Atheist, Christian, and Baha'i Cosmologies

[CG Didymus]

Oh, well then gay marriage fixes it. Right? Then gay sex is ok?

It is wrong for both homosexuals and heterosexuals to have sex without being married, but in the Baha'i Faith it is only the homosexuals that aren't allowed to get married. But that is not Baha'is prejudging them. It is God condemning the practice.

And one more thing I looked into about Baha'i marriage... Baha'u'llah had three wives and in his own book and in the Bab's writings it said that two wives was the limit.

"There is different law for master and the servant. Baha’i adherents have been (formally) asked to be in monogamous relationship but their master Baha’u’llah officially had 3 wives."​

 

[We Never Know]

It is wrong for both homosexuals and heterosexuals to have sex without being married, but in the Baha'i Faith it is only the homosexuals that aren't allowed to get married. But that is not Baha'is prejudging them. It is God condemning the practice.

And one more thing I looked into about Baha'i marriage... Baha'u'llah had three wives and in his own book and in the Bab's writings it said that two wives was the limit.

"There is different law for master and the servant. Baha’i adherents have been (formally) asked to be in monogamous relationship but their master Baha’u’llah officially had 3 wives."​

From what I have read "Baháʼu'lláh had three legal wives. As He married them before the "Aqdas" (His book of laws) was revealed, he was only acting according to the laws of Islám, which had not yet been superseded"

Baháʼu'lláh's family - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[F1fan]

From what I have read "Baháʼu'lláh had three legal wives. As He married them before the "Aqdas" (His book of laws) was revealed, he was only acting according to the laws of Islám, which had not yet been superseded"

Baháʼu'lláh's family - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Too bad God didn't him a heads up on that little nugget to avoid the scandal.

 

[danieldemol]

Abdu'l-Baha is the interpreter of what Baha'u'llah said, and he said:

Whereas the religion of God is the promoter of truth, the establisher of science and learning, the supporter of knowledge, the civilizer of the human race, the discoverer of the secrets of existence, and the enlightener of the horizons of the world. How then could it oppose knowledge? God forbid! On the contrary, in the sight of God knowledge is the greatest human virtue and the noblest human perfection. To oppose knowledge is pure ignorance, and one who abhors the arts and sciences is not a human being but is even as a mindless animal. For knowledge is light, life, felicity, perfection, and beauty, and causes the soul to draw nigh to the divine threshold. It is the honour and glory of the human realm and the greatest of God’s bounties. Knowledge is identical to guidance, and ignorance is the essence of error. 10 Happy are those who spend their days in the pursuit of knowledge, in the discovery of the secrets of the universe, and in the meticulous investigation of truth! And woe to those who content themselves with ignorance, who delight in thoughtless imitation, who have fallen into the abyss of ignorance and unawareness, and who have thus wasted their lives! (Some Answered Questions) www.bahai.org/r/066346398

I think this best summarizes the Baha'i position. Abdu'l-Baha knew as a whole what Baha'u'llah's revelation said.

The opening lines of that quote read, "the religion of God is the promoter of truth, the establisher of science and learning, the supporter of knowledge, the civilizer of the human race, the discoverer of the secrets of existence, and the enlightener of the horizons of the world"

It is the scientific method that establishes something as "scientific", not the Baha'i teachings aka the alleged "religion of God".

I think you have not comprehended Abdul-Baha fully. But regardless you haven't completed the chain. Shoghi Effendi is considered infallible in the Bahai teaching as you have posted in this thread elsewhere, so where Abdu'l-Baha gets to interpret Baha'u'llah, Shoghi Effendi gets to interpret Abdu'l-Baha.

Here is Shoghi Effendi;
"You see our whole approach to each matter is based on the belief that God sends us divinely inspired Educators; what they tell us is fundamentally true, what science tells us today is true; tomorrow may be entirely changed to better explain a new set of facts."
Source: Bahá'í Reference Library - Arohanui: Letters from Shoghi Effendi to New Zealand, Pages 85-86

 

[Truthseeker]

But not everyone can prove that to themselves since all people are thinking from a different mid.

