What's up with the Baha'i communities?

I don't normally ask for help from anyone but I could use some advice.

I don't really have any connection to my community. I Declared I guess it was now 4 or 5 years ago. The community has always been friendly at an arms-length sort of way, but I never seemed to find my foot in the door. I never got invited to a feast and honestly I don't really know how they work after all this time or what is involved. They wanted me to take the Ruhi course. I had already studied many of the texts and I did not really care for how the first few weeks of it was done so I dropped out of that.

Later on when I changed my email address it somehow did not get updated with their mailing list. I tried to have it updated but that did not happen. My Baha'i community life consists of monthly requests for donation letters from the national committee. I used to be a Buddhist. I was part of a small but active community. We meditated together, we went palces, socialized, went out for dinner, even went to movies. I don't have any of that. I sometimes feel like I've given up a great deal and I have no idea what on earth I got in return. I can't go back. I do believe in Baha'u'llah and the teachings. It would be far easier if I did not.

I thought that the Baha'i community would be involved in acts to start to improve the world on some level. Obviously that doesn't happen, at least on any organized level ive ever seen, but even the community is just not there.

Maybe it's because I'm not old enough to know the folks who joined in the 1960's and I'm not Iranian-American. Is there anyone in a situation like this? How do you manage or do you? I can't be the only one.

Source : https://www.reddit.com/r/bahai/comments/7ldtfh/i_love_you_but_im_lost/

See also this video which I think can be related to the above post.

Elderly Baha'i left to die, appeals for help from Baha'is.


  1. Good day,
    I just published a book titled “An Independent Investigation of the Bahá'í Faith” and in case it might be of interest, it can be found here: https://www.createspace.com/pub/simplesitesearch.search.do?sitesearch_query=ken+ammi&sitesearch_type=STORE and here: https://www.amazon.com/Ken-Ammi/e/B071NW4F4W

  2. Hey, Ken, that book of yours should be titled, "Attacks on the Baha'i Faith to Promote my Brand of Christianity." You are no more credible than most Baha'is and I'm on to you!

    1. Good day Dale. Is that really your conclusion after having read it? I am certainly aware that you consider me amongst the “Enemies of Truth and Justice” because I do not accept your assertions. However, you may be aware that Baha'ism invited people to conduct an independent investigation of their claims, I did just that, and the book records my results.

    2. First, I do not need to read your book on the Baha'i Faith to know your agenda, because I have already seen enough of your writings on your laughable "freethinker" blog to know how utterly bogus it is.

      Thanks for attacking me here, hypocrite:

      And you do not allow comments on your own blog! How pathetic.

      Actually I do not expect you to accept anyone else's assertions, liar. I expect honest and courageous people to accept only FACTS, nothing more or less. It's bad enough you live in a fantasy world, but to demand everyone else share it with you is despicable. I will fight ANYONE who does that, whether Christian or Baha'i.

    3. Sir, may I correct you? When you are in a good mood you complimented my work on Baha’ism. But when I publish the results of my independent investigation you suddenly sour.

      Of course, you have just admitted that you are willing to, in a manner of speaking, negatively review a book without having read it so that you have discredited yourself.

      Also, a hypocrite is someone who condemns that which they themselves do so that in this case, your charge of hypocrisy is erroneous. Also, upon what premise do you condemn hypocrisy?

      Then you imply some sort of absolute ethic about comments on blogs but that is another of your mere assertions. Well, that post states, “Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.” Thus, you can post on more than one social networking site just not on my blog because I received gigs worth of robo-spam that were causing my server service to intermittently shut my site down.

      You also call me a liar but am unsure how you know that I am lying? Also, upon what premise do you condemn lying?

      You imply that you have some sort of special status whereby you base your worldview on only FACTS which is a clear indication that you are not aware of or are ignoring the fact of properly basic beliefs and that, of course, you personally believe many things without a single fact as a basis: as do we all because we are such very limited beings.

      Lastly, the fact that you refer to my replies to you are “attacking” denotes that you are handling this issue emotionally rather than rationally: please reconsider your approach.

    4. "you have discredited yourself."
      That is itself a baseless assertion. The only way you can really discredit me is with either superior logic or with empirical data that clearly refutes my claims. Neither of which you have.

