Number of times the word "homosexuality" appears in Baha'i scriptures

[Jumi]

First I want to say that in my current understanding of these issues, I don't think that what Shoghi Effendi meant by "homosexuality" includes everything that people are calling "homosexuality" now.

I think the "boys" reference probably means they were talking about "dancing boys" that used to be in the region. People around there would know instantly what he meant. They weren't even adults, but they were dressed up as women. If I understood correctly, lots of them were victims on more than one level.

 

[Jumi]

I have no idea if Islam also forbade it but seeing as Bahai arose out of a rebellion against Islam maybe prohibition against same sex sex was one of the rules the Bab wanted to get rid of.

I don't know enough about the Bab myself. Islam did forbid it in many places. According to wiki source, Taliban banned it in Afghanistan as un-islamic. Now after they're gone, it's back again.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

@adrian009 @Tony Bristow-Stagg

I didn't start this thread to discuss homosexuality with Baha'is, but after seeing the discussion here, I'd like to explain why I object to telling people that there is a prohibition against homosexuality in the Baha'i Faith. It's because the word "homosexuality" means a lot more to most or all people, than what is prohibited. Telling people that there's a prohibition against homosexuality, and leaving it to them to attach whatever meaning they want to, to "homosexuality," means that you will be misinforming most people about what, precisely, is prohibited.

I'm sure you know that for many people, "homosexuality" means same-sex attraction, or only falling in love with people of the same sex. Do you think that God condemns people for same-sex attractions, or for falling in love with people of the same sex? That's what it means to some people, including some of the people most vulnerable to feeling condemned by God, when you say that there's a prohibition against homosexuality. Why? Why insist on using that word, which is guaranteed to be misunderstood in harmful and possibly even fatal ways, when it is never used in Baha'i scriptures for whatever it is that is prohibited?

Thank you Jim. I responded that the Laws and guidance in the Baha'i Faith on this matter to me are clear. I do not talk on this subject often, as it is emotive. I have a son that identified as a Homosexual/Gay/Same sex attracted, or what people wish to call it. This has not changed the Love I have for Him and He is not a Baha'i.

I have no issues with this law and it says what it says. That is same sex actions are not allowed and Marriage is between an Man and a Women.

The issue appears to be that people do not like that others can accept these laws. I have peace of mind that this matter will become clear as the years roll on.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I know you like to quote your prophet so can you please repost his quotes on at least 5 "new social laws" from him directly which will help unite the world in peace and harmony under a Baha'i world theocracy? What laws will change humanity for the better?

Firstly there can be no Baha'i theocracy, as there are no Priests in the Baha'i Faith. The Baha'i system of elections is unique and only applicable to Baha'i.

Rule of this world has been left to humanity to pursue, with just Monarchy and Democracy encouraged.

1) Holy law is removed from the Book
2) Elimination of all prejudices
3) Equality of Men and Women
4) Elimination of extreme poverty and wealth via a spiritual solution to the economic problems.
5) Education for all people, with the females given priority.

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

The issue appears to be that people do not like that others can accept these laws. I have peace of mind that this matter will become clear as the years roll on.

Most certainly the world is changing. The recent decriminalisation of homosexuality in India affected 1.3 billion people, and even at the conservative estimate of 5%, that frees 65 million people from the prospect of jail time for being who they are. Now that's progression.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I've always thought this notion that the "main purpose of sex is procreation" is absurd.

As I understand it the Baha'i writings teach the primary purpose of marriage is procreation. Its not the only purpose of course.

That is certainly its simple biological purpose, but for creatures with a complex mental life and psychology, there a great deal more to it. It is increasingly recognised that sexual relations are crucial for the bonding between a couple which is so important, first for the confidence to start a family and then for family stability. Whether the churches like it or not, the link between sex and procreation has been irreversibly weakened by contraception, such that children are increasingly brought into the world by deliberate act rather than the traditional mixture of lust and chance. So it is not all about procreation at all, nowadays.

Of course. I agree.

A more realistic attitude to sex on the part of religions would be a great help to their adherents.

If you took the time to study all the Baha'i writings on marriage, sex and chastity you would find it does just that.

I could take one of the catechisms of the RCC out of context and make a mockery of it. What does that achieve?

