A warning and a call to Baha’is from Baha’u’llah’s Universal House of Justice

[oldbadger]

It isn’t entirely accurate to say that Juan Cole was booted. He was warned that if he continued what he was doing he might be violating the Baha’i Covenant, and his response to that was to resign.

Hello Jim.....
How does the above fact help Bahai to fit with the Western World's attempts for 'Freedom of speech' and 'Freedom of Information'?

 

[Jim]

How does the above fact help Bahai to fit with the Western World's attempts for 'Freedom of speech' and 'Freedom of Information'?

I’ll go there with you if you want to, but not in this thread.

 

[oldbadger]

I’m a member of the Baha’i Faith, and I’m trying to learn to follow Baha’u’llah.

Jim, surely you would need to do more than that? Bahais often quote Abdul Baha, and Shogi Effendi, and updates/orders from the Universal House of Justice, and all of these 'voices' or writings need to be followed as well?

PS. Thankyou for ticking some of my previous posts, I hope that the seriousness of your debate has been softened just slightly by what little humour I could provide for you. :)

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Just so you know, Unveiled Artist was formerly Carlita from the very long "How are these Great Beings Explained? thread. Some of us have an extremely long history of dialogue with Baha'i.

Haha. OOps. Maybe I should have pointed that out.

 

[Jim]

Jim, surely you would need to do more than that? Bahais often quote Abdul Baha, and Shogi Effendi, and updates/orders from the Universal House of Justice, and all of these 'voices' or writings need to be followed as well?

Again, if you want me to go there with you, it will have to be in some other thread.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

What do you mean by 'this'?

I am sorry that I am unable to talk much at this time. I still have at least 7 hrs of work in front of me.

What I am saying is that a journey in Faith requires hard decisions about ones view and way of life and as such is a great bounty. Before we start the journey we are told that it will not be easy.

There are many ways of describing this.

Regards Tony

 

[oldbadger]

Again, if you want me to go there with you, it will have to be in some other thread.

OK Jim.......... outside of the hall........
1972 Guildford Cathedral meeting Hall.
In another thread I was reminded (reading a post by @Vinayaka ) of a public meeting which my late Bahai Wife took me to. After the introductory talks about Bahai were over and question time arrived, each time that a mid-eastern man stood and asked questions the Bahai speaker offered to discuss those questions with him outside of the Public meeting, outside the Hall. About the third time that this happened a large % of the public stood up and left the meeting......... they no longer trusted the speaker, it seemed.

And that is why, on reading your two posts to me, I smiled, hence my ticking your posts as funny/humorous.

Bye Jim......... another time then, outside the hall?

OB

 

[Jim]

@siti One of the issues you’ve raised has a lot of significance for me, and I’m embarrassed that I hadn’t thought about it before: the message is written in theistic language, which obscures it for some populations. Apart from that, you’ve given me a lot to think about, and it might take me a day or two to digest it and respond to it.

 

[paarsurrey]

This is the organics of Faith and a Message from God in a New Era.

In this day we have a call for the Unity of the entire human race. Thus never before has a Message attempted the potential of all Messages, that is the unity of the entire human race.

Therein is the first challenge. We are told all Faith has come from the same One Source of God. That they differ only in the laws of the age and requirements for the age they were given.

I see the message under discussion was given as a warning about how division has plagued all past Faiths and that we are to consider what has caused that division so it is not repeated by the Baha'i.

I have a lot on at this time Jim, your posts needs more thought to do any justice in reply to you.

Regards Tony

"We are told all Faith has come from the same One Source of God."

This exactly is told my Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908, the Promised Messiah , Imam Mahdi and the Reformer of all revealed religions.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

OK Jim.......... outside of the hall........
1972 Guildford Cathedral meeting Hall.
In another thread I was reminded (reading a post by @Vinayaka ) of a public meeting which my late Bahai Wife took me to. After the introductory talks about Bahai were over and question time arrived, each time that a mid-eastern man stood and asked questions the Bahai speaker offered to discuss those questions with him outside of the Public meeting, outside the Hall. About the third time that this happened a large % of the public stood up and left the meeting......... they no longer trusted the speaker, it seemed.

And that is why, on reading your two posts to me, I smiled, hence my ticking your posts as funny/humorous.

Bye Jim......... another time then, outside the hall?

