Is progressive revelation believable?

[Trailblazer]

I haven't seem many switches in perspective, honestly. Some learning, sure.

I have had some switches in my views of other people IF those people switch their perspectives. But if I see no switches in their perspective I will retain my views. That is mostly what I see here among the anti-Baha'i crowd, no change in perspective.

I have also had switches in my perspectives about their religions as I learn more about them.
Just because I retain my own religion does not mean I cannot switch my perspectives of other religions.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I'm not really of the mindset that looks to identify flaws or deficiencies (from my point-of-view) in other religions, given the fact that this is obviously very relative across individuals and cultures.

In the context in which it emerged, mid-nineteenth century Persia from Twelver Shia Islam and Babism, the Baha'i laws were very radical and (for their time and place) egalitarian. So any criticism I could provide is 'relative', inasmuch as I'm speaking from the vantage point of secular contemporary Europe and Christianity. (That aside, if applied universally as proposed by Shoghi Effendi, that's where I'd see some major problems setting in. The moral / mystical dimension of the Baha'i Faith is a very distinct matter and I really have no qualms in that regard).

But, if specifically asked (and aside from the overall concept of divine positive law which we've already discussed is discordant with an orthodox Christian framework), I am of course willing to identify some laws that would give me some pause as to their applicability in a modern context.

I'll discuss a few in separate posts.

The inheritance laws come to mind first. Any Baha'i can write a will, and in that will bequeath or apportion their estate as they please, to whomsoever they please in any amount they please. But if the Baha'i dies intestate (without a will), as is unfortunately not uncommon due to accident or sudden illness, if they have a non-Baha'i child or relative, they are disinherited by Baha'i law. Likewise, the inheritance is to be divided up differently for males and females.

See:

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, Pages 182-184

9. Bahá’u’lláh states that non-Bahá’ís have no right to inherit from their Bahá’í parents or relatives (Q and A 34). Shoghi Effendi in a letter written on his behalf indicates that this restriction applies “only to such cases when a Bahá’í dies without leaving a will and when, therefore, his property will have to be divided in accordance with the rules set forth in the Aqdas...

The major features of the Bahá’í laws of inheritance in the case of intestacy are:

1. If the deceased is a father and his estate includes a personal residence, such residence passes to the eldest son (Q and A 34).

2. If the deceased has no male descendants, two thirds of the residence pass to his female descendants and the remaining third passes to the House of Justice (Q and A 41, 72). See note 42 concerning the levels of the institution of the House of Justice to which this law applies. (See also note 44.)
​

Now, in the modern context the first would be deemed religiously discriminating by the laws of all Western states that I know of, if applied civilly, whilst the latter would be viewed as sexually discriminatory. No one should be denied something they would normally be due owing to divergence of religious confession, because every citizen enjoys equal rights under the law.

And because we have family bonds here, close relatives, the law seems very harsh.

Test Acts and other such religiously discriminatory legislation were largely annulled in the West throughout the 19th century, although some persisted into the 20th.

The different portions given to men and women, would not be defensible in modern jurisprudence. What would the reason for this distinction be, other than some underlying gender essentialism derived from a patriarchal cultural context? Even the antiquated British succession law was amended earlier this decade to remove the restrictions placed upon Catholics and those favouring male inheritance to the throne over females:


Succession to the Crown Act 2013 - Wikipedia

The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 (c. 20) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which altered the laws of succession to the British throne in accordance with the 2011 Perth Agreement.[2] The act repealed the Royal Marriages Act 1772, replacing male-preference primogeniture with absolute primogeniture for those born in the line of succession after 28 October 2011, which meant the eldest child, regardless of sex, would precede his or her brothers and sisters. The act also ended the historical disqualification of a person who married a Roman Catholic from the line of succession,​

The Baha'i succession law, if applicable in cases without a will, has an inherent male primogeniture - it favours explicitly the "eldest son" first and then other male family members over female members of the family.

In the cultural context of 1860s Persia, the Baha'i law would be very progressive.

But if applied - as it appears it would be in a future Baha'i state or global commonwealth, given that the Aqdas is deemed to be the divinely-revealed positive law code of the future theocracy - this would be very regressive in 21st century liberal, Western societies.

Well, there’s a saying when sitting oral medical examinations, never open a door that you cannot close! Better still never have an argument with a lawyer about law!

