• 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!

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

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
Maybe people who disagree with where this thread was created could write to the moderators about it, instead of continually sidetracking this discussion with it, please?


I would be surprised to see other Baha'is enter this discussion, Jim. As far as I know, it's against the rules of Baha'i to discuss anything that might go against the beliefs. You may well get shunned.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
Hmm. How so?
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.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
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.

Certainly these mirror my observations, Jim, other than feuding. I've never seen Baha'is on this forum feud. Just an echo chamber. Even if someone was clearly and obviously deceptive, no other Baha'i would publicly point it out. My only experience has been here on RF, although occasionally I do read reddit/ex-Baha'i or reddit/Baha'i.

As you most likely know, it is very difficult to change things from within, without getting yourself into a ton of trouble. Read Juan Cole's stuff if you want insight into that. Professor Cole tried to change some things but was ultimately booted by the UHJ.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
As far as I know, it's against the rules of Baha'i to discuss anything that might go against the beliefs. You may well get shunned.
If you’re talking about the unwritten rules of some Baha’i bandwagons, I agree that some of them have that rule. Sometimes people who break it are not only shunned by some, but also maligned and scolded by others. I have nothing to lose. I’ve already done the worst things any Baha’i could do: friendly association with some Baha’is who were campaigning against the House of Justice, and once even a friendly conversation with someone who was allegedly a Covenant breaker.

If you’re talking about Baha’i laws, I never heard of any law against discussing views that are contrary to popular Baha’i thinking.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
@adrian009 @Tony Bristow-Stagg

As I said, before I discuss the message itself, I want to discuss our current ideas about some of the issues. One of those issues is the oneness of religion. “Religion” (singular) not “religions” (plural). I disagree now with the words of a song that used to be popular among Baha’is: “All religions are one.” That idea, and some of the ways that Baha’is try to explain and defend it, look foolish, hypocritical and/or devious to people sometimes, and I think rightly so. I agree with some of our critics that the factions that are commonly known as “religions” today can not possibly ever be reconciled.

What I think Abdu’l-Baha means by the oneness of religion (singular) is the common divine origin and purpose of some parts of the lore and scriptures of the religions, and their common potential role and functions in bringing out the best in people and in society.

I don’t think that the oneness of religion means that Baha’is can interpret other people’s scriptures for them, and assimilate their religions into ours. I think it means learning to walk side by with people, wherever they are in their path of spiritual progress, learning from them, and encouraging and supporting them in ways that really help.

I see the idea of oneness as a good concept but the method towards that goal is counterproductive. I think it would be better to see all religions as uptodate as well as not coming together and saying we all are all different but wearing the same colored shirt of god. While different are there as well as communion, the perspective and definition of differences are under one lens: god.

Its like this

There is one road (god). All people are on this one road towards the destination of world peace defined by god. There are a hundred people on this road of different nationalities, religions, etc. The idea is we all walk in peace: same direction, same goal which depreciates diversity as external covering over the same piece of gold.

Outside of abrahamics, many other religiosns see it as many roads, many destinations, some roads are gravel, some concrete, and some cement. The only thing they have in common is that they are all roads.

World peace is celebrated by our differing destinations where no one person crosses to another persons road without being invited. While there is the same type of goal, social world peace, since we are all on different roads our definition of spiritual world peace is extremely different; which is good.

But we cant make all roads converge nor can we color the roads the same color and still give other religions rights to travel their own road. If diversity is good, it needs to encompass the whole chabang.

Instead of going the same direction, maybe we can all sit and compromise since thats what a community and union does, compromise each other to achieve a unified goal without changing a persons road and destination to acheive it. Yes, its hard. People are glued to their worldview, but if the idea of world peace and not just socitial but the whole thing
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.

I can understand that point of view though I havent shared the exact sentiment. From what I experienced on RF, Bahai (not negatively, mind you) reminds me of two oganizations I used to go to one was SGI and other, not much of an organization but kinda religion is Kadampa. They both have critizms from former members and cult-issues labeled on them, and bahai a well

What I found they have in common is focus on a single president, bodhisattva, or manifestation to where all opinions and interpretations of The Buddha, Nichiren, or God goes through these people. I never been to a Bahai church, but the other two all the literature is from the main guys as well.