OB

Please continue expressing one's thoughts and sharing one's experience.
Regards

 

[siti]

...the message is written in theistic language

Its actually written in explicitly monotheistic language - which means it is probably religiously either unintelligible or unpalatable to about half of the world's population before we even start getting into details. But I think you already made the point that the message was addressed to Baha'is and is principally about their approach to interfaith dialogue - so from that POV I guess the language is understandable. I was more concerned about the clearly dismissive comments regarding non-theistic and non-religious philosophies - I mean quoting Nietzsche, misapplying the quote then and calling it "facile" is hardly going to win you many friends among thinking people - whether they are religious or not. Its a curious (not to use the document's own word "facile") approach to finding "common ground" methinks. So my guess is the plan is not to find "common ground" at all, but to find ways of smiling politely whilst you attempt to stick the knife in (figuratively speaking of course) to any way of thinking that is (a) not religious and (b) more importantly, not Baha'i.

In the end I think the best the interfaith movement can possibly hope for is to find common ground for action in resolving human issues - and that being the case, I can't see why it has to be an exclusively religious thing. The Baha'i document seems to be saying "imagine what we could achieve if we all BELIEVE the same things about God and religion" - I am asking, is it not more reasonable to say "imagine what we could achieve if we all stopped thinking like that and focused a bit more on what we can DO together regardless of what we believe about God and religion".

 

[paarsurrey]

Its actually written in explicitly monotheistic language - which means it is probably religiously either unintelligible or unpalatable to about half of the world's population before we even start getting into details. But I think you already made the point that the message was addressed to Baha'is and is principally about their approach to interfaith dialogue - so from that POV I guess the language is understandable. I was more concerned about the clearly dismissive comments regarding non-theistic and non-religious philosophies - I mean quoting Nietzsche, misapplying the quote then and calling it "facile" is hardly going to win you many friends among thinking people - whether they are religious or not. Its a curious (not to use the document's own word "facile") approach to finding "common ground" methinks. So my guess is the plan is not to find "common ground" at all, but to find ways of smiling politely whilst you attempt to stick the knife in (figuratively speaking of course) to any way of thinking that is (a) not religious and (b) more importantly, not Baha'i.

In the end I think the best the interfaith movement can possibly hope for is to find common ground for action in resolving human issues - and that being the case, I can't see why it has to be an exclusively religious thing. The Baha'i document seems to be saying "imagine what we could achieve if we all BELIEVE the same things about God and religion" - I am asking, is it not more reasonable to say "imagine what we could achieve if we all stopped thinking like that and focused a bit more on what we can DO together regardless of what we believe about God and religion".

"is it not more reasonable to say "imagine what we could achieve if we all stopped thinking like that and focused a bit more on what we can DO together regardless of what we believe about God and religion". Unquote

Kindly elaborate as to what we can do together and what was in one's mind when one wrote these lines in the above post, please.

Regards

 

[Jim]

Its actually written in explicitly monotheistic language - which means it is probably religiously either unintelligible or unpalatable to about half of the world's population before we even start getting into details. But I think you already made the point that the message was addressed to Baha'is and is principally about their approach to interfaith dialogue - so from that POV I guess the language is understandable.

Yes, but what I said was a little confused. The issue it raised for me was actually the language used in the 2002 message, to the world’s religious leaders, that’s part of the context for this message.

 

[siti]

"is it not more reasonable to say "imagine what we could achieve if we all stopped thinking like that and focused a bit more on what we can DO together regardless of what we believe about God and religion". Unquote

Kindly elaborate as to what we can do together and what was in one's mind when one wrote these lines in the above post, please.

One meant simply that it is not necessary for us to believe the same things about God or religion to recognize that we can do an awful lot together to improve the lot of our fellow humans - alleviate poverty, avoid discrimination, improve the way we care for the earth and our more immediate environments...etc. etc. All of these can be achieved without requiring anyone to either abandon or adopt their different religious and cultural backgrounds. Indeed, we could even try to learn to celebrate religious diversity rather than seeking to obliterate it under the guise of "unity". And one meant that one doesn't necessarily need religion or God at all in order to recognize that poverty (for example) needs alleviating.

 

[siti]

Yes, but what I said was a little confused. The issue it raised for me was actually the language used in the 2002 message, to the world’s religious leaders, that’s part of the context for this message.

I see what you mean. The language is similar though...after paying much lip service to the idea of religious ecumenicity, the 2002 letter states:

"We owe it to our partners in this common effort, however, to state clearly our conviction that interfaith discourse, if it is to contribute meaningfully to healing the ills that afflict a desperate humanity, must now address honestly and without further evasion the implications of the over-arching truth that called the movement into being: that God is one and that, beyond all diversity of cultural expression and human interpretation, religion is likewise one."​

So it too is stressing the importance of commonality of belief - specifically monotheistic belief - as the panacea for the ills that beset humanity - when, in truth, as the letter and other Baha'i writings confirm repeatedly - it has been this "over-arching" emphasis on religious uniformity that has been - and remains - the root cause of a great deal of human suffering. This affirmation of "religious oneness" seems to me to be, at best, a "hair of the dog" cure - and at worst, potentially an even greater dose of a medicine that is not only not efficacious but that is quite possibly lethal in and of itself.

