Law and Sanctions

[sara[h]ng]

I don't really understand the controversy with this. As with any group, the Baha'i Faith has the right to set it's own rules and see that the members of the group follow them. If someone does not like the rules it is their business, and their right and their obligation to leave said group. I understand that you have done this, Luna, and that's fine.

The Faith, again as with any group, has the right and obligation to insure, that if members of the group will not follow the group's rules, that the members leave.

You've made your beliefs known, both by leaving the Faith and by continued argument with the Baha'is here. You have your beliefs, they have theirs, and both need to be respected. There's no good reason to be upset about this.

- Sarah

[lunamoth]

[quote=Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

One is not under the Mosaic Law, though one should follow the Mosaic Law.

But Baha`i's are under the Law of the Aqdas, not the Torah.

Regards,
Scott

Scott, and Rick if you are reading, I appreciate your honest attempts at dialogue here. What you have posted is most worthy of consideration and polite discussion. I promise to return to this conversation when I can.

your friend,
Laurie

[BruceDLimber]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Just call me a fool.

Far be it from me to judge.

Originally Posted by lunamoth

I'm doing you a favor, Bruce.

That's what they told the tomcat before his operation.

Originally Posted by lunamoth

You've been spoiling for the clash of ideas in every post with your "just the facts" and in your face style.

Not really, no: I hugely prefer dialogue!

And if you don't like my font, you're most welcome to suggest I change it.

Peace,

Bruce

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by sara[h]ng

I don't really understand the controversy with this. As with any group, the Baha'i Faith has the right to set it's own rules and see that the members of the group follow them. If someone does not like the rules it is their business, and their right and their obligation to leave said group. I understand that you have done this, Luna, and that's fine.

The Faith, again as with any group, has the right and obligation to insure, that if members of the group will not follow the group's rules, that the members leave.

You've made your beliefs known, both by leaving the Faith and by continued argument with the Baha'is here. You have your beliefs, they have theirs, and both need to be respected. There's no good reason to be upset about this.

- Sarah

Hi Sara[h]ng, pleased to meet you.

You are right. You make several of the same points I've made here and in the other thread. Respect is a two-way street, as is dialogue.

Apologies for creating such a disharmonious thread. I am not usually this shrill, using Scott's word, which you might see if you peruse elsewhere in the fora. This actually is a situation that, for me, has been building over the past few months. The eruption of the ego is not pretty, but what can I say, I'm human.

peace,
lunamoth

[BruceDLimber]

So let's put our money where our mouths are (so to speak) and continue with friendly conversation, then!

"Less talk and more action" all 'round, as it were . . .

Peace,

Bruce

[arthra]

Lunamoth wrote:

I was living quite peacefully here at CR until a barage of Baha'i showed up to Blazen the Name of Baha'u'llah, telling everyone that they understand everyone else's religion better, that we all have our own religions wrong, we're all "inside a box", thousands of years of wisdom are written off as useless, problematic man-made dogma. It is proselytization, pure and simple. It may be presented in a gentle, obtuse manner, but it is clearly proselytization of the Baha'i Faith.

My comment:

Well I have noticed Luna moth that there's some hostility here but quite frankly I don't see Baha'is (or the "barage of Baha'is") doing what you suggest:

"that we all have our own religions wrong, we're all "inside a box", thousands of years of wisdom are written off as useless, problematic man-made dogma."

We had a topic on the principle of non-partisanship which got warped into "Baha'is and politics" and then which splintered off into any number of topics which well seemed to be presented and posed with somewhat of an "edge".

I really don't think Baha'is here are going around saying your religion is wrong...

It seems we are having difficulty discussing Baha'i topics on this Baha'i subject area without being accused of proselytizing. Why is that?

- Art

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by arthra

Lunamoth wrote:

I was living quite peacefully here at CR until a barage of Baha'i showed up to Blazen the Name of Baha'u'llah, telling everyone that they understand everyone else's religion better, that we all have our own religions wrong, we're all "inside a box", thousands of years of wisdom are written off as useless, problematic man-made dogma. It is proselytization, pure and simple. It may be presented in a gentle, obtuse manner, but it is clearly proselytization of the Baha'i Faith.

My comment:

Well I have noticed Luna moth that there's some hostility here but quite frankly I don't see Baha'is (or the "barage of Baha'is") doing what you suggest:

"that we all have our own religions wrong, we're all "inside a box", thousands of years of wisdom are written off as useless, problematic man-made dogma."

