Another negative Baha'i site
compx2
the Baha'i Faith.
I believe those who consider themselves Baha'is see me as one of the
foremost criticisers of the Baha'i Faith, but I deny it. My version
of the Baha'i Faith is consistent with the Writings and loyal to
Baha'i Administration. However I disagree with just about every
Baha'i I know.
It has always been my contention that the Baha'i Faith needs to
accept, even embrace, the diversity of opinion that I represent to
Baha'is who disagree with me. We need to see those who disagree with
us but not with Baha'u'llah and the Administrative Order as Baha'is,
as our friends, as our community and our family.
But that has not been the case. We have divisive, doctrinal
differences, and we should not. I can accept that Baha'is with
inconsistent, silly interpretations of the Baha'i Writings exist. I
think it is unavoidable.
Until Baha'is see it as unavoidable that Baha'is will disagree with us
specifically and generally, the Faith of God cannot grow under the
Most Great Name.
--Kent
diamondsouled
I know that Abdu'l-Baha' was referring specifically to the
deliberations that go on in Spiritual Assembly council, but I do see
it as having a broader relevance as well as applicability:
The members thereof [1] must take counsel together in such wise that
no occasion for ill-feeling or discord may arise. This can be attained
when every member expresseth with absolute freedom his own opinion and
setteth forth his argument. Should anyone oppose, he must on no
account feel hurt for not until matters are fully discussed can the
right way be revealed. The shining spark of truth cometh forth only
after the clash of differing opinions. If after discussion, a decision
be carried unanimously well and good; but if, the Lord forbid,
differences of opinion should arise, a majority of voices must
prevail.
[1 Of a Spiritual Assembly]
(Abdu'l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p. 87)
A: "clash of differing opinions" is not always a comfortable thing
and I know that personally I have found it difficult to participate in
some discussions with Baha'is because I know that reaction to my
opinions and views may sometimes invoke hard feelings, even anger.
The solution for what ails humanity is not going to be found solely
though amicable discussion. There are some very difficult issues that
are going to take a lot of clashing of: "differing opinions", to hash
out. The important thing is to never lose sight of what all this
seeming disagreement is eventually leading to.
Although I no longer believe that the Baha'i faith will play a major
role in humanities coming of age I do still believe that many of the
concepts that Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha as well as Shoghi Effendi gave
voice to are worthy concepts. The thing that I have come to believe is
that such concepts themselves transcend the individuals who have given
them voice and that the true importance and value of such concepts
lays in actually living by them and not belief in any special station
for those who have given such concepts voice.
I'm currently about half way through Karen Armstrong's book: The
Battle for God. It has greatly helped me understand the roots of
fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and although Baha'i
fundamentalism is not specifically mentioned, in the Baha'i faith as
well.
Many religionists, perhaps even the greater majority of religionists,
hold an triumphalistic view of their own religion. This is likely one
of the greatest hindrances to religion's positive contribution to
humanities collective welfare.
As with you I am finding people who are more like minded amongst
those who are more oriented towards an ecumenical and interfaith
approach to human spirituality. If a person does a little research it
is really not all that surprising to find that the more conservative
amongst religionists from all religions find this trend towards
ecumenism be a great threat to their more orthodox approach to
religion.
People tend to treat religion as if it were a personal possession and
this tendency inspires a lot of territoriality as well as
defensiveness.
This is why I have come to believe that there is more hope for
humanity in focusing on the positive concepts themselves that have
come from all religions and allowing the unhealthy attachment to the
forms and personas of religion to be left behind.
It is only in this manner that religion will become a force for good
in this world and religion will cease to be: "the most harmful agency
on the planet"*, as Abdu'l-Baha himself put it.
Take heart Kent we are all really working towards the same positive
outcomes for humanity, it is just that we are all at different points
in our understanding of what is required of us as individuals, as well
as members of differing faiths, to bring about these positive
outcomes.
Cheers
Larry Rowe
*Thus religion which was destined to become the cause of friendship
has become the cause of enmity. Religion, which was meant to be sweet
honey, is changed into bitter poison. Religion, the function of which
was to illumine humanity, has become the factor of obscuration and
gloom. Religion, which was to confer the consciousness of everlasting
life, has become the fiendish instrument of death. As long as these
superstitions are in the hands and these nets of dissimulation and
hypocrisy in the fingers, religion will be the most harmful agency on
this planet. These superannuated traditions, which are inherited unto
the present day, must be abandoned, and thus free from past
superstitions we must investigate the original intention. The basis on
which they have fabricated the superstructures will be seen to be one,
and that one, absolute reality; and as reality is indivisible,
complete unity and amity will be instituted and the true religion of
God will become unveiled in all its beauty and sublimity in the
assemblage of the world.
(Abdu'l-Baha, Divine Philosophy, p. 161)
mike3
<snip>
> Although I no longer believe that the Baha'i faith will play a major
What then do you believe _would_ play that major role?
<snip>
diamondsouled
There needs to be a meeting of minds, a genuine reconciliation; not
only between religionists and religions but between secular humanists,
Buddhists, as well as people with other non-theistic philosophies.
IMHO there is more hope for humanity contained in documents such as
our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms than there is in any
religion's particular ideologies:
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/
Baha'is believe that The Aqdas will eventually become a charter for
all of humanity but if a person objectively reads both the Aqdas as
well as Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms you can already see
where the hundred and fifty years between the writing of the Aqdas and
today has very much dated most of it. The Aqdas would not be
considered to be progressive by the majority of people living here in
the West. Perhaps in Saudi where there is still beheading and the
cutting off of hands it might be considered to be some what
progressive by some liberal Muslims.
Personally I see more hope for the future in genuine ecumenical
pursuits; that is, as far as religion goes.
For religion to shed it's aspect as: "the most harmful agency on this
planet"*, as Abdu'l-Baha' himself put it, I believe it is necessary
for all religions, including the Baha'i faith, to drop their
triumphalistic pretenses. I see such pretenses as a part and parcel of
why religion continues to be: "the most harmful agency on this
planet"*.