Despite the UHJ's honorable (perhaps) intentions, I think believers have got to learn to welcome with open arms all dissenting voices - not least because they offer a wholly different perspective. The vast majority of people who ever lived on this earth have lived with God or gods of some kind - perhaps it is time for us to try living without "Him" - and (and this is absolutely vital to my worldview) "He" without us. What kind of God is it that stubbornly refuses even to imagine what we take for granted daily - our personal mortality - what could God possibly know of the frailty of human existence if he has never even considered his own non-existence?

 

[oldbadger]

Please continue expressing one's thoughts and sharing one's experience.
Regards

Thankyou for your kind post, paarsurrey....

As any thoughts might surface then I'd be pleased to post them.

 

[oldbadger]

............. the 2002 letter states:

"We owe it to our partners in this common effort,........................ ................................. that God is one and that, beyond all diversity of cultural expression and human interpretation, religion is likewise one."​

​

Hi siti.......
D'you think that they might having been thinking ;-
,'...religion is likewise Bahai'?

 

[Dawnofhope]

(edited for clarification)
“One Common Faith” is the name of a message from the Baha’i Universal House of Justice in 2005, addressed to the Baha’is of the world.
(end edit)

The message “One Common Faith” was not addressed to the people of the world. It was addressed to Baha’is, to discuss our responsibility in response to the harrowing, unthinkable, worldwide consequences ahead, if the disease of sectarian hatreds was not decisively checked. It is a response of the House of Justice to its own call to the world’s religious leaders in 2002. It is commended to Baha’is for thoughtful study, as a way for us to deepen our own understanding of the oneness of G_d and the oneness of religion, in response to a desperate need “for the religious spirit to be freed from the shackles that have so far prevented it from bringing to bear the healing influence of which it is capable.”

Along with what it says to help us deepen our own understanding of the oneness of G_d and the oneness of religion, it tells us some specific ways that we can respond, offline, to the challenge we’re facing. It does not specifically address what we can do online. I’ll be discussing what I’ve been trying and hoping to do. I’m hoping that some other Baha’is will read or re-read that message, and discuss with me its possible implications for what we do in Internet discussions.

For what it’s worth, I think it’s entirely appropriate to place this question in the religious debates section. Although it’s a somewhat in-house question for Baha’is to debate and discuss amongst themselves having it in the open debates section allows participation from anyone who isn’t a Baha’i. It appears to date, that’s exactly what’s happened and that’s a good thing.

I’ll consider some of the questions you have specifically asked Tony and I and will respond soon.

 

[siti]

​

Hi siti.......
D'you think that they might having been thinking ;-
,'...religion is likewise Bahai'?

Of course - and I don't really blame them for that because I think we all think our idea of "truth" is correct - otherwise we would change our idea. The problem is not that they think they are right, its that they think there is only one way of being right. I don't see how a genuine "interfaith dialogue" can work on that basis. Its a bit like trying to convince the six blind men if Hindustan that they were all wrong about the nature of the elephant, it just isn't going to work. What you need is a way of saying (a way of seeing) that they are all right in different ways. The Baha'i Faith, and that letter and the "One Common Faith" document don't say that though - they say, in effect, that the other religions are right only to the extent that they agree with the Baha'i perception of truth. That's just not the same thing at all - and whilst it is a perfectly understandable religious position - it is not a sound basis for eliminating religious disharmony as far as I can tell. But it is a problem with the "revealed" religions - how can they possibly accept that someone else who sees it differently can possibly be right when they have God's very word on the matter?

 

[Marcion]

Some examples that come to mind are Baha’i factions and echo chambers, Baha’is feuding with each other and with other people, proselytizing while denying that they’re proselytizing, debating endlessly and aimlessly about theology, calling their personal opinions “Baha’i teachings,” superimposing their version of the Baha’i Faith onto other religions or incorporating them into it, and playing “My religion is better than yours.” If anyone is thinking that I have three fingers pointing back at me, that might be true. If so, all the more reason for me to have this discussion.

In order to even think "My religion is better than yours", you first have to acknowledge that religions matter or are important as categories or systems. I wonder how Bahai's think about people who practise yoga, tantra or meditation without any (self-identified) religious affiliation?

Can you even say that 'all religions are one' if you don't acknowledge that the whole idea of separate religions with distinct boundaries is a damaging affair? I mean how can you be sincere about disapproving of the divisiveness between religions if you don't disapprove of the concept of so-called 'religions' in the first place?