      I call you a hypocrite because of your obvious double standards, criticizing the Baha'i Faith for its dishonesty and hypocrisies while defending the equally flawed Christian faith. If you were truly objective and fair you would not defend any dogmatic system of thought. I don't and I never will.

      If your blog is that vulnerable to "robo-spamming" then it is worthless. I don't have that problem on MY blog. Naturally, I do not believe you. And why should anyone go to another place to comment on your issues?

      You lied when you said I made assertions that you reject. I have already seen what you call assertions of mine. Maybe you should look up that word in a dictionary?

      I do NOT have a "worldview". That term is useless to me. The idea that non-believers in religion have an opposing worldview is itself an assertion to justify smearing the opposition to religious dogmatism. Shame on you!

      Finally, we are not Vulcans of Star Trek, so shut up about people like me having emotions. That's another fallacy know as ad hominem.

  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

  4. "When you are in a good mood you complimented my work on Baha’ism. But when I publish the results of my independent investigation you suddenly sour."

    When I first noticed you years ago, Ken Ammi, I didn't know you were a Christian apologist. Your attacks on the Baha'i Faith were accepted at first because of my ignorance. Once I realized your true motives, I became your opponent. Attacking one dogmatic and irrational religion to promote another is like warning people not to drink cyanide and then offering them arsenic!

    1. Fiend, again I discern your emotiveness which keeps you from engaging in reasoned discourse. For example I note that “you have discredited yourself” and you reply with “The only way you can really discredit me” but I said that you had done it to yourself and not that I had done it to you.
      Then, you demand that I could only do so “with either superior logic or with empirical data that clearly refutes my claims” but you seem unwilling to read the book so you will never know whether I present superior logic or with empirical data.

      So yes, you call me a hypocrite but do so as a mere assertion as I asked “upon what premise do you condemn hypocrisy?” and you ignore it because you know that your worldview only allows you to reply that it is because you feel like it.
      Also, double standard does not necessarily mean hypocrisy. And just so that you are aware, via superior logic or with empirical data, I wrote an entire book criticizing Catholicism for its dishonesty and hypocrisies and you will surely categorize Catholicism as an aspect of Christianity. And, by the way, by definition your worldview is premised upon dogma and “I don't and I never will” is itself a dogmatic statement.

      I also asked you “upon what premise do you condemn lying?” and you ignore it because you know that your worldview only allows you to reply that it is because you feel like it.
      Well, the fact is that my blog is vulnerable to “robo-spamming” and so you conclude that it is therefore worthless which is a classic example of the logical genetic fallacy. The reason that someone should go to another place to comment on my issues is that well, I already explained that. My simple invitation is to go to the various networking sites where that particular post is shared and comment as they please.
      You then claim to know that I lied but I am unsure how you could know that: as an FYI there is a difference between merely being wrong and lying. As it is, you could only claim that I am wrong since you would have to read my mind in order to know whether I was actually lying—wrong due to lying, due to purposefully and knowingly making an inaccurate statement rather than simply being wrong.
      Moreover, what I stated is that “you consider me amongst the ‘Enemies of Truth and Justice’ because I do not accept your assertions.” The context in which you called me that denotes that you did so because just that: I do not accept your assertions, your worldview, your dogma.
      And yes, of course you have a worldview, everyone does as our worldview is just that: our view of the world (anything and everything). But I see that you are getting emotional again since you appeal to “smearing” and “Shame” but then you even take appeals to have you focus on logic and data rather than feelings in an emotional manner. In fact, concluding that I was referring to “having emotions” is fallacious on its face as I was clearly begging you to engage in reasoned discourse rather than reacting emotionally since doing so clearly causing you to overreact and make blunders. Also, please understand that ad hominem is not mentioning that your opponent is emotional and then going on to deal with your opponent’s arguments. Rather, ad hominem would be if my only reply was noting that you are being emotive—period, and leaving it at that.

      Lastly, you employ another genetic logical fallacy by claiming that my “attacks”—actually, independent investigation—on the Baha'i Faith were accepted but then discredited because I am a Christian. This is utter illogic: if my criticisms of Baha'ism are sound then they are sound regardless of who I am, what I am, what you feel about me, etc.

      I appreciate the interaction, friend.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Baha'i Texts

Popular Posts

Total Pageviews


Blog Archive

About Me