How are these Great Beings explained?

[InvestigateTruth]

.....Who is the red dragon? ...

“And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven
heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth.”[61] This dragon represents the Umayyads, who seized the reins of the religion of Muḥammad; and the seven heads and seven crowns represent the seven dominions and kingdoms over which they came to rule: the Roman dominion in Syria; the Persian, the Arabian, and the Egyptian dominions; the dominion of Africa—that is, Tunisia, Morocco, and Algeria; the dominion of Andalusia, which is now Spain; and the dominion of the Turkish tribes of Transoxania. The Umayyads gained power over all these dominions. The ten horns represent the names of the Umayyad rulers, for, barring repetition, they are ten sovereigns, or ten names of chiefs and rulers. The first is Abú Sufyán and the last is Marván. Some of their names have been repeated,
including two Mu‘áviyihs, three Yazíds, two Valíds, and two Marváns. If, however, these names are each counted only once, they number ten in total. These Umayyads—the first of whom was Abú Sufyán, the former chief of Mecca and founder of the dynasty, and the last of whom was Marván—destroyed a third of the holy and sanctified souls who descended from the pure lineage of Muḥammad and who were even as the stars of heaven.
“And the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.”[62] This woman is the religion of God, as was before explained. The
dragon’s standing near her signifies that it was keeping watch to devour her child as soon as it had been delivered. This child was the promised Manifestation, Who is the offspring of the religion of Muḥammad. The Umayyads were ever anxious to lay hold on the Promised One Who was to appear from the lineage of Muḥammad, that they might destroy and annihilate Him, for they greatly feared His advent. And so wherever they found a descendant of Muḥammad who was respected in the eyes
of the people, they killed him.

Abdulbaha, Some Answered Questions

 

[Jedster]

Maybe something really bad is gonna happen...

That cat in your avatar looks scary.

Oh, we're onto page 667 now.

Everything's gonna be ok after all.

Phew!!!
Louis, the cat, says he's ok.

 

[Dawnofhope]

The second Woe ended in 11:14 and the third Woe is coming quickly? Yet, all the beasts relate back to Islam? And, the red dragon is the Abbasids, but they brought in the "golden" age of Islam? What is said about the beast with the fatally wounded head doesn't fit with what you said.

"However, one of the Umayyads, 'Abd al-Rahman, known as "The Falcon of the Quraysh," managed to escape to Andalusia (Spain) where he set up another Umayyad dynasty that lasted for 300 years. Thus Andalusia was the wounded head that healed."
Can you tell me for each dragon and beast reference which dynasty you think it is? 11:7 a beast comes out of the abyss and kills the two witnesses. The Ummayads? Also, explain how verse 14 has the second Woe ending right in the middle of all these dragons and beasts?

12:3 the red dragon tries to devour the woman's child. 12:9 the dragon is said to be Satan. Are you sure the Abbasids are the dragon?

Keep in mind that the Dispensation of the Bab or the second woe only lasted 19 years. That is why the third woe cometh quickly, but also why the beast/dragon of the Islamic Caliphate is still around.

Whether we are talking about the beast or dragon, it still refers to the Islamic Caliphate. The Umayyads and Abbasids were of course important dynasties within that Caliphate. So were the Ottomans. We have allusions to all three in Revelation.

12:3 the red dragon tries to devour the woman's child. 12:9 the dragon is said to be Satan. Are you sure the Abbasids are the dragon?

The Dragon is the Islamic Caliphate that begun with the Umayyads in 661 and ended with the demise of the Ottomans through WWI.

13:1 a beast with 10 horns, 7 heads and 10 crowns and looks like a leopard, feet like a beer, and a mouth like a lion. One of its heads has the wound. The whole earth followed this beast and it got its authority from the dragon? If the dragon is the Abbasids, and this beast is the Ummayads, how did the Ummayads get their authority from the Abbasids that came after them and had revolted and defeated the Ummayads?

The Umayyads were destroyed by the Abbasids, but the Umayyad Caliphate continued as one of the seven heads (territorial dominions) of the first beast, that existed under the reign of the Abbasids and then the Ottomans (ie for much of the dispensation of Islam - 1260 years duration from the start of the Islamic calendar to the start of the Baha'i calender).