We had a topic on the principle of non-partisanship which got warped into "Baha'is and politics" and then which splintered off into any number of topics which well seemed to be presented and posed with somewhat of an "edge".

I really don't think Baha'is here are going around saying your religion is wrong...

It seems we are having difficulty discussing Baha'i topics on this Baha'i subject area without being accused of proselytizing. Why is that?

- Art

Well, Art, I actually do not consider anything here in the Baha'i Forum as proselytizing. This is what this forum is meant for. I am referring to a pattern of posts throughout the rest of the boards, noticed by more than just myself.

I am a member of Planet Baha'i and you know we've interacted on another forum as well, typically pleasant in my opinion. However, I've also seen posts by you and another member here discussing the fruitfullness and difficulties of teaching the Baha'i Faith on this and the other interfaith discussion board.

As for keeping threads on topic, I've noticed that whenever the derailment is friendly, positive toward the BF you don't say a word, but if it is critical, you feel compelled to point it out.

yours,
lunamoth

[smkolins]

I think many people have sincere intentions on saying things close to their heart, but with no little talking past eachother, not infrequently hearing not eachother but echoes of every other time we dwelt on the issues and or heard others say things. I"ll be generous to assume I've been party to the problem even as I'm equally sure we've tried to free ourselves of the problem.

Despite who brings up the details of the problem, I do feel there is a repeated problem but haven't found the words to express it. Perhaps we are close to a resolution - darkest before the storm and all that. My own version of the idea is that one spends about as much time getting into a problem as out of it, and the stage where one becomes aware of the problem, even before doing anything about it, does not come at the begining of the solution but somewher midway or so.

For the fundamentalism to me is not in having quotes, but in assuming that one knows what they mean and can have no need to delve for meaning oneself but simply to use more words tell another what they obviously mean. On occasion I have seasoned conversations in various threads with quotes but most often because of a "that reminds me of" kinds of feeling - and out of respect for the scripture which I feel has a status beyond anything I have to say but still wish to understand.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by smkolins

I think many people have sincere intentions on saying things close to their heart, but with no little talking past eachother, not infrequently hearing not eachother but echoes of every other time we dwelt on the issues and or heard others say things. I"ll be generous to assume I've been party to the problem even as I'm equally sure we've tried to free ourselves of the problem.

Despite who brings up the details of the problem, I do feel there is a repeated problem but haven't found the words to express it. Perhaps we are close to a resolution - darkest before the storm and all that. My own version of the idea is that one spends about as much time getting into a problem as out of it, and the stage where one becomes aware of the problem, even before doing anything about it, does not come at the begining of the solution but somewher midway or so.

For the fundamentalism to me is not in having quotes, but in assuming that one knows what they mean and can have no need to delve for meaning oneself but simply to use more words tell another what they obviously mean. On occasion I have seasoned conversations in various threads with quotes but most often because of a "that reminds me of" kinds of feeling - and out of respect for the scripture which I feel has a status beyond anything I have to say but still wish to understand.

A nice post, Steven. I agree.

lunamoth

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

The "Fruits of the Spirit" are best covered in the Epistles, in particular the Epistle to the Church of Galatia:

"5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

(He is of coursze, refering to the Mosaic Law)

5:5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
5:7 Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth? 5:8 This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you.
5:9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
5:10 I have confidence in you through the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be.
5:11 And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased.
5:12 I would they were even cut off which trouble you.
5:13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
5:15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.
5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
5:26 Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.

6:1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.
6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
6:3 For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself.
6:4 But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another.
6:5 For every man shall bear his own burden.
6:6 Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things.
6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

6:8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
6:9 And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.
6:10 As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.
(King James Bible, Galatians)

Verses 10,11-13 (the first in blue above) to me speaks of those who choose to make trouble for the community through some kind of behavior which is not OF the community. Baha`i's are called upon to exercise judgement and justice in those circumstances.

Verses 19-25 fits in well with Baha`i Law. Again, Baha`i's are called upon to judge and work justice and given those tools by revelation.

As to the verses in red (6: 1-7), this is a very good description of the process of counseling, more counseling, warning, more warning and eventual removal of rights all for what purpose? Not to cast out, but to bring back.