Yes, true.

 

[CG Didymus]

From what I have read "Baháʼu'lláh had three legal wives. As He married them before the "Aqdas" (His book of laws) was revealed, he was only acting according to the laws of Islám, which had not yet been superseded"

Baháʼu'lláh's family - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Maybe, but this sounds more likely...

When Baha’ullah married his second wife, he was a Babi! He accepted Bab in 1844, so he was not a Muslim anymore!! He was a Babi! And in Babi religion you can only have 2 wives.​

​

When he married his third wife he was not a Muslim but a Babi! so he broke the Babi’s rules and married his third wife. Not only that is not monogamy, but he also broke the Babi’s rules! ​

​

In the Persian Bayan, wahid 8 section 14, the Bab says​

​

“If a man or woman proves incapable of having a child, it is legitimate for the spouse who is not infertile (whichever it may be) to marry again after having obtained the permission of the other party, but not without her permission”​

​

But Bahaullah had 7 children from his first wife!​

 

[Truthseeker]

As something that can be overcome, and thus making the person normal and having sexual feelings only for those of the opposite sex?

We follow science on that. The scientific evidence is against that in my opinion.

 

[CG Didymus]

Yes, true.

I wouldn't call it "proven". They have become convinced that what their religious teachings say is true. Again, to use evangelical Christianity, they have come to believe in an interpretation of the Bible and NT that is based on those Scriptures. Those Scriptures are used and claimed to be proof by those Christians. But even the Baha'i Faith pokes holes in those beliefs, and, for some, it "unconvinces" them of the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible and the NT.

Similarly, the "proof" for Baha'is depends on believing Baha'u'llah's claims and writings. I wouldn't call that proof but interesting claims that sound true and worth believing for some people.

 

[CG Didymus]

We follow science on that. The scientific evidence is against that in my opinion.

I wouldn't be surprised if the "science" is all over the place with regards to homosexuality. Which scientific research are we going to go with?

 

[Truthseeker]

It is the scientific method that establishes something as "scientific", not the Baha'i teachings aka the alleged "religion of God".

Both science and the Baha'i revelation are the establisher of knowledge. If you read the whole thing, and not just part of it, and think it through, you would know that is our position.

 

[Truthseeker]

Maybe, but this sounds more likely...

When Baha’ullah married his second wife, he was a Babi! He accepted Bab in 1844, so he was not a Muslim anymore!! He was a Babi! And in Babi religion you can only have 2 wives.​

​

When he married his third wife he was not a Muslim but a Babi! so he broke the Babi’s rules and married his third wife. Not only that is not monogamy, but he also broke the Babi’s rules! ​

​

In the Persian Bayan, wahid 8 section 14, the Bab says​

​

“If a man or woman proves incapable of having a child, it is legitimate for the spouse who is not infertile (whichever it may be) to marry again after having obtained the permission of the other party, but not without her permission”​

​

But Bahaullah had 7 children from his first wife!​

Some of the laws of the Bab were not intended to be put into effect before the Aqdas is my understanding. You can tell that by the fact that in that early history they didn't act on some of those laws. I have faith that Shoghi Effendi would know what those laws were, and would report that honestly.

 

[danieldemol]

Homosexuality is a condition, an orientation, not a behavior. We don't see that as as immoral. It just is.

I dont know what you mean by a "condition" but I agree that it is an orientation, however homosexual relationships are seen as immoral in the Baha'i faith

They didn't use those exact words, but in effect they were saying that in the quote I provided. Review it.

Are you ignoring the specifics of what I'm requesting? It is easy to attribute anything to the Universal House of Justice eg.

