• 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!

Baha’i community members: Baha’is spreading misunderstandings and misinformation about the community

Jim

Nets of Wonder
If you read my last post to you I have simply provided an outline of the Covenant of Bahá’u’lláh from a Baha’i perspective. I didn’t mention anything about you at all so why take it personally? Since the subject of the Covenant has been raised between us, I thought a more productive avenue of discussion might be to share our different understandings of the Covenant. It occurred to me that as you referred previously to a different Baha’i Faith I wondered if there may be different Covenant. Is that correct or is the Covenant I’ve described the Covenant you believe in too?
When I thought that some people in a Internet discussion might be Covenant breakers, I wrote to the House of Justice and asked about them by name. I think that it would be better for you and for Baha’u’llah’s purposes if you do the same. You could say that Jim Habegger is posting in a forum where you’re posting, and ask if there’s anything that you need to know about me.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
I thought a more productive avenue of discussion might be to ...
I think that a more productive avenue of discussion might be for you to write to the House of Justice, tell them that Jim Habegger is posting in a forum where you are moderating, and ask them if there’s anything that you need to know about me.
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I’m agreeing to disagree, amicably. For me that would mean that I post my views and you post yours, without you stigmatizing mine as being contrary to the Covenant. I’m even agreeing for you to do that if that’s what you sincerely think, but that doesn’t look amicable to me, and it doesn’t look to me like you agreeing to disagree, especially when you try to make it look like it’s coming from a Baha’i institution.

There is to me and more importantly, a great Spirit behind the Covenant.

Regards Tony
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
It occurred to me that as you referred previously to a different Baha’i Faith I wondered if there may be different Covenant. Is that correct or is the Covenant I’ve described the Covenant you believe in too?
Have you no fear of God? I am a recognized member of the Baha’i Faith community as it is defined by the Universal House of Justice seated on Mount Carmel in Haifa, Israel. The Counselors and the House of Justice have known for more than 10 years about what I’ve been saying and doing in Internet discussions. None of them have ever told me that I’m doing anything wrong, or that my views are wrong.

Have you no fear of God?
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
There is to me and more importantly, a great Spirit behind the Covenant.

Regards Tony
I don’t see you trying to communicate with me. All I see you doing is trying to stigmatize me. I won’t be responding to your posts any more. That doesn’t mean that I won’t be reading them, if you address them to me or post in threads that I’m reading. I will read them, but I won’t respond to them.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
If you read my last post to you I have simply provided an outline of the Covenant of Bahá’u’lláh from a Baha’i perspective. I didn’t mention anything about you at all so why take it personally? Since the subject of the Covenant has been raised between us, I thought a more productive avenue of discussion might be to share our different understandings of the Covenant. It occurred to me that as you referred previously to a different Baha’i Faith I wondered if there may be different Covenant. Is that correct or is the Covenant I’ve described the Covenant you believe in too?
I’m thinking now that you might see what you’re doing to me as part of your responsibility as a staff member of the forums. I found a compilation that might be good for you to read. Maybe you’ve seen it already. I’ll be studying it too.

Covenant-breakers, Electronic Communication with, by the Universal House of Justice

I don’t see you trying to communicate with me. All I see you doing in your posts to me is trying to stigmatize me. I won’t be responding any more to your posts to me. I will read messages that you address to me, and that you post in discussions that I’m following, but I won’t respond to them.
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I don’t see you trying to communicate with me. All I see you doing is trying to stigmatize me. I won’t be responding to your posts any more. That doesn’t mean that I won’t be reading them, if you address them to me or post in threads that I’m reading. I will read them, but I won’t respond to them.

Your choice Jim, that reply was in the same context as I see yours are in, it may mean something, if there was a given context, it may not be what you are thinking.

Regards Tony
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I don’t see you trying to communicate with me. All I see you doing is trying to stigmatize me. I won’t be responding to your posts any more. That doesn’t mean that I won’t be reading them, if you address them to me or post in threads that I’m reading. I will read them, but I won’t respond to them.

