Baha'i Fallacies and Contradictions

[ABSOLUTION]

I was also a Baha'i, a very active Baha'i, however the more I looked at Islam the more perplexed I came, how could this be of God if the God we all worship is a loving God? But alas, he is not a loving God, the truth is GOD IS A BASTARD.

[skeptic]

I withdrew from the Faith about fifteen years ago because the administrative order tested me beyond my limits. Now I'm taking a new look at it. I hope that the rest of the forum is more helpful than this thread. It seems that few here rely on sound logic to support their views. Instead most write emotionally and stay in an attack/defend state of mind. I see even Baha'is resorting to the fallacy of attempting to refute an idea by attacking its advocate. Baha'is should know better.

I will be writing on one thread or another here for a month or so while I decide whether my love for individual Baha'is whom I know will lead to a return to the Faith. Be ready. I will be challenging ideas that seem false or are poorly supported and will be pointing out many of the logical flaws that should be obvious to all but go unchallenged.

Even the most sound logic comes to naught if it begins with a false or unsupported premise. Similarly, the truest premises cannot support a conclusion with fallacious logic. Nor will emotional appeals persuade me or any other true skeptic. I hope to raise the level of discourse here, however temporarily. So think before posting lest my challenges prove embarrassing.

[RogerWDavis]

It is possible for men who disagree about interpretations to agree upon the source from which their interpretations part (Num 23:19; Eph 4:4-6).

It is impossible for idiots who adopt various interpretations of men to have peace even within their own damned club, much less with the scatterbrained doctrines other idiots adopt.

Baha'ism is just as much a Gentile trap as is Catholicism, Islam and Judaism (1Sam 8:4-18,19).

When the Jews became Gentiles denying God so to serve a ruler (1Sam 8:4-18,19), David was the Gentile ordained by God to betray them and prove their is no difference between a Jewish Gentile and any other Micky Mouse Club (Deut 17:14-20; 2Sam 23:1-4,5,6-7; Ps 110:1-7).

God is not a club leader (Jer 31:33-34; Malachi 2:1-3,10; 1John 2:24,27).

[birdy]

Ex-bahai Now Christian wrote:

One need only look at traditional fundamentalist Islam being practiced in many parts of the world today, much as it was practiced in the time of Muhammad and the early Caliphs and Imams. Floggings, stonings, amputations, polygamy and harsh treatment of women, and bloodthirsty jihad (holy war) are all examples of teachings found in the Qur'an and Hadith, the original Muslim scriptures. Baha'ism emerged out of the Islamic religious tradition -- in many ways as a reaction to its excesses, arguing that Islam was inspired by God but had become corrupted by men. But the reality is, it was corrupt from the beginning, and today's Islamist fanatics are only trying to reinstate the religion of Muhammad who they view as the ideal man who brought the ideal law for society. Can Baha'is really maintain, as their theology requires, that Muhammad's teachings are superior or a more "progressive revelation" than the earlier, more loving and merciful teachings of Jesus Christ? Look at the tremendous pain and suffering inflicted by the sincere followers of Muhammad, and then judge the religion by its fruits. And then reflect upon the words of Jesus, that "a house divided against itself cannot stand." (Mark 3:25). Reform-oriented Muslims want to ignore the harsher verses in the Qur'an and claim that any offending Hadith must have been forged. Baha'is do the same. But this attitude goes against the obvious truth, that many things Muhammad taught and did are morally objectionable. If you are a Baha'i, you are obliged to accept Muhammad because Baha'u'llah accepted him. But if you cannot accept Muhammad, then you cannot accept Baha'u'llah, no matter how good his faith may seem to you.
Another issue that needs to be considered is the contradictions within the Baha'i Faith itself. Baha'is have a very large scriptural corpus which includes many teachings that conflict with one another upon careful analysis, especially regarding the transition from Babism to Baha'ism and from early Baha'ism to the modern Baha'i Faith. Furthermore, the Baha'i holy writings contain numerous examples of outright error, which undermines the Baha'i belief that the founders of their faith were infallibly guided by God and that everything they wrote is divine revelation.

I am a follower of Jesus. I was very encouraged by your testimony. Thank you so much for sharing.
I really just wanted to encourage you to continue seeking the Lord Jesus. Through His blood alone can all peoples of the world come into a relationship with the Living God.(Hebrews 9:11-15) Please continue to share your testimony with others. Do not be discouraged. John 3:30 says "He must become greater; I must become less." That is one of my favorite verses.
John 15:4 Jesus says, "Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me."
Always remain in Jesus!
Your sister,
amanda

[Bob Wierdsma]

ex-christian now athiest wrote:

the bible is the filthiest book. it is pornographic-read ezekiel, song of songs and song of solomons.'vaginas tasting like wine'. what filth. furthermore, moses killed innocent people, pregnant women and babies and took spoils of war. u filthy hypocrite

I find the Bible to be the most wonderful book in the world, and if there is any "filth" it is merely reporting events as they happened and in no way constitutes an endorsement of any evils that may have occurred. Considering your view of the Bible does that mean atheists are as pure as the driven snow and have never committed any evils?