Timeline of the Muslim presence in the Iberian Peninsula - Wikipedia

13:11another beast that comes out of the earth with two horns like a lamb and spoke like a dragon? This beast makes everyone worship the first beast that had the fatal wound that was healed. You said the wounded one was part of the Ummayads that set himself up in Andalucia after the Abbasids took over? But anyway, this new beast makes everyone worship the image of the first beast? Who is this? Thanks.

The second beast was the Abbasid dynasty IMHO. The Abbasid dynasty came to power by conquest on the ruins (earth) of the Umayyad Empire. Its rulers gradually became Turkish beginning about 840 AD. The second beast had two names (horns) of 'the Caliph' and 'the Sultan.' At its apex, the second beast exercised all the power of the Umayyads and revived the dying Empire that had been "mortally wounded" yet had lived on in Spain. The nations of Europe, Africa, and the Middle East once again admired the Islamic Empire. The second beast also displayed remarkable technical and scientific skills. Very early they learned the use of gunpowder and strange devices were used in war, such as burning javelins and globes that were propelled over long distances.

Hope that helps.

Edit: NB Anything in chapter 13 of the book of Revelation is open for debate amongst Baha'is as we don't have any specific and authoritative interpretations, and any comments I make are my opinion albeit based on research.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Phew!!!
Louis, the cat, says he's ok.

That's a relief then. We have just been discussing the number 666, its origins and what it means (see above). You are welcome to join us, but such discussion isn't for everybody.

 

[Dawnofhope]

If... "The purpose of the Bab's Revelation was to prepare His followers for Him whom God shall make manifest." Why is so much focus, including major prophecy, centered on 1844? What are some prophecies that point to 1863 when Baha'u'llah declared he was the manifestation? Thanks.

That is because 1844 is when the Baha'i era or dispensation begins. Our calendar (initially revealed by the Bab and confirmed by Baha'u'llah) starts from 23rd May 1844, when the Bab declared to Mulla Husayn.

In regards to 1863, this is considered to related to the number 1290 prophesied in the book of Daniel 12:11

And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.
Daniel 12:11

The research department of the Universal House of Justice makes a reference to 1290 in a letter to an individual believer:

In "Some Answered Questions" (Wilmette: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1984), pages 43-44, Abdu'l-Bahá interprets the prophecy concerning the 1,290 days in the following terms:

The beginning of this lunar reckoning is from the day of the proclamation of the prophethood of Muhammad in the country of Hijaz; and that was three years after His mission, because in the beginning the prophethood of Muhammad was kept secret, and no one knew it save Khadijah and Ibn Nawfal. After three years it was announced. And Bahá'u'lláh, in the year 1290 from the proclamation of the mission of Muhammad, caused His manifestation to be known.

Note that the Master indicates that, in this instance, time is measured by the "lunar" calendar. Since the proclamation of the mission of Muhammad took place ten years prior to the Hegira, i.e., His flight from Mecca to Medina, from which date the Muslim calendar begins, the year 1290 from the proclamation of the mission of Muhammad was the year 1280 of the Hegira, or 1863-64 A.D.
There are references to 1,290 days in "God Passes By", on pages 110 and 151. In these passages, Shoghi Effendi confirms that the Declaration of Bahá'u'lláh in Baghdad, which occurred in 1863 (1280 A.H.), represents the fulfilment of the 1,290 days.

 

[loverofhumanity]

That is the question... Are the promises of all the religions being fulfilled? The promise of a peaceful world hasn't happened yet. And some people question whether the Baha'i Faith can fulfill that promise.

In the beginning of all religions it’s like that. Christianity began with a few disciples then grew to embrace all humanity. Who would have thought then that it would encompass the world?

People then would have scoffed like they do now about Baha’u’llah. So only time will tell.

For us lucky ones however, who have accepted, we are able to perform some acts of service in this life.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Abdul 'baha said the flesh body died and was buried. Christ also said the flesh amounts to nothing. So they are in tune with each other.