How about this Jim;

"Thus, if any participant in an email discussion feels that a view put forward appears to contradict or undermine the provisions of the Covenant, he should be free to say so, explaining candidly and courteously why he feels as he does. The person who made the initial statement will then be able to re-evaluate his opinion and, if he still believes it to be valid, he should be able to explain why it is not contrary to either the letter or the spirit of the Covenant. The participants in such a discussion should avoid disputation and, if they are unable to resolve an issue, they should refer the point to the Universal House of Justice since, in accordance with the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Bahá, "By this body all the difficult problems are to be resolved..." and it has the authority to decide upon "all problems which have caused difference, questions that are obscure, and matters that are not expressly recorded in the Book." In this way the Covenant can illuminate and temper the discourse and make it fruitful.'

(From a letter dated 16 February 1996 written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual)

Personally, I would not like to give the Universal House of Justice any more work.

Regards Tony
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
When I thought that some people in a Internet discussion might be Covenant breakers, I wrote to the House of Justice and asked about them by name. I think that it would be better for you and for Baha’u’llah’s purposes if you do the same. You could say that Jim Habegger is posting in a forum where you’re posting, and ask if there’s anything that you need to know about me.

I’m sorry to have offended you. I have never thought you to be a Covenant breaker let alone accused you of being one.

Have you no fear of God? I am a recognized member of the Baha’i Faith community as it is defined by the Universal House of Justice seated on Mount Carmel in Haifa, Israel. The Counselors and the House of Justice have known for more than 10 years about what I’ve been saying and doing in Internet discussions. None of them have ever told me that I’m doing anything wrong, or that my views are wrong.

Have you no fear of God?

I have never doubted you are a member of the Baha’i Faith in good standing.

I’m thinking now that you might see what you’re doing to me as part of your responsibility as a staff member of the forums. I found a compilation that might be good for you to read. Maybe you’ve seen it already. I’ll be studying it too.

Covenant-breakers, Electronic Communication with, by the Universal House of Justice

I don’t see you trying to communicate with me. All I see you doing in your posts to me is trying to stigmatize me. I won’t be responding any more to your posts to me. I will read messages that you address to me, and that you post in discussions that I’m following, but I won’t respond to them.

I’m really sorry you feel that way and am happy to continue talking with you again should you so wish.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
How about this Jim;

"Thus, if any participant in an email discussion feels that a view put forward appears to contradict or undermine the provisions of the Covenant, he should be free to say so, explaining candidly and courteously why he feels as he does. The person who made the initial statement will then be able to re-evaluate his opinion and, if he still believes it to be valid, he should be able to explain why it is not contrary to either the letter or the spirit of the Covenant. The participants in such a discussion should avoid disputation and, if they are unable to resolve an issue, they should refer the point to the Universal House of Justice since, in accordance with the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Bahá, "By this body all the difficult problems are to be resolved..." and it has the authority to decide upon "all problems which have caused difference, questions that are obscure, and matters that are not expressly recorded in the Book." In this way the Covenant can illuminate and temper the discourse and make it fruitful.'

(From a letter dated 16 February 1996 written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual)

Personally, I would not like to give the Universal House of Justice any more work.

Regards Tony
I said that I won’t be responding to your posts, but maybe I will sometimes, to tell you some things that I’d like for you to know. I still believe in your sincerity and the friendliness of your intentions. I’m thinking that possibly your delusions about me are part of your defense against thinking that you need to question your own beliefs in the same way that you think that followers of all other religions need to question theirs. I think that maybe you need to learn to trust Bahá’u’lláh and the House of Justice more. One way you might do that is by studying the Ridvan letters from the last five or ten years, trying to better understand its aims and purposes, and roleplaying everything that it’s calling for individuals, communities and institutions to do.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
How about this Jim;

"Thus, if any participant in an email discussion feels that a view put forward appears to contradict or undermine the provisions of the Covenant, he should be free to say so, explaining candidly and courteously why he feels as he does. The person who made the initial statement will then be able to re-evaluate his opinion and, if he still believes it to be valid, he should be able to explain why it is not contrary to either the letter or the spirit of the Covenant. The participants in such a discussion should avoid disputation and, if they are unable to resolve an issue, they should refer the point to the Universal House of Justice since, in accordance with the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Bahá, "By this body all the difficult problems are to be resolved..." and it has the authority to decide upon "all problems which have caused difference, questions that are obscure, and matters that are not expressly recorded in the Book." In this way the Covenant can illuminate and temper the discourse and make it fruitful.'

(From a letter dated 16 February 1996 written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual)

Personally, I would not like to give the Universal House of Justice any more work.

