Baha'i V

[Vouthon]

From the Universal House of Justice:

…as regards Bahá’u’lláh’s marriage it should be noted that His three marriages were all contracted before He revealed His Book of Laws, and even before His declaration in Baghdád, at a time when Bahá’í marriage laws had not yet been known, and the Revelation not yet disclosed.
(25 May 1938 to a National Spiritual Assembly)
Bahá’u’lláh had no concubine, He had three legal wives. As He married them before the “Aqdas” (His book of laws) was revealed, He was only acting according to the laws of Islám,

Dear Nick

Peace be with you brother.

I have a question relating to Baha’u’llah’s marriages: When Baha’u’llah married his second and third wives was he not a Babi and therefore under the marriage laws of the Bab?

He married his second wife, Fatimih in 1849 and he married his third wife, Gawhar, in 1862. The Bab declared himself a Manifestation of God in 1844.

Did the Bab not promote monogamy and limit a man to one wife except in a case of infertility, in which they could have a second wife?

How then was Baha’u’llah’s second marriage to Fatimih in 1849 and third one in 1862 sanctioned under Babi law?

In the Bayan, in the exceptional case of spouse infertility, a married man was given permission to take a second wife for the express intent of conceiving a child. This exception in itself tells us that the general rule is monogamy.

Baha’u’llah was not a Muslim when he became a party in these marital contracts but rather a disciple of the Babi dispensation and therefore bound by its rulings, as far as my understanding is aware.

Kind regards,

Vouthon

 

[SteveVH]

Daler, let’s recap here for the sake of those viewing:

You said this:

Originally Posted by daler
Where my thoughts and understanding goes is that what we, in earthly language call “heaven”, is beyond words and description, where science cannot detect and religion also has limits. Hence, we are left with metaphorical hints which seem to take us beyond the physical world to a spiritual ocean, the closest to which we can come is the beach.

I responded with this:

My understanding of the Baha’i position is that unless something can be verified scientifically then it is not to be believed. You deny Christ’s glorified body because you say one cannot have a physical body and at the same time walk through walls. You hold this position because it doesn’t mesh with scientific truth. I am open to correction if this is not your position.

You then responded with this:

Steve,
. As God is the Author of Reality, and His Prophets are the Manifestations of God, and the “world” was created through the Word of God, the purpose of religion is to guide humanity towards God and His Reality through the teachings and examples of Those Whom He has sent to teach and guide us.

. When we are presented with fantastic stories which do not accord with normal reality, then are questioned as to whether to accept all such stories as true when we have no more to go on than that such stories have been handed down in traditions, the rational and thinking soul will ponder upon the likelihood of such stories as either being the truth, or like so many stories, the product of men’s imagination.

. Can I say whether or not Jesus walked through walls, appeared and disappeared, caused loaves and fishes to appear out of thin air? No… I cannot say whether this or that happened or not, for I was not present. But knowing something about people and the extent to which they tell stories, prefer “miracles” over reasonable explanations, and witness that myths are part of every human culture, I am drawn to conclude that it is quite possible that a few myths have crept into the telling of the New Testament as well.

. Jesus Himself first instructed His disciples to “share” the loaves and fishes they had with the crowd, setting an example for the masses of Jews and Gentiles to likewise share, and after all had eaten, there was food leftover.

. People’s appetite for miraculous events over the moral lesson, however, demonstrates itself yet today in the preference of people to believe in the physical miracle over the moral example in Jesus’ teaching, for it requires nothing of them intellectually or morally, other than to nod their heads in agreement to satisfy herd pressure, by which means their security is established.

. “If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science, they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition. Unquestionably there must be agreement between true religion and science. If a question be found contrary to reason, faith and belief in it are impossible, and there is no outcome but wavering and vacillation.” . Abdul Baha

Why is it that when Christians speak of Jesus’ miracles the Baha’i begin sowing seeds of doubt, if not outright rejecting them, based upon the fact that they do not comport with the natural world and scientific truth (which is why they are called “miracles” to begin with)?