 

[Deeje]

@Deeje No one has to believe anything, to be a member of the Baha’i Faith. I think that what keeps all the Baha’is of the world working together is the power of Baha’u’llah over people’s hearts.

It seems a strange thing to me to claim to follow a faith that has no definite set of beliefs that all must accept...or that someone can claim to follow the teachings of a prophet but then choose what parts to accept and what parts to ignore in those teachings.

I think that Bahá’u’lláh has endorsed the prohibition against a man substituting in the place of a woman, in an imitation of procreative union. I object to calling that a prohibition against homosexuality, because what “homosexuality” means to most or all people goes far beyond that, and frankly, to me, it looks dishonest and treacherous to substitute that word in the place of God’s description of it.

I am a bit puzzled over this approach since homosexuality is certainly nothing new in the world, and in some cultures it was an expected norm that a man (especially a rich man) had a young boy in his household to offset his sexual needs. It was not viewed as anything unusual or offensive. God's word OTOH has always condemned unnatural sex as a perversion. So the only sex sanctioned by God was to be expressed within the bonds of scriptural marriage which is only between a man and a woman, according to Jesus. (Matthew 19:4-6)

What in homosexuality today gives you the impression that what we understand "homosexuality" to mean isn't what what God's description of it is? What do you see as "dishonest" or "treacherous" about what the Bible teaches and the moral standards it sets?

 

[Dawnofhope]

@adrian009 @Tony Bristow-Stagg

I didn't start this thread to discuss homosexuality with Baha'is, but after seeing the discussion here, I'd like to explain why I object to telling people that there is a prohibition against homosexuality in the Baha'i Faith. It's because the word "homosexuality" means a lot more to most or all people, than what is prohibited. Telling people that there's a prohibition against homosexuality, and leaving it to them to attach whatever meaning they want to, to "homosexuality," means that you will be misinforming most people about what, precisely, is prohibited.

I wasn't sure why you had started this thread @Jim so I asked. One aspect I like about the Baha'i Faith is the freedom we have to discuss issues like this with others and amongst ourselves.

When I first saw the thread I thought you were advocating the Baha'i Faith become like some Christian Churches where same sex relationships are accorded the same status as heterosexual relationships, that homosexual acts be seen as a legitimate expression of the sex act according to Baha'i Teachings and God's law. Most people who know even a little about the Baha’i Faith realise that’s not what the Baha’i writings teach.

I'm sure you know that for many people, "homosexuality" means same-sex attraction, or only falling in love with people of the same sex. Do you think that God condemns people for same-sex attractions, or for falling in love with people of the same sex? That's what it means to some people, including some of the people most vulnerable to feeling condemned by God, when you say that there's a prohibition against homosexuality. Why? Why insist on using that word, which is guaranteed to be misunderstood in harmful and possibly even fatal ways, when it is never used in Baha'i scriptures for whatever it is that is prohibited?[/

I wasn't aware there were that many people on RF who were particularly interested in how the Baha'is viewed homosexuality. It’s certainly an important distinction to make that God loves all and teaches that as humans we should do the same. It’s important to acknowledge that some of us have an inherent same sex attraction and there is nothing wrong with that. However to express that inclination in sexual acts is contrary to God’s laws.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I don't agree for any person or institution to decide for everyone how to interpret what any scriptures say about a prohibition against some kind of sexual practice between two men.

Shoghi Effendi did for the Baha’is did he not?

No matter how devoted and fine the love may be between people of the same sex, to let it find expression in sexual acts is wrong. To say that it is ideal is no excuse. Immorality of every sort is really forbidden by Bahá'u'lláh, and homosexual relationships He looks upon as such, besides being against nature.

 

[Jim]

It seems a strange thing to me to claim to follow a faith that has no definite set of beliefs that all must accept

Sometimes, "truth is stranger than fiction." I'm just saying how it looks to me. I could be wrong. It looks to me like with rare exceptions, anyone who wants to can join, no matter what they believe, as long as they're willing to say whatever members of Baha'i councils want to hear. I'm sure that the House of Justice knows that there are many Baha'is who don't believe what Baha'u'llah says about Himself, and many who don't even believe in God, and I don't see it trying to have them all removed.

