Baha'i Administrative Order

BruceDLimber · Apr 20, 2006

Booko said:
It certainly is a problem. If I missed something in the other posts that touched on this topic, please let me know?

As I'd mentioned somewhere above, this isn't applicable any time the birth parents have formally/legally relinquished all parental prerogatives over the offspring, which is usually the case for adoptions.

Regards,

Bruce

BruceDLimber · Apr 20, 2006

Hi, there!

Booko said:
But I always had this one little nagging thing about Biblical prophecy. You know in the book of Daniel where God tells him to seal up the books until the time of the end? And reading this, I thought, uh...if the books are sealed, doesn't that imply that all our traditional ideas about how prophecy will be fulfilled are likely to be bunkum?

If I'm not greatly mistaken, the Baha'i position is that The Book of Certitude was the unsealing.

Best!

Bruce

lunamoth · Apr 20, 2006

Heehee Booko, all your replies are so reasonable I'm practically looking up the Denver firesides offerings (even if it just so I have these conversations face to face).

Booko said:
Don't edit it out on my account. If you think it belongs in a "debate" conf or PM, I'm cool with that.

I'm not sure why you wouldn't be able to protest the decisions, though. There are some decisions I've definitly protested....like to the tune of shipping off a 100+ page book of protest. Uh, how's that for protesting? <sheepish look>

The thing is, I can run it up the chain of admistration and protest, but that does NOT mean I can then go around my local community gossiping about whatever it is I'm protesting about and bad mouthing anyone. It's now in the hands of the NSA and they get to deal with it.

Booko, I can tell you are not naive. And since I am serious about my opening sentence, I'm not going to soften this. What possible good is writing a book of protest that can be easily ignored? I'm not talking about gossip, but if you see an issue as unjust it's not the same as talking about an individual. A Baha'i with a protest is isolated, and it is a single line of authority. You need to have FAITH that no abuse is going to creep into the system to trust that kind of governance. And when things go horribly wrong on a grand scale, what are you going to do?

Because it is not in thinking of the Baha'i Faith as just a religion that it causes me much consternation. It is inextrapolating it to the NWO, the Kingdom of God. One way or another I've got to accept that the UHJ, made up of men only, none of whom I will be likely know anything about, voted in only by people who claim to be Baha'is, will infallibly rule all the nations. And, if I don't agree with what they are doing, say they decide that burning arsonists IS the merciful choice, then I can't do anything but write a letter or stand all by myself in front of nine people who answer to the UHJ. Sorry, but even 100 pages doesn't come close. So if I speak out against burning arsonists publically, if I sit on the doorstep of Haifa and starve myself, if I set myself on fire in protest, I'll lose my voting rights. Cast out. We're getting serious here.

And then I look at the laws Baha'u'llah deemed to reveal. The length of hair. What kind of coffin to be buried in. DOWERIES! And you know there is more in the Aqdas that stretches credulity in the mind of a reasonable person. All this minutia and he couldn't think of me, the adoptive parent. But I accepted all of it, right up until the moment I came into doubt about Baha'u'llah.

Actually, that's a kind of liberating thing. Now I get to spend my energy on something more useful and positive. Like helping find the RF Village Idiot. bwa ha ha

I'd like to joke here Booko, but all I can say is that you think it lets you off the hook. You feel like you are liberated from upholding decisions that you think are unjust because you wrote a letter and handed the problem off to someone else.

Sorry, but all it takes for evil to triumph is for a few good people to do nothing. And you are a good person. Obviously bright, obviously concerned.

And, you can't do it alone. That would be just as bad. You need to consult with people, not keep it all 'hush hush don't gossip.' If you don't like a decision it needs to go back on the table for consultation. And somehow the community needs to have a mechanism for it. Consult about the decision, not about who made it, not about the personalities involved. If you don't want it free for all then you've got to develop another branch for consultation, one not beholden to the UHJ. The counselers and ABMs are all appointed by the one single line of authority and they have no authority of their own--they can't do the job.

You know, at the core I don't even think of it as the Baha'i Faith unifying humanity.

I'd agree even as a Baha'i. Better not write a book on that idea.

The Message of Baha'u'llah, yes. As people come to accept His teaching that there is only one humanity, unity will happen anyway. That's a process that's been happening for a while now, thankfully, and in many ways seems to be picking up speed. sheesh, well that would be another long and involved thread, wouldn't it?

I believe humanity will be united, or perish. I think the former is quite possible, but it's clear we are not going to do it painlessly. I'm not sure I see it picking up speed. We could do another thread on that if you are still talking to me by the end of this post.

I don't even think it's ok to return all the same people to an LSA even if things ARE hundy dorey. As you know, we expect to see a time when we have people coming into the faith rather like Christianity did after Constantine. It happens in every religion at some point. Anyway, the more people who have some experience in being part of the BAO, the less craziness I'd expect to see, like people saying they are "pastor" of the "Baha'i Church." Heck, we get this once in a while already. Can you imagine what mayhem it would be if we have numbers show up on our doorstep and there are only 9 people in the community who've ever served on an Assembly and know what the Guidelines are for?

Seems reasonable.

