Baha’i Faith, homosexuality, and censorship

[Jim]

I currently see that may mean that you see the vast majority of Baha'i, have not grasped the concepts in the Baha'i Faith as you see them ...

I’m not sure about the “vast majority” part, but isn’t that what you think about followers of all other religions except yours? Do you have any reason to think that Baha’is are any different? Don’t you think that a vast majority of people have misunderstood their scriptures in some of the beliefs that they cling to the most? Are you saying that Baha’is are different? Are you saying that the truth in all religions can be measured by how many Baha’is believe or don’t believe something?

 

[Jim]

Why do you not give in a way as to what you are really trying to say?

I’ve been wondering why you keep asking me about my motives and intentions, if you aren’t going to believe what I say about them. I won’t try to explain them to you any more.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I do. As long as you persist in thinking that I’m lying about my motives and intentions, there’s no way that I can describe them, that you will understand.

That is you perception Jim, I have absolutely no idea of your motive and intentions.

What I can do, as all others can do, is weigh what you say against what is written in and explained by the writings.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I’m not sure about the “vast majority” part, but isn’t that what you think about followers of all other religions except yours? Do you have any reason to think that Baha’is are any different? Don’t you think that a vast majority of people have misunderstood their scriptures in some of the beliefs that they cling to the most? Are you saying that Baha’is are different? Are you saying that the truth in all religions can be measured by how many Baha’is believe or don’t believe something?

I will say that perceptions change and current perception is all relative to this age we live in. I see no doctrine has been made by any Baha'i's to date, we still have the Pure Word without unauthorized interpretation, without any set doctrine. Baha'is are no different and are not exempt from error, but I see time is kind to us, we are still close to the Purity of the Word for the Baha'i to have made any grave errors. On the other hand I see that these understandings will evolve into things much more astounding than we can ever envisage, but I do see that error may already be part of our thought. Baha'u'llah said humanity was not ready for this Message and that is why much was left unsaid and many writings were thrown into the river.

Thus I currently see that the Majority will read and understand the English as it suggest it says. To me there is a good reason that Shoghi Effendi studied English, it was not a fluke that Abdul'baha supported those studies.

I now see an increasing number of people starting to waver, mostly because they think they see that science is starting to show a possible error in some aspects of the Baha'i Writings, they hint more and more, that those errors have crept in because of a failure of certain aspects of the Covenant. Personally I see there is no error, not even an atom of error. I do not see this is your path, but I am yet to see and still do not know what you are offering.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I’m saying that there is no rule against promoting views contrary to Baha’i teachings or what the House of Justice says about Baha’i teachings. I think that a person can openly disagree with Baha’i teachings and what the House of Justice says about them without opposing Baha’u’llah, His interpreters or the House of Justice. I’m saying that it’s possible to openly disagree with Baha’i teachings and what the House of Justice says about it, without breaking any rules of the Baha’i Faith.

Let us explore this comment a bit further Jim, as it brings to mid a specific passage in the will and testament of Abdul'Baha, I will add my thoughts in GREEN between the quote;

"...The sacred and youthful branch, the Guardian of the Cause of God, as well as the Universal House of Justice, to be universally elected and established, are both under the care and protection of the Abhá Beauty, under the shelter and unerring guidance of the Exalted One (may my life be offered up for them both). Whatsoever they decide is of God.(Shoghi Effendi and UHJ)Whoso obeyeth him not Shoghi Effendi, neither obeyeth them (UHJ), hath not obeyed God; whoso rebelleth against him (Shoghi Effendi) and against them (UHJ) hath rebelled against God; whoso opposeth him (Shoghi Effendi) hath opposed God; whoso contendeth with them (Shoghi Effendi and UHJ) hath contended with God; whoso disputeth with him (Shoghi Effendi) hath disputed with God; whoso denieth him (Shoghi Effendi) hath denied God; whoso disbelieveth in him (Shoghi Effendi) hath disbelieved in God; whoso deviateth, separateth himself and turneth aside from him (Shoghi Effendi) hath in truth deviated, separated himself and turned aside from God...."

So we have a part in there applicable to both Shoghi Effendi and UHJ that says 'whoso contendeth with them', so what does contendeth in this passage mean?

Can we say it means; "If you contend that something is true, you state or argue that ones own ideas are true, over the other. Some Synonyms are, argue, hold, maintain or allege.

So is it plausible to say that to disagree is to Contend? More synonyms is that context - Contend Synonyms | Collins English Thesaurus

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I’ve been wondering why you keep asking me about my motives and intentions, if you aren’t going to believe what I say about them. I won’t try to explain them to you any more.

Jim, I do not see you have explained them fully as yet, I am still at a loss to know what you are offering, that would expand on what I understand the writings have shown me to date.

