• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why Bahai

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
That is an incorrect view of how the Baha'i Administrative order operates.

All the argument offered is based on that incorrect view.

As this has been explained, it is time to leave it alone and let others make up their own minds.

Regards Tony

Here we go!

The Bahai Laws, Civil Laws, Criminal Laws, Bahai Police Forces, Bahai sentencing codes, Bahai Houses of Justice,....... so they're not really ever intended, eh?

So all of that stuff, it was all waffle, eh, never intended by Bahauallah?

You have not explained any part of this. We are the ones explaining it to you.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
That is simply not true. I’m reasonably certain you know those who choose to leave the Baha’i faith are not called covenant breakers. People are free to join or leave the Baha’i Faith as they please. If they leave, Baha’is are completely free to associate with them regardless of whether or not they criticise their former faith. Covenant breaking is an entirely different matter.

OK.......... so Bahai who 'get out' are just ex-Bahais, yes?
Presumably that means that Covenant Breakers are on a list which is published by Bahai?

However........ whichever....... the Bahai Covenant Breakers that I have heard of have mostly been devout Bahais who wanted to show more Bahai documents and translations to the World than Bahai, and those folks should (in most cases) hold their heads high. If you want names I'll give a name or two as examples.

Obviously attempts to usurp Shoghi Effendi's role are separate to the above.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
OK.......... so Bahai who 'get out' are just ex-Bahais, yes?

That’s correct.

Presumably that means that Covenant Breakers are on a list which is published by Bahai?

The list isn’t published. There is only one Covenant Breaker to my knowledge in New Zealand.

However........ whichever....... the Bahai Covenant Breakers that I have heard of have mostly been devout Bahais who wanted to show more Bahai documents and translations to the World than Bahai, and those folks should (in most cases) hold their heads high. If you want names I'll give a name or two as examples.

Doesn’t sound like covenant breaking at all to me but go ahead.

Obviously attempts to usurp Shoghi Effendi's role are separate to the above.
That is covenant breaking if the person usurping Shoghi Effendi was a Baha’i, What you describe above isn’t.
 

arthra

Baha'i
I've been a Baha'i most of my life since 1965 and to me from the local to the national and international levels it has been a wholesome experience. I've raised my family in the Faith. Been on pilgrimage and met Hands of the Cause and members of the House of Justice.

A couple of points regarding status of Baha'is… The Baha'i Administrative Order is based on Covenants beginning with the Covenant of Baha'u'llah and the laws of the Kitab-I-Aqdas in relation to previous laws slowly have taken affect with added guidance today from the Universal House of Justice which was elected in 1963. There's the Will and Testament of Abdul-Baha which specifies the Guardian Shoghi Effendi as well as the Universal House of Justice.

People declare their faith at fifteen years of age usually in writing. If they choose to leave the Faith they are free of course to do so.. Usually they can simply submit their wishes in writing to a Local Spiritual Assembly that in turn reports it to the National Assembly.

Some Baha'is due to various issues have their administrative rights suspended. They're still considered Baha'is but until the issues are resolved they cannot serve in an office or vote. A Baha'i can also appeal the decision of a Local Spiritual Assembly or National Assembly and have the matter reviewed by the Universal House.

Some Baha'is may choose to attack the Faith or they may attempt to divide or seek some kind of leadership in challenging the Administration. Only the Universal House of Justice can designate them as "Covenant Breakers".

The issue of the status of "transsexuality" was raised and the House of Justice has responded:

Transsexuality
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
That’s correct.

The list isn’t published. There is only one Covenant Breaker to my knowledge in New Zealand.

Doesn’t sound like covenant breaking at all to me but go ahead.

That is covenant breaking if the person usurping Shoghi Effendi was a Baha’i, What you describe above isn’t.

Your post is one of the most important posts from a Bahai in a long time, I reckon. For that reason I must reply with two posts.

I was thinking of people like Profs Walbridge and Cole as examples of covenant breakers, but even these names are now in doubt.

The name I had in mind for attempted usurping of Bahai leadership after Shoghi Effendi's death was Mr Mason-Remy.