Regards Tony
I don’t think that the sure foundation is any beliefs, no matter how fundamental you think they are. I think that attachment to what people think are the fundamental beliefs of their religion is at the heart of violence in the name of religion. I think that applies to Baha’i beliefs as much as to any others. I think that the sure foundation, the safe ground to stand on, is learning to trust Bahá’u’lláh and His House of Justice, and everything that the House of Justice is promoting.

I’m hoping now, for your benefit, that you will read “One Common Faith” again, with our discussions in mind.
 
Last edited:

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I think that attachment to what people think are the fundamental beliefs of their religion is at the heart of violence in the name of religion

Luckily Jim, that any violence that one sees justified in the name of Faith, has been removed from the book. (Except of course for the war on drugs and the police forces required to maintain a peaceful world)

I see a person is not a Baha'i, if they think and act in any violent way.

Regards Tony
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
I’m sorry to have offended you. I have never thought you to be a Covenant breaker let alone accused you of being one.



I have never doubted you are a member of the Baha’i Faith in good standing.



I’m really sorry you feel that way and am happy to continue talking with you again should you so wish.
I said that I won’t respond any more to your posts, but maybe I will sometimes, to tell you things that I would like for you to know. I’m thinking now that some behavior of yours that looks dishonest and treacherous to me might be from your delusions about me, and from the environment where we’re posting. I’m still hoping, for your benefit, that you will contact a Counselor or the House of Justice and ask about me by a name. I’m also hoping, for your benefit, that you will read the message to the world’s religious leaders again, as if it were addressed to you personally, as a religious leader yourself.
 
Last edited:

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I’m hoping now, for your benefit, that you will read “One Common Faith” again, with our discussions in mind.

You referenced the document of 'One Common Faith' to which this is applicable;

"Prepared under the supervision of the Universal House of Justice, the book, One Common Faith reviews relevant passages from both the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh and the scriptures of other Faiths against the background of the contemporary crisis of sectarianism."

Thus sectarianism means that we have an accessive attachment to a particular sect or party, especially in religion, which in turn alienates all other sources.

Luckily that is what Baha'u'llah has come to clarify, that in that Message we can see all the Founders, of all the God given Faiths, as the givers of our Faith.

Thus Baha'u'llah has moved the barriers for us to form any prejudice, discrimination, or any hatred arising from attaching relations of inferiority and superiority to any differences between subdivisions within a group or between all of those God given Faiths.

There is a lot in that document. What was it, in the 22 odd pages of advice is it that you wished to point out?

Regards Tony
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
@adrian009 @Tony Bristow-Stagg I might be misreading your posts, so what I want to say may or may not be relevant to what’s been happening between us. My understanding of the guidance from the House of Justice is that if you think that someone is saying things contrary to the Covenant, you should feel free to say so. Then if you aren’t satisfied with his explanations, and you are still concerned about it, you should write to the House of Justice. You can continue to say what you think about whatever the topic is, but not intermingled with your suspicions about the person’s motives and intentions. If you think that the person might have harmful intentions, you should treat that separately, however you think it needs to be treated, but not intermingled with discussions about what the person is saying.

Now I’m going to be thinking about how to follow my own advice.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
@Tony Bristow-Stagg @adrian009 I’ll add to what I said that if you bring your suspicions about a person’s motives and intentions into the discussion of the topic, you’ll be confusing the issue more than helping to clarify it. I’ll be considering now how to apply that wisdom, myself.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
@adrian009 @Tony Bristow-Stagg Now I’d like to discuss with you my views about homosexuality, before I discuss them any more with other people. Not for us to agree about it, but for me to practice responding to what you say, without falling into contention myself. It’s okay with me for you to say and do whatever you want to.

I’m planning to post my view of what Baha’i scriptures say about homosexuality and gay issues, in a debate forum where anyone can post, and ask for people to post any arguments that they can find against my view. Here’s what I’ll be saying:
- I see Bahá’u’lláh ratifying the sexual prohibitions in Leviticus, but I don’t think that has anything to do with sexual orientation or any gay issues.
- I see Bahá’u’lláh promoting and regulating marriages between men and women, but I don’t think that has anything to do with sexual orientation or any gay issues.
- I see Bahá’u’lláh preferring not to discuss pederasty, in a context of permissible marriage partners, but I don’t think that has anything to do with sexual orientation or any gay issues.
- I don’t see any prohibition in Baha’i scriptures against all homosexual relations. I don’t see any sexual prohibitions other than the ones in Leviticus.
- I don’t see any prohibition in Baha’i scriptures against a relationship between two women or two men called a “marriage” or legalized as one.
- I don’t think that the morality or healthfulness of any sexual activities has anything to do with anyone’s sex type, orientation or gender identity.
 