If there is any other poster that may be able to explain what I am not seeing, then please do. Maybe @firedragon can, as I note you have replied very favorably to a comment He made earlier.

Regards Tony

 

[firedragon]

Jim, I do not see you have explained them fully as yet, I am still at a loss to know what you are offering, that would expand on what I understand the writings have shown me to date.

If there is any other poster that may be able to explain what I am not seeing, then please do. Maybe @firedragon can, as I note you have replied very favorably to a comment He made earlier.

Regards Tony

Favourably? Can you please show what this "favourable" comment is?

 

[Jim]

Favourably? Can you please show what this "favourable" comment is?

I rated one or two of your posts “Winner.” Search in your notifications.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I maybe wrong but I think you have misunderstood the OP by Jim.

His question is not about homosexuality. His question is whether the bahai institution approves him speaking his mind.

I have no right to speak on behalf of someone and I could be wrong so I will stand corrected if corrected.

That post was like an oasis in the desert to me.

Favourably? Can you please show what this "favourable" comment is?

This is one.

Regards Tony

 

[firedragon]

This is one.

Regards Tony

How do you regard that as favourably? Can you explain?

 

[firedragon]

I rated one or two of your posts “Winner.” Search in your notifications.

Brother. I was trying to clarify your question. And you probably know that.

That was not being favourable to you, or those who you were questioning.

The person (not you) who is saying i said that "favourably" is probably "unfavourable" for whatever reason and anyone who even clarifies a question seems like a "favourable" comment. Utter ridiculous nonsense.

Peace.

 

[firedragon]

This is one.

Regards Tony

can you explain how the below statement is "FAVOURABLE" to anyone?

"I maybe wrong but I think you have misunderstood the OP by Jim.

His question is not about homosexuality. His question is whether the bahai institution approves him speaking his mind.

I have no right to speak on behalf of someone and I could be wrong so I will stand corrected if corrected."

Thats not being favourable. And i am not gonna waste any more time with your most nonsensical comment.

Ciao.

 

[stvdv]

Utter ridiculous nonsense

IMO:
Maybe non-sense, I would not call it nonsense

Most people mean well. Some are very accurate with words, like you. Others a little less. Some get triggered easy by old trauma (happens to me). Then easily they might word things less accurate, but still mean well; emotions sometimes blurr our vision or worse.

I believe that in the end, all humans want Peace. No coincidence Islam is called "Religion of Peace". That's the goal, all humans strive for (some more aware than others).

 

[firedragon]

IMO:
Maybe non-sense, I would not call it nonsense

Most people mean well. Some are very accurate with words, like you. Others a little less. Some get triggered easy by old trauma (happens to me). Then easily they might word things less accurate, but still mean well; emotions sometimes blurr our vision or worse.

I believe that in the end, all humans want Peace. No coincidence Islam is called "Religion of Peace". That's the goal, all humans strive for (some more aware than others).

Thanks and cheers.

 

[Jim]

Brother. I was trying to clarify your question. And you probably know that.

That was not being favourable to you, or those who you were questioning.

The person (not you) who is saying i said that "favourably" is probably "unfavourable" for whatever reason and anyone who even clarifies a question seems like a "favourable" comment. Utter ridiculous nonsense.

Peace.

He might have been hoping that you could help him understand what I’m doing in this thread, because I rated your post about it “Winner.”

 

[stvdv]

can you explain how the below statement is "FAVOURABLE" to anyone?

"I maybe wrong but I think you have misunderstood the OP by Jim.

His question is not about homosexuality. His question is whether the bahai institution approves him speaking his mind.

I have no right to speak on behalf of someone and I could be wrong so I will stand corrected if corrected."

Thats not being favourable. And i am not gonna waste any more time with your most nonsensical comment.

Ciao.

Favourable has multiple meanings.
1) Doing a favour. That was never your intention. You just clarified as I see.
2) To the advantage of someone or something

Obvious your comment is to the advantage of clarity (of what Jim meant), hence favourable is correctly used it seems.

My reply is not to do you a favour (first meaning), but to clarify things (second meaning); just like you did.

Spoiler: favourable: 2 meanings

favourable
/ˈfeɪv(ə)rəb(ə)l/
adjective

1. 1.
   expressing approval.
   "the exhibitions received favourable reviews"
   
   
2. 2.
   to the advantage of someone or something

 

[firedragon]

Favourable has multiple meanings.
1) Doing a favour. That was never your intention. You just clarified as I see.
2) To the advantage of someone or something

Obvious your comment is to the advantage of clarity (of what Jim meant), hence favourable is correctly used it seems.

My reply is not to do you a favour (first meaning), but to clarify things (second meaning); just like you did.