Well, as some of my former Catholic and Jewish Baha'i friends have said, it would be awfully nice if the American Baha'is would get further away from their Protestant roots. I tend to agree. I'm assuming that's one of the many reason the NSA is stressing the use of the arts so much.

Click to expand...

It's hard to strike a good balance between dry intellectualism and sentimentality. Maybe the arts will help.

They may or may not be out to teach anyway. As you say, there is something of an imperative to share the message, just as in the early days of Chrsitianity sharing the Gospels was viewed as critical. But ime "convert" can be a loaded term, and even if I were here solely to "teach" (uh...clearly not), I wouldn't say I'm here to "convert" anyone. There's that prohibition on proselytizing, and when I think about "converting" someone I get this vision not of sharing ideas back and forth, but bashing them over the head with my Kitab-i-Aqdas. Uh....not a pretty sight.

Click to expand...

Yeah, well, that's what they keep saying as well. Somehow when a Christian teaches it is evil prosyletizing (which is somehow equated with evangelizing; for goodness sake, even we Piskeys are called to evangelize! It just happens to look more like living the life than it does Bible bashing) but when a Baha'i does it it is not. <shrug>.

I dunno that I'd call it particularly weird, but there have been a few weird things done in the name of Ruhi, primarily where egos wanted to take over. But RTI in our area has quietly dealt with those problems over the last couple of years. Sometimes I think calling people "tutors" in Ruhi courses is a problem, in that a few people think they are there to "train" other people, which is not really the role of another tutor. Oh well, if you ever feel like blowing off steam PM or something, feel free.

Click to expand...

I thought it was very weird that I 'did' book 1 three times before it 'counted.' Another thread or PM if I ever really look up the local LSA phone nubmer.

Yeah, but you know my pov on this...maybe not with you Episcoplians, but then there's everyone else to consider. And hey, in recent history there has been far less of that kind of negative behaviour, which I think is great.

Click to expand...

OK OK you win on this point. Just a personal note, when I was investigating the Faith before declaring I did ask my Priest (Epsicopalian) about the Baha'i Faith. He told me he had invited a Baha'i speaker to the local women's rights celebration in my town. His advice: pray. Another note: at ten times more members in the Anglican Communion than Baha'is we've got a head start on you for leading the NWO (joke).

Uh, actually I do think it's meaningful when Christians apologize on behalf of other Christians.

Click to expand...

Then I am sorry for any personal injury to you caused in the name of Christ, and for all the immeasurable atrocities throughout history, and for any of my own words that offend.

Haha...I only wish you could meet the two friends I'm at Jekyll Island with. Both Baha'is now, formerly Episcoplians. All certifiable, natch. Oh yeah...and stubborn too.

Click to expand...

Oh, you'd have me signing a declaration card in no time, or at least whipping me in Parcheesi.

I'm not asking to you to answer for other Christian denominations, Laurie, but to answer as if your denom is all there has been in Christainity is to ignore history. Ignoring history is something I'm never too keen on, as you'd probably guess from reading other threads I post in.

Click to expand...

OK. It is a personal weakness that when I see Baha'is teaching the Faith by criticizing Christianity, painting in broad brush stokes the evils of clergy and the idiocy of rituals and the such, that I feel compelled to reply. It seems that many Baha'is have misconceptions about Christianity and Christian doctrine. Your approach and understanding has been a refreshing experience for me.

Hey, I was just here with the family a couple of weeks ago. My friends sometimes go places I've just been. If I'm not interested in biking, I can find a little time for this. Also, I get up earlier and enjoy a bit of RF with my coffee. Um...after I finish with Neopets, that is.

Click to expand...

Neopets first? Well, you're not too far gone then.

cheers,
lunamoth

Click to expand...

lunamoth · Apr 20, 2006

ok, I'm not really following you here. But as elections are at sundown

Is it Ridvan already? How time flies, it seems like Easter was just last week (I know, very lame joke. Happy Ridvan!)

and I just finished my absentee ballot, it's very fresh in my mind how I make my choices, at any rate. I made my choices based on a number of factors, including the strengths people bring to any Assembly and how those people would fit together to make a greater whole. I happen to be the hard-headed sort that tosses out cites from the guidelines, but it would be an unmitigated disaster if everyone on an LSA were like me. We need people who are excellent listeners, who can balance my tendency for justice with another tendency for mercy, because those have to be in balance, etc. Some people are very good at teaching, but we have to have people to mind the Baha'is we already have also, or things fall apart.

So you are very much taking the character of the person into consideration. OK. Just confirming here that you are indeed using you r own judgement (which will later be called 'ego' when you judge that a decision is bad) to choose the best people to serve.

But no, once the Assembly is formed, I can't say I ever needed to know how any individual voted on any issue. I can say there are LSA decisions I've thought are wrongheaded and even stark raving nuts, not to mention "Old World Order." The thing is, if I *obey* those decisions and everyone else in the community does, it becomes apparent much faster that the decision was wrong, and we can change course.

That is the theory. But perhaps a lot of damage would be avoided if you could vote for further community consultation when things are really nuts? Just a suggestion.

