Bahai's and homosexuality

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

As the light of God leaves this world and it is plunged into total darkness it sets the stage for the end of the world.

Actually, in the Baha'i view that's a mistranslation!

The word in the original Greek New Testament is "eras," which means "world" or "age."

And IOV the translators creating the King James Version of the Bible picked the wrong meaning.

The verse actually speaks of the end of the Age, which IOV took place over a century and a half ago with the Advent of Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i Faith!

Best,

Bruce

 

[BruceDLimber]

Authoritative or infallible?

Essentially no difference in this case.

'Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi are stipulated by the Baha'i Faith as infallible ON MATTERS OF SCRIPTURAL INTERPRETATION (though not for other matters).

[A]s a childless marriage can be equally as worthy as another marriage, why not a homosexual one?

Like it or not, because they declared it immoral and unacceptable.

For Baha'is, end of story.

Nor, as has been pointed out, can this change until the Advent of another Divine Messenger, which is still at least 850 years away.

Just the facts.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

Baha'is have a principle called "consultation" that very much does allow for different views!

Except when it doesn't. So if the dissenting voice disagrees with the governing body's decision on number four, I've read article after article about how it's grounds for being pushed out.

Simply false!

Every person is fully entitled to his or her own opinion, and no Baha'i institution can or will object to this!

It's only when someone insists that others obey his or her particular opinion instead of the Baha'i Writings or their own opinions that there's a problem.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[doppelganger]

Ah..hah.. I always trust lawyers!

- Art

And your answer is . . ..

 

[sandandfoam]

Like it or not, because they declared it immoral and unacceptable.

For Baha'is, end of story.

I cannot accept that. So for this Baha'i It's not the end of story.

 

[doppelganger]

Like it or not, because they declared it immoral and unacceptable.

For Baha'is, end of story.

Every person is fully entitled to his or her own opinion, and no Baha'i institution can or will object to this!

Consistently, followers of Baha'i are the most likely in my experience to be misleading or dishonest about their beliefs or practices. They can believe what they want, but they need to start policing their methods. This sort of double-speak comes out in every substantive conversation I've ever had with a member of Baha'i about their faith. And no, I'm not exaggerating. From my experience, followers of Baha'i truly stand out in this category.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Then I suggest you consult with your local Baha'i administrative bodies, Stephen. They are in a far better position to offer guidance than I.

(I will simply remind you that if you signed a declaration card, it contained a clause about certain laws and institutions you have an obligation to obey if you want to remain a Baha'i. If you choose not to, that's perfectly your choice: nobody is required to remain a Baha'i, and no stigma attaches to remaining a Baha'i or not.)

Peace,

Bruce

 

[sandandfoam]

Then I suggest you consult with your local Baha'i administrative bodies, Stephen. They are in a far better position to offer guidance than I.

(I will simply remind you that if you signed a declaration card, it contained a clause about certain laws and institutions you have an obligation to obey if you want to remain a Baha'i. If you choose not to, that's perfectly your choice: nobody is required to remain a Baha'i, and no stigma attaches to remaining a Baha'i or not.)

Peace,

Bruce

Are you serious Bruce?
I'm not talking about obeying or disobeying anybody. I have a stated opinion which I will not change. My opinion is that committed homosexual relationships are equal with committed heterosexual relationships. I don't need guidance from anyone regarding this view.
Does that put me beyond the pale as far as being a Baha'i is concerned in your view?
Would you have me throw the baby out with the bathwater over this?

 

[arthra]

Stephen,

Hope and pray things go well with you and Luna's idea of consulting with your Assembly is a good idea... Also have you considered maybe addressing your question to the Supreme Body for guidance about how same sex married people are to be considered?

- Art

 

[arthra]

Consistently, followers of Baha'i are the most likely in my experience to be misleading or dishonest about their beliefs or practices. They can believe what they want, but they need to start policing their methods. This sort of double-speak comes out in every substantive conversation I've ever had with a member of Baha'i about their faith. And no, I'm not exaggerating. From my experience, followers of Baha'i truly stand out in this category.

It may be dobblegangeer that from your view there's "double-speak" but that's probably because you're looking at it from the outside... There may be contradictions that appear but when one actually lives in the community they are not such a dilemma.

Have you noticed that maybe you could be a little condescending in suggesting "...they need to start policing their methods" as if you're the expert on how we should be consulting!

