Baha'i and Science

[loverofhumanity]

I looked in the Kitab-i-Aqdas and I could not find "Obey My commandments for the love of My Beauty” so maybe LOH was remembering that wrong.

My mistake it was ‘observe’ not obey but same meaning.


“4 Say: From My laws the sweet-smelling savour of My garment can be smelled, and by their aid the standards of Victory will be planted upon the highest peaks. The Tongue of My power hath, from the heaven of My omnipotent glory, addressed to My creation these words: “Observe My commandments, for the love of My beauty.”


The Kitab-i-Aqdas
Bahá’u’lláh

 

[Vinayaka]

Why is renunciation advocated at all?

The renunciate renounces a lot more than sex. It's also wealth, personal attachment, and all worldly matters. He/she lives a life in total service to God, and the search for moksha, the ultimate goal in Hinduism. He/she is supported by the rest of society, fully knowing one lifetime it will be their turn. For further info, here is the chapter from an ancient ethical scripture called the Tirikkural. (Sheesh, the habit of quoting has been turned around here.)

Chapter 35 : Renunciation

 

[Trailblazer]

My mistake it was ‘observe’ not obey but same meaning.

“4 Say: From My laws the sweet-smelling savour of My garment can be smelled, and by their aid the standards of Victory will be planted upon the highest peaks. The Tongue of My power hath, from the heaven of My omnipotent glory, addressed to My creation these words: “Observe My commandments, for the love of My beauty.”

The Kitab-i-Aqdas
Bahá’u’lláh

I guess we Baha'is are still in the dog house then...
But wait! ~~~ My beauty does not refer to Baha'u'llah's beauty, it refers to God's beauty, because they are God's commandments.
We just got out of the dog house.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I guess I would have never made a good Hindu, because I am not going to have anyone telling me I have to have sex. That is over the top and out the door.... and you call the Baha'i Faith oppressive.

Exceptions are always there. Gargi Vachaknavi, considered an enlightened woman and a poetess of RigVeda preferred to remain unmarried.

 

[Trailblazer]

Exceptions are always there. Gargi Vachaknavi, considered an enlightened woman and a poetess of RigVeda preferred to remain unmarried.

But if I am married I have to have sex? This is oppressive.

 

[loverofhumanity]

One. It probably varies too. How do you define ahimsa? Any more?

Peacefulness in thoughts, words and deeds towards others. Belief in a God or Supreme Being and a virtuous lifestyle.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Which Hindu beliefs do you actually believe in though? I don't mean Baha'i beliefs about Hinduism which are mostly false, but actual Hindu beliefs? Can you name a couple?

When you say Hindu that would include Krishna and the Bhagavad-Gita as a major sect of Hinduism follows Him and the Gita Avatars so we believe like some Hindus do in Avatars too.

 

[Aupmanyav]

If the responsibility is to have children, what about married couples who do not want to have children for other than selfish reasons? Are they judged? Why is renunciation advocated at all?

But if I am married I have to have sex? This is oppressive.

If both the partners decide not to go for sex or do that at certain stage in their life, Hinduism will have nothing against it. Hinduism does not allow for a unilateral decision in marriage. That will destroy marriage.

However, that adds one social problem. Who will take care of both or one of them in their old age?

That is where the tradition of 'combined family' in India comes in. Younger people do not leave their parents home as soon as they attain adulthood, or get a job, or get married. They remain with their 'family', unless one is compelled to leave the family for a job in another city. Even then, the 'home' is still where the 'family'/parents live. I have a 97 year old mother, I am 77, my son is 47, his son is 17. We all live under the same roof. Old people did not have to worry about old age in India. There were no destitute old people in India and no 'old people's homes'. Even by Indian law, it is mandatory for sons to take care of the parents.

A Hindu is said to be born under three debts (Rina-traya, Rina is debt): first to his parents (it is called 'pitra rina'), then to his teacher ('rishi rina') and lastly to Gods ('deva rina'). So, till a Hindu repays his debts of his parents/elders by 1. taking care of them, and 2. producing progeny to carry forward the tradition, he is not said to have completed his duties (dharma).

You may agree with this or may not agree, but this was the social structure of India, which still, by and large, persists - not just among the Hindus but in other religions as well. Muslims and Christians will also go by this.

As for your last question - why is renunciation advocated at all, I would say that disengaging from worldly affairs brings peace to a person, otherwise the person will remain entangled/bothered till his/her last breath. Vinayaka has included a nice link for that.

 

[Aupmanyav]

When you say Hindu that would include Krishna and the Bhagavad-Gita as a major sect of Hinduism follows Him and the Gita Avatars so we believe like some Hindus do in Avatars too.

And then renounce them as inadequate, that is what we, the believers of other religions, resent. That is cheating, a stab in the back. Our teachings are complete and require no amendment. Bahaullah is superfluous, completely unnecessary for us. And therefore, he was not from any God. It was just his ego to be known as a mirror image of his Allah that drove him, to be more important than Moses, Jesus and Mohammad. Well, that was the disease which inflicted all other Abrahamic personages as well, before and after. The disease is congenital to Abrahamic religions.

