• 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!

Infallibility

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
When I first got involved with people that were Baha'is, a book came out called "Unrestrained as the Wind" as I recall doing sexual things by yourself was also against the rules. Is that true? And, if it is, would you expect that any Baha'i youth is able to abide by that rule? But then once they find someone and get married, can they touch themselves then or is it still wrong? And, they can only be sexually stimulated by their partner? But then that is only for pleasure, so should they only touch each other when it leads to sex for the purpose of having a baby?
I do not have the answer to all those questions. I can only pass along what Shoghi Effendi wrote in letters to individual believers, with which I fully agree. The upshot is that what humans want is not always in their best interest and what humans think they need is not always what they need at all.

Sex is a highly personal matter and everyone has to come to grips with it by themselves. I never broke any Baha'i Laws but I struggled with my attachment to sex and desire for many years. I was so relieved when that attachment was finally over. I am so much happier now. I cannot say that is the route everyone should go, but for me it certainly lends credence to what Shogi Effendi wrote:

'The Bahá’í Faith recognizes the value of the sex impulse, but condemns its illegitimate and improper expressions such as free love, companionate marriage and others, all of which it considers positively harmful to man and to the society in which he lives. The proper use of the sex instinct is the natural right of every individual, and it is precisely for this very purpose that the institution of marriage has been established. The Bahá’ís do not believe in the suppression of the sex impulse but in its regulation and control.'

"In response to another letter enquiring if there were any legitimate way in which a person could express the sex instinct if, for some reason, he were unable to marry or if outer circumstances such as economic factors were to cause him to delay marriage, the Guardian's secretary wrote on his behalf:

'Concerning your question whether there are any legitimate forms of expression of the sex instinct outside of marriage: According to the Bahá’í Teachings no sexual act can be considered lawful unless performed between lawfully married persons. Outside of marital life there can be no lawful or healthy use of the sex impulse. The Bahá’í youth should, on the one hand, be taught the lesson of self-control which, when exercised, undoubtedly has a salutary effect on the development of character and of personality in general, and on the other should be advised, nay even encouraged, to contract marriage while still young and in full possession of their physical vigour. Economic factors, no doubt, are often a serious hindrance to early marriage but in most cases are only an excuse, and as such should not be over stressed.'

"In another letter on the Guardian's behalf, also to an individual believer, the secretary writes:

'Amongst the many other evils afflicting society in this spiritual low water mark in history is the question of immorality, and over-emphasis of sex…'

"This indicates how the whole matter of sex and the problems related to it have assumed far too great an importance in the thinking of present-day society.

"Masturbation is clearly not a proper use of the sex instinct, as this is understood in the Faith. Moreover it involves, as you have pointed out, mental fantasies, while Bahá’u’lláh, in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, has exhorted us not to indulge our passions and in one of His well-known Tablets ‘Abdu'l-Bahá encourages us to keep our 'secret thoughts pure'. Of course many wayward thoughts come involuntarily to the mind and these are merely a result of weakness and are not blameworthy unless they become fixed or even worse, are expressed in improper acts. In 'The Advent of Divine Justice', when describing the moral standards that Bahá’ís must uphold both individually and in their community life, the Guardian wrote:

'Such a chaste and holy life, with its implications of modesty, purity, temperance, decency, and clean-mindedness, involves no less than the exercise of moderation in all that pertains to dress, language, amusements, and all artistic and literary avocations. It demands daily vigilance in the control of one's carnal desires and corrupt inclinations.'

"Your problem, therefore, is one against which you should continue to struggle, with determination and with the aid of prayer. You should remember, however, that it is only one of the many temptations and faults that a human being must strive to overcome during his lifetime, and you should not increase the difficulty you have by over-emphasising its importance. We suggest you try to see it within the whole spectrum of the qualities that a Bahá’í must develop in his character. Be vigilant against temptation, but do not allow it to claim too great a share of your attention. You should concentrate, rather, on the virtues that you should develop, the services you should strive to render, and, above all, on God and His attributes, and devote your energies to living a full Bahá’í life in all its many aspects."