As you have acknowledged these provisions only apply to situations of intestacy. As included in the notes you link:

The Bahá’í laws of inheritance apply only in case of intestacy, that is, when the individual dies without leaving a will. In the Kitáb-i-Aqdas (# 109), Bahá’u’lláh instructs every believer to write a will. He elsewhere clearly states that the individual has full jurisdiction over his property and is free to determine the manner in which his or her estate is to be divided and to designate, in the will, those, whether Bahá’í or non-Bahá’í, who should inherit (Q and A 69). In this connection, a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi explains that:

…even though a Bahá’í is permitted in his will to dispose of his wealth in the way he wishes, yet he is morally and conscientiously bound to always bear in mind, while writing his will, the necessity of his upholding the principle of Bahá’u’lláh regarding the social function of wealth, and the consequent necessity of avoiding its over-accumulation and concentration in a few individuals or groups of individuals.

This verse of the Aqdas introduces a lengthy passage in which Bahá’u’lláh elaborates the Bahá’í law of inheritance. In reading this passage one should bear in mind that the law is formulated with the presumption that the deceased is a man; its provisions apply, mutatis mutandis, when the deceased is a woman.

The system of inheritance which provides for distribution of the deceased’s estate among seven categories of heirs (children, spouse, father, mother, brothers, sisters, and teachers) is based on the provisions set out by the Báb in the Bayán.

The major features are outlined.

As I understand the Kitab-i-Aqdas it is a charter for a future world civilisation. It will be a time very different from now. It is envisaged we will live in a time where the laws of God are written on peoples hearts (Jeremiah 31:31-34). There will exist a state of peace in the world where peoples of opposing nations and religions will be reconciled to each other (Isaiah 11:6-10) and the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord. Nation shall no longer prepare for war anymore, will seek God’s guidance and go to the mountain where that is readily available (Isaiah 2:2-5, Isaiah 9:6-7).

In such a future civilisation being irreligious will be unthinkable whereas today its considered by many as the most moral and reasonable choice. The status of being a mother and rearing children will be considered the most meritorious of all deeds.

So the inheritance laws are not binding at this stage other than the requirement to write a will. They will not be until a future civilisation exists that can only be faintly imagined now.

These days there is little distinction to be found in character and morals between those who identify with a religion and those who identify with none. In the West we certainly have come a long way in regards the equality of men and women of which we can be proud. However in the Baha’i writings women are considered the first educators of children. If there is financial means to educate only one child for someone who has a son or daughter, he should choose the daughter for that very reason.

Education holds an important place in the new order of things. The education of each child is compulsory. If there is not money enough in a family to educate both the girl and the boy the money must be dedicated to the girl’s education, for she is the potential mother. If there are no parents the community must educate the child. In addition to this widespread education each child must be taught a profession, art, or trade, so that every member of the community will be enabled to earn his own livelihood. – Abdu’l-Baha, Divine Philosophy, p. 83.

Educating Girls—Even More Essential than Boys

So you are correct that Baha’i laws for inheritance in cases of intestacy appear regressive and backwards by the standards of Western liberalism. However how might Western liberalism appear in the future and how does it align with the Revealed Word of God?

Thanks for another excellent post.

 

[Trailblazer]

As I understand the Kitab-i-Aqdas it is a charter for a future world civilisation. It will be a time very different from now.

So, are you saying that some of those laws, like the inheritance law, are not yet applicable, because the UHJ has the ability to legislate on when they will be applied?

 

[Trailblazer]

So the inheritance laws are not binding at this stage other than the requirement to write a will. They will not be until a future civilisation exists that can only be faintly imagined now.

Oh, I see that answers my question I just asked you, but I still do not understand why males are being favored over females in matters of inheritance. I cannot understand why it would be that way in the future. Is there an explanation somewhere?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Oh, I see that answers my question I just asked you, but I still do not understand why males are being favored over females in matters of inheritance. I cannot understand why it would be that way in the future. Is there an explanation somewhere?

There is a latter from the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer dated 1975 that includes the following passages:

Your letter of 16 March 1975 has been received and we have studied the various questions arising from your study of the Synopsis and Codification of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas.…

Concerning your questions about the equality of men and women, this, as ‘Abdu’l‑Bahá has often explained, is a fundamental principle of Bahá’u’lláh; therefore the Laws of the Aqdas should be studied in the light of it. Equality between men and women does not, indeed physiologically it cannot, mean identity of functions. In some things women excel men, for others men are better fitted than women, while in very many things the difference of sex is of no effect at all. The differences of function are most apparent in family life. The capacity for motherhood has many far-reaching implications which are recognized in Bahá’í Law. For example, when it is not possible to educate all one’s children, daughters receive preference over sons, as mothers are the first educators of the next generation. Again, for physiological reasons, women are granted certain exemptions from fasting that are not applicable to men.