Now, you may say I'm quoting you book-chapter-and-verse from Baha'i Administration, and in one way I am. But when I first read that bit, my reaction was, "yeah, sure, and then there's reality." The thing is, over the years I've seen things work out exactly that way. I've seen the flip side, where members of the community worked against a decision of the LSA, and it only prolonged the problems. So you could say I've been convinced by experience, though I didn't go without a bit of kicking and screaming. It only took around a decade for that to happen, though I've been more convinced in the past 5 years or so than I ever was before.

sheesh, the software doesn't like my very long reply, so I'm going to have to break this up. Oh well, that will probably work better anyway...

(part 1)

Again, when we're talking about strategies for teaching campaigns I don't really argue with any of the above. When it comes to life or death decisions, or even decisions that will drastically affect just one person's life or relationship with God, that's where I have my doubts. People get hurt.

lunamoth · Apr 20, 2006

Booko said:
Who relinquishes control? I can appeal, and from prior posts, you should see that I have done so. Look if someone shows up at a Baha'i function and passes out business cards that shows he's running for Lieutenant Governor in our state, and the LSA doesn't do anything, do you think I'm going to sit quietly by and let that go unanswered??? I kicked it up to to the NSA. And while I have *never* spoken to another Baha'i in the community about this, I'm willing to be my letter isn't the only one they got.

So the idea is that everyone quietly sends letters about things they don't like? I could see that working on a small scale, but it still takes a lot of trust in the NSA. And that is a pretty small potatoes thing. I could show up at a devotional meeting and mention that I'm running for mayor--what could the NSA do but bar me from future meetings? And how would they do that if I were not a Baha'i and also rather unethical? (Since Baha'i can't run for office I take it that he showed up on his own or unhappily surprised a Baha'i friend with his actions).

I'm talking about burning arsonists. And taking away people's voting rights.

Sure, right now the burning arsonists thing doesn't apply, but we are talking about the Kingdom of God, the whole enchilada. Because if they are burning arsonists in the Kingdom of God I'd really like to register my protest with more than a letter. In fact, if burning arsonists is an option then I don't think it is the Kingdom of God. Well, there it is.

As I've tried to explain before, and it gets a little difficult because naming names won't do either, I've seen a mix of Baha'i and American politics before, and it was an UNMITIGATED DISASTER. Character assassination doesn't even enter into it, because it (thankfully) never devolved to that point. But you still had a few people who, in the months of March and April, go out glad handing other Baha'is and jockeying for the job of Assembly Member. And their little cadre of buddies go out and say things like, "wouldn't so-and-so be great on the Assembly?"

But ask yourself: what kind of person would put themselves forward like that? A person operating out of *ego* not out of a spirit of service. These are exactly the people who do NOT belong on a "Spiritual" Assembly.

Well I agree that what you describe happening above is not a good answer. Yet, people being people I think it illustrates just how hard it will be to make the Baha'i system work and stay free of corruption.

And the results are terribly predictable. The Assembly does not make decisions based on doing the right thing. They make decisions based on who is friends to whom or who is out of favor. They decide things based on their own personal agendas to make themselves look important, because hey, they want to be elected the next year too. And the decisions are destructive to the community as a whole, and particularly to individuals who dare to mention that the Emperor is decidedly naked. I am only lucky that geographically they have no jurisdiction over me, and my LSA, which has its faults like any other, is not anywhere close to nuts enough to go along with this un-Baha'ilike stuff.

So, in your judgement the whole LSA should be turned over at the next election. Hopefully everyone in that jurisdiction will feel the same way and get a new Assembly. Or there are still a few powerful families or factions with networks of friends and it will stay that way until the whole community falls apart from disunity and corruption. Kind of like a natural selection process. It is an interesting social experiment.

I can't go back and see what I said before while I type this reply, but I mentioned something about non-violent civil disobedience. Say a nation really does decide to take on Baha'i Faith as the state religion, and use the BAO system of government. Now when the citizens decide not to pay to the local fund, or withdraw from community service, and ignore the various decisions with which they disagree, the evidence that 'non-action' is actually 'disobedience' will be a lot easier to see, and possibly punish.

Well, I said some things about polity in my Mom's denomination in another post, and won't repeat them here, other than to mention that they also have elected bodies and some organization "at the top" (i.e. the Synod). But again, because electioneering happens, you still end up with this personality contest nonsense going on. It depends on how straight the pastor is in his church. If the pastor is good, he will encourage people not to go there. If he's part of the problem, it's a mess. But firing the pastor is a lot harder than firing an LSA. At most you have to put up with a dysfunctional LSA for a year.

OK, yeah.

If I were "taking my bat and ball and going home" as opposed to "putting my efforts where I think they can make a difference" than that would be absolutly true. And yes, I do know of a few Baha'is who do not give a red cent to their LSA because of the un-Baha'ilike way things are being done, but that was more figuring it out with a wink and a nod and in private, then changing the subject.

But to decide to send your money to a different Fund is *not* to disobey the LSA. No one is required to put their time and money locally -- there's plenty of stuff to do. What's required is not doing and saying things that would undermine a decision. I can sit home and quietly go about my business elsewhere, say prayers for the Assembly (which we are supposed to be doing anyway), realize that we are all humans and in time it will be remedied anyway. I also have the opportunity to raise the issue at Feast, so it's not like we all have to mindlessly sit down and shut up.