[e-mail]

[Freedom of Conscience]

A very distorted image of the actual history of the Bahai teachings. It is a misinterpretation of Abdul-Baha's Interpretation of Baha'u'llah's Teachings.

Reform Bahai Faith
Rochester, Michigan USA
www.ReformBahai.org

Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship

My comments posted to the discussion of this article in the Chicago Tribune Forum on one page:
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Chic ...

Yahoo Group - ReformBahai
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ReformBahai

[RonPrice9]

ABSOLUTION wrote:

I was also a Baha'i, a very active Baha'i, however the more I looked at Islam the more perplexed I came, how could this be of God if the God we all worship is a loving God? But alas, he is not a loving God, the truth is GOD IS A BASTARD.

----------
One can not judege any Faith by the behaviour of its adherents. One would not be an atheist or an agnosticeither if one used the same criteria for espousing atheism or agnosticism. One must examine the texts, the life of the Founder, the relevance of the teachings.-Ron Price, Australia

[guest]

Fatima wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, it's not an alias...I stated who I was on the Christian forum. The Baha'i faith is nothing but a cult!

so is islam.

[Justin]

Baha'ullah was a false Prophet. Anyone with common sense would agree that he cannot be Jesus, Mahdi, Krishna, Avatar, & Buddha at the same time - this is ridiculous.

This is what Baha'ullah tells you!

"If one wants to investigate the Bahai faith with eyes which are open and with knowledge and insight, then that one shall most certainly
return emptily. All should leave their sense, insight, understanding and discernment and accept whatever Isay." (Ref: Makatib Vol 2, p 247)

Why is it that this Bahai principle is not applied to Bahai teachings. If truth has to be investigated independently, why is one not allowed to investigate Bahaism? On the contrary, the founder of Bahaism declares if you will investigate the Faith, it will not be worth your while!

[Freedom of Conscience]

Correct links are:

Comments posted to The Chicago Tribune Forum
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Chic...

Full text: May 18, 2009. The Chicago Tribune Baha'i rift: Baha'is upset with Orthodox Baha'i Faith
Original:(now requires registration) The Chicago Tribune.
Baha'i rift: Baha'is upset with Orthodox Baha'i Faith May 18, 2009

Full text original also available through:

WORLDWIDE RELIGIOUS NEWS
http://wwrn.org/articles/30946/...

TimesDispatch
Richmond Times-Dispatch
Rift in Baha’i faith becomes grounds for lawsuit
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/lifestyles/...

My Original post to The Chicago Tribune. The comments below are also available on Yahoo Group - ReformBahai http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ReformBahai

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2009/may/1...



http://www.topix.com/forum/source/chicago-tri...

[RonPrice9]

guest wrote:

<quoted text>
so is islam.

----------
If you google the following: Udo Schaefer's english articles, you will get his response to the view that the Baha'i Faith is a sect or a cult.
www.udoschaefer.com/articles_e1.php--his article is a devastating critique of the position, the view, of the Baha'i Faith as sect, cult, denomination or ism.-Ron Price, Tasmania

[RonPrice9]

skeptic wrote:

I withdrew from the Faith about fifteen years ago because the administrative order tested me beyond my limits. Now I'm taking a new look at it. I hope that the rest of the forum is more helpful than this thread. It seems that few here rely on sound logic to support their views. Instead most write emotionally and stay in an attack/defend state of mind. I see even Baha'is resorting to the fallacy of attempting to refute an idea by attacking its advocate. Baha'is should know better.
I will be writing on one thread or another here for a month or so while I decide whether my love for individual Baha'is whom I know will lead to a return to the Faith. Be ready. I will be challenging ideas that seem false or are poorly supported and will be pointing out many of the logical flaws that should be obvious to all but go unchallenged.
Even the most sound logic comes to naught if it begins with a false or unsupported premise. Similarly, the truest premises cannot support a conclusion with fallacious logic. Nor will emotional appeals persuade me or any other true skeptic. I hope to raise the level of discourse here, however temporarily. So think before posting lest my challenges prove embarrassing.

----------
Apologetics is a branch of systematic theology, although some experience its thrust in religious studies or philosophy of religion courses. Some encounter it on the internet for the first time in a more populist and usually much less academic form. As I see it, apologetics is primarily concerned with the protection of a position, the refutation of the issues raised by that position's assailants and, in the larger sense, the exploration of that position in the context of prevailing philosophies and standards in a secular society, a religious society, indeed, any society past or present. All of us defend our positions whatever these positions are: atheistic, theistic, agnostic, humanistic, skeptic, cynic, realist, pragmatist and any one of a multitude of religions, denominations, sects, cults, isms and wasms.