You mention the provision in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas regarding inheritance, in which the eldest son receives preferential treatment. As you no doubt know, the duty of making a will is enjoined upon all Bahá’ís, and in such a will a believer is free to bequeath his or her property in whatever way he or she wishes (see note 25 on page 60 of the Synopsis and Codification). Every system of law, however, needs to make provision for the disposal of a person’s property if he or she dies without having made a will, and it is in cases of intestacy that the specific provisions stated in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas are applied. These provisions give expression to the law of primogeniture, which, as ‘Abdu’l‑Bahá has stated, has invariably been upheld by the Law of God. In a Tablet to a follower of the Faith in Persia He wrote: “In all the Divine Dispensations the eldest son hath been given extraordinary distinctions. Even the station of prophethood hath been his birthright.” With the distinctions given to the eldest son, however, go concomitant duties. For example, with respect to the law of inheritance ‘Abdu’l‑Bahá has explained in one of His Tablets that the eldest son has the responsibility to take into consideration the needs of the other heirs. Similar considerations no doubt apply to the provisions that, in intestacy, limit the shares due to half-brothers and half-sisters of the deceased on his or her mother’s side; they will, of course, be due to receive inheritance from their own father’s estate.

24 July 1975 – [To an individual] | Bahá’í Reference Library

 

[firedragon]

The Baha'i Faith has no doctrines. What we have are the Writings of Baha'u'llah that state that God sends Messengers throughout history, thus progressive revelation.

I was explaining what apolegetics mean. Maybe the word doctrine is not to your appreciation. That's fine.
Doctrine simply means a belief or a set of believes held by an entity. So I think its appropriate. But it's your faith so you have the right to call it what you may.

 

[Trailblazer]

I was explaining what apolegetics mean. Maybe the word doctrine is not to your appreciation. That's fine.
Doctrine simply means a belief or a set of believes held by an entity. So I think its appropriate. But it's your faith so you have the right to call it what you may.

I take no offense. Doctrine is just a word. I think of a doctrine as man-made, not part of scriptures...
I think of progressive revelation as the underpinning theology of the Baha'i Faith derived from the Writings of Baha'u'llah.

 

[firedragon]

That is Progressive Pevelation and a major part of the Baha'i teachings, that is all explained in the Kitab-i-Iqan.

No lessons from grade 1 to University are lost, the knowledge find's fulfilment and is built upon, only by greater educational pursuits, with an open mind that embraces all that is from God, all that is good and a mind that accepts it learns from all that is.

Regards Tony

Thanks. Yet again, it's still irrelevant to my comment.

I take no offense. Doctrine is just a word. I think of a doctrine as man-made, not part of scriptures...
I think of progressive revelation as the underpinning theology of the Baha'i Faith derived from the Writings of Baha'u'llah.

Let's say I make a statement like "the islamic doctrine is monotheism". Its based on scripture.

 

[firedragon]

That is Progressive Pevelation and a major part of the Baha'i teachings, that is all explained in the Kitab-i-Iqan.

No lessons from grade 1 to University are lost, the knowledge find's fulfilment and is built upon, only by greater educational pursuits, with an open mind that embraces all that is from God, all that is good and a mind that accepts it learns from all that is.

Regards Tony

You didnt understand the point.

But thanks.

 

[Trailblazer]

Let's say I make a statement like "the islamic doctrine is monotheism". Its based on scripture.

Monotheism could be a doctrine based upon what Muslims believe which is based upon scripture.

Doctrine: a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=doctrine+means

 

[wandering peacefully]

There is a difference between disagreement and returning with an answer offering a different intent other than what was posted.

Example. As a Baha'i I can disagree with the Doctrine of the Trinity and offer an alternative thought.

I do not have to return to say the Trinity had an intent, that it does not have in a Christians eye. It is then just to ask why one would choose to do that.

Have a look at some posts above, returning with old speculative arguments that have been shown they do not have that intent, it has become much like the 3 stooges, have to get a laugh by hitting and poking.

Regards Tony

As per half the time I read your posts, I have no idea what you are saying. I don't speak double speak and round a bout the point of what is attempting to be communicated.

If you have any other way of clearly stating point, I'll be happy to read it. Otherwise, have a nice day.

 

[CG Didymus]

Can we?

Yes, people can choose to see things a different way. Yes, listen to other people and try to understand things from their perspective. So then, why don't they? Hmmm? Because they think their beliefs are right and the beliefs of others are wrong? Baha'is are in a tough position. Can they truly listen to others and change their understanding? I'd say that is very, very rare. They have committed themselves to believing their religion over all the others.

 

[CG Didymus]

Who said that

I can rightly say Krishna is God and at the same time is Not God, Just as Christ Was.

Both views are valid and should never become the cause of argument.