Ah yes, here it is. The part about civil disobedience. See above.

You can discuss LSA decisions at Feast? You can say what you like or don't like about them?

The effect is worlds away from what my mother experiences. If the Consistory makes a decision and someone doesn't like it, they phone it around the gossip circle, hurting people's feelings all the way, and then my Mom gets to phone the pastor and the Elders and straighten the mess out. How much better would that work if people stopped talking to individuals about their concerns and talked to their "institutions" instead? 90% of the time it seems like someone just misunderstood the decision in the first place. And the other 10% of the time if someone would just raise the concern, the Consistory would just respond "oh we hadn't thought of that" and make a midcourse correction. They're not unreasonable people.

I agree with the guidance about backbiting. Paul said it too. 'twould be so nice if we all were perfect. Baha'is are better about keeping things quiet about personal problems and I like that a lot. But discussing ideas and decisions does not necessarily mean talking about individuals. The Episcopal Church is by no means perfect either.

Oh yeah, and if the pastor hasn't got spiritual balls enough to take on the unruly segments of his congregation, then nothing gets straightened out. That's what went on for 30 years. Mom's church has maybe 2 dozen people left, and they're dying off fast. That's what disunity will do, and disunity is what you get when you leave any opportunity for personalities (i.e. ego) to enter into the equation as opposed to personal character (i.e. capabilities of an individual).

(part 2)

That's a sad case. Yes, the pastor or Priest can make or break a church.

lunamoth

BruceDLimber · Apr 20, 2006

Hi!

lunamoth said:
You need to have FAITH that no abuse is going to creep into the system to trust that kind of governance. And when things go horribly wrong on a grand scale, what are you going to do?

This is PRECISELY what we have! What you keep overlooking is that IOV we're perfectly justified in trusting that God knows what He is doing, and that to the extent that we honestly keep and follow His teachings, this God-sent system will not exhibit the same failures as the many man-made systems that surround us! Granted, we humans don't always behave perfectly, and there are slips and omissions to be corrected, but we Baha'is are confident that God's Plan is strong enough to withstand our occasional mistakes and succeed provided we adhere to His Covenant.

After all, this is why religions are called "faiths."

And I suspect that you, too, expect (I won't say demand) perfection from God.

lunamoth said:
And, if I don't agree with what they are doing, say they decide that burning arsonists IS the merciful choice . . .

Two important points here:

First, this should never be presented in an unbalanced manner that ignores the clear fact that our scriptures state that long imprisonment is a perfectly acceptable alternative to this!

And second, further stipulating that execution may not use that extreme method, the Baha'i scriptures also state explicitly that if a criminal is indeed executed, God will consider him to have paid in full measure for his crime and will not further punish him in the Next Life. So there may in fact be circumstances where a criminal asks to be executed in order to acquire a more favorable situation then and escape later divine judgement/condemnation (remember "terrible indeed is God in punishing!"). I grant that this is non-intuitive; nevertheless this statement and its implications exist.

Peace,

Bruce

BruceDLimber · Apr 20, 2006

Greetings.

lunamoth said:
Now when the citizens decide not to pay to the local fund . . .

You clearly overlook the fact that all contributions are strictly voluntary (as well as strictly confidential).

This means, among other things, that the assembly doesn't know who did or didn't give.

I've been Treasurer in several communities, and even at the audit, the names in the receipt book are covered over so that only the amounts at the right end are visible.

Regards,

Bruce

lunamoth · Apr 20, 2006

Booko said:
Yes, there are some pretty tough rules, but if people aren't asked to live up to them somehow, then what's the point? It really comes down to this: if you believe Baha'u'llah was what he said he was, then you have to find a way to live with the rules, because it's the same as telling God to shove off if you aren't even willing to try. If you don't believe Baha'u'llah is who he said he was, then all bets are off. This probably comes of as kinda fundamentalist, but it's meant more as a plain statement of the basics. It really is kinda...basic.

But Booko, this is so different from the teachings of Christ. When we talk about tough rules and people living up to them or being disciplined, well, it just does not strike me as the KOG. It stikes me as a less mature way of dealing with each other, rather than a more mature way. I see the Law that God gave Moses not as 'mere suggestions,' but as His divine guidance for how to get along better with each other. How to respect each other. The choice wine. It is the narrow path. He covered it pretty well in the ten commandments and the Golden rule. And yet people began to bludgeon each other with the Law. That was what Christ objected to, IMV.

And who is punished if we don't follow the rules? We are. Not the KOG. We can break every rule in the book but the KOG remains perfect. We simply remain far from it. And if you believe God did give new rules to follow, breaking them does not break His Covenant with you, whatever your scriptures say that to be. That would be a contract. God fulfills His promises to you whether or not you follow the rules. You can't break the Covenant, and He won't.

And do you think that I don't stuggle with the Law? Heck, I breaksome or a few of them every day. Every single day. And I feel that, and I bring myself to account over it. And if there's a biggie, and there have been, I've got to repent that too, but it might take a lot longer to face. Between me and God, and a Priest only if I so choose. You don't have Priests. You've got to trust the indivduals that they know when they are breaking the rules and are working on it with God, even if they don't want to or are not ready to share that with their LSA. If you sanction them do you think it will be more likely or less likely that they grow closer to God?