... or that someone can claim to follow the teachings of a prophet but then choose what parts to accept and what parts to ignore in those teachings.

ROTFL! Seriously? You don't see multitudes of Christians doing that? Do you know what is taught in most Christian seminaries? Do you know that there are dozens, possibly hundreds, of Christian ministers who don't believe in the divinity of Christ or even in God, but who keep on pretending that they do? If you're wondering why, read some of the stories from the Clergy Project.

I'll admit that it traumatized me when I first found out that there are many Baha'is who frankly aren't trying to follow Baha'u'llah at all, and a few even trying to turn other Baha'is away from following Him, but now that I'm over that, it makes good sense to me not to exclude them from the membership, as long as they don't try to destroy the usefulness of the community for Baha'u'llah's followers. However that may be, I trust God and Baha'u'llah enough not to worry about it.

I am a bit puzzled over this approach since homosexuality is certainly nothing new in the world, and in some cultures it was an expected norm that a man (especially a rich man) had a young boy in his household to offset his sexual needs. It was not viewed as anything unusual or offensive. God's word OTOH has always condemned unnatural sex as a perversion. So the only sex sanctioned by God was to be expressed within the bonds of scriptural marriage which is only between a man and a woman, according to Jesus. (Matthew 19:4-6)

What in homosexuality today gives you the impression that what we understand "homosexuality" to mean isn't what what God's description of it is? What do you see as "dishonest" or "treacherous" about what the Bible teaches and the moral standards it sets?

To put all my cards on the table, the only prohibition I see, in Baha'i, Muslim and Christian scriptures, is against the practice of substituting a man in the place of a wife, in an imitation of procreative union. That's all, I don't see any prohibition against anything else that anyone calls "homosexuality." Specifically, for example, even though Leviticus prohibits substituting an animal in the place of a husband or wife for that purpose, it's conspicuously silent about what women can do with each other. I don't think the prohibitions have anything at all to do with sexual stimulation. It looks to me like the purpose of the prohibitions is to regulate the use of penises. I don't think it has anything to do with sexual attractions, falling in love, enjoying sexual pleasures together, or anything else that "homosexuality" means to people today. I also don't think that this is the time for any institutions to be trying to enforce that prohibition on everyone, especially in ways that penalize innocent people, and serve no purpose other than fundraising.

That's my opinion, and I might be the only Baha'i in the world who sees it that way. Anyway, I'm just putting my cards on the table, for transparency, not to try to convince you.

Thinking about how to explain to you the harmfulness and even deadliness of people saying "homosexuality is a sin," I don't think that that you could understand it from any amount of discussion. You would need to read the stories. If you hadn't already seen anyone saying that, now you have. I am saying to you that multitudes of people saying "homosexuality is a sin," has grievous and sometimes even deadly consequences in the lives of some of the most innocent people, people who struggle and struggle with all their hearts against same-sex temptations. Besides that, sometimes it drives them into the arms of wolves. Why do you have to say those exact words, "homosexuality is a sin"? Where in the scriptures does it say you have a right and a duty to substitute paraphrases of scriptures in the place of the scriptures themselves, even when it has such harmful effects on people's lives? Maybe you don't see any difference between "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination," and "Homosexuality is a sin," but it can make a difference between life and death for a person struggling against same-sex attractions. Where do you see God commanding you to say those exact words "Homosexuality is a sin," instead of using His words, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination," no matter how much damage it does to people's lives, to substitute your words in the place of God's?

 

[Jim]

I don't agree for any person or institution to decide for everyone how to interpret what any scriptures say about a prohibition against some kind of sexual practice between two men.

Shoghi Effendi did for the Baha’is did he not?

I don't agree for any person or institution today to decide for everyone how to interpret what any scriptures say about a prohibition against some kind of sexual practice between two men.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I don't agree for any person or institution today to decide for everyone how to interpret what any scriptures say about a prohibition against some kind of sexual practice between two men.

Jim, the Universal House of Justice will offer continued guidance on what has already been interpreted.

As such the current advice issued by the Universal House of Justice on this subject, is the Offical Baha'i view.

