Baha'i Rants - Latest Comments in The Trouble with the World

Re: The Trouble with the World

Wahid Azal — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 22:35:33 -0000

Emphasis on _claim_.

Re: The Trouble with the World

Stephen Gray — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:20:27 -0000

Does this count as a form of liberal Christianity?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

Re: The Trouble with the World

Stephen Gray — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:18:27 -0000

Technically, there are only bureaucrats who claim to administer on behalf of God.

Re: The Trouble with the World

Stephen Gray — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:17:34 -0000

There are such a thing as Old Catholics and Traditionalist Catholics that are an exception to that.

Re: The Trouble with the World

Craig Parke — Fri, 30 Sep 2011 21:11:05 -0000

So what do you think is the future course of the Baha'i Faith?

Re: The Trouble with the World

Roosterpen — Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:53:50 -0000

Well look. I think what you are saying is you and others know better than a Body divinely guided by the Bab and Baha'u'llah! This is what the Baha'i Covenant says about it and those who cannot accept it should revaluate whether they want to be Baha'is or not, You're membership is voluntary so you're free to leave if you decide you don't want to agree with the Covenant but coming here and trying to discredit the Covenant is sinister.

Humanity has never ever had an Infallible Body to guide it nor past religions and look at the mess they're in because of that. In the Most Holy Book Baha'u'llah said that in some cases He allowed freedom and in others forbade it. We are not free as Baha'is to do a lot of harmful things and one of them is to challenge the Covenant. If we don't or can't accept that then we should do the honest thing an resign.

"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 (the Báb) (may my life be offered up for
them both). Whatsoever they decide is of God."

(Shoghi Effendi: World Order of
Bahá'u'lláh, p. 149)

Now Whatsoever they decide is of GOD. FULL STOP. The Ruhi Courses are of GOD. The advice they give is of GOD. This is what the Centre of the Covenant tells us. So you're ideas and interpreations and arguments are better than ones GOD revelas through the House of Justice?

This is the Covenant which Bahá'u'lláh made. If a person shall deviate, he is
not acceptable at the Threshold of Bahá'u'lláh. In case of differences,
Abdu'l-Baha must be consulted. They must revolve around his good pleasure. After
Abdu'l-Baha, whenever the Universal House of Justice is organized it will ward
off differences.

('Abdu'l-Baha: The Covenant, p.
117)

The House of Justice has the last say and those who disagree and try to infer error or cast doubt on the clear Infallibility of the House of Justice are according to Abdul-Baha 'not acceptable at the Threshold of Baha'u'llah.

Unto the Most Holy Book every one must turn, and all that is not expressly recorded therein must be referred to the Universal House of Justice. That which this body, whether unanimously or by a majority doth carry, that is verily the truth and the purpose of God Himself. Whoso doth deviate therefrom is verily of them that love discord, hath shown forth malice, and turned away from the Lord of the Covenant (Will and Testament)

and

Beware lest anyone falsely interpret these words, and like unto them that have broken the Covenant after the Day of Ascension (of Bahá’u’lláh) advance a pretext, raise the standard of revolt, wax stubborn and open wide the door of false interpretation. To none is given the right to put forth his own opinion or express his particular conviction. All must seek guidance and turn unto the Center of the Cause and the House of Justice. And he that turneth unto whatsoever else is indeed in grievous error.

What's going on here is not the independent investigation of truth but opposition to the Covenant.

Re: The Trouble with the World

Fubar — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 09:29:51 -0000

Sar-Mad,

You said: "I'm certainly suffering pain and distress in reading all this appalling contention. "

You should talk to someone that understands treatment of the psychology (psychopathology) of religious brainwashing, you will do damage to many people's lives until you become a real human being again.

What you believe in is a large pile of garbage wrapped in illusions that on the surface are appealing utopianisms. bahaism is a trap for weak minds. Make you mind strong, reject dysfunctional religion and make a real contribution to improving the world, your family, etc.

there are many many many groups that help people find authentic forms of spiritual transformation, break out of the mental and psychological prison that bahaism has held you in. become a real human being, and learn how to be decent, compassionate and altruistic.

Re: The Trouble with the World

Fubar — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 09:21:35 -0000

Sar-Mad,

Your ideas are irrational and silly, and a perfect reflection of the
brainwashing and groupthink that has "infected" haifan bahaism and made
it a dysfunctional religion full of empty promises.

haifan bahaism is culturally imperialistic and exploits the people that are converted to it.

haifan bahaism in france and swiss is a very small number of people that are irrelevant.

the bahai world center promotes ruhi brainwashing on a wide level.

why are you trying to deceive people?

