Orthodox

I've been pondering this since I was told there is no morality in Bahai's view of humanity, just the law of God.

Since God's moral teachings change every thousand years, and previous manifestations have are now wrong on certain issues. IE Jesus and his apostles taught that celibacy was a good thing where as Mirza seems to think everyone has to be married. That Muhammad allowed Multiple wives and intercourse with children (hypocritically keeping seven himself I believe, or somewhere along that line and of course having relations with the nine year old Aisha) but Polygamy and Peadophelia is now rejected in bahai if I am not mistaken? Thus making the previous teaching false and practice false?


Will likewise Mirza Husayn 2000 years in the future when a supposed manifestation will appear be contradicted and then be wrong himself?

Now I suspect there will be attempts to say they were not wrong at that time, but that doesn't mean they aren't wrong now.

arthra

Orthodox wrote:

I've been pondering this since I was told there is no morality in Bahai's view of humanity, just the law of God.

My comment:

"No morality in Baha'i view of humanity, just the law of God"..is a very strange statement to make.. Maybe you were thinking of the social ordinances of religion that change from time to time with each new dispensation, otherwise, we accept the "Golden Rule" and other moral virtues like telling the truth, not stealing, chastity or not causing disorder just as in every previous dispensation. Social ordinances include say laws about marriage, burial, ordinances about pulpits...kissing rings...no monasticism, etc.

Orthodox wrote:

Since God's moral teachings change every thousand years, and previous manifestations have are now wrong on certain issues. IE Jesus and his apostles taught that celibacy was a good thing where as Mirza seems to think everyone has to be married.

My comment:

So there is no confusion here the proper address on this forum is "Baha'u'llah" not "Mirza"..some degree of respect should be given... We don't call Jesus Christ "J.C." so proper address for Mirza Husayn Ali is His title "Baha'u'llah".

Celibacy or Monastic life was not as far as we know enjoined by Jesus Christ Himself in the Gospels...It may be monastic orders developed later among the early Christians in Egypt? In any event Jesus had specific teachings according to the Gospel about divorce .. that the Mosaic practice of giving a wife a decree of divorce was abrogated..Please see:

5:31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

(King James Bible, Matthew)

Since He addressed the issue of divorce He by implication is suggesting that marriage is a respected part of life...

Orthodox wrote:

That Muhammad allowed Multiple wives and intercourse with children (hypocritically keeping seven himself I believe, or somewhere along that line and of course having relations with the nine year old Aisha) but Polygamy and Peadophelia is now rejected in bahai if I am not mistaken? Thus making the previous teaching false and practice false?

My comment:

You may need to study more about the life of Prophet Muhammad and His teachings... A limit of four wives was set in the Qur'an and a provision that they were to be treated "equally".. since it is humanly impossible to treat two or more people equally it's believed that this actually implies monogamy.

According to the Qur'an a man may have up to four wives at any one time; the restriction on the number was not customary before the Qur'an. There are certain conditions, and the husband is required to treat all wives equally. A bride-to-be may stipulate in the marriage contract her conditions such as monogamy. A woman may not have more than one husband. This is regarded as unacceptable because it could create difficulty in determination of paternity and hence responsibility of upbringing of children and inheritance.

Marriage in Islam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


At the time of Jesus some Jews had a Levirate marriages and hence had more than one wife..there is no accepted verses in the Gospel where Jesus forbids this practise that I'm aware of.

Orthodox wrote:

Will likewise Mirza Husayn 2000 years in the future when a supposed manifestation will appear be contradicted and then be wrong himself?

Now I suspect there will be attempts to say they were not wrong at that time, but that doesn't mean they aren't wrong now.

My comment:

Again and for emphasis what I think should be made clear for you here is that social ordinances such as marriage change from dispensation to dispensation... So according to Baha'u'llah the next Manifestation will appear in "no less than a thousand years"..Should the next Manifestation reveal new ordinances regarding marriage it would be possible but not necessarily so. The needs and requirements of the future are really unknown to us!

I also feel it may be you are unfamiliar with Baha'i law regarding marriage.. Monogamy is enjoined on all believers as well as the consent of living parents of the prospective spouses. Divorce can be granted after a year of patience in which the parties involved are to seek to reconcile or at least work on some of the issues that lead to differences and problems in the marriage. There is no such thing as elopement in the Baha'i marriage law.. and sex outside of marriage is forbidden. The age of maturity for Baha'is begins at fifteen years of age ... that is a minimum age for marriage if all other aspects of Baha'i law are met.