Apologetics, to put it slightly differently, is concerned with answering both general and critical inquiries from others. In the main, though, apologetics deals with criticism of a position and dealing with that criticism in as rational a manner as possible. Apologetics can help explore the teachings of a religion or of a philosophy in the context of the prevailing religions and philosophies of the day as well as in the context of the common laws and standards of a secular society. Although the capacity to engage in critical self-reflection on the fundamentals of some position is a prerequisite of the task of engaging in apologetics, apologetics derives much of its impetus from a commitment to a position.

Given the role of apologetics in religious and philosophical history and in the development of the texts and ideas that are part and parcel of that history, it is surprising that contemporary communities generally undervalue its importance and often are not even aware of the existence of this sub-discipline of philosophy. Authors, writers, editors of journals and leaders known for defending points in arguments, for engaging in conflicts or for taking up certain positions that receive great popular scrutiny and/or are minority views engage in what today are essentially forms of secular apologetics.

Naturally in life, we all take positions on all sorts of topics, subjects, religions and philosophies. Often that position is inarticulate and poorly thought out if given any thought at all. With that said, though, the apologetics I engage in here is a never-ending exercise with time out for the necessary and inevitable quotidian tasks of life: eating, sleeping, drinking and a wide range of leisure activities. Write to me at: [e-mail] if you want to discuss any issues in more depth.-Ron Price, Tasmania

[Freedom of Conscience]

Opinion of US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 08-2306 - November 23, 2010
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/US_7...

Baha'i Faith & 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
http://bahaifaith7thcircuitcourtofappeals.blo...

Judge: Baha'i believers can call themselves Baha'i Chicago BreakingNews November 23, 2010

Federal appeals court rules in favor of splinter Baha'i group Orthodox believers can keep calling themselves Baha'i, court says. November 25, 2010 By Manya A. Brachear, Chicago Tribune reporter. Also here on ChicagoTribune.com .

7th Circuit Court of Appeals Judges hammer NSA's attorney February 20, 2009 (3 minute MP3 from the court website)
Judge Diane S. Sykes: "Clearly raises some constitutional concerns."
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/USCo...

7th Cir: Public online 08-2306 case documents as PDF and oral argument MP3
Opinion in case# 08-2306, Judge Sykes:
"When a district judge takes sides in a religious schism, purports to decide matters of spiritual succession, and excludes dissenters from using the name, symbols, and marks of the faith (as distinct from the name and marks of a church)[boldface added], the First Amendment line appears to have been crossed."

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx...
Or download Opinion as PDF in one click

From Judge Sykes' Opinion:

p 7: False finding of "fact" by Judge Austin in 1966

p 13: "...civil authorities may not make judgments about religious controversies when deciding church property disputes. Kedroff, 344 U.S. at 116.(The church-autonomy principle recognized in Watson “must now be said to have federal constitutional protection as a part of the free exercise of religion against state interference.”)."
"Building on Kedroff, the Supreme Court held in Presbyterian Church that “the First Amendment severely circumscribes the role that civil courts may play in resolving church property disputes.”

p 14-15: "Considered in light of these First Amendment limitations on the court’s authority, certain aspects of the 1966 injunction are troubling. The decree declares that “there is only one Baha’i Faith,” that Shoghi Effendi was its last Guardian and none has come since, and the National Spiritual Assembly was its representative and “highest authority” in the United States and was “entitled to exclusive use of the marks and symbols of the Faith,” including the exclusive use of the word “Bahá’í.” Declarations of this sort push the boundaries of the court’s authority under Kedroff and Presbyterian Church. In church property disputes (trademark suits obviously qualify), the First Amendment limits the sphere in which civil courts may operate. When a district judge takes sides in a religious schism, purports to decide matters of spiritual succession, and excludes dissenters from using the name, symbols, and marks of the faith (as distinct from the name and marks of a church)[boldface added], the First Amendment line appears to have been crossed."

p 17: "’It is a principle of general application in Anglo-American jurisprudence that one is not bound by a judgment in personam in a litigation in which he is not designated as a party or to which he has not been made a party by service of process.’”"

p 20: The court expands on and concludes that the parties were simply not in privity with the 1966 flawed decision by Judge Austin.



NOTE WELL: "a church," i.e., the Court clearly states, as a matter of incontestable historical fact, that the Wilmette nsa merely constitutes one of many interpretations of the Baha'i Faith.

-----

The root of the problem with the Wilmette, Haifan interpretation of the Baha'u'llah's Teachings is that it leaves out Abdul-Baha's actual 1912 Authentic Covenant, substituting the spurious will and testament forged by Shoghi Effendi's family in 1921...

[RonPrice9]

As a Baha'i for over half a century I find this discussion about the question of succession and the authenticity of Abdu'l-Baha's Will and Testament like an old dish rag. I've seen these arguments now for decades and for those who want to question the legitimacy of the Baha'i administrative order I leave you to it. The following link may be of interest to some readers here: http://info.bahai.org/universal-house-of-just...

[meme]

so what does this everything has to do with Jesus?