 

[Trailblazer]

If both the partners decide not to go for sex or do that at certain stage in their life, Hinduism will have nothing against it. Hinduism does not allow for a unilateral decision in marriage. That will destroy marriage.

However, that adds one social problem. Who will take care of both or one of them in their old age?

Family caring for the elderly is across cultures and religions and I think that is the way it was intended to be. The parents raise the children and the children have a moral obligation to care for the parents in old age, Imo.

Your system in India is a lot better than the system in the United States. In the US people are very independent and they do not always want to be tied down with family. Good for you and your family for caring enough to take care of your mother. That shows what kind of person you are. My husband would have gladly taken care of my mother but she would not agree to move in with us and we could not move to her location and still support ourselves.

One big price childless couples pay for not having children is having nobody to care for them in old age. But in my case, I could not think of myself because it would have been selfish and immoral for us to bring a child into this world because of how emotionally damaged we both were in our childhoods. In our case we are very fortunate to have enough money to hire caregivers if necessary and a house that would accommodate a caregiver in separate quarters. That is one reason we have kept this big house which is half empty now. It is a burden now but we might need it later.

My mother had three children, but my sister died of cancer three years before my mother died in 2007. My brother was living in the same small city where my mother lived so he could help her out, but she insisted on living alone in her rented condo. My husband and I tried to convince her to move to our larger city about three hours away so we could care for her but she never agreed to move until she was 93 and by then she was too ill.

My mother remained in her condo until she was taken to the hospital where she passed that day. Sadly, my brother had remarried after his first wife died of cancer and he moved away to another state, leaving my mother all alone for quite some time. Thankfully, the Baha'i community was close knit so they helped her out.

Baha'is are like a family, they all band together and help each other out. Baha'is who did not even know me arranged my wedding and they also arranged my sister's funeral even though she was not an active Baha'i in her community. I am not presently active in my Baha'i community but i plan to become active after I retire because I have no other family or support system.

There are older Baha'is who never married who can always depend upon the Baha'i community. They are the same as family. Indeed, they were there for my mother when her own son abandoned her. I never completely forgave him for that but my dad was selfish so my brother learned that from him. My mother was the exact opposite way. She found it difficult to accept help because she did not want to put other people out, even when she was at the end of her life.

 

[oldbadger]

Depends how often. We had five kids and I taught for 30 years. There was little time, but we did find some. It's unhealthy to fixate on anything, and that includes religion. Perhaps it is what in part separates fundamentalists from liberals. Needs to be a balance.

I admit that I do and have fixated upon many drives during my life. That happened with my work, yachting qualifications (!), motorcycles....... (the list goes on) and especially my wife. But I'm not alone in that as can be shown by the love songs such as 'mad about her' etc.

Without that kind of love my life would be a bland and miserable existence. Can't be helped. Nobody can help me with that. If I went to my doctor and explained that I needed counseling to stop being so bonkers about my Missus he would definitely send me for counseling, but not the kind I asked for.

 

[oldbadger]

So if Baha'is need laws on what kind of punishment should be done to a Baha'i that burns down somebody's house, and I assume the person living there died, then that is not a perfect world they are working towards. Peace, unity, love and burning people alive?

Not much peace in any such World.
The haircut and clothing laws would be a clear demonstration of just how little free expression there would be.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It happens in Hinduism too. Sects are interested in people who do not have any heir, so that when they are no more, all their money comes to the sect.

 

[oldbadger]

I do not see what you see because my lens is different from your lens. I think sex is relatively minor part of who we are and that people can easily live fully-functioning lives and be happy without sex.

I do not see what you see because my lens is different from your lens. Any culture which regards sexuality and sex drive as an important part of being human is lacking in spirituality because sex is a physical drive which can and often does interfere with spirituality, when people become obsessed with it. Moreover, sex is about self, not about others, and even if one other person is involved, it is always about self and desire, given one cannot have sex without focusing on self and having desire.

There is nothing noble about sex, except when the act creates a new life. Other than for that purpose people want sex for physical pleasure because it feels good, so why not just admit it? At least that would be honest.

This is not just a Baha’i teaching; it is also a Christian teaching, so why pick on the Baha’is? Is it because some laws were finally set down? It’s about time, given how Christians have wavered from the path and the teachings of Jesus.

Bigotries? Bigotry is intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself. Baha’is are not bigots because we are not intolerant towards those who hold different opinions. It seems to me that you are projecting because you cannot tolerate the Baha’i Faith since its views differ from your views.

Sex is not love and love is not sex, nor is there any necessary relationship between the two. In human beings it is true that sex typically plays a bonding role in a certain type of loving relationship, but it's not necessary to it (however much people think it is). We love lots of people who we would never consider having sex with: children, parents, close friends, etc. One might even add household pets to the list.

We do not have to succumb to the demands of nature. That is what animals do. God is calling us to struggle against our lower nature and to become who we truly are: not material beings, not sexual beings, but spiritual beings who are in control of the physical side of our nature and who can thus find true happiness living in conformity with God’s will.