IMV homosexual Baha'is are indeed marginalized, and that is a complaint I make often in Baha'i circles: in the US, we need to get off our rears and start having a conversation about the topic. We can't delay any longer. But that's a problem I see more at the local level than other levels. It's a problem of individual Baha'is who get the heebeejeebies over homosexuality, and they need to overcome their fear of the topic and start viewing homosexual people as Abdu'l-Baha would have. "See the face of God in everyone." That doesn't mean we have to participate in gay rights parades, but sheesh, I'm sorry, people who are gay should never be treated as lesser humans!

You sound quite reasonable about this topic and I hope you all do open it up for consultation. When I questioned this it was not avoided, nor was I evaded. I was invited to talk about it as much as I wanted. I think I declared in an outstanding community as far as being mature about the guidance on homosexuality. If I told you which one you would know. But the bottom line is the writings. But I still think talking about it more would help a lot.

I'm not sure how adoptive parents are disrespected, but I left another post to Scott on that earlier. I'm adopted. The NSA made it *very* clear to me that I was not to disrespect my adoptive parents. I got their permission, and if I hadn't, I wouldn't have gotten married. If I hadn't, the NSA would not have removed my Administrative Rights, true, but as I alluded to Scott, I think this is a temporary situation, and one that applies mainly in our culture. Other cultures don't feel adoptive parents are disrespected, because adoption is completely different.

I saw that post. Thank you for sharing your experience.

re: being sufficiently grounded in the Covenant. Laurie, I've never seen anyone being declared a Covenant Breaker merely because they were not sufficiently grounded in the Covenant. I've not seen the House jump the gun on declaring people Covenant Breakers. Long before that, they send you people from the Institution of the Learned to sit down and explore the Writings with you. But there is a point where, if you are UNWILLING to accept the existence of the Covenent and even try to follow it, then by what right do you call yourself a Baha'i?

I don't remember which of my comments prompted this response, but anyway. I don't think anyone is declared a CB without more or less trying to usurp the authority of the House (although some individual Baha'is make it sound like just thinking for yourself on the issues makes you one). As I said above, one can't break a Covenant with God, but here we are talking about something else I think.

But there are people who 'interpret' the Covenant differently. Yes, I know, to interpret it differently is to deny it. But that's based upon what the majority of Baha'is have come to believe. It is a doctrine of the Faith. Warning, here comes another pet peeve. Baha'is are quite happy to say 'anyone who claims to be a Christian is a Christian as far as I'm concerned' regardless of what else they may believe. Yet, when it comes to who is a Baha'i, well, the lines in the sand are deep and defended fiercely. But heck, I actually agree with you here. I don't see 'unenrolled' as an option. That's why I'm so confused by 'disenrolled.'

If a Christian says they don't believe the Gospels and the Church tells them they're not a Christian, I don't think that's "oppression" -- it's more like sound reasoning.

But, umm, a Christian can deny the diety of Christ and the physical resurrection? BTW, the Church (capitol C) does not tell anyone anything except through Scripture, Sacrament and Prayer. The RCC, the EO, the Epsicopalians, the Baptists, we might have different ways of doing things or else why bother being part of the community. And when the Rom Catholic Church was in the business of excommunicating people who broke their laws, while it was the only game in town, yes, I think that was oppression. Plenty of people oppressed right out of existence by that approach to things.

Well, it's hard to make criticism of something without being critical, eh? I don't think you've been at all unreasonable. Heck, you're just stating your pov and your experience. I don't get that you have an axe to grind or anything like that.

Hope that these recent posts have not changed your opinion of me.

Besides, I am fond of pointing out that Abdu'l-Baha said "The shining spark of Truth cometh forth from the clash of opposing opinions."

Please note it does not refer to the "murmur of fake assent" -- it says "clash" for a reason. Abdu'l-Baha was not careless in his use of language, nor are translators careless in rendering it into English. I much prefer real unity to "faux" unity. Faux unity won't get anyone anywhere.

I quite agree.

Oh, there are definitely growing pains to be had. And because we as individuals are not perfect, there is no system that will function absolutely perfectly. At most, I will say I believe there are more checks and balances against abuse than there have been previously. That doesn't mean that everything is awful about Christianity (obviously NOT true, and I do my share of Christian apologetics elsewhere) either today or in the past. I consider it obvious that the world would be much worse off today if the Church never existed.

I 've noticed your apologetics, quite tight. And I certainly agree with you about the Church!

Are you aware of the two-tiered approach in Tehran to voting for LSAs? It's done specifically to address the problem you mention above. I would vote for a delegate that I did know and whose judgement I trust, and that delegate votes for the LSA members, who he or she is more likely to know. I expect this model to be expanded where needed.

Interesting to hear this. The voting part sounds quite reasonable, but as you said that does not make it immune from corruption.

Actually it's on the community level where I've encountered the problems. This is not to say the NSA is always perfect, but they've been the remedy when the stuff hit the fan locally.

