claims, where is your evidence that these writing are factual?

 

[CG Didymus]

Those of us that question and doubt the validity of Baha'i claims aren't going to always be or sound respectful. But have the Baha'is been respectful to Christians when they say the Bible is fictional and compared it to a Harry Potter novel? Or another Baha'i blaming priests and the clergy? Are Baha'is respectful to Buddhism when they say they have lost their original teachings? Or to Hindus when they say reincarnation isn't true? Or when they tell Atheists they are blind? Is that the way to build bridges and relationships with people that believe differently than Baha'is?

Actually, I don't expect Baha'is to be respectful to people in the other religions and to Atheists. How can they when they when they think they are wrong and they, the Baha'is, are right? So, in reality, how can they build bridges and form true, honest relationships with people that have contradictory beliefs to them? At best they can pretend to care, but beneath it all, the true motive, is to convert them.

Oh, and one more quote... "Let deeds, not words, be your adorning." I'm telling Baha'is a better way of doing things. It is apply your own teachings. Then, I still might not believe you, but you will get my respect.

Some of the nicest religious people I've ever met were those that weren't so dogmatic about their religious beliefs but put into practice the "Golden Rule" of actually showing love to others and being humble. Have any Baha'is even given the remotest sign of trying to be like that? Like I said, I'd probably still disagree with their beliefs, but I couldn't say a bad thing about how they act.

Why can't you "spoon feed" us answers? If we skeptics don't understand something about your religion why can't you Baha'i explain what we aren't getting?

Since you admit you have an opinion about baha'i being the truth, could you be mistaken?

That's kind of a cop out. They don't have the answers. They have an answer. And we've already heard it over and over again... "Our guy is from God. Whatever he says is The Truth." And we say, "Wait a minute... Before we go believing... a couple of questions... How do you know he's from God? And, for that matter, how do you know there is a God?"

If thinkers have questions about your religion why do you think there are so many doubts, and why can't you answer them if you have found the truth?

Not only are you not convincing atheists, you can't even convince other believers. Do you think the huge majority of people are not getting something that you do?

Yes, they can't prove that there is a God to Atheists, and can't prove their prophet is the fulfillment of the prophecies found in the other religions. Of course, they think they can... And wonder why it isn't obvious to others.

What makes this true and not a fraud? Anybody can write fake religious claims, where is your evidence that these writing are factual?

That's the thing about the Baha'i Faith, it is either true or false. There is nothing in between. There's evidence for and against them being true. Do they really deal fairly with the evidence against? It's pretty much glossed over.

Like with Buddhism they say that originally Buddha taught about the same one God of the Abrahamic religions. What? Where? They show a verse of two of Scriptures that they probably, other than those verses, don't even believe are true. And that's it. That proves it?

They might be true. They might be false. It's worth our while to investigate their claims thoroughly. And like with true believers in most any religion, the word of those believers can't necessarily be trusted as being reliable.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why can't you "spoon feed" us answers? If we skeptics don't understand something about your religion why can't you Baha'i explain what we aren't getting?

I have.

If thinkers have questions about your religion why do you think there are so many doubts, and why can't you answer them if you have found the truth?

I have.

What makes this true and not a fraud? Anybody can write fake religious claims, where is your evidence that these writing are factual?

They are true because Baha'u'llah wrote them and Baha'u'llah was not a fraud.
How do you think I can convince you or anyone else of that?
Do you know anything about how the human mind works?

 

[Trailblazer]

Actually, I don't expect Baha'is to be respectful to people in the other religions and to Atheists. How can they when they when they think they are wrong and they, the Baha'is, are right?

Maybe you should post a poll and ask the Atheists and people of other religions which Baha'is have been disrespectful.
Disagreeing with someone is not disrespectful, it is how one disagrees that can be disrespectful.
As a second part of the poll, if they claim that Baha'i has been disrespectful, ask them to explain what they said that was disrespectful.

I do not think in terms of me being right and others being wrong. That is ego. I believe that the Baha'i Faith is the religion for this age, but I also believe other religions are true. I go to a weekly meeting at a church and I agree with all the Bible verses they cite.

I have a right to believe what I believe, just as everyone else has a right to believe what they believe or disbelieve.

According to your line of reasoning, how could Christians be respectful of other people in the other religions and to Atheists when they think they are wrong and they, the Christians, are right? Yet most of the Christians on this forum are respectful because respectfulness is a character trait

People can disagree and still be respectful of each other. A case in point is my favorite Atheist @Nimos. Another case in point is the Atheist @Alien826. For me it is not disagreement that engenders disrespect, it is people who are constantly criticizing other people or groups of people.

 

[F1fan]

I have.

I have.

Let's take a look at what you offer us:

They are true because Baha'u'llah wrote them and Baha'u'llah was not a fraud.

How do you know his fantastic claims are factual?

And if he is not a fraud then what has he written that is something that indicates he had divine insight? remember you need to prove these claims re true. We skeptics approach Baha'i claims like any other religious claims, and that is we need extraordinary evidence, not weak evidence that require assumptions.

How do you think I can convince you or anyone else of that?

Facts. Show us extraordinary statements he wrote that no mortal could have written via their own wits. Thus far I have reado nothing that impresses me of divine influence.

Do you know anything about how the human mind works?

Yes, psychology was my focus in college. I know you have some education but you post a lot of mistakes. You also claim to be a critical thinker but make mistakes there too. You make no efforts that i can see to check your knowledge before you post, or correct your errors after you post. You often cite logoical fallacies against others that they didn't do.