Abrahamic Bahai

[Quiddity]

Ah, after reading back, I think it goes like this . . .

Baha'u'llah has the authority to make new laws and revelations and can get rid of any of the old prophetic laws that are no longer necessary.

Abdul-Baha and Shogi Effendi have the authority to make new laws and interpret the revelations of Baha'u'llah, but they do NOT have the authority to get rid of any of the old prophetic laws, nor the laws of Baha'u'llah.

The Universal House of Justice has the authority to make new laws, but it does NOT have the authority to interpret the writings of Baha'u'llah nor get rid of the laws of Baha'u'llah.

Hmm, I wonder if I got that right then . . .

And none of them deal with theological issues, right?

Perhaps, my gluttonous body is causing me not to focus but I just can't see how any body can legislate or even make new laws without understanding and interpreting what already exists.....

 

[Quiddity]

Well we've already had a lot of Theological concepts shared with us by Baha'u'llah and Abdul-Baha, and they've covered most of the important and pressing issues, so I don't think there is really much of a need to try to dive in further. Besides, in the grand scheme of things, I don't think Theological concepts are all that important. They're just meant to explain things that we can't. What's more important though, is the "L" word, and putting that into action.

Oh, I thought most of what Baha'u'llah and Abdul-Baha left you guys was more to do with laws and applications, not theological matters.

That's interesting that you would say theological concepts aren't that important. I really did think that it would matter to ya'll if God was for or against abortion for example. It all eventually reflects the nature of God. But I guess I was wrong.

 

[9harmony]

Oh, I thought most of what Baha'u'llah and Abdul-Baha left you guys was more to do with laws and applications, not theological matters.

That's interesting that you would say theological concepts aren't that important. I really did think that it would matter to ya'll if God was for or against abortion for example. It all eventually reflects the nature of God. But I guess I was wrong.

Hi Victor,

Perhaps we should define what you mean by 'theological concepts'.

Regarding abortion: 1155. Surgical Operation and Abortion -- The soul Appears at Conception
"Abortion and surgical operations for the purpose of preventing the birth of unwanted children are forbidden in the Cause unless there are circumstances which justify such actions on medical grounds, in which case the decision, at present, is left to the consciences of those concerned who must carefully weigh the medical advice in the light of the general guidance given in the Teachings. Beyond this nothing has been found in the Writings concerning specific methods or procedures to be used in family planning. It should be pointed out, however, that the Teachings state that the soul appears at conception, and that therefore it would be improper to use such a method, the effect of which would be to produce an abortion after conception has taken place."
(From letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer, May 23, 1975)
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 344)

 

[Quiddity]

Ah, I think it might be a bit of miscommunication on our part then. You see, when I say Theological, I'm thinking of stuff like the after life, the nature of our soul, etc. and leave it at that. You seem to tie in what God does and doesn't approve of as theological, which I guess it is to an extent.

But when we look at things like abortion, what we're looking at is the ethics behind it, so to answer that kind of question we consider such things as . . .
"When is it okay to kill?"
"Knowing that the soul is created at the moment of conception, how much weight does that have on things?"
"Knowing that the reason for this physical life is to develop our spiritual capacaties, what kind of effect would an abortion have on a babies soul?"
"Knowing that the baby was never born, and therefore never had a chance to screw anything up, let alone learn anything, what kind of effect will that have on the soul?"
etc. and so forth.

However, the issue of abortion is so contentious at the moment that the Universal House of Justice probably won't touch that topic for some time, because no matter what they decide, the Baha'i community will be split, and we think that it's more important to maintain a unified body than it is to answer the issue of abortion at this point and time. Just like the Catholic church.

Theology certainly has doctrine/dogma tied into it, but you are right, it does have a much broader meaning to it that can be unimportant to many.

The Catholic Church certainly does have an official teaching regarding abortion. All catholics are bound to submit to it. Unity is especially important to us, but not at the cost of doctrine. We believe that it is only in doctrine that we can find unity.

Ok, I think I understand now. Thanks everybody.

 

[Quiddity]

Hi Victor,

Perhaps we should define what you mean by 'theological concepts'.