"The general basis for the deprivation of voting rights is of course gross immorality and open opposition to the administrative functions of the Faith, and disregard for the laws of personal status; and even then it is the duty of the National Assembly, before exercising this sanction, to confer with the individuals involved in a loving manner to help them overcome the problems; second, to warn them that they must desist; three, to issue further warning if the original warnings are not followed; and finally, if there seems no other way to handle the matter, then a person may be deprived of voting rights.
"The Guardian however, wishes the National Assemblies to be very cautious in using this sanction, because it might be abused, and then lose its efficacy. It should be used only when there seems no other way to solve the problem."
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 51)


Even a declared covenant breaker can come back to the faith if they are sincere.

Regards,
Scott

Dear Scott,

Yes, those passages from Paul are amazing, and even though I don't usually read the KJV, they are even more majestic and beautiful in that translation.

You've established that essentially there is no difference between these Christian teachings and the Baha'i teachings.

My reading of Paul is that we are no longer under the penalty of law, any law. No longer under penalty, but under the Spirit which is Love, love God and love each other. It does not make sense to me Christ freed us from bondage to law and then would return to bring a whole new bunch of very detailed (down to the minutia in some cases) laws.

Do I think those laws no longer serve a purpose? Of course they do! They are guidelines for conduct that will bring us true joy. Laws mean we are still babies. I think it is interesting that Baha'ullah only revealed the Aqdas at the end of His life, and (Kitab-i-Hearsay) that it was only becasue the friends insisted. Reminds me of the Israelites asking for a King. Do I believe in keeping people safe from others who would prey upon the innocent and do harm? Of course! But, once you get the idea of Love, really get it, have the Spirit within, the law is irrelevant.

The fruits of the Spirit flow out--you don't cram them in by law. Observance of the law then is your Christ nature, which is your true nature.

peace,
lunamoth

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by PrimaVera

No. I'm not sure how that answers my question. Are you claiming that I'm sitting in judgement of any particular individual?

Are you saying that you might not fully support a judgement made by the UHJ? When they sit in judgement, they represent every Baha'i. Do you feel no responsibility for the actions of the Institutions of the Administrative Order?

But actually, what I was saying is that we all struggle, but a gay Baha'i's struggle is much more socially visible, easily observed and judged (unless one chooses to hide their relationships. Ironic isn't it that closeted homosexuals who feel they must hide their relationships are the ones who can remain in good standing). If a gay Baha'i could grow up knowing the law, but not in fear of losing her community and perhaps family, there would be a lot more room for the Holy Spirit to work.

So, it has been in being empathetic to the plight of the gay Baha'i that I first started to question the validity of imposing sanctions. (Not compassionate) Further reasoning drew me to conclude that no sanction that separates a Baha'i from Feast/Funds/Voting is going to help heal whatever the problem is (not rational). And the inherant problems of lack of transparency in BAO proceedings, lack of accountability, lack of checks and balances and legal representation when in fact you are dealing with laws, lead me conclude that it is not just.

When did we start playing by fundamentalist rules? You suggested quoting the Aqdas, and quoting only some of it at that.

Time for me to start apologizing, I guess. Did I mention I've been under a lot of stress lately?

peace,
lunamoth

[lunamoth]

[quote=Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

One is not under the Mosaic Law, though one should follow the Mosaic Law.

But Baha`i's are under the Law of the Aqdas, not the Torah.

Regards,
Scott

And Christians are under the Law of Love.

The law defines sin and sin is death. Christ forgives sin and is the reconciliation of the world. The victory is won--all the rest is mopping up.

peace,
lunamoth

[PrimaVera]

Luna (Can I call you Laurie?)

Before I get back into the discussion, I want you to know I have no hard feelings. My absence from the thread through most of the day had nothing to do with the tone of the posts. My colleagues and I at work had an afternoon of what we affectionately refer to as "mandatory fun," a recreational/social gathering away from the atmosphere of work.

Before this afternoon, I was pretty sure I sucked at curling. Now, I have absolutely no doubt.

Also, in the interests of promoting further undrestanding, I wan't to be clear about my purpose in asking the questions I ask. I'm not a Baha'i because I think everything fits inside a neat, logical package. I'm a Baha'i because of Baha'u'llah's character and the fact that His Writings touch me to the depth of my soul. I don't expect everyone to adopt my point of view (not even other Baha'is as regards to a number of details), and I have a genuine interest in understanding other points of view.

One of the first messages I posted on CR spoke of the differences between plane and spherical geometry. We don't debate the relative merits of plane or spherical geometry. We just use the one that's appropriate under the circumstances. I rather hope we can do the same thing in comparative religions.