Its interesting the comparison so its one reason I wouldnt think to much of bahai in that sentiment its has an uncomfortable feeling. Theres a conference coming up in SGI (Buddhist/Nichirens sect/organization) that promotes world peace among youth. I may go next year. I have friends there.

But, anyway, thats as far as I can emphathize. Surprinsingly, I dont hold ill feeings about the religious just their teachings.

But, I do understand the protestylizing and terms like rays of one sun etc. The SGI phrase too thats said every time I go to one of the meetings. A mantra people say to new commers.

Anyway, where you a bahai?
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
If you’re talking about the unwritten rules of some Baha’i bandwagons, I agree that some of them have that rule. Sometimes people who break it are not only shunned by some, but also maligned and scolded by others. I have nothing to lose. I’ve already done the worst things any Baha’i could do: friendly association with some Baha’is who were campaigning against the House of Justice, and once even a friendly conversation with someone who was allegedly a Covenant breaker.

If you’re talking about Baha’i laws, I never heard of any law against discussing views that are contrary to popular Baha’i thinking.

Yeah, probably not a law, just a suggestion, or informal thing. Best wishes.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
I've never seen Baha'is on this forum feud.
The open feuding has subsided, but there are still some shots being fired back and forth.

Even if someone was clearly and obviously deceptive, no other Baha'i would publicly point it out.
Neither would I, but I hope I wouldn’t try to deny it or excuse it.

As you most likely know, it is very difficult to change things from within, without getting yourself into a ton of trouble. Read Juan Cole's stuff if you want insight into that. Professor Cole tried to change some things but was ultimately booted by the UHJ.

Difficult to change, period, from within or from without.

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.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
The open feuding has subsided, but there are still some shots being fired back and forth.


Neither would I, but I hope I wouldn’t try to deny it or excuse it.



Difficult to change, period, from within or from without.

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.

Sure, not quite correct, but just an action before another, like a president resigning before impeachment. If they warned him, they would have booted him.

I would never ever try to change an organisation. Much easier to just change yourself, of find a more amicable fit. Just move on, which is what most ex-Baha's do. Very few take it up as a personal battle. There are exceptions.
 

TransmutingSoul

One Planet, One People, Please!
Premium Member
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.

And that was His choice. No one person has any authority to change anything. We have the bounty to be able to consult with each other, present our view and most importantly let that view go. If we refuse to let the view go if it is not fully accepted, then that view may be our own downfall.

We all have issues we need to address, it was never going to be easy and we were warned that many tests need to be faced in life.

Personally I see this as a great bounty.

Regards Tony
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
@Unveiled Artist Thank you for posting your thoughts. That’s very helpful, for what I want to do in this thread. I’ll need some time to consider what you’re saying, before I respond to it.

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

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
I didn’t start this discussion to try to change the organization. I’m only hoping to help improve what Baha’is do on the Internet, including me.

No of course not. One against the system never works. Changing how Baha'i individuals behave on line will be challenging as well. I've given feedback occasionally and had little, if any success. Nobody that I can recall has ever apologised for deception, or been able to admit any possibility of ever being outright wrong. One chap did withdraw some of his anti-other religion stuff, when pressed. It certainly helps, when discussing belief to preface thoughts with 'I believe', or 'this is what we believe', rather than just state things as if they were fact. We're all guilty of that sometimes though. Very often with the more 'enthusiastic' folks it comes across as 'My beliefs are all facts that can be proven, and everyone else's is just their belief that can't be proven.' It's hypocritical, not to mention condescending, and isn't at all productive, in my view.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
@Unveiled Artist Thank you for posting your thoughts. That’s very helpful, for what I want to do in this thread. I’ll need some time to consider what you’re saying, before I respond to it.

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


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.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
@Unveiled Artist Thank you for posting your thoughts. That’s very helpful, for what I want to do in this thread. I’ll need some time to consider what you’re saying, before I respond to it.

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

Youre welcome.

Ima reply a little later. My post is generaly from my experience and what Im comfortable with when it comes to religious preferences. Since I dont believe in god as deity, my pespective on god-faiths would be different.

However, Ive seen people on RF when the go to a god-faith their perspective and language turns into a you -vs- them outlook. While I know god says this or that, just keep in mind (in my opinion) no one is in specific groups. My rule of thumb is, if you cant think of others before self (if you cant give up your god for example), then finding a healthy and honest balance betwen where you put and talk to people will save black and white thinking. In other words, once you get out of god vs. people, then paths open and humility begins.