Of course, if people do not believe in the one true God of the Abrahamic religions, they can discount everything I said. They can party hardy, no holds barred, but do not pretend this is good for society. The fact remains that the vast majority of murders that do not involve a spouse also involve rape, and these are not all committed by men who have no wife at home. Adultery which leads to broken marriages also involves sex. Clearly, the improper use of the sex instinct is a problem in society.

I do not see how that is related to what we are talking about, and as such it is a red herring.

Your repeated use and highlighting of the word 'spiritual' is most interesting. Could you explain to me how you, your life or your mindset is 'spiritual'?

The idea that sex is for production of children only, and not good otherwise is the kind of tenet that the World needs to halt. Trying to steer me at Christianity won't help your argument, I'm afraid.

And I say again, that a person who believes in a life that is supposed to be loving, giving and caring cannot just click-off out of it and become a ruthless materialist on, say, Mondays and Wednesdays. That could be viewed as pretentious posturing, imo.

 

[oldbadger]

I find sex talk ironic. I remember going into a store peddling a book I wrote, and the Christian guy there asked right away, "Does it have any smut in it?" That was his only concern it seems. All he could think about. Focussed on it.

Me, OTOH, I rarely ever think about it. Part of life, sure, but not something to focus on. There are a lot better things to think about. It reminds me of 'food' people. All they think about is 'food'. So concerned about their weight, trying to diet, it becomes a fixation.

Whether it's negative or positive, it's still a fixation. Same with the anti-gay homophobes. They spend way too much time thinking about something they claim they don't think about.

Baha'is certainly aren't alone in their 'thinking' on this one, but some days I'm not sure what they are actually thinking. Depends on the individual I suppose. So too with religion.

What was your book about, and its title?

 

[oldbadger]

You might want to note that the other religions also contradict what the other religions believe. All religions have different beliefs that contradict each other, so it is not just a Baha'i thing.

That's re-direction, right there.
The 'What about them?' approach tends to demonstrate a very weak case.

It really does not matter if religious beliefs differ. What matters is how we live our lives, if we are good people.

Nearly everybody thinks that they are good. Hitler thought he was good. Pol Pot thought he was good.

All religious beliefs are relative because there will be more religions revealed in the future, according to Baha'i beliefs. Absolute truth is strictly confined to God.

That won't work if you're talking to, say, Deists and Atheists.

We'll be ferreting around for truth, deceptions and lies regardless of what others may believe about God's truths.

 

[Trailblazer]

Your repeated use and highlighting of the word 'spiritual' is most interesting. Could you explain to me how you, your life or your mindset is 'spiritual'?

I never claimed to be spiritual but that is what I strive towards. To me spiritual means thinking about God and other people and trying to help others and putting my own personal desires aside.

The idea that sex is for production of children only, and not good otherwise is the kind of tenet that the World needs to halt. Trying to steer me at Christianity won't help your argument, I'm afraid.

That is a straw man because I did not say that. Good is a matter of perspective, good for what? Good is according to one's own personal values and what is beneficial to them so what is "good" for one person will not necessarily be good for another.
Sex is not only for procreation, it is also for bonding and pleasure, but it is not necessary for everyone. For those who want it by all means have it but please allow others to decline.

And I say again, that a person who believes in a life that is supposed to be loving, giving and caring cannot just click-off out of it and become a ruthless materialist on, say, Mondays and Wednesdays. That could be viewed as pretentious posturing, imo.

I do not know what you mean by "ruthless materialist."

 

[Trailblazer]

That's re-direction, right there.
The 'What about them?' approach tends to demonstrate a very weak case.

It is a valid point. To single out the Baha'is for what all religions do is unjust.

Nearly everybody thinks that they are good. Hitler thought he was good. Pol Pot thought he was good.

That is true, so who sets the standard? I believe it is set by God but that is because I believe God reveals teachings and laws that are for human benefit.

That won't work if you're talking to, say, Deists and Atheists.

We'll be ferreting around for truth, deceptions and lies regardless of what others may believe about God's truths.

Don't I know that.
With the assumption that all religions are deception and lies I do not see how it is possible to find the truth.

 

[Trailblazer]

Without that kind of love my life would be a bland and miserable existence. Can't be helped. Nobody can help me with that. If I went to my doctor and explained that I needed counseling to stop being so bonkers about my Missus he would definitely send me for counseling, but not the kind I asked for.

There is nothing wrong with being bonkers about your Missus....
We should all be so fortunate...

 

[loverofhumanity]

And then renounce them as inadequate, that is what we, the believers of other religions, resent. That is cheating, a stab in the back. Our teachings are complete and require no amendment. Bahaullah is superfluous, completely unnecessary for us. And therefore, he was not from any God. It was just his ego to be known as a mirror image of his Allah that drove him, to be more important than Moses, Jesus and Mohammad. Well, that was the disease which inflicted all other Abrahamic personages as well, before and after. The disease is congenital to Abrahamic religions.

I don’t quite understand you. There are no amendments. And there is no distinction between any of God’s Manifestations so we don’t exalt one over the other.

No one said you must believe in what we believe so you are free to go your own way and we are free to believe what we will.