(From a letter of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer, a copy of which was sent to the compiler with a letter dated March 8, 1981)

Lights of Guidance/Chastity and Sex Education - Bahaiworks, a library of works about the Bahá’í Faith
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
"Infallibility"

One may like to read my post #64 in another thread which is relevant here also.
It pertains to "fallibility" of Bahaulla by bringing a new religion after Islam and a new Law after Quran.

Regards

_________
Also one may like to read my post #62 in the same thread
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
But that's what lots of Christians believe. They say the NT teaches that. And, because they believe the NT is the "infallible" Word of God, they follow it. From what the NT actually says, where did they go wrong?
They can say whatever they want to say. The NT does not teach that. That is only one interpretation of the NT. There are other interpretations that other Christians adhere to.

Where they went wrong was in only looking at what they want to look at and ignoring the rest:
Lesson 10: Judged by Your Deeds (Romans 2:6-11)
Three Ways Our Deeds Relate to Our Salvation
 

InvestigateTruth

Veteran Member
"Infallibility"

One may like to read my post #64 in another thread which is relevant here also.
It pertains to "fallibility" of Bahaulla by bringing a new religion after Islam and a new Law after Quran.

Regards

_________
Also one may like to read my post #62 in the same thread
If bringing a new Religious Law or Revelation is wrong, then previous Messengers were wrong too, weren't they?
 

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
What or who do you consider infallible, if anything?
Only the scientific method can generate probably true knowledge, and this only about the physical realm. Anything non-material (such as subjective consciousness and its contents), anything spiritual if you will, resides in the spiritual realm. The only thing that can be known about the spiritual realm is what it contains (that is to say, everything non-material). There is no way to know anything about the structure or functioning of the spiritual realm. Therefore, revealed religions or revealed spiritual paths can not provide trustworthy knowledge.

So, when someone says they have knowledge about anything non-material, they are simply mistaken. Certainly claiming inerrancy about such things is misguided.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Vinayaka said:
What or who do you consider infallible, if anything?

Only the scientific method can generate probably true knowledge, and this only about the physical realm. Anything non-material (such as subjective consciousness and its contents), anything spiritual if you will, resides in the spiritual realm. The only thing that can be known about the spiritual realm is what it contains (that is to say, everything non-material). There is no way to know anything about the structure or functioning of the spiritual realm. Therefore, revealed religions or revealed spiritual paths can not provide trustworthy knowledge.

So, when someone says they have knowledge about anything non-material, they are simply mistaken. Certainly claiming inerrancy about such things is misguided.
Only G-d is infallible, please. No human whether belonging to a religion or to a non-religion is infallible.

Regards
 
Last edited:

InvestigateTruth

Veteran Member
Please quote from Kitáb-i-Aqdas one perfect teaching with reason given in it in brief, which is not in Quran.

Regards

God hath, likewise, as a bounty from His presence, abolished the concept of “uncleanness,” whereby
divers things and peoples have been held to be impure. He, of a certainty, is the Ever-Forgiving, the Most Generous. Verily, all created things were immersed in the sea of purification when, on that first day of Riḍván, We shed upon the whole of creation the splendors of Our most excellent Names and Our most exalted Attributes. This, verily, is a token of My loving providence, which hath encompassed all the worlds. Consort ye then with the followers of all religions, and proclaim ye the Cause of your Lord, the Most Compassionate; this is the very crown of deeds, if ye be of them who understand.

From Kitab-i-Aqdas
 

siti

Well-Known Member
From the Baha’i Writings I’ve read over my 40 years as a Baha’i I’ve only read we are to see all people as precious human beings to be loved, respected and cherished which I consider you to be.

The quotes you mention are not from a Baha’i source...