Thus the Baha'i Law covers same sex relations between men and women, with no sex allowed outside of marriage. The cohabitation guidance would then also be applicable. These issues plain and simple, no grey areas. If one does feel there is a grey area then the correct way to pursue such matters, is by going through the Local, then National body, or request clarification from the Universal House of Justice.

Thus to make the decision to become a Baha'i, one must also consider they will need to try to abide by these laws and if they do not, when it would become an issue, is if a Baha'i knowing of this law, would openly continue breaking the law, or try to persuade others that the guidance given is not correct, or offer a personal opinion as a Baha'i, that is found to be inconsistent with the guidance.

Regards Tony

 

[Marcion]

However to express that inclination in sexual acts is contrary to God’s laws.

In this way the Bahai faith reminds me a lot of conservative Christianity and most of all of the Jehova's Witnesses.
Except that the Jehova's Witnesses don't have any multiple messengers as theory.

 

[Mr Faux]

Just to be clear. Freewill has no bonds. Or strings so why do we feel the need to limit people on how they should be. God didnt (we have people that are naturally attracted same sex) if god did not expect it we wouldnt have free will. Good luck

 

[Jim]

@Deeje @adrian009 I'm continuing with this discussion with you because I have some hope that what I'm trying to say is something that you would want to know and consider. It's possible that I'm over-dramatizing it, and of course there are much worse things happening in the world. However that may be, I want to try to explain it to you, if you're willing to consider it. What I'm asking you to consider is to stop using the word "homosexuality" to describe the prohibition against whatever sexual behavior you think is prohibited between two men or two women. I'll try to explain why. If you think there's some compelling reason why you have to use that exact word in Internet discussions about gays and homosexuality, where it is sure to be misunderstood in ways that damage people's lives and drive them into the arms of wolves, instead of or on top of the actual words of God, maybe we can discuss how compelling those reasons are.

For simplicity, I'll talk about what happens sometimes with men and boys. There may or may not be any need after that to consider what happens with women and girls. Some boys, when they start falling in love, and/or feeling sexually aroused by other people, find out that they only have those feelings for men and boys. If they have always depreciated people with same-sex attractions, and/or always thought that people with those attractions are despised by God, that can have terrible demoralizing and disabling psychological effects, and in some cases even lead to suicide. Of course there are a multitude of other factors and pre-conditions involved. This is not to blame it all on what people say about homosexuality, but that can be one of the factors, and possibly sometimes a very consequential one.

People in those circumstances are not in a position to make distinctions between "God prohibits homosexuality," "homosexuality is a sin," and "God hates gays," no matter how much people talk about a difference between attractions and behavior. There is someone in the forum right now saying that God doesn't approve gays, lesbians and trans people, and that He will destroy them. Everything that people say about "gays," "homosexuals" and "homosexuality" is jumbled together in the minds of people who despise their same-sex attractions and feel despised because of them, by others and by God. Anything anyone says about God prohibiting or condemning "homosexuality," no matter how much it is explained or qualified, will just be added to that mix, worsening their condition, and increasing their vulnerability to gay identity propaganda.

In those circumstances what could be the compelling reasons that you have to use that word, "homosexuality," instead of or on top of the actual words of God? Do you think that God's own words aren't enough for people to know what He is prohibiting, if that matters to them? If that doesn't matter to them, do you think that using the word "homosexuality," instead of or on top of God's own words, can make enough difference to anyone, to make it worth all the damage it might do to people's lives?

 

[Deeje]

Thank you for going to the trouble of explaining in the above post Jim....but to respond to your earlier one, might make my position a little clearer to you.....

To put all my cards on the table, the only prohibition I see, in Baha'i, Muslim and Christian scriptures, is against the practice of substituting a man in the place of a wife, in an imitation of procreative union. That's all, I don't see any prohibition against anything else that anyone calls "homosexuality." Specifically, for example, even though Leviticus prohibits substituting an animal in the place of a husband or wife for that purpose, it's conspicuously silent about what women can do with each other. I don't think the prohibitions have anything at all to do with sexual stimulation. It looks to me like the purpose of the prohibitions is to regulate the use of penises. I don't think it has anything to do with sexual attractions, falling in love, enjoying sexual pleasures together, or anything else that "homosexuality" means to people today. I also don't think that this is the time for any institutions to be trying to enforce that prohibition on everyone, especially in ways that penalize innocent people, and serve no purpose other than fundraising.