And besides I know lawyers never use "double-speak"!

- Art

 

[sandandfoam]

Stephen,

Hope and pray things go well with you and Luna's idea of consulting with your Assembly is a good idea... Also have you considered maybe addressing your question to the Supreme Body for guidance about how same sex married people are to be considered?

- Art

Thanks Art.
The Baha'i faith fits me well. I have no intention of dropping it. I live a bit away from anyone and I've only met the nearest Baha'is to me as a group once. At some point I'm sure it will come up and I won't be behind the door in expressing my opinion . But I'm not going to show up at an assembly of people that I don't know and start out by fighting with them.
I'd honestly be surprised if I'm the only person to hold this view and I imagine that over time the official position will change.
I'm very surprised at Bruce's opinion that I need to consider if I should remain a Baha'i.
With all due respect to Bruce and anyone else I will never surrender my freedom of thought or opinion and I would be truly astonished if anyone in the Baha'i hierarchy expected me to.

 

[arthra]

Stephen,

I appreciate your situation..

You know since the days of Baha'u'llah and Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi people have written and asked questions that were nagging them and today we have a wealth of responses and guidance.

I was checking on what circumstances you could do this and found this:

"You also inquire as to the circumstances under which an individual believer may submit questions to the National Assembly or the House of Justice, directly. As you know, Bahá'ís turn to Bahá'í literature, their fellow-believers (particularly those well-versed in the Writings) and the local and national institutions of the Faith for answers to any question they may have. If these avenues are explored to the utmost and further clarification is still needed, the friends are free to refer to the House of Justice for such guidance. It is hoped that this information will be of assistance to you in your endeavours."

So I suppose being isolated you could draft say a question to the NSA along maybe these lines:

now that there are some states and provinces etc. recognizing same sex marriages what guidance can be offered on how the Baha'i community is to relate to this.. When say one or the both of them become Baha'is or apply for membership..?

Of course you could also request more information on the issue of homosexuality in the Aqdas.

If you still have issues then address the House of Justice ...

I think that could be helpful..

- Art

 

[Darz]

Lastly let me say that Shoghi Effendi the Guardian of our Faith was instrumental in establishing our administrative order and I believe was probably the most articulate dedicated Baha'i of the twentieth century. He was assigned the task of Guardianship by his grandfather Abdul-Baha and never flinched once in his duties and sacrifices. He was both a descendent of the Afnan the family of the Bab and of course of the Aghsan the descendents of Baha'u'llah Himself.

Yes, I realize he was instrumental to the formation of the Baha'i administrative order and he sacrificed most of his life to that cause. He was also instrumental in the translation of many of Baha'u'llah's writings into English.

I also know that Baha'is believe Shoghi Effendi to be infallible on all matters of the Baha'i Faith. However, I personally do not accept the belief or idea of infallibility. I have come to realize that each and every person has their own biases, prejudices, and predispositions that affect what they believe. I'm guessing that Shoghi Effendi's translation of that quote from Baha'u'llah was greatly influenced by the general worldwide negative view on homosexuality at that time. Most people felt that way toward's homosexuality...it's not really a surprise that he did either.

I will simply remind you that if you signed a declaration card, it contained a clause about certain laws and institutions you have an obligation to obey if you want to remain a Baha'i. If you choose not to, that's perfectly your choice: nobody is required to remain a Baha'i, and no stigma attaches to remaining a Baha'i or not.

This just made me laugh. Are you afraid he is actually homosexual himself and might commit some heinous homosexual acts? Or are you implying that a Baha'i should not hold a counter belief to the Baha'i teachings and discuss it in the public arena because that would show dissent and not unity.

 

[arthra]

Darz wrote:

I also know that Baha'is believe Shoghi Effendi to be infallible on all matters of the Baha'i Faith. However, I personally do not accept the belief or idea of infallibility.

My reply:

If you were a Baha'i, I think you'd understand that Abdul-Baha conferred the Guardianship on Shoghi Effendi that role for us made his interpretations of Baha'i Writings important to us..