Abdul'baha said look for the Spiritual Meanings of the Crucifixion, Burial and Resurection as it is matters of the Spirit that are important. Christ siad it is the Spirit that Gives Life.

I am guessing this is how Baha'is also harmonize what the Qu'ran says with the Bible? That when the Qu'ran says they crucified Jesus not- it means the spiritual Jesus? Because I've thought about myself, just as a passing question- about rather what the Bible and Qu'ran say about Jesus's death can actually be in harmony. The Qu'ran says Jesus wasn't even crucified.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Yes that is the Baha'i' belief. So how about discussing the opposite, LH? What if the entire thing is one big hoax? What if Baha'u'llah was just a crazy old man with a few creative ideas, and the entire Baha'i' faith is based on other people being duped? That is also a possible scenario.

My point here is that your argument can be made for all religions, all faiths, all personal beliefs. It boils down to saying, 'But what if I am right?" Well, everyone can say that, if they wish to. I wouldn't, because it's only my belief. The concept of being right or wrong is a strong force in any evangelical proselytising faith. For me, it isn't that way at all.

Sure, I'll discuss it, if you also agree to discussing that it might b e wrong, as all the exBaha'i' have independently concluded.

But really, what's to discuss? Baha'i's believe in Baha'i' beliefs, and non Baha'i's don't.

How then do you actually determine what truth is? Tradition? How many believers a religion has? Wealth? Power? Influence?

What is your criteria to determine and distinguish truth from falsehood?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Hinduism is a religion I have little knowledge or experience. Have you asked any Hindus?

If it is corrected, than who was the manifestation that started Hinduism?

If you did some research you might hear something like this:

Hinduism is a collective term applied to the many philosophical and religious traditions native to India. Hinduism has neither a specific moment of origin nor a specific founder. Rather, the tradition understands itself to be timeless, having always existed.
Read more at Hinduism Origins, Hinduism History, Hinduism Beliefs

Presuming, whoever that was, that he didn't teach reincarnation, then when did the "wrong" tradition of reincarnation get started and why does it persist?.

How about:

Historically speaking, the theory of reincarnation is as old as the history of man. Reincarnation arose in northern India between the years 1000 and 600 BC, just at the time that David and his descendants ruled Israel until the fall of Jerusalem. The first reference to reincarnation idea is at least 2600 years. It appears in the Upanishads, the sacred scriptures of Hinduism..

History Of Reincarnation: The Ancient And Original Beliefs

When Krishna appeared, did he set everybody straight about reincarnation?

Hindus will see clear evidence to support reincarnation in the Upanishads as the Christians see the NT confirming a literal resurrection.

We really need to have a Baha'i here who has been a Hindu or has excellent knowledge of Hinduism IMHO. We don't.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I am guessing this is how Baha'is also harmonize what the Qu'ran says with the Bible? That when the Qu'ran says they crucified Jesus not- it means the spiritual Jesus? Because I've thought about myself, just as a passing question- about rather what the Bible and Qu'ran say about Jesus's death can actually be in harmony. The Qu'ran says Jesus wasn't even crucified.

That's exactly how Baha'is see it.

 

[Dawnofhope]

So everything that Christians believed about Jesus begins with a false belief that he rose from the dead?

Not all. His disciples didn't believe it. They never saw it. It never happened.

And again I'll ask, when did Christians ever have or teach the truth about Jesus?

From day one.
Matthew 3:13-17

A major manifestation in the Baha'i progression of religious truth and the thing that gets people to believe in him... isn't true?

We all have tares that need to be separated from wheat.
Matthew 13:24-30

 

[loverofhumanity]

Good. Different topic somewhat.



What if The Buddha actually talked about god and was part of the progression of other prophets, I'd have to say that's like changing two and two is four to make it five.

You'd literally have to show me in the suttas that The Buddha did point to god, as the creator, the god of the jews, and not the god of Hinduism. Then you'll have to explain how Brahma, the god of Hinduism is the god of the Jews and god of Christians in order to relate how The Buddha sees the god of abraham if you can connect him (GOA) with Brahma.