Regarding abortion: 1155. Surgical Operation and Abortion -- The soul Appears at Conception
"Abortion and surgical operations for the purpose of preventing the birth of unwanted children are forbidden in the Cause unless there are circumstances which justify such actions on medical grounds, in which case the decision, at present, is left to the consciences of those concerned who must carefully weigh the medical advice in the light of the general guidance given in the Teachings. Beyond this nothing has been found in the Writings concerning specific methods or procedures to be used in family planning. It should be pointed out, however, that the Teachings state that the soul appears at conception, and that therefore it would be improper to use such a method, the effect of which would be to produce an abortion after conception has taken place."
(From letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer, May 23, 1975)
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 344)

Is this binding on Bahai's? The matter seems to have been drawn up already, no?

 

[9harmony]

Is this binding on Bahai's? The matter seems to have been drawn up already, no?

I suppose if someone had an abortion for the sole purpose of getting rid of an unwanted child, and then proceeded to blab about it publically, there could be some repercussions. But generally, I think that this in not something that would be likely to be broadcast in public circles, so quite possibly noone would ever know. I think the guidance is just there for personal reflection, for the person considering such an action to truly consider the repercussions to their own spiritual life as well as that of the child. And to make a truly informed decision before acting on impulse.

 

[Popeyesays]

1154. Abortion Merely to Prevent the Birth of an Unwanted Child is Strictly Forbidden in the Cause
"Abortion merely to prevent the birth of an unwanted child is strictly forbidden in the Cause. There may, however, be instances in which an abortion would be justified by medical reasons, and legislation on this matter has been left to the Universal House of Justice. At the present time, however, the House of Justice does not intend to legislate on this very delicate issue, and therefore it is left to the consciences of those concerned who must carefully weigh the medical advice in the light of the general guidance given in the teachings."
(From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to the National Spiritual Assembly of Ireland, March 16, 1983)
1155. Surgical Operation and Abortion -- The soul Appears at Conception
"Abortion and surgical operations for the purpose of preventing the birth of unwanted children are forbidden in the Cause unless there are circumstances which justify such actions on medical grounds, in which case the decision, at present, is left to the consciences of those concerned who must carefully weigh the medical advice in the light of the general guidance given in the Teachings. Beyond this nothing has been found in the Writings concerning specific methods or procedures to be used in family planning. It should be pointed out, however, that the Teachings state that the soul appears at conception, and that therefore it would be improper to use such a method, the effect of which would be to produce an abortion after conception has taken place."
(From letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer, May 23, 1975)
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 344)


Regards,
Scott

 

[Quiddity]

I suppose if someone had an abortion for the sole purpose of getting rid of an unwanted child, and then proceeded to blab about it publically, there could be some repercussions. But generally, I think that this in not something that would be likely to be broadcast in public circles, so quite possibly noone would ever know. I think the guidance is just there for personal reflection, for the person considering such an action to truly consider the repercussions to their own spiritual life as well as that of the child. And to make a truly informed decision before acting on impulse.

It sounded to me that there isn't much wiggle room, so whether they say it publicly or not, justifying it is hard to come by. But I suppose that's why we all form our conscious.

 

[Popeyesays]

It sounded to me that there isn't much wiggle room, so whether they say it publicly or not, justifying it is hard to come by. But I suppose that's why we all form our conscious.

I would certainly agree that there is small wiggle-room. But that's my reaction to being faced with a personal decision. In cases where the life of the mother is forfeit, or the life of the fetus and the mother is forfeit, then each person's conscience decides the issue with the input of medical advice.

Regards,
Scott

 

[9harmony]

It sounded to me that there isn't much wiggle room, so whether they say it publicly or not, justifying it is hard to come by. But I suppose that's why we all form our conscious.

Yes. Exactly! If they never told a soul, they would still be responsible to justify it to God, when the time came. So they would have to make the decision on whether or not they felt it was worth the risk.

 

[9harmony]

"... Each of us is responsible for one life only, and that is our own. Each of us is immeasurably far from being 'perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect' and the task of perfecting our own life and character is one that requires all our attention, our will- power and energy. If we allow our attention and energy to be taken up in efforts to keep others right and remedy their faults,we are wasting precious time. We are like ploughmen each of whom has his team to manage and his plough to direct, and in order to keep his furrow straight he must keep his eye on his goal and concentrate on his own task. If he looks to this side and that to see how Tom and Harry are getting on and to criticize their ploughing, then his own furrow will assuredly become crooked."
(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, May 12, 1925: Living the Life, pp. 2-3) 93
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 92)

 

[Quiddity]

I would certainly agree that there is small wiggle-room. But that's my reaction to being faced with a personal decision. In cases where the life of the mother is forfeit, or the life of the fetus and the mother is forfeit, then each person's conscience decides the issue with the input of medical advice.