Last edited:

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
@adrian009 @Tony Bristow-Stagg Now I’d like to discuss with you my views about homosexuality, before I discuss them any more with other people. Not for us to agree about it, but for me to practice responding to what you say, without falling into contention myself. It’s okay with me for you to say and do whatever you want to.

I’m planning to post my view of what Baha’i scriptures say about homosexuality and gay issues, in a debate forum where anyone can post, and ask for people to post any arguments that they can find against my view. Here’s what I’ll be saying:
- I see Bahá’u’lláh ratifying the sexual prohibitions in Leviticus, but I don’t think that has anything to do with sexual orientation or any gay issues.
- I see Bahá’u’lláh promoting and regulating marriages between men and women, but I don’t think that has anything to do with sexual orientation or any gay issues.
- I see Bahá’u’lláh preferring not to discuss pederasty, in a context of permissible marriage partners, but I don’t think that has anything to do with sexual orientation or any gay issues.
- I don’t see any prohibition in Baha’i scriptures against all homosexual relations. I don’t see any sexual prohibitions other than the ones in Leviticus.
- I don’t see any prohibition in Baha’i scriptures against a relationship between two women or two men called a “marriage” or legalized as one.”
- I don’t think that the morality or healthfulness of any sexual activities has anything to do with anyone’s sex type, orientation or gender identity.

Jim, I see for a Baha'i it is clear cut and all that needs to be said is, that a legal Marriage is between One man and One women. The sex impulse can only be used within that lawful bond. Personally I do not need to add any more clarity to that. It is a challenge to us all to live by that standard.

"..Bahá'í teachings on sexual morality centre on marriage and the family as the bedrock of the whole structure of human society and are designed to protect and strengthen that divine institution. Thus Bahá'í law restricts permissible sexual intercourse to that between a man and the woman to whom he is married..." "Concerning your question whether there are any legitimate forms of expression of the sex instinct outside of marriage; according to the Bahá'í Teachings no sexual act can be considered lawful unless performed between lawfully married persons. Outside of marital life there can be no lawful or healthy use of the sex impulse..."

"Regarding the question of whether or not same-sex marriages would ever be permitted by the Universal House of Justice, the enclosed extracts indicate clearly that it would not." (From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice, Letters of The Universal House of Justice, 1993 Jun 05)


Outside of the Faith, people are free to pursue any path they want to pursue. As a Baha'i, I will support their right to do so and in now way offer and prejudiced towards any persons.

Regards Tony
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
Jim, I see for a Baha'i it is clear cut and all that needs to be said is, that a legal Marriage is between One man and One women. The sex impulse can only be used within that lawful bond. Personally I do not need to add any more clarity to that. It is a challenge to us all to live by that standard.

"..Bahá'í teachings on sexual morality centre on marriage and the family as the bedrock of the whole structure of human society and are designed to protect and strengthen that divine institution. Thus Bahá'í law restricts permissible sexual intercourse to that between a man and the woman to whom he is married..." "Concerning your question whether there are any legitimate forms of expression of the sex instinct outside of marriage; according to the Bahá'í Teachings no sexual act can be considered lawful unless performed between lawfully married persons. Outside of marital life there can be no lawful or healthy use of the sex impulse..."

"Regarding the question of whether or not same-sex marriages would ever be permitted by the Universal House of Justice, the enclosed extracts indicate clearly that it would not." (From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice, Letters of The Universal House of Justice, 1993 Jun 05)


Outside of the Faith, people are free to pursue any path they want to pursue. As a Baha'i, I will support their right to do so and in now way offer and prejudiced towards any persons.

Regards Tony
Thank you. If any more thoughts about this come to you, I’ll be glad to see them.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
"Regarding the question of whether or not same-sex marriages would ever be permitted by the Universal House of Justice, the enclosed extracts indicate clearly that it would not." (From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice, Letters of The Universal House of Justice, 1993 Jun 05)
That reminded me of something I forgot to say in my post above:
- I don’t see any possibility ever for any marriage between two women or two men to be certified as a Baha’i marriage.

I’ve edited that post to add that.
 
Top