You have to give us more to go on. We can't say "what if we're right" when there is nothing to draw a conclusion of what you could be right about.

The suttas are not divine or holy books. That's another issue that what-ifs are illogical to ask. First, the suttas have to be divine. Then they would have to point to god. Then the disciples of The Buddha would have to know about the GOA somehow to put it in The Buddha's mouth he had anything to do with the suttas being divinely inspired by GOA.

The suttas aren't inspired. The Dharma is inspired. People have many interpretations of what the suttas mean. There is only one interpretation of The Dhamma.

Christ can be god or human but no christian and scripture would say he is not god's son nor part of the role of salvation for jews and gentiles.

Also, asking these two questions is saying "what if christians, hindu, and buddhists are wrong."

It works both ways. I understand the point of the question. The conflict is that you all welcome diversity but then ask "what if we're right?"

There is no right and wrong.

Imposing that there should be one is displacing many many cultures that do not hold those views.

What if you're wrong?

Life goes on.

The thing we do know is that all the major religions speak of both a golden age and a Promised One to appear at a latter age. That is part of their expectations.

We are only saying that He has appeared. That the promises in their Holy Books are fulfilled. The Jews wait for the Messiah, the Christians the return of Christ, the Buddhists Maitreya and so on.

One day these things will happen. One day Christ is supposed to return and the Buddha and Krishna also. So it is written and recorded.

So what happens then? The Christians aren’t supposed to accept Christ when He returns or the Buddhist a new Buddha?

So theoretically tell me when these Teachers do return do you honestly think their followers are going to welcome Them with open arms? Just look at what the Jews did to Christ Whom they claimed to be waiting for.

Whenever a Teacher apoears, history shows that the former religion which expected His coming either tortured, killed or crucified Him or did worse things.

So why would current religionists be any different. Of course they denounce Baha’u’llah as a false Messiah but so too was Christ accused.

Going by history, humanity has never once welcomed the Manifestation. So of course people are going to resist but that is nothing new.

It’s still a fact that as a Christian or Jew or Buddhist or other religion they still await the One foretold in their scriptures and so what if He appears?

Are they supposed to turn to Him or just join in with the popular sentiment and denounce Him as false, culturally appropriating their religion and twisting the meanings they have clung to for centuries? It is nothing new for former religions to denounce their new Manifestation. It happens all the time.

 

[Dawnofhope]

OK.
Time to come at this.............
Which of the following is acceptable within Bahai?
Where the question might arise please assume that the answer is 'practising sexual relations'.
Lesbian
Gay
Bisexual
Transexual
Transgender
Queer
Intersexual (NB can anybody explain this condition to me?)
Asexual
Genderneutral (castrates)
Polyamorous
Polygamous
Intentionally childless heterosexual marriage
Herterosexual marriage

heterosexual marriage of course.

A selection of extracts from the Bahá’í writings on family life and marriage

 

[Dawnofhope]

In my head, is if they are not relevant for today as above, why would you hold them at high regard. If something is not relevant, how does it affect the validity of your faith? -that's like saying, I love this furniture piece so you buy it even though it doesn't match your living room set.

Because they contain universal truths and they are an invaluable part of our heritage.

Of course you agree with yourself. What I'm saying, the color doesn't match with the rest of the decor no matter how much you like it. (Woman for ya!)

That is my experience of women, yes.

1. Yes. To Christians (and Jews?) the Bahai faith is disrespectful. It's saying one thing about scripture when scripture says something entirely different. Also, it's saying Bahaullah has the correct and current authority over the validity of scripture. No other christian scholar, priest, so have you has it right.

I don't know how Jews reacted to this. I don't see them on the thread. They probably rolling their eyes like other christians and muslims reading on.

Everything is disrespectful to the Christians and Jews including Christians and the Jews.

2. Your belief does distort the truth to christians who believe in it. It does distort the truth to hindus who believe in it. You are overriding the practitioners of these faiths and their role in knowing the validity of their own scriptures as opposed to your own. (bahallauh).

You may respect christians rights told hold their belief, but you don't respect that they give you valid information about their own belief when Bahaullah says otherwise.

That is what calls wars.