I can see that there are many who just want to be with the person of their choice in a monogamous relationship and get on with life...I can understand their frustration and I feel for them. But anyone who tries to justify aberrant sexual behavior outside of scriptural marriage in order to satisfy a personal need, will not justify it to God IMO.

If this life is all there is, then "we are of all men most to be pitied" Paul said. That is because we see this life as just a blip on the radar compared to the eternity that God promised us. We don't see this life as being the be all and end all of existence...nor do we see humans solving the many problems that they largely created by their own choices. Humans will never fix this mess....God will by the coming of his Kingdom. (Daniel 2:44) This will be the permanent rulership of God over his Earth. We see this life as the testing ground of our worthiness to become a citizen in that kingdom. Can we sacrifice ourselves and our wants for it? Or do we want it all now in a doomed system?

This world is like the Titanic...most people think that it is unsinkable and have trust in the people who designed and built it.....but fallible humans can make monumental mistakes and the trust that people put in them is often horribly misplaced. This ship is going down...and nothing can prevent it. God has provided 'lifeboats' but we have to put ourselves on them. We also have to get as far away form this world as we can so that we wont get sucked under when the crunch comes. This is no time to be rearranging the deck chairs or upgrading to a better cabin. We need to bail now before its too late to act.

Jesus gave us the scenario in Matthew 24:36-39...."Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father. 37 For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 38 For as they were in those days before the Flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, 39 and they took no note until the Flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be."

We know how this scenario ended....we believe that history will repeat because Jesus said it would.

Thinking about how to explain to you the harmfulness and even deadliness of people saying "homosexuality is a sin," I don't think that that you could understand it from any amount of discussion. You would need to read the stories. If you hadn't already seen anyone saying that, now you have. I am saying to you that multitudes of people saying "homosexuality is a sin," has grievous and sometimes even deadly consequences in the lives of some of the most innocent people, people who struggle and struggle with all their hearts against same-sex temptations. Besides that, sometimes it drives them into the arms of wolves. Why do you have to say those exact words, "homosexuality is a sin"? Where in the scriptures does it say you have a right and a duty to substitute paraphrases of scriptures in the place of the scriptures themselves, even when it has such harmful effects on people's lives?

We have a right and a duty to point out what disqualifies a person from everlasting life. To not do so is reprehensible. It gives the choice back to the people....they either want to please God or their own flesh in a world that is about to experience the greatest catastrophe it has ever gone through (Matthew 24:21) To sacrifice their wants and desires for something so much better and everlasting is the better choice IMO. But as Paul said...How will they hear without someone to preach?" Informed choices are the only ones worth making...logic must win out over emotion. Truth must triumph over false expectations.

The reason why men have the greater accountability in this issue is that they are the ones who transmit life. Not to be too graphic about it...but it is the destination of that transmission that dishonors the Creator. It is not designed to go where homosexuals put it. A woman can also engage in degrading sexual practice but men degrade it more so. STD's come from the wrongful transmission of semen.

Paul wrote rather graphically....“That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error. And just as they did not approve of holding God in accurate knowledge, God gave them up to a disapproved mental state, to do the things not fitting.” (Romans 1:26-28)

Would any of us want to be guilty of that knowingly? Don't people have a right to make a choice based on what the Bible says? If they choose this life, then "eat drink and be merry...."

Maybe you don't see any difference between "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination," and "Homosexuality is a sin," but it can make a difference between life and death for a person struggling against same-sex attractions. Where do you see God commanding you to say those exact words "Homosexuality is a sin," instead of using His words, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination," no matter how much damage it does to people's lives, to substitute your words in the place of God's?

Do you think if these people knew the truth from God's word that they would feel that way? God does not condemn homosexual people...he does, in no uncertain term condemn homosexual sex. There is no way around it.

 

[Deeje]

Now to address the rest of your previous post.....

Sometimes, "truth is stranger than fiction." I'm just saying how it looks to me. I could be wrong. It looks to me like with rare exceptions, anyone who wants to can join, no matter what they believe, as long as they're willing to say whatever members of Baha'i councils want to hear. I'm sure that the House of Justice knows that there are many Baha'is who don't believe what Baha'u'llah says about Himself, and many who don't even believe in God, and I don't see it trying to have them all removed.