I think that we are still learning what the ideal is. This is why the House and even the NSA give so many reminders about "maturation of institutions." Clearly, they know we have much to do to live up to what the BAO is supposed to be.

We are called the "children of the half-light" for a reason.

I do wish you success and fewness of growing pains. Even if I can't conclude it is the KOG, I think there is much good in the Faith, especially in promoting racial harmony. I'm with Queen Victoria on this one: if it is of God it will succeed.

It's been really enjoyable talking to you, Laurie. Thanks for the bouquet. Is there anything in particular you would like? I'd hate to send coffee to someone who doesn't like it.

I love coffee, but decaf after lunch time thanks.

Popeyesays · Apr 21, 2006

Luna:
"But Booko, this is so different from the teachings of Christ. When we talk about tough rules and people living up to them or being disciplined, well, it just does not strike me as the KOG. It stikes me as a less mature way of dealing with each other, rather than a more mature way. I see the Law that God gave Moses not as 'mere suggestions,' but as His divine guidance for how to get along better with each other. How to respect each other. The choice wine. It is the narrow path. He covered it pretty well in the ten commandments and the Golden rule. And yet people began to bludgeon each other with the Law. That was what Christ objected to, IMV."

I think He had a different standard as to what the law meant. But when He saved the adulterous woman from the mob, He didn't tell her to cop a walk, He said "Go and sin no more." That's a black and white command just as much as Baha`u'llah's words: "As to boys. God forbid." In context He was discussing who one could NOT marry.

Paul and Timothy and of course, the Revelation of John speaks in pretty condemning terms. Do I know if Jesus would have condoned that? No, but it is part and parcel of a belief in Christ. Moses(Leviticus) does not condone a homosexual relationsship for instance, neither does Zarathustra, nor Krsna, nor Muhammad nor the Bab and Baha`u'llah. The Buddha eschews all attachments of the flesh altogether.

If one picks and chooses what one will believe, how deep is the faith? In my view, I can't pick and choose. Baha`u'llah says alcohol and recreation drugs are fobidden. He explains why. Baha`u'llah says a marriage should be a fortress for the security of the partners in marriage. He says no adultery. He says Fast. He says pray daily, and call oneself to account each day.

Now no one is perfect. I have missed a prayer, the fast is a problem for me because of medicine which I must. I am excused because of that, but I still feel funny not fasting.
I do my best at all those ordinances. Why? Because I can't choose amongst them which I will follow - not and be devoted. I feel devoted. I should act devoted.

Regards,
Scott

lunamoth · Apr 21, 2006

Booko said:
You'd have to explain me then, Laurie, because it was through prophecy that I found the writings of Baha'u'llah. And no, I don't mean I read a book by Bill Sears. I was an atheist wondering why all those religions had this wacko eschatological stuff, and over time noticed the time prophecies converged, ran across references to the "Great Dissappointment" of the mid-19th century, and then ran across a reference to the Bab in an academic library. (fwiw, it was eschatological portions of scriptures from Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism and Buddhism.)

I love puzzles, though, so maybe that's why it worked for me. If any human "authority" had told me I had to believe certain interpretations of prophecy I'd have told him to take a hike. I was not big on authorities of any kind at the time. (Heck, I'm not so big on them now.)

I stand corrected then, Booko. Actually the first time I stated this many posts ago I think I used a softer version of it, such as belief in prophecy typically followed acceptance of authority, or something like that.

As a Baha'i the study of Bible prophecy had the exact opposite effect on me. It all felt quite strained. There were a few amazing coincidences. Actually the one that blew me away was Baha'u'llah ending up in the Holy Land by exile, and that's not really even a prophecy fulfillment. But I found more things I was skeptical of than confirmed my belief. And, I have to say that when I saw the reference to 616 and the Bab in the Aqdas, it sent a chill up my spine. But, even if 616 is not the number of the beast, I had a hard time with the twin Manifestations. Where did that come from?? Very confusing and a stretch, IMO.

But I always had this one little nagging thing about Biblical prophecy. You know in the book of Daniel where God tells him to seal up the books until the time of the end? And reading this, I thought, uh...if the books are sealed, doesn't that imply that all our traditional ideas about how prophecy will be fulfilled are likely to be bunkum?

Again, that really means you have to have faith in Baha'u'llah before you accept the interpretation of prophecy.

So, I didn't pay much attention to how things had been interpreted in the past. Or at least, I didn't feel compelled to believe that was the only possible way to interpret them. I don't throw out tradition mindlessly, but I don't feel so bound to them either, especially when it comes to prophecy.

I don't think I ever gave a moments thought to prophecy fulfillment, and not much more than that to the return of Christ, before I was a Baha'i. I was raised Episcopalian, but really was an agnostic from college until about the age of 36. If you told me when I was 35 that I would become a religious person I would have :biglaugh: . I had no preconceived notions of prophecy fulfillment. I was totally open to the Baha'i interpretations, until I studied the Bible more on my own, as a Baha'i.

If you remind me again, I'll haul out the book by the Jewish author (it's called "The Messiah Texts") and see if I missed anything.

No need. It was just an aside to Amy.