Christians and Muslims have been the main instigators of wars historically. Baha'is have never started a war with anyone or committed any atrocities/genocides. Nor will they.

3. Yep. The best you can say is that you hold christian teachings as interpreted by bahaullah in high regard, not christian teachings or scripture themselves as it imposes you know more than the practitioner who studied and practice his faith for years compared to many bahai who have no christian background.

Now you are saying how I should define and express my beliefs are you not?

Well, I keep trying to get ya'll to be blunt about it instead of going around the bush. If christian teachings or scripture are clearly not relevant for today's age then christians believe in irrelevant teachings, by logic, not opinion, aren't following the correct scriptures as they should. As a result, they should be following Bahaullah's teachings because he holds the correct scriptre and interpretations of revealed scripture of today.

But many Christians teachings are relevant, and Baha'is believe in those teachings. We do believe in the same scriptures as the Christians and most of it we do see eye to eye. You are looking at the one thing we disagree on, rather than the ten that we agree on. That's fine and I'm uncomfortable with disagreement. We just need the whole picture.

Haha. From our perspective, probably. To me, I think it's just silly that The Buddha would be a manifestation of god. Cute, maybe Manifestation no.

The Buddha looks like a Manifestation of God to me. He has brought teachings that have endured 2,500 years across many cultures. I don't think He was an ordinary man at all, but that's just my POV.

Krishna is another one. That makes no sense at all either. The Buddha was a human being. You can make human beings whatever you want especially since they can't speak for themselves. Krishna is god. So, that is pure polytheism to believe in Krishna and god of abraham regardless of how you see them connect.

Christians believe that Christ was God incarnate and Krishna wasn't. Viashnavite Hindu's believe that Krishna was God incarnate and Christ wasn't. Baha'is believe that neither were God incarnate and both were Manifestations of God. If Christians and Hindus can have beliefs that contract the others, why can't Baha'is?

The fact they do not regardless of your beliefs is the issue.

You're mixing facts with beliefs. You can make Krishna whatever you want but most Hindu on RF are very, well, I can't think of the word, stingy about anyone saying what Krishna is when that person is not Hindu. You cant go by the Gita. You don't have the cultural and linguistic, and practice to have any authority to interpret it.

Doesn't matter how much Bahaullah did or did not write about Krishna. The point is, he's a manifestation and it is false.

Has nothing to do with Bahai personal opinion. Each of you really do have different views, three of you not even the same teachings from Bahaullah that I had to look it up for myself to pick which of you are right.

There is the core problem in a nutshell for me.

We are all entitled to our beliefs regardless of whether we are right or wrong. To me, that's the essential problem here. Hindus seem not to want other faith adherents to have views about their religions, but Hindus who clearly believe their religion to be superior, have plenty of disparaging stuff to say about other religions, particularly the Abrahamic ones.

Better thing to do is learn about other religions and their teachings from homosexuality and woman's rights to who is The Buddha in relations to its followers and how is Brahma, Vishnu, and Krishna differ when they are all god. Stuff like that.

That is exactly what I'm doing here. I learn best by conversing with people different from me. The suggestion that I should wander off into the sunset and go read a book, doesn't work for me, because I rely heavily on interactions with different faith adherents and those with different worldviews. I'm a social being.

We love you to death, Bahai. I mean, I read so much about Bahai, I know more about my stance on equality issues and even more so how they can cause wars when people don't learn about each others views.

That's all to your credit that you do that, and it's what makes you the outstanding person you are IMHO.

I said in another post, if you want to learn about homosexual marriage, you have to be interested in how LGBTQ community sees marriage. You have to more so not just understand it intellectually but have empathy and understand the morality of it in their shoes as your own. (Don't worry, you can get your shoes back!)

I presume the LGBTQ community sees marriage like everyone else, but simply broadens the concepts to include a man marrying a man, and a woman marrying a woman, and viewing the relationship as we all do. Then they will raise children as other couples do, though the reproductive process will have some clear differences. That is what the people through democracy and majority vote have asked for in my country and they have it. I'm not standing in anyone's way and really do wish everyone well.