Interesting.....the main difference I see with Baha'i and Jehovah's Witnesses is basically everything. LOL

We have one set of beliefs and there is no dissent in our ranks because we accept these teachings whole-heartedly as coming from the Father through the teachings of Jesus. ( 1 Corinthians 1:10) There are no law breakers in our ranks because we all know the rules and if we break them there are consequences.

The apostle Paul wrote..."In my letter I wrote you to stop keeping company with sexually immoral people, 10 not meaning entirely with the sexually immoral people of this world or the greedy people or extortioners or idolaters. Otherwise, you would actually have to get out of the world. 11 But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man. 12 For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Do you not judge those inside, 13 while God judges those outside? “Remove the wicked person from among yourselves.”

This is the first century model that we follow. Those who take the lead in the congregation are authorized to take the necessary steps to keep contaminating influences out. (1 Corinthians 5:6) God judges outside the congregation...our elders are given authority to judge inside...but lovingly and fairly, like Jesus....giving all an opportunity for confession, counsel and forgiveness.

ROTFL! Seriously? You don't see multitudes of Christians doing that? Do you know what is taught in most Christian seminaries? Do you know that there are dozens, possibly hundreds, of Christian ministers who don't believe in the divinity of Christ or even in God, but who keep on pretending that they do? If you're wondering why, read some of the stories from the Clergy Project.

Yes of course...that is why I left the church system over 40 years ago. The clergy are a joke. They act as if there is no God judging their hypocrisy. We can assure them that God sees everything. (Proverbs 15:3)

I'll admit that it traumatized me when I first found out that there are many Baha'is who frankly aren't trying to follow Baha'u'llah at all, and a few even trying to turn other Baha'is away from following Him, but now that I'm over that, it makes good sense to me not to exclude them from the membership, as long as they don't try to destroy the usefulness of the community for Baha'u'llah's followers. However that may be, I trust God and Baha'u'llah enough not to worry about it.

I could not stand to be in an organization where the members are not sincere. Insincerity bugs me more than anything. Unless we love God with all our heart, mind, and soul there is no future for us. He is a reader of hearts and knows our motives and ambitions.

God promised a cleansing and refining of his people in "the time of the end" (Daniel 12:9-10) and I believe he has a people today who disseminate his truth to the whole world. (Matthew 24:14)

This has been my position for 48 years.

 

[Jim]

Jim, the Universal House of Justice will offer continued guidance on what has already been interpreted.

As such the current advice issued by the Universal House of Justice on this subject, is the Offical Baha'i view.

Thus the Baha'i Law covers same sex relations between men and women, with no sex allowed outside of marriage. The cohabitation guidance would then also be applicable. These issues plain and simple, no grey areas. If one does feel there is a grey area then the correct way to pursue such matters, is by going through the Local, then National body, or request clarification from the Universal House of Justice.

Thus to make the decision to become a Baha'i, one must also consider they will need to try to abide by these laws and if they do not, when it would become an issue, is if a Baha'i knowing of this law, would openly continue breaking the law, or try to persuade others that the guidance given is not correct, or offer a personal opinion as a Baha'i, that is found to be inconsistent with the guidance.

Regards Tony

I'm not sure how you think any of that is relevant to what I'm saying. I disagree with calling anything that the House of Justice says, "the Official Baha'i view." I don't think that interpretations of Baha'i scriptures by the House of Justice have any more authority than yours or mine. What I think has authority is its decisions about how to apply them. If that's what you mean, I agree with you. For example, if the House of Justice decides that a marriage between two men or two women can not be certified as a Baha'i marriage, then I agree for all spiritual assemblies to refuse to do that. If the House of Justice made a decision that spiritual assemblies have to pry into everyone's life to find out what parts of their bodies they are inserting into what parts of other people's bodies, and penalize them if we think it's wrong, then I would agree to that. On the other hand, if the House of Justice rephrases something Shoghi Effendi says as "a prohibition on all homosexual relations," that's an interpretation, and I don't think that it has any more authority than your interpretation or mine. Besides, we could still disagree on how to interpret that. Is two men holding hands, watching the sunset together, "homosexual relations"? What about kissing on the cheek? On the lips? Incidentally I don't think the House of Justice actually said that, but if it did, maybe it would simply mean exactly what I'm saying is the only prohibition: substituting a man in the place of a wife, in an imitation of procreative union. When it says "The condition of being sexually attracted to some object other than to a mature member of the opposite sex, a condition of which homosexuality is but one manifestation, is regarded by the Faith as a distortion of true human nature," that's an interpretation, and I don't think it has any more authority than your interpretation or mine. As it happens, I disagree with that. I've felt sexually aroused sometimes by trees and other parts of nature, and I don't think that's a distortion of human nature. I might be wrong, but if I am it isn't because I'm disagreeing with what the House of Justice says about it.