So a person who knows Arabic could easily use the translation which suits their motives to misguide his readers by slandering the character of Baha’u’llah which I believe they have attempted to do in this case.
So was the translator of this passage from Gems of Divine Mysteries (page 4) in which Baha'u'llah misanthropically refers to his enemies as "the dogs of the earth" and "the beasts of every land" "slandering the character of Baha'u'llah" by deliberately mistranslating from Arabic? Is it a bad translation, or is that how Baha'u'llah really viewed people who opposed his "Manifestation" station? Or was he just having a perfectly understandable, but humanly fallible, bad hair day?
 

TransmutingSoul

One Planet, One People, Please!
Premium Member
So was the translator of this passage from Gems of Divine Mysteries (page 4) in which Baha'u'llah misanthropically refers to his enemies as "the dogs of the earth" and "the beasts of every land" "slandering the character of Baha'u'llah" by deliberately mistranslating from Arabic? Is it a bad translation, or is that how Baha'u'llah really viewed people who opposed his "Manifestation" station? Or was he just having a perfectly understandable, but humanly fallible, bad hair day?

They went much much further than slander and in doing so broke the Laws of the Koran.

I see the descriptions given in that passage, to the Divines He gave them to, to be exactly of the character as described.

The stories are horrific.

Regards Tony
 

siti

Well-Known Member
They went much much further than slander and in doing so broke the Laws of the Koran.

I see the descriptions given in that passage, to the Divines He gave them to, to be exactly of the character as described.

The stories are horrific.

Regards Tony
Maybe so Tony, but saying the derogatory remarks were justified (or at least justifiable) is not the same as claiming he never said it. So which is it? Did Baha'u'llah call other humans animals or not? And why are you and your fellow Baha'is first pretending it is not there and then when it is openly displayed attemtping to justify it?
 

TransmutingSoul

One Planet, One People, Please!
Premium Member
Maybe so Tony, but saying the derogatory remarks were justified (or at least justifiable) is not the same as claiming he never said it. So which is it? Did Baha'u'llah call other humans animals or not? And why are you and your fellow Baha'is first pretending it is not there and then when it is openly displayed attemtping to justify it?

If we go back to what started this, there is approved translations and translations that are not approved, supplied in the original post.

If it is an authorised Translation, then what was said and the meaning, can be considered in the context given. But it is important to look at the context as well.

If it is not an authorised translation, then the translater, without the given context, could have inserted the words they saw were the meaning, and this renders it inaccurate.

Sen comes by here and I have seen him explain this on may threads. I do not have the qualifications in translation to give an expert explanation.

Regards Tony
 

TransmutingSoul

One Planet, One People, Please!
Premium Member
There were quotes of Baha'i'llah's referring to non-Bahai as blind, deaf, dogs, and worse. It was in the other thread. AB said some vile stiff about black Africans and indigenous people. So since he's infallible, it's only logical that you also think I'm deaf, blind, a dog, and a pig?

I can find you direct quotes if you want me to.

I have not been following all this and Siti's reply compelled me to look back.

Baha'u'llah in most, if not all of these quotes, is talking directly about and to the Muslim Divines. Those that used the Faith of Muhammad to commit evil acts like never before. At times they were directed to those that also blindly followed the leaders and divines.

They are not directed to those that are blameless in committing these acts.

Regards Tony
 

siti

Well-Known Member
If we go back to what started this, there is approved translations and translations that are not approved, supplied in the original post.

If it is an authorised Translation, then what was said and the meaning, can be considered in the context given. But it is important to look at the context as well.

If it is not an authorised translation, then the translater, without the given context, could have inserted the words they saw were the meaning, and this renders it inaccurate.

Sen comes by here and I have seen him explain this on may threads. I do not have the qualifications in translation to give an expert explanation.

Regards Tony
But justifying the remarks on the basis of context is not the same as claiming that the remarks were never made or that they were a "mistranslation" is it? In the case I quoted you know it is an "authorized" translation because it is on your Baha'i library and is, according to the preface of the translation, a translations expressly commissioned/undertaken by the Baha'i leadership with the goal of "enriching the translations into English from the Holy Texts" - and with the hope that it would "deepen the Western reader's appreciation of a period infused with potentiality and described by Shoghi Effendi as "the vernal years of Bahá'u'lláh's ministry"". So there's no "if" in this case.
 

