Pure and Impure in the Baha'i Faith !?

"Verily, all created things were immersed in the sea of purification when, on that first day of Ridvan, We shed upon the whole of creation the splendours of Our most excellent Names and Our most exalted Attributes." (Baha'u'llah, Kitab-i-Aqdas, para 75)

But somehow, even though feces is pure but covenant-breakers are impure contamination, and some poor covenant breaker buried beside Baha'u'llah is removed from his grave and the UHJ calls this act "purifying" Baha'u'llah's grave from "contamination":

"ANNOUNCE BAHA'I WORLD REMOVAL FROM IMMEDIATE PRECINCTS HOLY SHRINE BAHA'U'LLAH REMAINS MIRZA DIYA'U'LLAH YOUNGER BROTHER MIRZA MUHAMMAD ALI HIS ACCOMPLICE IN EFFORTS SUBVERT FOUNDATIONS COVENANT GOD SOON AFTER ASCENSION BAHA'U'LLAH. THIS FINAL STEP IN PROCESS PURIFICATION SACRED INTERNATIONAL ENDOWMENTS FAITH IN BAHJI FROM PAST CONTAMINATION WAS PROVIDENTIALLY UNDERTAKEN" (http://bahai-library.com/uhj_messages_1963-86_full&chapter=3)

Here is a discussion from REDDIT - EXBAHAI. Enjoy !

[–]t0lk 

You are conflating several different things to promote your anti-Baha'i agenda. There are probably lots of legitimate criticisms of the Faith, but this isn't one of them. First, semantics, purity as a matter of fundamental character is different from sanitary as a physical quality. See Impure Things (Najasat). Surely, you must acknowledge that even feces can be handled (in hospitals, other places where it's necessary) in today world without causing the type of problems that would have existed in the past. Therefore, being afraid of feces doesn't make sense, neither would a label like "unpure" be necessary, as people are educated about bacteria, etc.

Covenant breakers on the other hand, according to Baha'is, have a spiritual disease. They are, therefore, spiritually unpure. An atheist would probably argue that spiritual diseases don't exist, and there is no such thing as being spiritually pure or unpure. Therefore, you could argue if you didn't believe in spiritual things, that the removal was largely ceremonial, and that Baha'is following their religion have every right to make such a choice.

Lastly, if you feel sorry for that particular individual you might take comfort in knowing that "After his death ‘Abdu’l-Bahá said that He had forgiven him." Source
.

[–]investigator919[S]

There are probably lots of legitimate criticisms of the Faith

Thanks for confirming that Baha'ism is flawed.

First, semantics, purity as a matter of fundamental character is different from sanitary as a physical quality. See Impure Things (Najasat). Surely, you must acknowledge that even feces can be handled (in hospitals, other places where it's necessary) in today world without causing the type of problems that would have existed in the past. Therefore, being afraid of feces doesn't make sense, neither would a label like "unpure" be necessary, as people are educated about bacteria, etc.

I never spoke about sanitation. According to the link you provided, both feces and infidels are considered impure (najis) in Islam. But somehow, you believe that feces is now considered pure, but that poor dude that was buried next to Baha'u'llah is an impure contamination. Your belief contradicts Baha'u'llahs statement that: "all created things were immersed in the sea of purification." I am sure you understand that "all created things" encompasses feces, infidels, covenant-breakers, material, and spiritual things alike.

Covenant breakers on the other hand, according to Baha'is, have a spiritual disease. They are, therefore, spiritually unpure.

As I said, the statement, "all created things were immersed in the sea of purification," encompasses everything including covenant-breakers, material, and spiritual things. You are openly opposing Baha'u'llah's teachings by claiming covenant-breakers are impure.

Lastly, if you feel sorry for that particular individual you might take comfort in knowing that "After his death ‘Abdu’l-Bahá said that He had forgiven him."

Well, congratulations to the UHJ for going full retard by referring to someone Abddu'l-Baha claims he has forgiven as a "contamination" that must be "purified".
.

[–]t0lk 

It's interesting how hard you try to make the Baha'i Faith seem bad.

Thanks for confirming that Baha'ism is flawed.

If I criticized a certain mathematician who said 2+2=4 does that mean his math is wrong? Just because you can criticize something doesn't mean it's wrong, perhaps it is your own understanding is flawed. Also, let's say I did say it was flawed, the fact that you would take my word on that as a random person on the internet reveals how much you need it to be true.
.

[–]SeaMonster1

Why are you attacking ex babah'is in and exBah'i forum? Are you a baha'i Mole. did you notice this forum is "for those who left the faith?" Why dont you take your pro baha'i vibe to a pro bahai forum?
.

[–]investigator919[S] 

It's interesting how hard you try to make the Baha'i Faith seem bad.

I'm not even trying.

If I criticized a certain mathematician who said 2+2=4 does that mean his math is wrong? Just because you can criticize something doesn't mean it's wrong, perhaps it is your own understanding is flawed. Also, let's say I did say it was flawed, the fact that you would take my word on that as a random person on the internet reveals how much you need it to be true.

The mathematician you are referring to claims 2+2 = 5. That is what makes him a failure and what is being criticized.
And BTW, I was not speaking with random guy on the internet. I was speaking with a devout Baha'is who also happens to be the MOD of /r/Baha'i who thinks Baha'ism is perfect and at the same time believes that it contains many stuff that are legitimately worthy of criticism, which makes Baha'ism imperfect and flawed. That is just sad...
.

[–]t0lk 

The mathematician you are referring to claims 2+2 = 5. That is what makes him a failure and what is being criticized.

The point of the analogy was just that things that are true can be criticized by others who do not believe them. And that criticism doesn't make something false.
And admitting that the Baha'i Faith can be criticized is not a weakness as you are trying to make it be. Islam would benefit from such an attitude, and certainly if more Muslims were open to their faith being criticized, or even be able to admit certain things are worthy of criticism, fewer people would die in senseless attacks, or be berated while trying to give a lecture, and another. Sad indeed.
.

[–]investigator919[S]

If some belief has many things that are worthy of legitimate criticism, then that belief is imperfect and flawed. No reasonable person would state that a perfect flawless belief is worthy of legitimate criticism. In case you don't know the meaning of "criticize", here is the definition from the Concise Oxford Dictionary: "disapprovingly indicate the faults of."
So, congratulations for believing in a faith that you admit has many faults.
.

[–]t0lk

How can you defend that position when it leads to the actions I linked above? And if you read what I actually wrote, you'll see that I never said I believed such criticisms myself.
Also, since you brought it up, I think this a more accepted definition of criticize:

the expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes.

Lastly, my use of the word "legitimate" seems to have confused you. I used the word to contrast what you had written with other arguments against the Faith. I would consider any criticism of the Faith based on its actual teachings to be legitimate, but a criticism like yours that is based on misrepresentation and confluence of different ideas to be not legitimate.
.

[–]investigator919[S] 

Yeah yeah, misrepresentations like the infallible UHJ calling a dude that Abdu'l-Baha claims he had forgiven as a contamination that Baha'u'llah's grave had to be purified from... and all this after Baha'u'llah had explicitly stated that by his revelation "all created things were immersed in the sea of purification".