Now:

Originally Posted by lunamoth

You've established that essentially there is no difference between these Christian teachings and the Baha'i teachings.

My reading of Paul is that we are no longer under the penalty of law, any law. No longer under penalty, but under the Spirit which is Love, love God and love each other. It does not make sense to me Christ freed us from bondage to law and then would return to bring a whole new bunch of very detailed (down to the minutia in some cases) laws.

I have a different take on this, but it's rather personal. I think Paul saw salvation as a process, not an event. It is through Faith in Christ that we engage in the process, and the purpose of the law is to provide us with benchmarks to measure our progress as we engage in the process, or rather, as a means of telling us whether or not we are engaged in the process of salvation. Salvation, in this context, isn't something we achieve and it's not something that's given to us. Salvation is something we do.

This concept also conforms to Baha'i concepts as well. John Hatcher has written several books on the subject of the purpose of physical reality (the latest is available at our local Barnes and Noble bookstore). He starts by asking the basic question: if we are spiritual beings, why do we begin our lives trapped in this physical existence?

His answer to that question is two-fold: our purpose is to grow and develop spiritually (which, to me, is about the acquisition and development of virtues), and that we cannot grow and develop spiritually in a social vacuum. We need each other in order to grow and develop.

I have to run (my wife just called, and she's having back spasms, so I need to go feed the kids), but I'll see if I can't relate these ideas to the issue of sanctions in a future post.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

Dear Luna,

When and if the time comes that the laws of the Aqdas become the law of society THEN, the Universal House of Justice would be called upon to set law into legal terms.

By the way every single place where the Aqdas mentions death as a punishment it allows for imprisonment to be given instead. (Yes, I know. I was being inflammatory there, wasn't I--luna)
The implication here is the Universal House of Justice will turn the verses of the Aqdas into statute.

But in now wise is jurisprudence in any society regulated by Baha`i Law, and Baha`i communties must observe the law of the land in criminal matters.

Frankly, it seems to me that Baha'is present it both or either way, depending upon the point they wish to make: 1) the Faith is just a religion with no aims of being a government aside from those who freely join vs. 2) the BAO is the model for how the best way to govern the whole world, eventually everyone will realize this and submit to its authority or some version of its system.

If it is the Kingdom of God, it is for the governance of the whole world. Not just a religion. As others have pointed out, you don't separate state governance from religion from whatever other part of life in the Kingdom of God. It is the whole enchilada.

I don't know what that future AO would look like, but I can look at how the Faith operates in this day and make judgements about it. I see not only the potential for oppression, but the seeds of it in sanctions on gay Baha'is

As to being a perfect Baha`i - only Abdu'l Baha was a Perfect Exemplar.

The rest of us just do the best we can.

I know, Scott. I have no doubts that the motives of you, all the Baha'is here, and all of the Institution of the Faith are anything but purepure motives and doing the best that you can. (note--it's getting late for me, i'm trying to say i think you rmotives are pure)

But is the UHJ infallible? They are just men, just men, and just men, if you get my meanings.

When I was in the faith for a few months my first wife and I seperated and divorced. I look back on that time as painful, but I bless the guidance of the institution I received during the time, it did not make me "perfect", but it did allow me to successfully complete a year of paztience, a civil divorce and conduct myself in a way that respected myself, my ex-spouse and the community. I could not have asked for more.

Regards,
Scott

I loved being a Baha'i.

peace,
lunamoth

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by PrimaVera

I have a different take on this, but it's rather personal. I think Paul saw salvation as a process, not an event. It is through Faith in Christ that we engage in the process, and the purpose of the law is to provide us with benchmarks to measure our progress as we engage in the process, or rather, as a means of telling us whether or not we are engaged in the process of salvation. Salvation, in this context, isn't something we achieve and it's not something that's given to us. Salvation is something we do.

This concept also conforms to Baha'i concepts as well. John Hatcher has written several books on the subject of the purpose of physical reality (the latest is available at our local Barnes and Noble bookstore). He starts by asking the basic question: if we are spiritual beings, why do we begin our lives trapped in this physical existence?

His answer to that question is two-fold: our purpose is to grow and develop spiritually (which, to me, is about the acquisition and development of virtues), and that we cannot grow and develop spiritually in a social vacuum. We need each other in order to grow and develop.

Great take on it, Rick, and I can really get into that too. I look at salvation in much the same way.

Now, why do we need the Baha'i Faith again?

lunamoth