Laurie, the *interpretations* of the "return" are by their very nature "man-made." All readings of a text, even literal ones, are still an interpretive choice. (Some interpretations can be clearly better than others, but that's another subject.)

Totally agree.

And for an example of "man-made" doctrines about the return, I recommend for one example the whole idea about prophecy as explained by people like Tim LaHaye.

Don't get me started. I actually do think those books are evil. And at the least, what a load of c***.

There are many Christians out there who consider these "man-made" doctrines as if they were Holy Writ. You can see it even here on RF.

And it scares the living daylights out of me.

Still, the man-made doctrines exists. Hey, it's not news, there were man-made doctrines in Jesus' time that prevented many people from seeing Him for who He was. Recognizing Manifestations of God seems to be easier when looking with hindsight. I could wish it were easier, and have no idea why God sets up the system so, but it's quite a historical pattern.

Oh, I know those doctrines exist. But I don't accept them. By the way, this whole 'man-made' doctrine thing is redundant. Doctrine is by definition man-made. Including Baha'i doctrine, IMO.

And you know, people in the day of Christ may not have been able to accept Who he was for lots of reasons. You may be referring to the ideas that He would rule with power, not be deity, etc. the list from Jewfaq I linked to, but probably a bigger issue was that He changed the relationship of the people to the law, and that was radical. Too radical for many. I don't really see it as a historical pattern. Who else have we failed to recognize? *wink*

For another example, research the history of the idea about a figure called the "Antichrist."

Not really sure where you are going with that. I assume the antichrist was a figure or representative of many people who committed Christian heresies in the time the NT was written. I don't think that Baha'u'llah is the Anti-Christ, at least no more so than anyone who denies the diety of Christ.

If I could not trust the descriptions of the Bible for signs of the Return, I would still be an atheist.

I believe you.

Trusting in any mere human's understanding of those descriptions is not a wise idea, though.

Ummm, I'm a mere human.

Look where it got people in Jesus time? They were busy looking for an earthly King who would overthrow the Romans. Well, God has His own ideas about how He's going to fulfill prophecy. Maybe He has a good giggle over our ideas. Heck, humour is an attribute of God.

Humor is a HUGE attribute of God. And we are going to have a good laugh in the next life when we all see how far off we were. :dan:

Ack...I've probably overloaded you with all these responses,

Yes, my husband thinks I'm crazy but he is too nice to say anything.

and now my compatriots have informed me our friends are coming over earlier for that crab dinner we promised them, so I'm off to boil water! :faint:

Thank you for your replies. Once I recover from this thread I would consider doing a one-on-one with you about Bible prophecy and the Baha'i Faith. Of course you can use Baha'i scriptures--how could you do it otherwise? The least that can happen is I learn a whole lot more about my Bible.

peace,
lunamoth

lunamoth · Apr 21, 2006

Popeyesays said:
If one picks and chooses what one will believe, how deep is the faith?

Scott, I do not pick and choose my beliefs. I'm trying to be a Christian and all that entails. I have a ways to go. I'm thankful the Lord is forgiving.

I do not fault you for adhering to your beliefs. I do not expect you to pick and choose and throw out things you don't like. I'm exploring exactly what those things are with Booko, and I am explaining why I can't accept them as the KOG. I only make my 'suggestions' as part of the conversation. I would not presume to tell you what to do.

peace,
Laurie

BruceDLimber · Apr 21, 2006

Hello again!

lunamoth said:
There were a few amazing coincidences. Actually the one that blew me away was Baha'u'llah ending up in the Holy Land by exile, and that's not really even a prophecy fulfillment.

Sure it is!:

Isaiah 35:1 The wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad for them; and the desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose.

Isaiah 35:2 It shall blossom abundantly, and rejoice even with joy and singing: the glory of Lebanon shall be given unto it, the excellency of Carmel and Sharon, they shall see the GLORY OF THE LORD, and the excellency of our God.

Please note that Baha'u'llah fullfilled this literally NOT through His own volition, but because He was sent there and imprisoned by His enemies, who were trying to destroy thereby the Baha'i Faith!

lunamoth said:
I have to say that when I saw the reference to 616 and the Bab in the Aqdas, it sent a chill up my spine. But, even if 616 is not the number of the beast, I had a hard time with the twin Manifestations. Where did that come from??

It's not 616, but 666, and is an interval of years beginning from Christ's birth, as explained by 'Abdu'l-Baha.

As I recall, the Twin Manifestations thing, though not expressed in that terminology, came in part from Biblical time prophecies and in part from Islam.

lunamoth said:
Doctrine is by definition man-made.

Not if it's divinely-revealed by God, it isn't! Equally true for any religious teaching so revealed . . .

lunamoth said:
I assume the antichrist was a figure or representative of many people who committed Christian heresies in the time the NT was written.

Correct. In fact, John stated that it referred to someone 1) living at that time who was 2) a former Christian (which clearly eliminates individuals like Baha'u'llah). (Also there are only four such references in toto, all in John's epistles.)

Regards,

Bruce

Jerrell · Apr 21, 2006

I have a Question for you. If you accept All the revealed religions, and that the same God sent them(the messangers). Then if the Koran Says one thing of Jesus, which is is sai to be reavealed by God...and the BIble says another, which was revealed by God...what do you say about the contradiction of the Message each messanger brought?