Regards Tony

But, is Krishna a real, historical person? And, if he is, then what about the other avatars? Do Baha'is recognize them? Do Baha'is believe they were real? At some point wouldn't make more sense to just say they were "mythical"?

 

[Vinayaka]

Baha'is are in a tough position.

Indeed they are. That basic unproven idea of progressive revelation makes it so they HAVE to comment on other religions. There is no possibility of 'you leave me alone. and I'll leave you alone' as most other religions have.

I wouldn't want to be in that position.

 

[CG Didymus]

For Vaishnavites, Krishna is God. There would be nothing to argue if non-Hindus didn't say that He wasn't. But of course, for me, He's irrelevant, as that's not my sampradaya. Still, the Vaishnavas are my brothers. For me, Siva is God.

Very different paradigms.

How do you view Vishnu and Brahma? I get the feeling whatever it is, it will not line up with the Baha'i teaching of who and what God is. And, if I'm right about that, then that's what blows the whole "progressive" revelation thing out of the water for me. All the religions are different. And all are progressing. Just not how the Baha'is say they are. 'Cause I would say that even totally made up, mythical beliefs were also part of the "progression" of spiritual thought and ideas. And, I'd go even further and say even within the big nine, there are mythical and made up ideas about Gods and God and their messengers. Like in Christianity a star that leads the wise men to Jesus... Jesus walking on water and floating off into space etc.

 

[CG Didymus]

That is Progressive Pevelation and a major part of the Baha'i teachings, that is all explained in the Kitab-i-Iqan.

No lessons from grade 1 to University are lost, the knowledge find's fulfilment and is built upon, only by greater educational pursuits, with an open mind that embraces all that is from God, all that is good and a mind that accepts it learns from all that is.

Regards Tony

Adrian said that the "progression" is not linear. So why use the grade school analogy.

Isn't it more like the ancient religions had some strange beliefs. Like if they believed in many Gods, they were wrong. And the newer religions addressed that problem. Judaism, Christianity and probably Islam would say that those religions were false.

But not Baha'is, as with Hinduism. What can Baha's say? That "originally" Hinduism believed in only one God, but they misinterpreted their own Scriptures, or somebody added things into their Scriptures that was not taught by the messenger? That made it seem like there were several Gods?

That's not grade school. That's more like Baha'is going back and retrofitting the older religions to fit into the Baha'i progression.

 

[CG Didymus]

Didymus, but perhaps not. Maybe he just associated with a lot of Baha'is back when. Trust me, you guys are really lucky not to have some of the ex-Baha'is over here!

There was one person that said that they were a Baha'i for 3 years. That was in response to a Baha'i telling them that they didn't know what they were talking about when it came to the Baha'i Faith.

 

[CG Didymus]

Makes total sense. Personally, I don't think moderation is tough enough here on the proselytising, but I go with the decisions of the mods on it. One vote against many isn't much.

As with other things defined by Baha'i, we would be wrong to accuse them of proselytizing. They are merely "sharing" their beliefs. They are told to "teach" the Faith. Just like the JW's come to "share" with me the Word and "teach" me the truth about Jesus.

 

[Vinayaka]

How do you view Vishnu and Brahma? I get the feeling whatever it is, it will not line up with the Baha'i teaching of who and what God is. And, if I'm right about that, then that's what blows the whole "progressive" revelation thing out of the water for me. All the religions are different. And all are progressing. Just not how the Baha'is say they are. 'Cause I would say that even totally made up, mythical beliefs were also part of the "progression" of spiritual thought and ideas. And, I'd go even further and say even within the big nine, there are mythical and made up ideas about Gods and God and their messengers. Like in Christianity a star that leads the wise men to Jesus... Jesus walking on water and floating off into space etc.

Personally, Siva is God, and includes the powers of Brahma and Vishnu, or emanation and sustaining. Nataraja's drum represents emanation, and his upheld hand represents sustaining. Vishnu (and the 2 last avatars) and Siva, along with the Mother goddess (Shakti) are what Hinduism is focused on these days. It's all way outside Baha'i paradigms. (As you probably suspected) Of course I rarely get asked anything, or present much.

 

[CG Didymus]

Personally, Siva is God, and includes the powers of Brahma and Vishnu, or emanation and sustaining. Nataraja's drum represents emanation, and his upheld hand represents sustaining. Vishnu (and the 2 last avatars) and Siva, along with the Mother goddess (Shakti) are what Hinduism is focused on these days. It's all way outside Baha'i paradigms. (As you probably suspected) Of course I rarely get asked anything, or present much.

And that is exactly the problem. Can we ask and can we listen without telling you that your beliefs are wrong? As with Christianity, Baha'is are forced to come up with alternative interpretations that, for them, can still make the Bible "God's Word", but not mean what it says.