TransmutingSoul

One Planet, One People, Please!
Premium Member
But justifying the remarks on the basis of context is not the same as claiming that the remarks were never made or that they were a "mistranslation" is it? In the case I quoted you know it is an "authorized" translation because it is on your Baha'i library and is, according to the preface of the translation, a translations expressly commissioned/undertaken by the Baha'i leadership with the goal of "enriching the translations into English from the Holy Texts" - and with the hope that it would "deepen the Western reader's appreciation of a period infused with potentiality and described by Shoghi Effendi as "the vernal years of Bahá'u'lláh's ministry"". So there's no "if" in this case.

Yes and I gave you my thoughts. The only way we will know what those remarks were refetenced.to, is to study the context the Tablet was given in.

Baha'u'llah's Tablets to the Rulers of the world and its religious leaders (Summons of the Lord of Hosts), are worded in relation to their position of authority and the justice they have upheld or neglected.

Baha'u'llah did not hold back about this neglect. Consider the Power shown by the prisoner to the Rulers of the world. This has been Gods way since time began. No earth shattering events, just a humble servant with all the powers of creation at their command, given in Love for us to make a choice.

Regards Tony
 

siti

Well-Known Member
Yes and I gave you my thoughts. The only way we will know what those remarks were refetenced.to, is to study the context the Tablet was given in.

Baha'u'llah's Tablets to the Rulers of the world and its religious leaders (Summons of the Lord of Hosts), are worded in relation to their position of authority and the justice they have upheld or neglected.

Baha'u'llah did not hold back about this neglect. Consider the Power shown by the prisoner to the Rulers of the world. This has been Gods way since time began. No earth shattering events, just a humble servant with all the powers of creation at their command, given in Love for us to make a choice.

Regards Tony
More obfuscation Tony. Anyway, Gems of Divine Mysteries was not written to the rulers of the world or the religious leaders, it was, According to the preface of the tranlsation, "written in reply to a[n individual] seeker who had asked how the promised Mihdí could have become transformed into 'Alí-Muhammad (the Báb)".

One of your fellow Baha'is boldly proclaimed that in 40 years as a Baha'i he had "only read we are to see all people as precious human beings to be loved, respected" - and that if Baha'u'llah was quoted as saying otherwise it was probably a (probably deliberate) mistranslation. I want to know how is referring to anyone as "the dogs of the earth" and "the beasts of every land" seeing "all people as precious...loved, respected"?

I'm beginning to suspect that Baha'is are not very familiar with what is actually in their own scriptural tradition - save a few trite and hackneyed quotations that they roll out unfailingly in response to (often entirely unrelated) questions.
 

TransmutingSoul

One Planet, One People, Please!
Premium Member
More obfuscation Tony. Anyway, Gems of Divine Mysteries was not written to the rulers of the world or the religious leaders, it was, According to the preface of the tranlsation, "written in reply to a[n individual] seeker who had asked how the promised Mihdí could have become transformed into 'Alí-Muhammad (the Báb)".

One of your fellow Baha'is boldly proclaimed that in 40 years as a Baha'i he had "only read we are to see all people as precious human beings to be loved, respected" - and that if Baha'u'llah was quoted as saying otherwise it was probably a (probably deliberate) mistranslation. I want to know how is referring to anyone as "the dogs of the earth" and "the beasts of every land" seeing "all people as precious...loved, respected"?

I'm beginning to suspect that Baha'is are not very familiar with what is actually in their own scriptural tradition - save a few trite and hackneyed quotations that they roll out unfailingly in response to (often entirely unrelated) questions.

Siti, you can see it any way you wish to, I explained the circumstances. I have read all these passages and see no issue. No one that partook in the actions, that the tablet references, has to be concerned. Unless of course they also partake of those same actions, then it may be applicable to them as well. At this time the Bab was most likely being unjustly punished or further banished.