Of Course God Does not change so says Malachi
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Malachi 3:6- "For I am the LORD, I change not..."

[/FONT]

Popeyesays · Apr 21, 2006

Jerrell said:
I have a Question for you. If you accept All the revealed religions, and that the same God sent them(the messangers). Then if the Koran Says one thing of Jesus, which is is sai to be reavealed by God...and the BIble says another, which was revealed by God...what do you say about the contradiction of the Message each messanger brought?

Of Course God Does not change so says Malachi
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Malachi 3:6- "For I am the LORD, I change not..."[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]

[/FONT]

God is the Ancient of Days, the Creator, Self-Subsistent and totally unknowable to us until He reveals Himself through these Messengers.

As to the perceived difference between Qur'an and Gospel. The Gospel is not the direct revelation of Christ. His words are only reported by others in the Gospels.

The Qur'an is from God through the mouth of Muhammad without filter.

Most of the differences you imagine to be there, aren't really there at all.

Regards,
Scott

Jerrell · Apr 21, 2006

The Gospels were written by Those who walked with and knew Jesus Christ, they testify that Jesus said he was the son of God.

The Koran Denies this, And even goes a Step Farther to deny Jesus deid the cross...

We know this is Historically wrong...

Did God who knows all things, treuly inspire a book with flaws?

Why would i believe someone who came 600 years after Jesus over those who Walked with him? And Testified of his Teachings?

Popeyesays · Apr 22, 2006

Jerrell said:
The Gospels were written by Those who walked with and knew Jesus Christ, they testify that Jesus said he was the son of God.

The Koran Denies this, And even goes a Step Farther to deny Jesus deid the cross...

We know this is Historically wrong...

Did God who knows all things, treuly inspire a book with flaws?

Why would i believe someone who came 600 years after Jesus over those who Walked with him? And Testified of his Teachings?

Dear Jerrel,

What you choose to believe or not believe is no one's business but your own. I have no intention of trying to convince of anything at all. Why are you taking such a belligerent tone with me? You are the one who PM'd me asking what religion I was, remember?

By the way, the Qur'an does not actually say that He did not die on the cross. Some Muslims have chosen to interpret it that way, others are more open minded. And the Qur'an says nothing that the Old Testament says: "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one."

That means God is ONE, not subdivided, multiplied added to or with an partner or equal. So is the contradiction between the Schma (Hear O Israel) and the Gospel a mistake? If so, would God create a book with such a flaw?

Regards,
Scott

9harmony · Apr 22, 2006

Jerrell said:
I have a Question for you. If you accept All the revealed religions, and that the same God sent them(the messangers). Then if the Koran Says one thing of Jesus, which is is sai to be reavealed by God...and the BIble says another, which was revealed by God...what do you say about the contradiction of the Message each messanger brought?

Of Course God Does not change so says Malachi
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Malachi 3:6- "For I am the LORD, I change not..."[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]

[/FONT]

Hi Jerrell,

imho, the differences and apparent contradictions are the result of the requirements of the age in which each appeared. If we take a step back and really look at what each what trying to teach us, we can understand that they are both trying to get us to understand that it's not the physical that's important but what's beyond this plane of existance. they are trying to help us understand that we are spiritual beings having a human experience.

The contradictions are a result of our own fallible interpretations of the importance of various events.

imho, It's our perceptions which are flawed.

BruceDLimber · Apr 22, 2006

Hi, Jerrell!

We Baha'is see the Bible and the Qur'an as agreeing.

And in particular, the Qur'anic passage about Christ's not dying on the cross we view as a statement about a failed attempt to stamp out Christianity which clearly failed!

All Baha'is stipulate that Christ was indeed crucified, as you can verify by looking at our scriptures at: www.reference.bahai.org and other sites.

Peace,

Bruce

BruceDLimber · Apr 22, 2006

lunamoth said:
The passages say that the wilderness and solitary place will see the glory of the LORD, and they will blossom, rejoice, and flower abundantly like Lebanon, Carmel and Sharon. . . .

Which indeed they did, "Glory of the Lord" being the literal translation into English of "Baha'u'llah," as I'd assumed you already knew!

(Need I mention the extensive gardens on the terraces and elsewhere that are part of the Baha'i World Center?)

You are welcome to your interpretation of this and anything else. But ours holds, and IOV makes eminent sense!

Peace,

Bruce

BruceDLimber · Apr 22, 2006

lunamoth said:
Hi Bruce, The manner in which you cut up my posts and selectively reply only to things you think you have a shot at reveals your inabiltiy to discuss this intelligently.

IOW, you can't refute--or apparently, even reply to!--my point above.

Q. E. D.

And just to show I'm not trying to distort anything, here--for example--is the portion I just cut out and didn't plan to put into this post:

> As such we will never be able to have a reasonable conversation. But thank you anyway for your participation.

>cheers, and Happy Ridvan.

>Laurie

Happy Ridvan, and I'm always up for reasonable conversation, thank you!

Bruce

Baha'i Administrative Order

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Will to love

Will to love

Will to love

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Will to love

Well-Known Member

Will to love

Will to love

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member