If you can't imagine that two men actually marry (not gay marriage; not homosexual marriage; just marriage), have sex after marriage, raise children, grow old, and die together, then you only know surface knowledge of what it means for two people to be married.

If you want to learn about marriage or other religions that you disagree with, you have to go further in your learning. You have to apply the knowledge that you learn so understanding would make both parties comfortable communicating.

Each party will feel they are understood and appreciated and you guys can move on to other topics within any religious faith so all won't feel left out.

I can understand that. I've had plenty of dealings with gays when I was working in mental health, both patients and staff.

If it was a Bahai DIR, then yeah, ya'll can jump up and down all day. Since it's not, that's why the uproar.

Ha ha. If it hadn't been posted in the general debates section we would never have had this conversation. It just seems to get better and better, though some days, clearly not so good. I wonder when it will end?

My involvement with RF and this thread in particular has exceeded all my expectations when I decided to get involved at the end of last year. Its all I had hoped for and more. Thank you for contributing to this very positive experience.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Yes, I personally think that policies like supporting capital punishment, discriminating against homosexuals, and aggressive proselytizing are regressive. At the same time, I'll defend the rights of people to be of those regressive often intolerant faiths.

I disagree that Baha'is aggressively proselytize but that's you POV and I accept that. I've explained my concerns about the use of this word which you disagree with, so it is what it is.

Every country in the future will have the option to have or not have capital punishment as they do now. Countries may chose it or not and that's fine according to the Baha'i Faith.

On the other hand India have always had the death penalty and still do. They have even voted against attempts to end it instigated by the United Nations. So its the kettle calling the pot black really.

India is hardly a model to the world for LGBTQ rights, but we've had this discussion.

Its not a straightforward issue (excuse the pun) and there are valid arguments and concerns either way. I think it is just name calling when one party accuses the other of being regressive.

If someone doesn't like those ideas, there are lots of religions that don't support these ideas, and most people are free to move on, and many do.

That is exactly right.

Of all the exBaha'i' stories I've read in the last 3 months or so, this is most likely the most common sentiment. It's heartwarming and heartbreaking simultaneously to read some of those stories. Heartbreaking that their sincere pleas weren't listened to much, and heartwarming that they were somehow able to free themselves from the dogma.

I have read some of them too, and seen people come and go in my own Baha'i community. I think its really important those considering joining the Baha'i Faith know clearly what it means to be a Baha'i before they join, and Baha'is have a responsibility to ensure that newcomers are well supported.

At the core is a belief, not just in Baha'u'llah as the Manifestation of God for this day, but that Abdu'l-Baha was His successor, and beyond that, Shoghi Effendi and the Universal House of Justice. That is at the heart of Baha'i belief. Membership in the Baha'i Faith is voluntary. Further, Baha'is are free to maintain contact with those that leave. I keep in regular contact with two ex-Bahais.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I am guessing this is how Baha'is also harmonize what the Qu'ran says with the Bible? That when the Qu'ran says they crucified Jesus not- it means the spiritual Jesus? Because I've thought about myself, just as a passing question- about rather what the Bible and Qu'ran say about Jesus's death can actually be in harmony. The Qu'ran says Jesus wasn't even crucified.

Adrian has confirmed your question, these are some Koran Verses about Jesus being raised up to God.

Verse (3:55)Yusuf Ali: Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.

Verse (5:117)Yusuf Ali: "Never said I to them aught except what Thou didst command me to say, to wit, 'worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord'; and I was a witness over them whilst I dwelt amongst them; when Thou didst take me up Thou wast the Watcher over them, and Thou art a witness to all things.

Verse (19:33)Yusuf Ali: "So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)"!

So it is clear that the Koran notes that Jesus will be put to death and be raised in the Spirit. You can not Crucify Christ, you can not Kill the Spirit God Has Given.

Regards Tony

 

[Dawnofhope]

So you say much of it is irrelevant for today's age, but then you have nothing specific? If you can't think of anything that's irrelevant, then how would you know there is stuff?

There's always stuff.

Why I Criticize Hinduism The Most | Nirmukta

Criticism of Hinduism - Wikipedia

 

[oldbadger]

heterosexual marriage of course.

