Aug 29, 2011 -- 2:11AM, Aka_me wrote:

is there anything SPECIFIC to the Baha'i Faith, which would indicate it is not what it claims to be?

Yes...The longstanding, demonstrable and well documented behaviour of Baha'is.

;-) 

Aug 30, 2011 -- 7:52AM, MrBear wrote:

Aug 29, 2011 -- 2:11AM, Aka_me wrote:

is there anything SPECIFIC to the Baha'i Faith, which would indicate it is not what it claims to be?

Yes...The longstanding, demonstrable and well documented behaviour of Baha'is.

 

;-) 

allow me to rephrase this

because humans are fallible... it proves Baha'u'llah is not who He claims?

if I had the time, I'd go identify the exact name of this fallacy.

it has taken an extraordinarily long time in being admitted,

but finally we see the attack against Baha'u'llah for what it is.

Aug 31, 2011 -- 7:10AM, MrBear wrote:

1/ Request – “anything SPECIFIC to the Baha'i Faith, which would indicate it is not what it claims to be?”

2/ Response- “Yes...The longstanding, demonstrable and well documented behaviour of Baha'is.

3/ Demonstration of “well documented behaviour”- Take 2/ and pretend it reflects an -  “attack against Baha'u'llah”.

That seems to be an unfair assessment, Rodney.  The opening post asked:  "... what would be considered a logical argument that the Baha'i Faith is not the Will of God."

Granted that the ending sentence rephrased the initial question of the post, which is the one you chose to cite, but the post was specific to the validity of the Faith itself and not about its adherents.  Would you say that Christianity wasn't the "Will of God" or "not what it claims to be" based upon the illegal, immoral, or just plain stupid actions by individuals who self-identify as Christians?  In that sense, yes, it would be denying the validity of Jesus Christ and His entire ministry upon which the whole of Christendom was built.

Aug 31, 2011 -- 10:30AM, world citizen wrote:

That seems to be an unfair assessment, Rodney. 

Oh, yes, of course it does World...I chose, with good cause, to respond to the specific question quoted, if I had have been responding to the entire post I would have cited it, I chose to answer the question quoted because to do so legitimately raises the issue of the behaviour of Baha'is.......But we can't have that can we?...It must be obfuscated with "SOME" Baha'is not "ALL" Bahai'is (as if I suggested otherwise) and SE said Baha'is arn't perfect (which legitimises/grants licence to endless offensive behaviours) and the Crusades don't invalidate Jesus (therefore we could never discuss the 'behaviour' of the Crusaiders as being reflective/not of Christianity...Just as we could not/have not/will not EVER discuss the behaviour of Baha'is)... and it is, was, allways will be an "unfair assessment"...because that way the issue raised is evaded and obfuscated and transmogrified (once more and yet again) into an attack on Baha'u'llah and Gods Will....it wouldn't be an "unfair assessment" to conclude that I couldn't get more evil than to deny/defy Gods Will...would it?

Aug 31, 2011 -- 10:30AM, world citizen wrote:

Granted that the ending sentence rephrased the initial question of the post, which is the one you chose to cite,

Oh...how generous of you...you grant that I was responding specificaly and directly to the sentence/question I chose to cite...what a remarkable concession to reality.

Aug 31, 2011 -- 10:30AM, world citizen wrote:

... but the post was specific to the validity of the Faith itself and not about its adherents. 

Which is why I chose to respond to the specific last sentence which was NOT "specific to the validity of the Faith itself" and allowed the legitimate introduction and consideration of the behaviour of Baha'is.

Aug 31, 2011 -- 10:30AM, world citizen wrote:

Would you say that Christianity wasn't the "Will of God" or "not what it claims to be" based upon the illegal, immoral, or just plain stupid actions by individuals who self-identify as Christians?  In that sense, yes, it would be denying the validity of Jesus Christ and His entire ministry upon which the whole of Christendom was built.

If what is being touted/professed/displayed and witnessed (on a significantly large scale over a protracted period) as 'Christianity' holds little or no adherance to core Christian values/teachings and has become "based upon the illegal, immoral, or just plain stupid actions by individuals who self-identify as Christians".....then that 'Christianity' is rightfully wide open to critique and criticism.

And such critique and criticism of " illegal, immoral, or just plain stupid actions" DOES NOT render one to be "denying the validity of Jesus Christ and His entire ministry".....on the contrary- DEFENDING IT.

Likwise Baha'i.

Despite the most determined and desperate " immoral, or just plain stupid" behavious that would attempt to portray (the very act of identifying such behaviours) as "denying the validity of Baha'u'llah and His entire ministry".

A decade+ and still...the ONLY way the issue/s can be conceptualised and met is as- Enemy/Opponent of Gods Will and His Faith.

How's that working out for ya'll so far?

1. humans make mistakes.

2. the Baha'i Faith is (or is not) from God.

we have to realize these are two different issues.

this thread is devoted to asking for debate points regarding #2.

to bring evidence of #1... does nothing to discuss #2.

why is that so difficult to comprehend?

I don't argue about humans being fallible. my definition of "being human" IS to make mistakes. if this were not true then we wouldn't have the word human, we would be using small g god, because we would all be gods.

do the mistakes of individual believers prove Baha'u'llah is not speaking the Will of God?

if yes, then try to explain the connection.

if no, then drop the issue of faulty individual believers IN THIS THREAD.