At the same time, when the Baha’i are asked to explain their concept of the afterlife, for instance, we are told that these things are beyond human understanding, that they are “beyond words and description, where science cannot detect and religion also has limits. Hence, we are left with metaphorical hints which seem to take us beyond the physical world to a spiritual ocean, the closest to which we can come is the beach.”

This was my entire point. You hold the Christian position to the standard of providing scientific proof while exempting the Baha’i position from the same standard.

 

[Nick44]

Dear Nick

Peace be with you brother.

I have a question relating to Baha’u’llah’s marriages: When Baha’u’llah married his second and third wives was he not a Babi and therefore under the marriage laws of the Bab?

He married his second wife, Fatimih in 1849 and he married his third wife, Gawhar, in 1862. The Bab declared himself a Manifestation of God in 1844.

Did the Bab not promote monogamy and limit a man to one wife except in a case of infertility, in which they could have a second wife?

How then was Baha’u’llah’s second marriage to Fatimih in 1849 and third one in 1862 sanctioned under Babi law?

In the Bayan, in the exceptional case of spouse infertility, a married man was given permission to take a second wife for the express intent of conceiving a child. This exception in itself tells us that the general rule is monogamy.

Baha’u’llah was not a Muslim when he became a party in these marital contracts but rather a disciple of the Babi dispensation and therefore bound by its rulings, as far as my understanding is aware.

Kind regards,

Vouthon

Kind regards back to you.

Arthra, who is also posting on this thread, gave this answer to your question (last yr on another forum):

The wives of Baha’u’llah were determined by Shiah law and customs and were all arranged marriages…1835, 1849 and so on…

The laws of the Babi dispensation were slowly revealed over time in the Bayan and most of them were not enforced. … Many Babis had two wives… I was only able to find off hand the following:

He enjoined marriage as obligatory, favoured monogamy, yet allowed bigamy. In practice the Babis continued polygamy. He allowed divorce for any cause, such as a quarrel; but the divorced should wait a year before seeking another partner

bahai-library.com/wilson_mode…ements_moslems

 

[SteveVH]

Kind regards back to you.He enjoined marriage as obligatory, favoured monogamy, yet allowed bigamy. In practice the Babis continued polygamy. He allowed divorce for any cause, such as a quarrel; but the divorced should wait a year before seeking another partner.

And you refer to this man as the “Lord of mankind”. Really?

 

[rinnie]

rinnie;11323631:

rinnie, your church has adopted a kinder stance toward the Baha’is:

Roman Catholic Church re the Baha’i Faith
Getting to Know People of Other Faiths No. 8

W H A T I S T H E B A H A ’ I F A I T H ?
In the Vatican II ‘Declaration on the relationship of the Church with Non-Christians’ we find that the Church speaks with warmth and openness and greets People of Faith as partners in a single great enterprise. These religions contain much that is good and holy and provide ways of salvation for millions of people all over the world. Throughout the documents of Vatican II we find encouragement to respect, accept and meet as friends, those who profess faiths different from our own. The Baha’i Faith will be introduced here in this spirit.

Who are the Baha’is?

The Baha’i founders sprang from Islamic roots, but are seen by the Baha’is as founding a religion that fulfils all previous religions. Today Baha’is are people who formerly had different religious backgrounds. They have been Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Zoroastrians or else they had no religion at all. They give equal homage to all the past prophets, but believe that religion progressively evolves, and that Baha’u’llah is God’s spokesman for this age. Although Baha’is are from different religious, racial, national, economic and social classes, the Baha’i teachings has given them a higher loyalty–the loyalty to humanity.

To a Baha’i there is no demarcation between religion and everyday life. The most important prayer, Baha’is say, is a person’s daily life. Religion, in other words, is an attitude towards God reflected in life.

Today there are between 5 and 6 milion Baha’is in the world, extending over more than three hundred and forty countries, territories and island groups. In England there are 6,000 registered Baha’is (1989) with 180 local Assemblies, resident in over 400 localitie

This is true. The RCC accepts all truth. And accepts the truth we have in common with all faiths. But remember they also reject thing’s that go against the teaching of God.