'Truthseeker smellls according to Shoghi Effendi'
(From a letter dated 27th June 2013 written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an Individual believer)

I'm asking for a link to the letter. If the Universal House of Justice wants what it says to be taken seriously it will need to publish it's letters for the sake of independant verifiability.

Here is what you attributed to the Baha'i UHoJ below;


'While there are passages from letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi suggesting that individuals might benefit from medical counsel when dealing with aspects of the challenge they face, the perspective of the medical community on homosexuality, which has changed significantly over the years, is one that only it can determine. The House of Justice does not wish to comment on the merits of particular forms of intervention, some of which are quite controversial. It is left to the individual to determine whether a medical approach or counseling will be of personal assistance. (From a letter dated 12 August 2012 written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer)'

Here is what it means line by line according to my understanding;'
'While there are passages from letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi suggesting that individuals might benefit from medical counsel when dealing with aspects of the challenge they face'
Shoghi Effendi saw homosexual inclination as a challenge to be overcome and suggested medication for it.

'the perspective of the medical community on homosexuality, which has changed significantly over the years, is one that only it can determine.'
This is saying the medical community decides the view of the medical community, it is NOT saying the Baha'i UHoJ *agrees* with the view of the medical community.

'The House of Justice does not wish to comment on the merits of particular forms of intervention, some of which are quite controversial.'
Shoghi Effendi's suggestion of medication to treat homosexual practice has become a source of disunity so the Baha'i UHoJ is saying "no comment" in the absence of either confirmation or denial of the merits of Shoghi Effendi's suggested remedy as it is currently a subject too hot to handle.

'It is left to the individual to determine whether a medical approach or counseling will be of personal assistance.'
It is up to the individual to decide for themselves whether they wish to follow Shoghi Effendi's medical advice

And all that is assuming the UHoJ said any of this or that it is in context etc in my opinion.

 

[danieldemol]

The Baha'i Faith as nothing against reproduction. In fact Baha'is are encouraged to have children.
...

I see you missed the point of what I was saying entirely lol

 

[danieldemol]

Both science and the Baha'i revelation are the establisher of knowledge. If you read the whole thing, and not just part of it, and think it through, you would know that is our position.

It might be your position, but in my opinion it is not the position of Bah'u'llah or Shoghi Effendi. Here he is again since you appear to have missed it;
"You see our whole approach to each matter is based on the belief that God sends us divinely inspired Educators; what they tell us is fundamentally true, what science tells us today is true; tomorrow may be entirely changed to better explain a new set of facts."
Source: Bahá'í Reference Library - Arohanui: Letters from Shoghi Effendi to New Zealand, Pages 85-86

 

[Truthseeker]

I dont know what you mean by a "condition" but I agree that it is an orientation, however homosexual relationships are seen as immoral in the Baha'i faith

Yes, true, but we are no to look on those who have those relationships with prejudice and disdain. You are free to call this a bad law. That is your judgement, and we believe that a person should exercise their own judgement.

I'm asking for a link to the letter. If the Universal House of Justice wants what it says to be taken seriously it will need to publish it's letters for the sake of independant verifiability.

You think I might be lying and making this up. I got this letter from the Universal House of Justice when I expressed concern about this issue, because I wanted to clear up a concern I had. I can't find it anywhere online, and you'll note it was written to an individual originally. It was not written to me, but it was an answer to my question. If you want to believe I am lying, that is your affair. It can be inferred also since Shoghi Effendi specifically said he was not infallible on matters of science or history, just infallible on interpreting the Writings, that we should take what science says before any medical judgement of Shoghi Effendi.

In response to questions about the scope of the Guardian’s infallibility, a letter written on his behalf explains: “The infallibility of the Guardian is confined to matters which are related strictly to the Cause and interpretation of the teachings; he is not an infallible authority on other subjects, such as economics, science, etc.”
(The Universal House of Justice)
www.bahai.org/r/692132059

'the perspective of the medical community on homosexuality, which has changed significantly over the years, is one that only it can determine.'
This is saying the medical community decides the view of the medical community, it is NOT saying the Baha'i UHoJ *agrees* with the view of the medical community.