Orthodox

Arthra I call him mirza because that is his name, if I am not mistaken and I cannot possibly address him at his title because I do not believe he was truly the glory of God. A false prophet cannot be the glory of God. Just like I wouldn’t expect a Jew to call Jesus the Christ, respect my wishes to call him by his actual name and not a title I believe he has no right or privildge to.
Now I’m not talking about Monasticism, I’m talking a life of celibacy which Jesus Christ clearly taught was permissible when he spoke of Eunuchs. Of Course he is not being literal and suggesting we should actually have our penises cut off, rather he is speaking to those who would be made celibate and we should keep to this. This is also reflected in Paul’s epistles where he likewise says its permissible and says its only inadvisable should one burn with lust. Monasticism I do believe has it’s roots in Christ and is like the calling the Prophet John, who lived alone in seclusion baptizing and teaching, a simple life dedicated to God.
Now was the law abrogated? No it was fulfilled and explained in Christ. Jesus explains that Moses gave the law because of their weak hearts and goes on to show the true meaning and way things should be. He never ordains marriage for everyone.
Now I have done what I would consider adequate study to know what the Islamic sources say in regards to Muhammad, he had more than four wives as the hadiths attest to. And we might also take this as an embarrassing statement no? What is the likelihood of early pious muslims who knew men were limited to four wives saying Muhammad had more? The quran trumps all, though the life of the prophet is to be upheld as an example for everyone. Theres no reason to make this up.
Now you suggest Christ accepts polygamy? Clearly he doesn’t he warns and tells us how men were Created, man and woman together. Though perhaps God might change his reasoning in a 1000 years no?
But how is marriage not a moral issue? It seems to me saying that it’s a social issue ignores the point. For instance would you say pedophilia was wrong? Now you should if you are a moral human being and then you have to ask, was it acceptable for Muhammad to have sex with Nine year old Aisha at the age of fifty as the Hadith sources indicate? Or was that merely a social teaching? Thus we need to see its nto social but moral. Unless you are going to defend such a notion, which I hope to God you will not.

arthra

Two things orthodox..

one is that this section of the forum is dedicated to

"Baha'i Teachings - Social principles and Covenant"

not Muslim or Orthodox social principles, not to the life of Prophet Muhammad..not to eunuchs, monasticism or polygamy... but Baha'i Teachings.

Secondly your statement:

"I call him mirza because that is his name, if I am not mistaken.."

The term "Mirza" is an honorific title..

Mirza (Persian: میرزا Kazakh: мырза, myrza Russian: мурза Circassian: мырзэ), (common variance in Tatar nobility as Morza) is of Persian origin, denoting the rank of a high nobleman or Prince

Why did Baha'u'llah have this title?

He was the son of a Vizier:

The father of Bahá'u'lláh was Mirza 'Abbas-i-Nuri, the son of Mirza Rida-Quli Big,[1] of the village of Takur, in the district of Nur, of the province of Mazindaran. Mirza 'Abbas came to be known as Mirza Buzurg-i-Vazir (Mirza Buzurg, the Vizier)...A royal decree bestowed upon Mirza 'Abbas the name Mirza Buzurg, and invested him with a robe of honour - a garment which the monarch himself had worn. At the same time the Shah exempted the people of the village of Takur from the payment of taxes. A few years later, Mirza Buzurg was appointed vizier to Imam-Virdi Mirza, the twelfth son of Fath-'Ali Shah, who was the Ilkhani' (chief of the clans) of the Qajar tribe (to which the royal family itself belonged).

(H.M. Balyuzi, Baha'u'llah - The King of Glory, p. 11)

tonyfish58

Baha'u'llah is the name He is known by. I think you have just chosen to be disrespectful on the Baha'i Forum...

Otherwise......

What would you like to call Muhammad? This was His Name - Abu al-Qasim Muhammad Ibn Abd Allah Ibn Abd al-Muttalib Ibn Hashim.

One translation of Muhammad is "The Much Praised One"

Or do you beleive Muhammad was a prophet?

Regards Tony

tonyfish58

Reply to Question "Will Mirza Husayn (Baha'u'llah) be wrong or mistaken in 2000 years?

IMHO and from study - No

Regards Tony

BruceDLimber

You have already been told CLEARLY on another forum by a Baha'i far more learned on this subject than I--indeed: by a professor of religion, no less--that this accusation is UTTER NONSENSE!!!

So why are you repeating it here?