The RCC believes that God has his way to tie all people together, rather it thier love for mankind, deeds, etc. And while we can disagree and show our disagreement it must always be in kindness and love for oneanother.

Just like you guys. I have great love and respect for you. I feel a great emotional bond for the way you guys control your anger, and you made me realize I need to be better at it.

All in the nutshell I think you guys are awesome sweet loving people. And although we are separated in God’s truth, I believe we are united in his Love.

 

[eddie_too]

Jesus told His followers that He would raise His body from the dead.

the bahai teach people that Jesus was mistaken or lying when He told His followers that He would raise His body from the dead.

who ya gonna believe, Jesus or the bahai?

 

[Nick44]

And you refer to this man as the “Lord of mankind”. Really?

Yes, indeed.

It’s easy to take our present understandings of how things should be and insert those same ideas into the times and cultures of the past. Since we weren’t there and really have no idea what it was like to live then, it is an unfair comparison to make.

I suspect that in the future, people will look back at our time and regard us all as a bunch of uncivilized brutes; wandering around and living in societies that didn’t have a clue.

Just as the sun rises slowly to let everything acclimate to its rays, so, God does not go BOOM with instant change but rather brings about a gradual evolvement.

 

[SteveVH]

Yes, indeed.

It’s easy to take our present understandings of how things should be and insert those same ideas into the times and cultures of the past. Since we weren’t there and really have no idea what it was like to live then, it is an unfair comparison to make.

Jesus condemned both polygamy and divorce long before Baha’u’llah saw the light of day. This is where your philosophy of relativism gets you into trouble. We are not talking about cultural mores here, we are talking about breaking the commandments of God.

 

[Vouthon]

Kind regards back to you.

Arthra, who is also posting on this thread, gave this answer to your question (last yr on another forum):

The wives of Baha’u’llah were determined by Shiah law and customs and were all arranged marriages…1835, 1849 and so on…

The laws of the Babi dispensation were slowly revealed over time in the Bayan and most of them were not enforced. … Many Babis had two wives… I was only able to find off hand the following:

He enjoined marriage as obligatory, favoured monogamy, yet allowed bigamy. In practice the Babis continued polygamy. He allowed divorce for any cause, such as a quarrel; but the divorced should wait a year before seeking another partner

bahai-library.com/wilson_mode…ements_moslems

Ah, I see thank you Nick

A year is quite a while back, especially in terms of short forum discussions. I did not recall asking this question already to Arthra on Baha’i Forums, so thank you for reminding me.

The answer is therefore, I suppose, that the Babi laws were revealed gradually and applied very liberally, given there incomplete (in terms of the Persian Bayan) and temporary nature (in view of the coming of the next dispensation in just a few decades)?

 

[Nick44]

Jesus condemned both polygamy and divorce long before Baha’u’llah saw the light of day. This is where your philosophy of relativism gets you into trouble. We are not talking about cultural mores here, we are talking about breaking the commandments of God.

Steve, it is our belief that any Manifestation of God has the right to keep, change or institute new laws . The next Manifestation also has the right to do that with any of the laws of Baha’u’llah.

 

[eddie_too]

nick44 wrote: “Steve, it is our belief that any Manifestation of God has the right to keep, change or institute new laws . The next Manifestation also has the right to do that with any of the laws of Baha’u’llah”

that sounds almost identical to the mormon concept of the “present day prophet” who according to the mormons has the exact same authority to keep, change or institute new laws.

both man made religions seems to be the most logical understanding.

 

[SteveVH]

Steve, it is our belief that any Manifestation of God has the right to keep, change or institute new laws . The next Manifestation also has the right to do that with any of the laws of Baha’u’llah.

Do you think there will be a time when a new “Manifestation” will allow murder, or stealing, or lying, or pedophilia? According to your position, this is at least theoretically possible, yes? Is there nothing that is wrong in every age, or might anything be permissible according to the whims of the next manifestation?

What you are attempting to proffer is a God who condemns ones actions in one dispensation and then promotes those same actions in another. Sounds like a very fickle god to me. This is certainly not the Christian God.