If you're suggesting that it's wrong for any Baha'i to openly disagree with what any other Baha'is say in Internet discussions about the Baha'i Faith and its laws, without first getting approval from the House of Justice, I disagree with you about that. I don't see any need to call in the House of Justice for any disagreements between you and me. I have no objection to you doing that if you see a need for it.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I disagree with calling anything that the House of Justice says, "the Official Baha'i view." I don't think that interpretations of Baha'i scriptures by the House of Justice have any more authority than yours or mine.

That would be because they do not interpret Jim. As you know that ended with the Guardian. They supply what has been interpreted and then can supply guidance on matters that are not interpreted. If there is a matter that is not in the book, they can and will make decisions.

To me their guidance is under this directive;

"Unto the Most Holy Book every one must turn and all that is not expressly recorded therein must be referred to the Universal House of Justice. That which this body, whether unanimously or by a majority doth carry, that is verily the Truth and the Purpose of God Himself. ("The Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Bahá")

Thus they can offer guidance and even enact laws upon this matter that has no instructions in the writings. Also there may be more writings available in the future? We do not know what will be found or given to the Universal House of Justice once Iran is opened to the Faith again.

That what they issue is considered by Baha'i's as sound and binding guidance, is this passage;

"In the conduct of the administrative affairs of the Faith, in the enactment of the legislation necessary to supplement the laws of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, the members of the Universal House of Justice, it should be borne in mind, are not, as Bahá'u'lláh's utterances clearly imply, responsible to those whom they represent, nor are they allowed to be governed by the feelings, the general opinion, and even the convictions of the mass of the faithful, or of those who directly elect them. They are to follow, in a prayerful attitude, the dictates and promptings of their conscience. They may, indeed they must, acquaint themselves with the conditions prevailing among the community, must weigh dispassionately in their minds the merits of any case presented for their consideration, but must reserve for themselves the right of an unfettered decision. "God will verily inspire them with whatsoever He willeth," is Bahá'u'lláh's incontrovertible assurance. They, and not the body of those who either directly or indirectly elect them, have thus been made the recipients of the divine guidance which is at once the life-blood and ultimate safeguard of this Revelation.... " (Shoghi Effendi, from a letter of 8 February 1934, published in "The World Order of Bahá'u'lláh - Selected Letters", p. 153)

Personally all that comes from that Office must be deeply considered by us all and faithfully implemented in our lives.

Regards Tony

 

[Dawnofhope]

In this way the Bahai faith reminds me a lot of conservative Christianity and most of all of the Jehova's Witnesses.
Except that the Jehova's Witnesses don't have any multiple messengers as theory.

The prohibition on homosexual marriage and the like has probably been in most cultures and religions. The Abrahamic Faiths have sacred writings that make this law clearer.

Homosexuality and religion - Wikipedia

Conservative Christians are very Bible based but most of the books in the New Testament were written nearly two thousand years ago and are based on the Teachings of Christ. The Baha’i Faith has fulfilled the prophecies in the Bible and a new Revelation from God has come from our 19th century Messenger Bahá’u’lláh.

In the 19th century there was a strong expectation of the coming of a Great Religious Teacher in both Christianity and Islam. One of the Christian Faiths to emerge out of this time was the Jehovah Witnesses. They have a strong expectation that Christ will come soon along with other world events. Baha’is believe that Bahá’u’lláh was Promised One of both Islam and Christianity.

List of Mahdi claimants - Wikipedia

List of people claimed to be Jesus - Wikipedia