A selection of extracts from the Bahá’í writings on family life and marriage

Hmmmm...... The thing is, Mosiac law accepts more than just that, and Jesus demanded even more on that list.

You're going backwards.

Can you see how, at some point, Bahai is just going to grind to a halt on membership over issues like this? Where Bahai might see all of that list (less one) as wrong or even wicked, the World is slowly moving to a position where it would see Bahai as a deeply fundamentalist and unhealthy group........ If the World doesn't like you then it won't call you a religion, and you know that, I expect.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Hmmmm...... The thing is, Mosiac law accepts more than just that, and Jesus demanded even more on that list.

You're going backwards.

Can you see how, at some point, Bahai is just going to grind to a halt on membership over issues like this? Where Bahai might see all of that list (less one) as wrong or even wicked, the World is slowly moving to a position where it would see Bahai as a deeply fundamentalist and unhealthy group........ If the World doesn't like you then it won't call you a religion, and you know that, I expect.

Time will tell. If the current movement towards heterosexual and gay couples marrying or simply living together defacto and having children works then you are right. Let's see. I'm a patient kinda guy.

 

[oldbadger]

Time will tell.

Times past have already told.

L = Lesbian. There was no legislation against females laying together in fact whole groups of females lived together for several days each month and there was no problem with relationships amongst them.
Gay = Men were needed to take a wife and have children to strengthen the people. So there was no benefit in men being allowed to form relationships, and since inter-sexual relationships were very dangerous back then then the law was applied. But today we don't need more children, and slightly better education can protect from deseases being transmitted.
B= Bisexual. Women could be bisexual. Threy had relationships with other women and wre faithful; to their men.
T = Transexual. Only Hermaphrodites fell into this category afaics, and today if a person feels certain that they have the wrong gender then they should be supported by society, and not repressed as your post seems to suggest.
T = Transvestite. Where men or women wish to dress to look as the opposite sex, for whatever reasons, then they should be supported by society. Why? Well, because any mindset that merely 'puts up' with such personal drives is in danger of regression back to puritanical hypocrisy.
Q = Queer sexual tastes are nothing to do with anybody else apart from the individual, and possibly their medical services. Any system of control that leaves such individuals repressed and hiding themselves away is not a spiritual system, if I may be allowed to use that word-salad.
I= Intersexual. Not knowing about this group, I cannot say more than where a person feels drawn towards any sexuality then society needs to support them. A society that treats any sexual individuality as 'weird' or 'nasty' cannot be considered to be a healthy society.
A= Asexual. Both Paul and Jesus supported asexuality in writing, and I've never heard of any society that condemned it, although hypocritical societies have been known to view asexuals with intense mistrust, assuming them to be hiding their true sexual natures.
Polyamory = Men were allowed to be in polyamory under mosaic law because they were allowed to lay with tgheir slaves. Women in Bi-relationships with one husband and a woman were polyamorists.
Polygamy = Well, you already know what the World is going to say about that in connection with bahai. The faxt that Bahauallah married four times, having three wives at one time, however you want to 'word-salad' bahai out of it, produces such a severe picture of hypocrisy as can never be explained away. Bahauallah continued with three wives for a very very long time imo.

So....... up to this point your only supporters are people like the POTUS, so good luck with that. Now let's look at the ridiculous siuation with Bahai Heterosexual marriage.

A couple meets, may never know each other completely until after marriage, and so engage and undertake an extremely short period of preparation for a marriage. They marry and can find that they are totally unsuited to each other from first night, even. There is often one pregnancy or birth before separation and then the one year before divorce. In such a puritanical world I don't expect there will be that much emphasis on sexual therapy or counselling. And then round they can all go again.

This is not the blueprint for a successful society with a high % of truly happy and satisfied folks.

If the current movement towards heterosexual and gay couples marrying or simply living together defacto and having children works then you are right. Let's see. I'm a patient kinda guy.

Having children is an entirely separate subject and nothing to do with people having the right to marry or enter civil-partnerships. Those couples that cannot have children naturally may wish to adopt, or not.