Now I need to quote your post again........
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
That’s correct.

The list isn’t published. There is only one Covenant Breaker to my knowledge in New Zealand.

Doesn’t sound like covenant breaking at all to me but go ahead.

That is covenant breaking if the person usurping Shoghi Effendi was a Baha’i, What you describe above isn’t.

Amazing!
I need to draw attentions to the above of @Vinayaka and @Aupmanyav and any others......!

On so many occasions over the recent years., when members have quoted Bahai writings or Bahai and ex-Bahai opinions, Bahais have sometimes replied that they/we are listening to Covenant Breakers! And this was probably not true!

............ and we now can know that we were most probably quoting and listening to honest and true investigations, writings, opinions and experiences of people who simply discovered that Bahai was wrong for them, or wrong for the World. They probably have not been shunned for their beliefs or actions.

Also, in cases where we have taken much notice of posts from people like @Sen McGlinn we can now know that these names have never been officially excommunicated by Bahai.

The next time that a Bahai member dismisses a quotation or citation made by me as that of a covenant breaker, you can be sure how I will respond.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Amazing!
I need to draw attentions to the above of @Vinayaka and @Aupmanyav and any others......!

On so many occasions over the recent years., when members have quoted Bahai writings or Bahai and ex-Bahai opinions, Bahais have sometimes replied that they/we are listening to Covenant Breakers! And this was probably not true!

............ and we now can know that we were most probably quoting and listening to honest and true investigations, writings, opinions and experiences of people who simply discovered that Bahai was wrong for them, or wrong for the World. They probably have not been shunned for their beliefs or actions.

Also, in cases where we have taken much notice of posts from people like @Sen McGlinn we can now know that these names have never been officially excommunicated by Bahai.

The next time that a Bahai member dismisses a quotation or citation made by me as that of a covenant breaker, you can be sure how I will respond.

Why am I having an overwhelming sense of déjà vu with all this? It’s because the first time we met on this forum nearly 3 years ago I made it clear there was no reason at all Baha’is couldn’t associate with the likes of Juan Cole.

There is nothing stopping Baha'is associating with disaffected Baha'is or ex-Baha'is such as Juan Cole.

I'm married to a non-Baha'i. We have two teenage children. She's not disaffected and participates in many Baha'i activities. Being a member of a religious community is just not a priority in her life currently. No problem :)


The Role of Women in establishing Peace

Remember?

I explained to Vinayaka ages ago that neither he nor ex-Baha’i critics were covenant breakers. He accepted it and let it go. Aup doesn’t know too much about the Baha’i Faith so I doubt if he’s considered the concept. I can’t imagine that any of the Baha’is on RF have accused you of covenant breaking. Long term deepened Baha’is have good knowledge of what the Covenant is and isn’t. You could always provide an example to refute what I’m saying.

I recall Sen dropped in on one of our conversations. The Baha’is didn’t shun him. Far from it.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
Remember?

I explained to Vinayaka ages ago that neither he nor ex-Baha’i critics were covenant breakers.

I'm no covenant breaker. I just have an anti-Baha'i agenda, or so I'm told. (groan)

But the accusation that we're reading covenant breaker material still holds. (I wouldn't know it if I was. I just did research, actual independent investigation and tried to find non-Baha'i sources for some balance, which are few and far between, but they do exist.) It's a large challenge when the only source of information about something is that something itself.)

But whenever I came back here and quoted something from a non-Baha'i site, it sure didn't take long to be told that that information was from an anti-Baha'i site. Neutral is synonymous with anti, I figure.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm no covenant breaker. I just have an anti-Baha'i agenda, or so I'm told. (groan)

But the accusation that we're reading covenant breaker material still holds. (I wouldn't know it if I was. I just did research, actual independent investigation and tried to find non-Baha'i sources for some balance, which are few and far between, but they do exist.) It's a large challenge when the only source of information about something is that something itself.)

But whenever I came back here and quoted something from a non-Baha'i site, it sure didn't take long to be told that that information was from an anti-Baha'i site. Neutral is synonymous with anti, I figure.