Spoiler: favourable: 2 meanings

favourable
/ˈfeɪv(ə)rəb(ə)l/
adjective

1. 1.
   expressing approval.
   "the exhibitions received favourable reviews"
   
   
2. 2.
   to the advantage of someone or something

I can see what kind of good hearted people you are stvdv so i shall concede.
Peace.

 

[Jim]

Brother. I was trying to clarify your question. And you probably know that.

That was not being favourable to you, or those who you were questioning.

The person (not you) who is saying i said that "favourably" is probably "unfavourable" for whatever reason and anyone who even clarifies a question seems like a "favourable" comment. Utter ridiculous nonsense.

Peace.

I’m posting this for clarity.

Your post about what I might be trying to say showed a lot better understanding of it than anything else that I’ve seen in this thread, before or since. I didn’t take it as approval of what I was trying to say. I took it as understanding what I was trying to say, which for me is much better than approval. It was very refreshing to me to see that oasis of understanding in a desert of misunderstanding, no matter if it’s approving, disapproving or other.

 

[firedragon]

I’m posting this for clarity.

Your post about what I might be trying to say showed a lot better understanding of it than anything else that I’ve seen in this thread, before or since. I didn’t take it as approval of what I was trying to say. I took it as understanding what I was trying to say, which for me is much better than approval. It was very refreshing to me to see that oasis of understanding in a desert of misunderstanding, no matter if it’s approving, disapproving or other.

I understood what you said brother, and i understand what you say now. Frankly i have no clue how the Bahai institution works. I learned about the Bahai faith only after i asked the Bahais in THIS FORUM.

I have never met a Bahai prior to that and only heard fleeting mentions of the faith. So I dont know anything about the institution or the house of Justice other than what i have a read here and there. Thus, as you have rightly assessed i am no position to answer your question but was only trying to state the position of the OP you made and i could easily see that everyone was issuing irrelevant opinions for a strawman point you never made.

Anyway, thanks brother. I know that you took it objectively not as if I was in "favour" of anything i have no clue of.

Nevertheless, i wish you have a great day. Cheers.

 

[Jim]

I’ve been studying this compilation of some advice to Baha’is from the Universal House of Justice:

Electronic Communication with Covenant breakers

This caught my attention:

In principle, no person can be considered a Covenant-breaker unless he has been so designated by the Head of the Faith. However, it is strongly advised not to associate with those who have fallen under the pernicious influence of groups such as the "Orthodox Bahá'ís". They are infected with the spirit of Covenant-breaking, even if they are not all designated as such. Accordingly, the friends should not answer queries from individuals who obviously seek to draw them into the consideration of the spurious claims and logic of the Covenant-breakers.

That gave me some new ideas about the topic of this thread, which is partly about censorship and repression of the views of Baha’is in Internet discussions, and where it is coming from. I think that sometimes some views of Baha’is are being censored and repressed in Interner discussions, but I don’t think that’s coming from Baha’i scriptures or from the House of Justice. I think that it’s coming from people saying or insinuating that it’s a violation of the Baha’i Covenant for any Baha’i to post some views that some other Baha’is are stigmatizing; and/or that a person can be removed from the membership or declared a Covenant breaker if they do that.

I think that some Baha’is here might think that I’m infected with the spirit of Covenant breaking. If so, then I hope that they will study the advice about that from the House of Justice, that I linked to above, and ask a spiritual assembly or an auxiliary board member for advice about what to do.

For anyone who is interested in the topic of this thread, here’s an update:

I think that sometimes some views of Baha’is are being censored and repressed in Interner discussions, but I don’t think that’s coming from Baha’i scriptures or from the House of Justice. I think that it’s coming from people saying or insinuating that it’s a violation of the Baha’i Covenant for any member of the Baha’i Faith community to post some views that some other Baha’is are stigmatizing; and/or that a person can be removed from the membership or declared a Covenant breaker if they do that.

I’m saying that I disagree with that. I think that it’s possible for a member of the Baha’i Faith community to post any of their views no matter how much they are stigmatized by other Baha’is, without violating the letter or the spirit of any rule in the community, and without any risk of losing their membership or being declared Covenant breakers. I’m presenting my own experience as an example of that. For more than 15 years I’ve been posting a few of the most stigmatized views in the Baha’i community. I’ve informed the House of Justice, and a Baha’i institution that is responsible for the protection of the Faith, about what I’ve been saying and doing in Internet discussions. No Baha’i institution has ever told me that I’m violating the Covenant, or even that my views are wrong.

I personally have broken a rule sometimes, against contention and strife, with some people around me, but I don’t think that invalides what I’m saying. I’ve seen some Baha’is and other people saying that I’m wrong because they all agree that I’m wrong. There might be some people who think that I’m infected with the spirit of Covenant breaking. Does anyone know of any other arguments against what I’m saying?