Re: The Trouble with the World

Sarmad — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 18:58:39 -0000

I'm certainly suffering pain and distress in reading all this appalling contention. I wish I could force myself away from this execrable website. I've been foolishly wasting my time on this site all evening, making myself depressed. Yes, the Faith has a glorious destiny, but the moment of its realisation can be postponed. This site is helping to postpone it. How can people identify themselves as Baha'is and then embarrass themselves in public discourse. Have you not read the Hidden Word? "The comb, too, have I given thee that thou mayest dress My raven locks, and not lacerate My throat."

The mind boggles!

Re: The Trouble with the World

Sarmad — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 18:41:59 -0000

For the benefit of any readers, this is nonsense. I have never been placed under pressure to study Ruhi books. You are not honestly describing the Baha'i Faith, although you are perhaps describing your own experience, which must of necessity not be universal. Seriously, do you think French Baha'is, or Swiss Baha'is, to suggest only two are going to obsess over this kind of thing. You are taking your own US-based issues (or New Zealand or whatever) and applying them across the world. That's a thin argument.

Re: The Trouble with the World

Wahid Azal — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 18:21:58 -0000

Pray tell, why does the Lord of the Universe require bureaucrats to administer anything?

Re: The Trouble with the World

Fubar — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:44:46 -0000

The overwhelming evidence is to the contrary.

Bahai administration is incompetent and dysfunctional, resists necessary reforms, attacks nonconformists, critics and dissidents, and exploits converts who are seeking meaning.

What you describe is a medieval slave society where no one questions authority.

The world long ago abandoned such models as having any contribution to the advancement of civilization.

Re: The Trouble with the World

Sweetie — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:43:00 -0000

I think the reason for accepting the directives of the House of Justice is respect. They are the guardians of Gods message on earth. It doesnt mean the House of Justice can answer physics questions, but it means that as Bahais we must go with the flow and accept what the House decrees. Catholics are in a very similar situation -- when the pope makes decrees they dont like they either ignore and pay lipservice to (contraception) or 'ask' the Pope to reconsider Papal edicts (liberation theologists). The House of Justice are practically speaking religious administrators -- most of their injunctions is [be a good Bahai, teach the faith] (my 2 kopeks)

Re: The Trouble with the World

Fubar — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 03:00:13 -0000

I'm confused by Bmw's statements about atheism.

Elsewhere on this blog, Bmw criticises "anti-bahais" for not wanting to follow bahai administration/covenant. Somehow Bmw thinks that dissent and criticism of bahaism is part of a conspiracy of muslims and christians to oppress bahai "minorities". This is most likely delusional, or some other emotionalism that is misinformed and uneducated.

Many clear statements exist in bahai scipture that require that followers believe that the BAO/Covenant are "God's will".

If Bmw does not believe in God (a potentially reasonable viewpoint in my opinion), then why would Bmw want to defend a religious organization that is dependent on a bogus belief?

I personally do not think that a literal interpretation of this issue does bahais any good in the eyes of fair minded, progressive people in the world, but there is really a lot of cultural imperialism in bahaullah's demands on believers.

Here is something that I posted previously in this thread that reveals the tensions between tradtional/literalist perspectives on the issue and postmodern perspectives:

http://bahai-library.com/re...

(broken URL: http://bahai-library.com/
reviews/
warburg.pinna.html)

http://scp.sagepub.com/cont...

(broken URL: http://scp.sagepub.com/
content/
46/
1/
47.abstract )

What Dr. Warburg state is interesting. In response to postmodernism's call for a more compassionate society based on relativism, traditional religion's will tend to react in a "conservative" or "liberal" manner. On the surfce, bahais seem like that are taking the "liberal" direction by accepting the need for inter-faith dialogue, etc.

Warburg says however that at a deeper level, bahais are actually respoding to the call for pluralism and relativism in the same manner as are "conservative" muslims and christians (insisting their their revelation is better, etc., and that everyone has to conform to it).

Warburg:

| "Data gathered about the Baha'is in Denmark, including the author's own
| fieldwork, suggest that they have a liberal and cosmopolitan outlook.
| They are shown to be promoting world citizenship—yet, at the same
| time, since they view their religious doctrine as the foundation of an
| international politics with an ultimate aim of merging political and
| religious institutions, Baha'is may be found to be following the same
| trajectory as conservative religious organizations. "---

The reality is that there are several different paradigms at work in the world, and bahaism contains a mix of premodern religious elements and modern/postmodern elements.

As M. Scott Peck used to say, one of the characteristics of a great religion is that it actually contains different paradigms that can appeal to people from vastly differing backgrounds.

In plain terms, conservative and liberal christians have managed to "get along" reasonably well in some christian congregations, at least historically. Traditionalists are allowed to believe in a world of "rules and roles" and strict order. Progressives are allowed to believe in less conformist and less literalist/authoritarian perspectives.