 

[Nick44]

Ah, I see thank you Nick

A year is quite a while back, especially in terms of short forum discussions. I did not recall asking this question already to Arthra on Baha’i Forums, so thank you for reminding me.

The answer is therefore, I suppose, that the Babi laws were revealed gradually and applied very liberally, given there incomplete (in terms of the Persian Bayan) and temporary nature (in view of the coming of the next dispensation in just a few decades)?

That is my understanding. The Bab’s mission was a very short six years, in fact, He did not complete the Persian Bayan, and said that it would be completed by ‘Him whom God would make manifest’ (Baha’u’llah). Baha’is believe that that completion was Baha’u’llah’s ‘Book of Certitude’.

 

[Nick44]

Do you think there will be a time when a new “Manifestation” will allow murder, or stealing, or lying, or pedophilia? According to your position, this is at least theoretically possible, yes? Is there nothing that is wrong in every age, or might anything be permissible according to the whims of the next manifestation?

What you are attempting to proffer is a God who condemns ones actions in one dispensation and then promotes those same actions in another. Sounds like a very fickle god to me. This is certainly not the Christian God.

There has NEVER been a Manifestation who did, or will, allow such things. The law of love, justice, mercy, etc, are never changed. The social expressions of these will change as conditions dictate.

The Golden Rule is the bedrock of ALL religions.

 

[SteveVH]

There has NEVER been a Manifestation who did, or will, allow such things. The law of love, justice, mercy, etc, are never changed. The social expressions of these will change as conditions dictate.

The Golden Rule is the bedrock of ALL religions.

Then you are agreeing that there is such a thing as objective truth; truth that never changes; truth that exists whether or not anyone believes it. Am I correct?

So if it is objectively wrong to commit adultery, then it is always wrong to commit adultery. Yet Baha’u’llah did commit adultery the moment he consummated his marriage to his second wife.

 

[Nick44]

You hold the Christian position to the standard of providing scientific proof while exempting the Baha’i position from the same standard.

Abdu’l-Baha has explained Baha’i belief in miracles as follows:

Question.—It is recorded that miracles were performed by Christ. Are the reports of these miracles really to be accepted literally, or have they another meaning? It has been proved by exact science that the essence of things does not change, and that all beings are under one universal law and organization from which they cannot deviate; and, therefore, that which is contrary to universal law is impossible.
Answer.—The Holy Manifestations are the sources of miracles and the originators of wonderful signs. For Them, any difficult and impracticable thing is possible and easy. For through a supernatural power wonders appear from Them; and by this power, which is beyond nature, They influence the world of nature. From all the Manifestations marvelous things have appeared.
But in the Holy Books an especial terminology is employed, and for the Manifestations these miracles and wonderful signs have no importance. They do not even wish to mention them. For if we consider miracles a great proof, they are still only proofs and arguments for those who are present when they are performed, and not for those who are absent.
For example, if we relate to a seeker, a stranger to Moses and Christ, marvelous signs, he will deny them and will say: “Wonderful signs are also continually related of false gods by the testimony of many people, and they are affirmed in the Books. The Brahmans have written a book about wonderful prodigies from Brahma.” He will also say: “How can we know that the Jews and the Christians 101 speak the truth, and that the Brahmans tell a lie? For both are generally admitted traditions, which are collected in books, and may be supposed to be true or false.” The same may be said of other religions: if one is true, all are true; if one is accepted, all must be accepted. Therefore, miracles are not a proof. For if they are proofs for those who are present, they fail as proofs to those who are absent.
But in the day of the Manifestation the people with insight see that all the conditions of the Manifestation are miracles, for They are superior to all others, and this alone is an absolute miracle. Recollect that Christ, solitary and alone, without a helper or protector, without armies and legions, and under the greatest oppression, uplifted the standard of God before all the people of the world, and withstood them, and finally conquered all, although outwardly He was crucified. Now this is a veritable miracle which can never be denied. There is no need of any other proof of the truth of Christ.
The outward miracles have no importance for the people of Reality. If a blind man receives sight, for example, he will finally again become sightless, for he will die and be deprived of all his senses and powers. Therefore, causing the blind man to see is comparatively of little importance, for this faculty of sight will at last disappear. If the body of a dead person be resuscitated, of what use is it since the body will die again? But it is important to give perception and eternal life—that is, the spiritual and divine life. For this physical life is not immortal, and its existence is equivalent to nonexistence. So it is that Christ said to one of His disciples: “Let the dead bury their dead;” for “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” 1
Observe: those who in appearance were physically alive, Christ considered dead; for life is the eternal life, and existence is the real existence. Wherever in the Holy 102 Books they speak of raising the dead, the meaning is that the dead were blessed by eternal life; where it is said that the blind received sight, the signification is that he obtained the true perception; where it is said a deaf man received hearing, the meaning is that he acquired spiritual and heavenly hearing. This is ascertained from the text of the Gospel where Christ said: “These are like those of whom Isaiah said, They have eyes and see not, they have ears and hear not; and I healed them.” 2
The meaning is not that the Manifestations are unable to perform miracles, for They have all power. But for Them inner sight, spiritual healing and eternal life are the valuable and important things. Consequently, whenever it is recorded in the Holy Books that such a one was blind and recovered his sight, the meaning is that he was inwardly blind, and that he obtained spiritual vision, or that he was ignorant and became wise, or that he was negligent and became heedful, or that he was worldly and became heavenly.
As this inner sight, hearing, life and healing are eternal, they are of importance. What, comparatively, is the importance, the value and the worth of this animal life with its powers? In a few days it will cease like fleeting thoughts. For example, if one relights an extinguished lamp, it will again become extinguished; but the light of the sun is always luminous. This is of importance.