I also see what David offered in reply is also applicable, that was the Message.of Baha'u'llah for us to follow.

The bringer of Gods Message is fair and Just in all they offer. There is a lifetime of reading about all this and I have not scratched the surface.

You could offer why it was not a fair and just statement.

Regards Tony
 

TransmutingSoul

One Planet, One People, Please!
Premium Member
No Tony, he was dead. But I suppose I can see that any way I want to as well?

Yes you are free to see it all how you wish to. I am not here to change any ones view and I could not if I wanted to.

There is a hidden word that uses the same expression;

"O SON OF JUSTICE! In the night-season the beauty of the immortal Being hath repaired from the emerald height of fidelity unto the Sadratu’l-Muntahá, and wept with such a weeping that the concourse on high and the dwellers of the realms above wailed at His lamenting. Whereupon there was asked, Why the wailing and weeping? He made reply: As bidden I waited expectant upon the hill of faithfulness, yet inhaled not from them that dwell on earth the fragrance of fidelity. Then summoned to return I beheld, and lo! certain doves of holiness were sore tried within the claws of the dogs of earth. Thereupon the Maid of heaven hastened forth unveiled and resplendent from Her mystic mansion, and asked of their names, and all were told but one. And when urged, the first letter thereof was uttered, whereupon the dwellers of the celestial chambers rushed forth out of their habitation of glory. And whilst the second letter was pronounced they fell down, one and all, upon the dust. At that moment a voice was heard from the inmost shrine: “Thus far and no farther.” Verily We bear witness to that which they have done and now are doing."

Abdul'baha has shown that the 'Dogs of the Earth' is a metaphor, used as a just description;

"..If, in this momentous task, a mighty effort be exerted, the world of humanity will shine out with other adornings, and shed the fairest light. Then will this darksome place grow luminous, and this abode of earth turn into Heaven. The very demons will change to angels then, and wolves to shepherds of the flock, and the wild-dog pack to gazelles that pasture on the plains of oneness, and ravening beasts to peaceful herds, and birds of prey, with talons sharp as knives, to songsters warbling their sweet native notes.

Regards Tony
 
Last edited:

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
8CFB3E68-0B91-43DC-A218-D1EDEF44492C.jpeg
8CFB3E68-0B91-43DC-A218-D1EDEF44492C.jpeg
So was the translator of this passage from Gems of Divine Mysteries (page 4) in which Baha'u'llah misanthropically refers to his enemies as "the dogs of the earth" and "the beasts of every land" "slandering the character of Baha'u'llah" by deliberately mistranslating from Arabic? Is it a bad translation, or is that how Baha'u'llah really viewed people who opposed his "Manifestation" station? Or was he just having a perfectly understandable, but humanly fallible, bad hair day?

It is my own view that He is referring to criminals and criminal activity not your average non believer. But those who have caused Innocent Baha’is to be jailed, tortured and killed because of inciting religious hatred not for anything they’ve done wrong.

There is a difference between calling the worst criminal a dog and an innocent person that. Baha’u’llah and now His followers are still unjustly imprisoned for what? Their crime is only that they have a different belief.

Those who have persecuted the innocent are rebuked by Baha’u’llah and rightly so.

But every person who doesn’t accept Baha’u’llah deserves to be treated with the utmost respect. He was addressing killers and torturemongers not every non believer.

That’s why it has not been ‘hidden’ but openly translated in Gems as it refers to killers and inciters of hatred like the religious clergy who caused thousands of Babis to be massacred openly in public in the streets.

There was mob violence and mobs, incited by the clergy did unthinkable things. If you ever come across Lord Curzon’s full account of how Babis and later Baha’is were treated then the term dogs is quite inadequate for the cruelty they committed.

Note that Lord Curzon speaks about serious crimes committed. If you acquaint yourself fully with what actually came to pass you would fully appreciate that the term dogs denoted by Baha’u’llah was actually very mild compared to the wholesale slaughter that took place of thousands and thousands of completely innocent people.
 
Top