Again, some of this also seems arise from the "Three faces of God" phenomena: spiritualiy tends to be expressed as a first-person perspective, second-person, or third-person (I-We-It).

Christianity is traditionally all about second-person "we" spirituality: it is about the relationship and love between the believer and God. Unfortunately the cultural context is of a mythic, conformist God (divine emperor, "lord", or slave-owner/warrior).

What atheists/postmodernists tend to do is to ignore "second-person spirituality, and focus on third-person spirit, or perspectives: which are about the relation ship people have with Kosmos, or Reality, as an "object" (It).

Bmw seems to both 1) not understand the different paradigms/perspectives, and why they are difficult to bring together for a higher common good, and 2) automatically attribute the worst motives to people that disagree with the traditional, authoritarian perspective.

Again, this is very odd given that Bmw claims to evangelize the ideas of some leading atheists.

Why would someone that is an atheist promote or defend a religious organization that is organized on the basis of mythic, premodern religion?

Is it really just that bahais are being persecuted as a "minority" in some backwaters of the world by even more backward religious fanatics of other religions?

If so, Bmw seems to utter fail to see that the very cause of the persecution, the belief in absolutism, mythic archetypes and religious conformism/absolutism, is also being promoted and defended by conservative bahais!

Bwm also seems to have drunk someone's Kool-aid about the evil intentions of bahai dissidents (Momen?).

The reality is that bahai dissent exists because of the glaring lack of openness and transparency in the bahai faith as currently operated, not because the dissidents have some deep evil need to "persecute" bahai administration.

The overwhelming preponderance of evidence is that it is the bahai administration that is the source of most of the conflict.

What the 2009 debate shows is that *hardline* bahai conservatives will simply never accept the validity of postmodern culture, or its "relativistic" experience of spirituality, on any level.

What this does is put the conservative version of bahaism in a position where it becomes increasingly irrelevant and reactionary.

I think that most liberal/ progressive/ postmodern bahais accept the idea that religion adapts to changes in the world. They are confused and frustrated by the unwillingless to hardline conservatives to consider different perspectives, and to try to get along with people that have differences, in spite of those differences, in order to work for some larger common good or higher ideals.

This is the case because true religious conservatives know that in their "fight" against cultural evolution, if they can not rigidly define and control the very definition/theology of what the "larger good" or "higher ideals" consists of, they will no longer have any power, and will get no respect from liberals/ progressives.

Conservatives would rather be hated than ignored. Unfortunately what that results in is that they are only respected for their methods, and perhaps their fanaticism and energy, not because their ideas themselves are "more evolved" or "more enlightened".

What integralists have proposed is a model of consciousness in which all the paradigms are seen as part of a whole. So, liberals are required to see that Koestler's laws of Holons means that a liberal paradigm evolved on a foundation of ancient conservatism that was the most valid set of operating conditions that could exist in those ancient times.

(Medieval mythic religions like Christianity and Islam tried to raise the consciousness of "tribal" culture, which was frequently brutal, to a higher, more cosmopolitan/universal level). And indeed, this resulted in two great civilizations flourishing and producing great advancements.)

What happened later was that as the empires declined, rigidity and orthodoxy set in, and new forces such as Reason, Science, Democracy, and Capitalism (modernism) came to be seen as the leading edge of social development.

As the modern individual was unleashed from the demands of mythic, conformist religion by new technologies and political paradigms, "achievement" became the mantra of social advance.

Aristocracies and Ecclesiastic heirarchies, and the belief in ideas foundational to traditional authority, took a back seat.

They became identified, from the perspective of modernism, with forces opposed to progress and social advancement.

Eventually, modernism (which is a precursor for the form of atheism that Bmw promotes) developed its own absolutist tendencies, and countercultures began to develop as the legitimacy of the modernist paradigm was brought into question by postmodernists.

So, again, it isn't clear why Bmw, as an so called atheist, would seek to defend the ideas that were the foundation of the traditional (oppressive/conformist) authority of religious hierarchies (such as the one that ultraconservative bahais are trying to maintain).

Perhaps atheists now feel the need to defend the absolutisms of modernism in the wake of the increasing erosion of belief in modernism (Reason and Scientific materialism)?

Perhaps some atheists feel a need to get into the same camp as the people promoting religious absolutism, even though the underlying beliefs are completely at variance? If so, that seems bizarro.

One was to "w"onder if someone has deceived Bmw and put him/her "up to something".

> Bmw wrote (Sun, 17 Jul 2011 19:32:24 -0700), in response to fubar
>
>
> Your God is no more real than the spaghetti monster. Atheism+
| fubar (unregistered) wrote: (in 2009?)| | the uhj will never be obeyed by all mankind because the teachings of
| bahaullah are backward. || evolution will discard bahai if it doesn't adapt, and discard large hunks
| of backward bahai theology.