Regards,
Scott

Well, but that wouldn't really be an abortion would it.

 

[Quiddity]

Yes. Exactly! If they never told a soul, they would still be responsible to justify it to God, when the time came. So they would have to make the decision on whether or not they felt it was worth the risk.

Of course, people do that whether you have official clear teachings or not. Nothing gurantees unity, but as I said before, I believe only official doctrines has a chance of accomplishing it. That sounds like a good thread...

 

[arthra]

While Baha'is believe the soul begins at conception which is also the doctrine of Catholics we also believe a person needs to consult a knowledgeable physician and consider carefully the advice given..

"Abortion and surgical operations for the purpose of preventing the birth of unwanted children are forbidden in the Cause unless there are circumstances which justify such actions on medical grounds, in which case the decision, at present, is left to the consciences of those concerned who must carefully weigh the medical advice in the light of the general guidance given in the Teachings."

 

[Quiddity]

While Baha'is believe the soul begins at conception which is also the doctrine of Catholics we also believe a person needs to consult a knowledgeable physician and consider carefully the advice given..

"Abortion and surgical operations for the purpose of preventing the birth of unwanted children are forbidden in the Cause unless there are circumstances which justify such actions on medical grounds, in which case the decision, at present, is left to the consciences of those concerned who must carefully weigh the medical advice in the light of the general guidance given in the Teachings."

That really is no different to how the Catholic position is. The only difference could be that there we don't believe there is much wiggle room on medical grounds either. What could a doctor possibly tell a women to make her end the process of life?

The only thing I can think of is if her life or the baby's life is in danger. Other then that, there isn't much in our eyes that justify it.

 

[Quiddity]

Once again, thank you all for your patience and attention. I'm sure I'll back to ask more questions.

 

[9harmony]

Once again, thank you all for your patience and attention. I'm sure I'll back to ask more questions.

looking forward to it.

 

[Popeyesays]

That really is no different to how the Catholic position is. The only difference could be that there we don't believe there is much wiggle room on medical grounds either. What could a doctor possibly tell a women to make her end the process of life?

The only thing I can think of is if her life or the baby's life is in danger. Other then that, there isn't much in our eyes that justify it.

I could not agree more, that's the only wiggle room I can find. To the Baha`i frame of mind, the argument that each unique soul is created at conception is both the weight against abortion and the proof that reincarnation is not possible.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Quiddity]

I could not agree more, that's the only wiggle room I can find. To the Baha`i frame of mind, the argument that each unique soul is created at conception is both the weight against abortion and the proof that reincarnation is not possible.

Regards,
Scott

Interesting, another thing we share. We also don't believe reincarnation is possible.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings, all!

I'm back from travelling, and as I think it's already been made clear that in the Baha'i Faith, ONLY 'Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi (the Guardian) had the right to interpret our scriptures, and the House's function is legislation of things not convered by them (NOT interpretation), I'll just add a few points:

1. It is highly misleading to say 'Abdu'l-Baha didn't make theological statements: his pronouncements and writings ran the gamut of both theology and social topics, and much of what he said was definitely theological (such as about the nature of God).

2. Yes, the House (when it meets as a body) IS considered infallible, as stated in our Writings, so that its decisions don't require "correction" unless the circumstances of the matter which a decision addresses have changed. It's not a matter of the House issuing something that later needs fixing, as someone suggested. (And as was noted, those individuals serving on the House are not considered infallible, nor is any other Baha'i body such as local or national spiritual assemblies.)

3. We do regard other works (such as the Bible and Qur'an as also being scriptural), though not as addressing today's specific needs. These earlier scriptures are not all completely intact and reliable by now, either. The 200 volumes of Baha'i scripture, in contrast, are IOV completely reliable and will remain fixed at least until the next Divine Messenger (still a minimum of 860 years away): they are not subject to challenge or alteration until that Messenger appears. And yes, we have the originals of all 200 volumes: NOTHING is recognized as Baha'i scripture unless we have the original no matter how "inspirational" it might be! In the case of Baha'u'llah, He either wrote each document personally, or else dictated it and then checked and sealed it. (And in later years, His handwriting was definitely distinguishable due to His having survived a poisoning attempt that cause a writing tremor.)

4. And finally, as a note to Booko, Shoghi Efendi's surname was Rabbani. (Whether he had a middle name, and whether it might have been Abbas, I have no idea.)

Best,

Bruce