We are all free to use whatever resources at our disposal to investigate the nature of a faith or ideology. The internet is truly amazing that it provides easy access to all manner of perspectives.

You recently mentioned in regards to atheist beliefs and how they define themselves. That is best done by the atheists themselves as they do a better job than those who aren’t atheists. Same deal for Hinduism.

There are sources of information out there that have taken the time to research properly and are relatively free from bias. The aim may be to simply provide a fair and balanced view.

There are of course plenty of sources of misinformation due to bias. I don’t think its unreasonable to comment on the reliability of information provided.
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
OK.......... so Bahai who 'get out' are just ex-Bahais, yes?
Presumably that means that Covenant Breakers are on a list which is published by Bahai?

However........ whichever....... the Bahai Covenant Breakers that I have heard of have mostly been devout Bahais who wanted to show more Bahai documents and translations to the World than Bahai, and those folks should (in most cases) hold their heads high. If you want names I'll give a name or two as examples.

Obviously attempts to usurp Shoghi Effendi's role are separate to the above.

I have been a Baha'i since early 1984. The community where I lived had a Covenant breaker, we were made aware when we studied the Covenant, but I have never seen list as such. Stands to administrative reason that there would be a record.

I would say privacy would be upheld and information given on a need to know basis. When one studies the Covenant, it is soon easy to see when a person walks the line and starts to cross it. Even then the process is to offer more deepening in the covenant, not to neglect and shun a person.

I have a few friends that have moved out of the Faith, that has not changed our friendship.

One can loose voting rights and also not be a covenant breaker.

Regards Tony
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
We are all free to use whatever resources at our disposal to investigate the nature of a faith or ideology. The internet is truly amazing that it provides easy access to all manner of perspectives.

You recently mentioned in regards to atheist beliefs and how they define themselves. That is best done by the atheists themselves as they do a better job than those who aren’t atheists. Same deal for Hinduism.

There are sources of information out there that have taken the time to research properly and are relatively free from bias. The aim may be to simply provide a fair and balanced view.

There are of course plenty of sources of misinformation due to bias. I don’t think its unreasonable to comment on the reliability of information provided.

I've read quite a bit of Cole's essays, read the Baha'i stuff , and I've asked questions on the ex-Baha'i forum, amongst other browsing. I don't think it's unreasonable to comment on reliability either. I certainly point out that Baha'i sources have a Baha'i lens to them. Fair is fair. I never see anything much as misinformation, just as alternate POVs. (Who am I to judge what's misinformation or not, being unfamiliar with the subject matter?) Everyone comes to some conclusion or other on this stuff. To suggest they haven't done enough due diligence, is in my view, naive.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
I've read quite a bit of Cole's essays, read the Baha'i stuff , and I've asked questions on the ex-Baha'i forum, amongst other browsing. I don't think it's unreasonable to comment on reliability either. I certainly point out that Baha'i sources have a Baha'i lens to them. Fair is fair. I never see anything much as misinformation, just as alternate POVs. (Who am I to judge what's misinformation or not, being unfamiliar with the subject matter?) Everyone comes to some conclusion or other on this stuff. To suggest they haven't done enough due diligence, is in my view, naive.

I recall during one of our extended Great Beings conversations someone referred to cult watch that incorrectly states Baha’is believe Confucius is a Manifestation of God. There’s a few other problems with the narrative provided but its an example of a poorly researched polemic with bias and a clear agenda. What do you think?

Baha'i.
false_religion.gif
False world religion founded by the Bab in 1844. Originated from Shiite Muslim. Contradicts itself, denies the essentials of Christianity. "While claiming to be the great unifier of all religions, Baha'is ironically deny all other religions by attempting to make each one conform to their concept of the universal religion of God. They have amalgamated bits and pieces of each faith into one eclectic mass of religious confusion." (David L Johnson.) A few of the contradictions in Baha'i:

  • Baha'i claims that each famous religious leader (eg, Moses, Jesus Christ, Muhammad, etc) is supposed to have been a manifestation of God. Unfortunately for Baha'i, Buddha and Confucius lived at the same time (between about 550-480 B.C.), as did the Bab and Baha'u'llah.
    Note: Watchman Fellowship in their
    offsite.gif
    Baha'i Profile points out "The infallible Center of the Covenant (Abdu'l Baha) said that Confucius was a Manifestation (Promulgation of Universal Peace, p.346)."
  • Baha'u'llah taught that the universe had no beginning and had no end, which contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. (One of the fundamental principles of Baha'i is that harmony must exist between religion and science.)
  • Baha'u'llah's teaching that the universe had no beginning and had no end contradicts his own teaching that God made the universe out of nothing.
  • Baha'u'llah taught that religious truth is not absolute, which is self refuting. (See the Self Refuting Statements page for some more examples.) This means Baha'u'llah was a false prophet.
New Zealand Cults, Sects, Religions, Christian Organisations, and other groups
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
I recall during one of our extended Great Beings conversations someone referred to cult watch that incorrectly states Baha’is believe Confucius is a Manifestation of God. There’s a few other problems with the narrative provided but its an example of a poorly researched polemic with bias and a clear agenda. What do you think?

Baha'i.
false_religion.gif
False world religion founded by the Bab in 1844. Originated from Shiite Muslim. Contradicts itself, denies the essentials of Christianity. "While claiming to be the great unifier of all religions, Baha'is ironically deny all other religions by attempting to make each one conform to their concept of the universal religion of God. They have amalgamated bits and pieces of each faith into one eclectic mass of religious confusion." (David L Johnson.) A few of the contradictions in Baha'i:

  • Baha'i claims that each famous religious leader (eg, Moses, Jesus Christ, Muhammad, etc) is supposed to have been a manifestation of God. Unfortunately for Baha'i, Buddha and Confucius lived at the same time (between about 550-480 B.C.), as did the Bab and Baha'u'llah.
    Note: Watchman Fellowship in their
    offsite.gif
    Baha'i Profile points out "The infallible Center of the Covenant (Abdu'l Baha) said that Confucius was a Manifestation (Promulgation of Universal Peace, p.346)."
  • Baha'u'llah taught that the universe had no beginning and had no end, which contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. (One of the fundamental principles of Baha'i is that harmony must exist between religion and science.)
  • Baha'u'llah's teaching that the universe had no beginning and had no end contradicts his own teaching that God made the universe out of nothing.
  • Baha'u'llah taught that religious truth is not absolute, which is self refuting. (See the Self Refuting Statements page for some more examples.) This means Baha'u'llah was a false prophet.
New Zealand Cults, Sects, Religions, Christian Organisations, and other groups

Sure I would disagree with most of that. But people are entitled to believe what they wish as well. I read, I think, I conclude. Baha'is, Hindus, Every faith under the sun have all said things that seem preposterous to me personally. They've also said things that make perfect sense. Baha'i have a view that Krishna is the founder of Hinduism. I've never met a Hindu that would agree to that. But Baha'is have the right to believe that. Really they have no choice as the infallibilty belief comes into play.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Sure I would disagree with most of that. But people are entitled to believe what they wish as well. I read, I think, I conclude. Baha'is, Hindus, Every faith under the sun have all said things that seem preposterous to me personally. They've also said things that make perfect sense. Baha'i have a view that Krishna is the founder of Hinduism. I've never met a Hindu that would agree to that. But Baha'is have the right to believe that. Really they have no choice as the infallibilty belief comes into play.

I would hope none of the Baha’is who participated in the Great Beings thread believes Krishna founded Hinduism. Besides the belief is not supported by a proper examination of the Baha’i writings.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
I would hope none of the Baha’is who participated in the Great Beings thread believes Krishna founded Hinduism. Besides the belief is not supported by a proper examination of the Baha’i writings.
Sure. How about that Krishna was a previous 'manifestation' of God then? I erred in saying Baha'is thought the was the founder as it's an assumption based on several of the other 'manifestations' being founders.
 
Last edited:

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Sure. How about that Krishna was a previous 'manifestation' of God then? I erred in saying Baha'is thought the was the founder as it's an assumption based on several of the other 'manifestations' being founders.