Re: The Trouble with the World

Roosterpen — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 00:42:28 -0000

The comparison betwen manmade Institutions and a GOD made one has never had to be made so it is understandable after so much corruption in man's institutions there is a hestation to adopt the House of Justice and 'obey them unquestionable'. Buit this is the first time in human history that God Himself through a Prophet has directly ordained IN WRITING an administrative Order. So we should give it a go and put aside our suspicions and give it time to woeave it's magic. The House of Justice is infallible it's members are not. If anyone is not happy with a member they have a RIGHT to express that to the Supremem Body and I fully believe that if required the House of Justice would expel one of it's own members if disloyalty or other issues were involved unlike current political corruption. The lack of TRUST shown here is a by product of today's political corruption but I would advise that as we have never been endowed with an INFALLIBLE body in humanity's history let's not be too hasty to judge but trust in God because this has been penned in black and white by Baha'u'llah Himself

Re: The Trouble with the World

Amanda — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 03:23:24 -0000

Oh, okay. I've gotten 18 of them (from this thread) in the last couple of days.

Thanks!

Re: The Trouble with the World

Baquia — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 03:20:23 -0000

Amanda, there were some comments that had been incorrectly flagged as spam - I approved them recently so that's probably what you were being notified about.

Re: The Trouble with the World

Amanda — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 02:39:36 -0000

Baquia- I keep receiving new email notifications from Disqus that new comments have been made in this thread, but it is just recycling through the old messages from summer and sending alerts as if they are new. Everything alright?

Re: The Trouble with the World

Bird — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 00:24:42 -0000

There is no justice left in this world. Indeed it sounds unfair to utter such a statement but show me some and I'll start believing in it again.

PS Baquia- I miss you

Re: The Trouble with the World

AmadodeDios — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 21:18:11 -0000

In a shameful travesty of justice, the Iranian court has been doing its best / worst with our Yaran friends. We have prayed, written countless letters, and expected something more sensible, but they refuse to budge – their word is the last word.

Some of the Star chamber are already angry at me for suggesting that sometimes one doesn’t make the right decision perfectly the first time, and asking them to adjust their actions to make them fairer (more “just”), just as they visibly revise their own plans and systems. If I venture to draw any parallels between these two cases of injustice, they will surely be even angrier – and of course, ruder in person.

However, I think one comparison might be made. When Persian Bahá’ís are jailed under trumped-up charges and denied any recourse, what is our reaction? Do we say “Good for them! They get to suffer and become more spiritual!” Do we reflect that if they had just kept a lower profile and inspired less envy among the mediocre, they might be “free” today?

Actually, who knows what goes through anyone else’s mind, but I suspect that these “central ornaments”, like anyone else who cares about other people, and about justice, want to do what they can to find justice for these unfairly treated people, punished on the basis of lies.

However, for those of us who are victims of “infallible” rulings, the best we get is the interesting opportunity to learn from the results of unjust (and un-appealable) mistreatment.

Re: The Trouble with the World

N Wahid Azal — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 20:57:29 -0000

“Democratic Imperialism”: Tibet, China & the National Endowment for Democracy (2007)

http://dandelionsalad.wordp...

The Project For A New American Humanitarianism
Olympian Ambitions from Darfur to Tibet and Beijing
http://www.swans.com/librar...

Re: The Trouble with the World

N Wahid Azal — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 20:51:03 -0000

I don't mind posting my email here: wahidazal66@gmail.com

Don't worry, old friend. I won't be feeding you any conspiracy theories about Reptilians or the Rothschild domination of the world or even anything about Bohemian Grove and the Federal Reserve. We are talking about good old fashioned "special interest" big money politiking and the plutocratic 'agenda' manipulation in purportedly democratic systems and the money behind such endeavours. Ever heard about the NED (National Endowment for Democracy)? They are to Neo-Liberals what the Project for a New American Century is/was to Neo-Cons.

The Baha'i culture, I would argue, went down the drain long, long ago, before even Cole, Walbridge and talisman1. But there are forces in your country and in Western Europe who are indeed using the Haifan organization - as well as the entire human rights regime - for their own largely economic and geopolitical purposes, since human rights itself has lately become a big business money making enterprise just like anything else, not about saving lives nor advocating against tyrants of the left or the right.

Re: The Trouble with the World

fubar — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 15:21:26 -0000

ok. it works now! yeeeee haw. in firefox, I had to click on "subscribe to all comments". when posting as "guest".

Re: The Trouble with the World

fubar — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 15:13:10 -0000

hmmmm......

Re: The Trouble with the World

fubar — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 15:12:35 -0000

please ignore, this is a test
(not sure I'm getting email notifications on this thread).