 

[Nick44]

Then you are agreeing that there is such a thing as objective truth; truth that never changes; truth that exists whether or not anyone believes it. Am I correct?

So if it is objectively wrong to commit adultery, then it is always wrong to commit adultery. Yet Baha’u’llah did commit adultery the moment he consummated his marriage to his second wife.

Love God and your fellow man is an eternal keeper. Do not steal, lie, murder, etc, are in the same category.

However, the laws relating to marriage, divorce, etc, etc, change (or can be changed) from Revelation to Revelation. Since Baha’u’llah’s marriages were lawful to Him under the existing laws of Islam, and were entered into prior to His own Revelation, He broke no laws.

 

[eddie_too]

it seems that bahaism is simply momonism with a muslim origin.

the similarities between the teachings of bahaism and mormonism are striking to an objective viewer.

 

[Nick44]

Nick44;11323844:

rinnie;11323631:

Roman Catholic Church re the Baha’i Faith
Getting to Know People of Other Faiths No. 8

W H A T I S T H E B A H A ’ I F A I T H ?
In the Vatican II ‘Declaration on the relationship of the Church with Non-Christians’ we find that the Church speaks with warmth and openness and greets People of Faith as partners in a single great enterprise. These religions contain much that is good and holy and provide ways of salvation for millions of people all over the world. Throughout the documents of Vatican II we find encouragement to respect, accept and meet as friends, those who profess faiths different from our own. The Baha’i Faith will be introduced here in this spirit.

This is true. The RCC accepts all truth.

Just like you guys. I have great love and respect for you. I feel a great emotional bond for the way you guys control your anger, and you made me realize I need to be better at it.

All in the nutshell I think you guys are awesome sweet loving people. And although we are separated in God’s truth, I believe we are united in his Love.

:

 

[SteveVH]

Abdu’l-Baha has explained Baha’i belief in miracles as follows:

Great. But my question was not “please explain the Baha’i belief in miracles”. My question is why do you hold Christianity to a different standard than the Baha’i faith when it comes to things that are above and beyond science?

And please, would you mind dispensing with the long quotes from Baha’u’llah? That’s fine if one is asking you for a source. But it really gets tedious to even find the point being made due to the extraneous flowery wording present in all of his writings. I guess no one ever taught him about “deadwood”.