That’s exactly why some Baha’is believe Krishna was the Founder of Hinduism. It is assumed that because Buddha founded Buddhism, Christ Christianity and Muhammad Islam, then Krishna is incorrectly assumed to have founded Hinduism. He didn’t.

Baha’is do believe Krishna was a Manifestation of God. I posted a while back on the topic.

Who was Krishna in your tradition?

Obviously most, though not all Hindus prefer the word Incarnation rather than Manifestation. The word Vishnu is used instead of God. Avatar is another important concept so the best statement to reflect Hindu belief and language is Krishna is an Avatar and incarnation of Vishnu. Baha’is naturally see similarities with their own worldview, rightly or wrongly.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Baha’is have also learned (hopefully) Saivite Hindus don’t believe in Krishna and avatars.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Why am I having an overwhelming sense of déjà vu with all this? It’s because the first time we met on this forum nearly 3 years ago I made it clear there was no reason at all Baha’is couldn’t associate with the likes of Juan Cole.

The Role of Women in establishing Peace

Remember?

I explained to Vinayaka ages ago that neither he nor ex-Baha’i critics were covenant breakers. He accepted it and let it go. Aup doesn’t know too much about the Baha’i Faith so I doubt if he’s considered the concept. I can’t imagine that any of the Baha’is on RF have accused you of covenant breaking. Long term deepened Baha’is have good knowledge of what the Covenant is and isn’t. You could always provide an example to refute what I’m saying.

I recall Sen dropped in on one of our conversations. The Baha’is didn’t shun him. Far from it.

None of the above touches the post that I wrote.

It's about Bahais (previously) dismissing information and writings by or about Bahai because the sources used have been full of Bahai haters and Covenant Breakers! That is now finished with!

Moving forward, we don't have to listen to such 'put-downs'.

------------------------------------------------

Now......... memories:........
I remember when you told me that you had been a Bahai for 18 years (at that time) and never ever heard of such extraordinary ideas that LSAs and NSAs were intended to become Houses of Justice. You see? We've all been learning here at RF.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
I have been a Baha'i since early 1984. The community where I lived had a Covenant breaker, we were made aware when we studied the Covenant, but I have never seen list as such. Stands to administrative reason that there would be a record.

I would say privacy would be upheld and information given on a need to know basis. When one studies the Covenant, it is soon easy to see when a person walks the line and starts to cross it. Even then the process is to offer more deepening in the covenant, not to neglect and shun a person.

I have a few friends that have moved out of the Faith, that has not changed our friendship.

One can loose voting rights and also not be a covenant breaker.

Regards Tony

Thanks for that.
And so....... moving forward, any information that we discover from mostly any people at mostly any websites is more likely to be honest opinion and genuine writings, simply given by people who no longer believe in Bahai..... and not wicked covenant breakers.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
None of the above touches the post that I wrote.

It's about Bahais (previously) dismissing information and writings by or about Bahai because the sources used have been full of Bahai haters and Covenant Breakers! That is now finished with!

Moving forward, we don't have to listen to such 'put-downs'.

------------------------------------------------

Now......... memories:........
I remember when you told me that you had been a Bahai for 18 years (at that time) and never ever heard of such extraordinary ideas that LSAs and NSAs were intended to become Houses of Justice. You see? We've all been learning here at RF.

No. We had been debating whether or not there were various functions or duties that would be carried out by males on Local and National Spiritual Assemblies/Local and National House of Justices. I had never said I was a Baha’i for 18 years as that wouldn’t have been correct. You can go back and reread the thread if you want.

But moving right along....You have made it clear previously your intentions to use material from Covenant Breakers as part of your critique of the Baha’i Faith. Is that right? From memory its buried somewhere amidst nearly 20,000 posts over one year:D If true, its entirely your prerogative.

You’ve used material early in this thread from an Islamic anti-Baha’i site. Its a smart move as a Muslim has started a thread enquiring about the Baha’i Faith. He can be directed to what one of his fellow Muslims are saying. Do you feel this would be the most accurate and fair source of information for one who knows little about the Baha’i Faith and is wanting to learn more?
 
Top