It means that they will not try to impose their understanding on the medical community.

'The House of Justice does not wish to comment on the merits of particular forms of intervention, some of which are quite controversial.'
Shoghi Effendi's suggestion of medication to treat homosexual practice has become a source of disunity so the Baha'i UHoJ is saying "no comment" in the absence of either confirmation or denial of the merits of Shoghi Effendi's suggested remedy as it is currently a subject too hot to handle.

'It is left to the individual to determine whether a medical approach or counseling will be of personal assistance.'
It is up to the individual to decide for themselves whether they wish to follow Shoghi Effendi's medical advice

In others words, the Universal House of Justice is leaving this question for doctors and individuals to determine. They are not experts on such matters themselves, and don't wish to impose any fallible understanding on others. That is wise, and shows that they are not some dictator imposing their human judgement on others. They are servants that only follow guidance from authoritative Baha'i sources. That is a good thing.

 

[Truthseeker]

It might be your position, but in my opinion it is not the position of Bah'u'llah or Shoghi Effendi. Here he is again since you appear to have missed it;
"You see our whole approach to each matter is based on the belief that God sends us divinely inspired Educators; what they tell us is fundamentally true, what science tells us today is true; tomorrow may be entirely changed to better explain a new set of facts."
Source: Bahá'í Reference Library - Arohanui: Letters from Shoghi Effendi to New Zealand, Pages 85-86

What that says is true, what science determines is probably the truth might change in the future. However, it is also said that our individual interpretation of the Writings say may be wrong, and that means that an individual fallible Baha'i might infer the science is wrong when it probably isn't. It goes both ways. You are only presenting one quote which doesn't represent the entire picture of what Baha'i says. We mustn't cherry pick.

 

[Trailblazer]

I see you missed the point of what I was saying entirely lol

You said: Beasts of the field reproduce, so reproduction is "acting like the beasts of the field". Shame on Baha'is for acting like the beasts of the field rofl

So 'shame on Baha'is for reproducing' is what I got from that. What did I miss?

 

[danieldemol]

What that says is true,

Not in my opinion.
Assuming what an alleged Messenger has to say about science is "fundamentally true" is a dogmatic approach, not an intellectually honest approach.

Here's how Shoghi Effendi 's allegedly scientific works.
Step1 assume what the messenger says is true.
Step2 if what the messenger says is contrary to the results of human science deny the science and claim it will catch up to what the messenger said (Thats what he did in the letter to New Zealand I posted).

Here is how your allegedly scientific method goes.
Step1 Assume what the messenger says is true.
Step2 If what the messenger says is apparently contrary to the human results of scientific enquiry seek to post hoc rationalise your understanding of the text to try and force fit the science to it.

Here is the actual scientific method;

Source: Scientific method - Wikipedia

You will note that at no stage does the scientific method assume what an alleged Messenger says is correct as it is not intellectually honest in my view to assume what they say is true without continuously testing their statements against what is known to be true for the discovery of divergence.

 

[danieldemol]

You said: Beasts of the field reproduce, so reproduction is "acting like the beasts of the field". Shame on Baha'is for acting like the beasts of the field rofl

So 'shame on Baha'is for reproducing' is what I got from that. What did I miss?

You missed that it is obviously not wrong to do something just because the beasts of the field do it and that therefore your argument that it is necessarily not appropriate to act as the beasts of the field is unsound.

 

[Truthseeker]

You will note that at no stage does the scientific method assume what an alleged Messenger says is correct as it is not intellectually honest in my view to assume what they say is true without continuously testing their statements against what is known to be true for the discovery of divergence.

I am not assuming. I have continuously tested over 52 years, and now I found certitude after all that testing. Have you ever heard of faith after finding certitude?