The Will and Testament of Abdul-Baha was pretty specific:

The sacred and youthful branch, the Guardian of the Cause of God, as well as the Universal House of Justice to be universally elected and established, are both under the care and protection of the Abhá Beauty, under the shelter and unerring guidance of the Exalted One (may my life be offered up for them both). Whatsoever they decide is of God. Whoso obeyeth him not, neither obeyeth them, hath not obeyed God; whoso rebelleth against him and against them hath rebelled against God; whoso opposeth him hath opposed God; whoso contendeth with them hath contended with God; whoso disputeth with him hath disputed with God; whoso denieth him hath denied God; whoso disbelieveth in him hath disbelieved in God; whoso deviateth, separateth himself and turneth aside from him hath in truth deviated, separated himself and turned aside from God.

Source:

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Will And Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Pages 3-15

 

[Darz]

Darz wrote:

I also know that Baha'is believe Shoghi Effendi to be infallible on all matters of the Baha'i Faith. However, I personally do not accept the belief or idea of infallibility.

My reply:

If you were a Baha'i, I think you'd understand that Abdul-Baha conferred the Guardianship on Shoghi Effendi that role for us made his interpretations of Baha'i Writings important to us..

I'm not entirely sure what point you were trying to get across to me...

 

[kiwimac]

Ah more prejudice! This from the religion which teaches that women and men are equal just as long as no woman desires to be a member of the Universal House of Justice.

 

[BruceDLimber]

My pont holds: Interpretations of 'Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi are fixed, and CANNOT AND WILL NOT CHANGE for the duration of the Baha'i Era!

So any fantasies that they might are just that.

You are welcome to your opinion regardless; no problem!

Just don't expect the Faith to change to reflect it; it's not going to.

And to reply to another poster, in general NO ONE is "trying to get elected" to ANY Baha'i administrative body: these are positions of service, and offer neither power nor prestige to those who hold them.

Indeed, probably the best way NOT to get elected is to be seen as trying to get onto such a body.

You also overlook the fact that our scriptures also explicitly award women--ALL women, not just nine or fewer!--primacy over men in circumstances such as receipt of education! So this really isn't the sort of one-sided situation you painted.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[doppelganger]

It may be dobblegangeer that from your view there's "double-speak" but that's probably because you're looking at it from the outside... There may be contradictions that appear but when one actually lives in the community they are not such a dilemma.

Look at the two positions. There's double-speak. Perhaps it's so institutionalized that practicing Baha'i condition themselves to ignore it. That's the most likely explanation from my experiences of Baha'i. For example, we've been told in this thread about the deep social conservativism and intractable dedication to official interpretations of the writings of Baha'u'lah (as Bruce has repeatedly said), but for years I've been hearing Baha'i state that their faith is culturally relativist. That's a flat out lie. Everytime I see it, I ask a question and suddenly it's a different story.

Apparently I don't understand that it's okay to lie if you're Baha'i. Quit excusing it and just stop doing it if you don't want to be called out about it. You don't have to take my advice on that. Press on if you must . . .

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings.

Apparently I don't understand that it's okay to lie if you're Baha'i.

I will be charitable and not point how stupid the above comment is. Even you should know better than this!

[F]or years I've been hearing Baha'i state that their faith is culturally relativist. That's a flat out lie.

It is no such thing, as you'd know if you were familiar with the Baha'i scriptures!

I quote from them:

"Such an existence is a contingent and not an absolute existence, inasmuch as the former is preceded by a cause, whilst the latter is independent thereof.

"Absolute existence is strictly confined to God, exalted be His glory. Well is it with them that apprehend this truth."

—(Gleanings, page 157)

Got that now, I trust?

Bruce

 

[Muffled]

Thanks for the replies Art

What I mean is that although monogomy is clearly regarded as the preferred form of marriage when necessary polygamy was facilitated. I imagine it still would be in the case of a polygamous convert? So I can't see why homosexual marriage can't be accomodated

I suppose you are referring to OT practice since polygamy is not legal in the USA. However many evils have been practiced but that does not mean that they were law. The law of Moses actually prohibits polygamy and Jesus reiterates the one man one wife rule that is presented in Genesis. The only sin that God legitimizes is divorce (which He hates) because you can't really force people to maintain a relationship.

There is no way for a Holy person to get comfortable with sin. Marriage in this country is legitimized by government. Government is by the people. Holy people can't vote for something sinful and therefore legitimize sin. When this country becomes unholy enough to do so, it will be ripe for judgement. I suppose we could accomodate ourselves to judgement but we are sailing on the same ship that is about to sink. It seems to me that all we are doing now is trying to repair the leaks. Like the Titanic, the band is playing high and dry but one end of the boat is already full of water.