Thats my opinion.

But, yeah.
 

siti

Well-Known Member
Dear @Jim - since, by deliberate choice you have posted in a debate forum and it is unclear what exactly you want to debate (the "One Common Faith" document is 22 pages long after all), I would like to frame some questions for further discussion if I may. But first a bit of preamble to set the scene.

Regarding its 2002 letter and the purpose of the "interfaith" component of Baha'i activities, the "One Common Faith" document states in its foreword (my bold in all quotes below):

Above all, we expressed our conviction that the time has come when religious leadership must face honestly and without further evasion the implications of the truth that God is one and that, beyond all diversity of cultural expression and human interpretation, religion is likewise one. It was intimations of this truth that originally inspired the interfaith movement and that have sustained it through the vicissitudes of the past one hundred years. Far from challenging the validity of any of the great revealed faiths, the principle has the capacity to ensure their continuing relevance. In order to exert its influence, however, recognition of this reality must operate at the heart of religious discourse, and it was with this in mind that we felt that our letter should be explicit in articulating it.
And concludes by quoting Baha'u'llah's conviction that...

"...the Lord hath ordained as the sovereign remedy and mightiest instrument for the healing of all the world is the union of all its peoples in one universal Cause, one common Faith.”

This seems a very different approach to interfaith dialogue than, for example, the Dalai Lama's approach in dialogue between Buddhism and Islam in his foreword to the book Common Ground between Islam and Buddhism which he says:

"...seeks to find common ground between the teachings of Islam and of Buddhism. It is my hope that on the basis of this common ground, followers of each tradition may come to appreciate the spiritual truths their different paths entail and from this develop a basis for respect for each other's practice and beliefs."

So my question for discussion - and elaboration especially from Baha'i people - is: should the aim of interfaith dialogue really be "One Common Faith" - or should it rather be a foundation for mutual respect?

And with that in mind, what useful purpose is served by phrases like:

"Throughout that part of the world where the vast majority of the earth’s population live, facile announcements that “God is Dead” had passed largely unnoticed."

This seems to relegate all non-theist - possibly even all non-monotheistic - conceptions of deity or spirituality into the waste basket altogether - despite the fact that it is perfectly obvious that the increasing influence of humanistic reasoning is perhaps the only common thread that can honestly be perceived as joining the varied cultural traditions of the 21st world together.

Again, this seems an opposite approach to that of the Dalai Lama who recently wrote a book called Beyond Religion - Ethics for a Whole World - in which he seeks to find common moral ground for a peaceful human society that is not (necessarily) religious - essentially, I suppose, "one common humanity" rather than "one common faith".

"In the past, when peoples lived in relative isolation from one another—as we Tibetans lived quite happily for many centuries behind our wall of mountains—the fact that groups pursued their own religiously based approaches to ethics posed no difficulties. Today, however, any religion-based answer to the problem of our neglect of inner values can never be universal, and so will be inadequate. What we need today is an approach to ethics which makes no recourse to religion and can be equally acceptable to those with faith and those without: a secular ethics."

So OK - with all that in mind, now I have three questions:

1. Should the aim of interfaith dialogue be "one common faith"? And if so why is it so important that we all believe the same things?

2. Does the Baha'i approach mistake religious "sameness" for spiritual "oneness"?

3. Should secular humanism be part of the interfaith dialogue? Why or why not?
 
Last edited:

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
I would be surprised to see other Baha'is enter this discussion, Jim. As far as I know, it's against the rules of Baha'i to discuss anything that might go against the beliefs. You may well get shunned.

Interesting thought.... ^^^^^^
The most open, honest, true and straight Bahai (imo) I ever read on this forum has been in some way or other distanced or estranged by Bahai.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
Interesting thought.... ^^^^^^
The most open, honest, true and straight Bahai (imo) I ever read on this forum has been in some way or other distanced or estranged by Bahai.

So far we have one chap participating, so hopefully I was wrong.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Read Juan Cole's stuff if you want insight into that. Professor Cole tried to change some things but was ultimately booted by the UHJ.
Amazing reading as well!

Is John Walbridge estranged? His works are so clear and easy to read.
 
Top