Discussion:
Liberal Baha'i Errors......((((and they are legion!))))
(too old to reply)
Darrick
2008-12-15 02:38:27 UTC
Permalink
Dear Liberals who call yourself "Baha'is",


1. The black slaves of the Bab and Baha'u'llah were SLAVES, not
"servants" nor "hired help". They were bought (purchased), and could
be sold. Baha'u'llah sold one to pay off a debt. No matter how they
were treated, they were SLAVES. The Bab was a slave trader in Shiraz.
He did NOT free his slaves. These are "facts" (if facts mean
anything).

2. Krishna was NOT a black man! His blue skin was a very rare skin
condition that only a dozen Americans have ever had. He was an Ayran,
according to ___all___ ancient sources. All the Prophets in the Adamic
cycle have been WHITE men, without exception.

3. "Race Unity" was not the most important teaching of Abdu'l-Baha.
Baha'u'llah never really mentioned it, other than to say a garden is
most beautiful with a multitude of colors (i.e. not one color only---
which would be the result of total race unity). The Bab never
mentioned it. Jesus NEVER mentioned it. When Baha'u'llah said that the
pupil is the most imporant part of the eye, I don't "think" he meant
that blacks are more important than whites. He had black servants that
did everything (washed his clothes, fixed meals, grew vegatables,
etc.). He "meant" that blacks are very important, without them nothing
would get done--just like the pupil of the eye, without it no light
would get in (i.e. the black pupil is the servant of the eye and
blacks are the servant of whites---the white of the eye). What he
wrote was actually "racist" (in today's terms).

4. The mission of Jesus Christ was NOT to "unite villages" or "unite
cities". The best "uniter" of cities and villages was Alexander the
Great, or Stalin, or Mao. He mission was NOT to "teach peace and
tolerance". He said, "I come NOT to bring peace, but the SWORD". His
mission was NOT to "increase the status of minorities and women". He
authored NO "Book of Laws". His mission was to offer His blood as an
atonement for sin. NO....no other Manifestation of God did this. All
suffered, but no other Manifestation offered His blood as atonement.

5. Shoghi Effendi wrote that abortion was "absolutely forbidden in the
Cause" and that we shold "deprecate" (speak out openly against)
abortion. Is this being done? No! The opposite is. Baha'i funds are
used to promote CEDAW, an treaty which seeks to make abortion-on-
demand legal worldwide. The U.S. Office for the Ratification of CEDAW
is also the Baha'i Office of External Affairs in Washington D.C. A
handsome percentage of your National Baha'i Fund goes to this office;
which is literally a campaign office for a totally partisan political
campaign. Anyone who merely "mentions" what Shoghi Effendi had to say
about abortion is accused or "getting the faith involved into partisan
politics" and "warned" to keep quiet or face shunning by their local
Community. How is merely quoting Shoghi Effendi on the subject of
abortion "getting the Faith involved into partisan politics?" The
Faith "IS" involved---on the side of the pro-choice cause!

6. The Bab's "Book of Laws" was NOT the Bayan, but the Qayummu'l-Asma;
a book larger than the Qur'an. In that book "divorce" and "abortion"
are both HARAM (absolutely forbidden). Baha'u'llah wrote the Kitab-i-
Aqdas as the "Addendum" of the Qayummu'l-Asma, and abrogates the law
against divorce (and other laws therein), but NOT the law against
abortion. That which is not abrogated, remains the Law of God. Why
hasn't the House published the Qayummu'l-Asma?

7. The mission of Baha'u'llah was to establish the Kingdom of God on
Earth, and that Kingdom will NOT establish Universal Peace. Universal
Peace will be established by the World Union, which will be agnostic
and humanist in worldview. In a pilgrim's note, Baha'u'llah said that
they will outlaw all religions, but, after a few generations, because
the common people have become so wicked, they will choose one
religion, and they will choose the Baha'i Faith; which will become the
State Religion of the World Union. That is how the World Order of
Baha'u'llah will be established, according to Baha'u'llah.
Sock-Puppet'ullah
2008-12-15 05:14:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Darrick
The Bab was a slave trader in Shiraz.
BS. First, none of the records of the Afnan family indicate trading in
slaves. Second, there was no trading in African slaves in Iran in the
middle of the 19th century. Mubarak, the black servant of the
household, was most probably a descendent of African slaves centuries
who had been settled in either Bushire or the ports in Khuzistan,
especially as there is a large African-Iranian population in the
south. But Mubarak was not a slave he was a servant.
Post by Darrick
He did NOT free his slaves. These are "facts" (if facts mean
anything).
The Primal Point was the NOT the head of the household. His uncles
were. If Mubarak was a slave - which he wasn't - it was not within his
power to free anyone in the first place.


<BS snip>
Post by Darrick
6. The Bab's "Book of Laws" was NOT the Bayan, but the Qayummu'l-Asma;
BS. The Qayyum'ul-Asma was a commentary on Surah 12 of the Qur'an
Revealed in a form of a elliptical doxology on the inner meaning of
the Book and with the language and stylism of the Quran itself, and
not His book of ordinances (laws) which are 1) the Arabic Bayan, 2)
the Persian Bayan and 3) the Talisman of the Religion.
Post by Darrick
In that book "divorce" and "abortion"
are both HARAM (absolutely forbidden).
BS. There is absolutely no verse in Qayyum'-ul-Asma which discusses
abortion or divorce. If you believe otherwise, here is the Qayyum'ul-
Asma. Find the chapter and verse:
http://bayanic.com/showPict.php?id=ahsan&ref=0&err=0&curr=0


<bs snipped>


W
All Bad
2008-12-15 12:09:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Darrick
The Bab was a slave trader in Shiraz.
BS. First, none of the records of the Afnan family indicate trading in
slaves. Second, there was no trading in African slaves in Iran in the
middle of the 19th century. Mubarak, the black servant of the
household, was most probably a descendent of African slaves centuries
who had been settled in either Bushire or the ports in Khuzistan,
especially as there is a large African-Iranian population in the
south. But Mubarak was not a slave he was a servant.
Post by Darrick
He did NOT free his slaves. These are "facts" (if facts mean
anything).
The Primal Point was the NOT the head of the household. His uncles
were. If Mubarak was a slave - which he wasn't - it was not within his
power to free anyone in the first place.


<BS snip>
Post by Darrick
6. The Bab's "Book of Laws" was NOT the Bayan, but the Qayummu'l-Asma;
BS. The Qayyum'ul-Asma was a commentary on Surah 12 of the Qur'an
Revealed in a form of a elliptical doxology on the inner meaning of
the Book and with the language and stylism of the Quran itself, and
not His book of ordinances (laws) which are 1) the Arabic Bayan, 2)
the Persian Bayan and 3) the Talisman of the Religion.
Post by Darrick
In that book "divorce" and "abortion"
are both HARAM (absolutely forbidden).
BS. There is absolutely no verse in Qayyum'-ul-Asma which discusses
abortion or divorce. If you believe otherwise, here is the Qayyum'ul-
Asma. Find the chapter and verse:
http://bayanic.com/showPict.php?id=ahsan&ref=0&err=0&curr=0


<bs snipped>


Thanks!

Darrick,

Could you learn from your mistakes some times?


- All Bad

Loading...