The next Divine Messenger can come in far less than 2,000 years according to the Baha'i scriptures, so your other question will probably be moot.

And Mirza is a title, NOT a name--the equivalent of "Mister."


Bruce

Orthodox

I’m well aware of the social teaching excuse to say they really don’t contradict each other, but only in the practices they implemented. But that doesn’t go against my point. Under this view anything might be considered a social teaching, perhaps murder is only a social teaching and the next manifestation will say you are allowed to murder enemies of the faith. But even then on the fundamental issues these prophets still contradict each other. Christ and Muhammad taught of a literal resurrection, Husain did not.
But then I will simply call him Husain and strip him of any dignity then. Husain.
Now Bruce this is not nonsense, the hadiths are rife with accounts about Muhammads various wifes and especially his youngest wife Aisha whom is regarded by some Muslims as the mother of the faithful I believe. True I don’t give much stock to the Hadiths historically, in fact I think we can’t know a whole lot about Muhammad because the sources are just so unrealiable. But for you who might place his faith in a man all you can rely on for details of this man is the hadith and nothing more. Or else you believe a book that came by a man named Muhammad and nothing more.

arthra

Orthodox wrote:

"I’m well aware of the social teaching excuse to say they really don’t contradict each other, but only in the practices they implemented. But that doesn’t go against my point. Under this view anything might be considered a social teaching, perhaps murder is only a social teaching and the next manifestation will say you are allowed to murder enemies of the faith."

My comment:

I really don't think you understand what we mean by the changes in social ordinances from dispensation to dispensation..

Above I defined it this way:

"Maybe you were thinking of the social ordinances of religion that change from time to time with each new dispensation, otherwise, we accept the "Golden Rule" and other moral virtues like telling the truth, not stealing, chastity or not causing disorder just as in every previous dispensation. Social ordinances include say laws about marriage, burial, ordinances about pulpits...kissing rings...no monasticism, etc."

Diet would be a social ordinance as in certain foods might be forbidden such as pork.. forbidding alcohol would be a social ordinance.

Murder is not a social ordinance!

Murder is commonly defined as

"The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.."

Essence of GOD

orthodox,
i love you brother, but heres the thing.

lets say you are right, and we are wrong and doomed for eternity and hell and all that bad stuff.
i can say for everyone here who truly believes in this mirza guy, we much rather live in hell next to mirza, than in heaven without mirza.

so please, let us take our punishment in peace.
we promise we wont harm a soul during our time in this world.

forgive us, and let us go to hell in peace.

thanks again for your concern, and for trying to inform us.

but we made our peace.

BruceDLimber

Thanks so much, Orthodox, for totally ignoring my point that a professor of religion (with credentials far better than either of ours) has said your comments about Muhammad and Aisha are ridiculous.

Nor am I impressed by intentional discourtesy on your part--to Baha'u'llah or anyone else!

Bruce

BruceDLimber

You might do well to become more familiar with the Baha'i Faith and its teachings, the more so given that its scriptures do NOT posit anyone's spending an "eternity in hell!"

Peace,

Bruce

Essence of GOD

orthodox might believe in hell,
i was writing for his point of view.

yes i know bahais dont believe in hell

peace,

essence

BlinkeyBill

Orthodox I am rather interested in your comments I gather that you are an Atheist.
As over the years of my studies I have found no religion that teachers its followers to be rude and un-loving to others, so I suppose with someone like yourself who does not believe in God, that the Baha'i writings appear strange. As I imagine does the writings of Mohammad and the Christian Bible etc. But I find it strange if you are not a believer why are you here trying to discuss things of which you do not believe?

tonyfish58

Blinky Bill - Orthodox claims to follow Orthodox Christianity.

Regards Tony

BruceDLimber

Wrong.

Baha'is most definitely believe in both Heaven and hell: Heaven is spiritual nearness to God; hell spiritual remoteness. And both exist here and now as well as in the Next Life: each of us is in one or the other at each instant as a function of "where our heads are at."

Further, the Baha'i scriptures state this:

"They say, Where is Paradise and where is hell? Say: The one is reunion with Me; the other thine own self, O thou who dost associate a partner with God and doubtest."
--Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 132

Peace,

Bruce

LordOfGoblins

Well... Actually. In Essence of Gods defense. Caiphas won eternal shame.
You know, I think you are correcting someone with a sensitive personality. Thats the only reason why I am posting this...



"Caiaphas lived a comfortable and happy life while Peter's life was full of sorrow and trial; which of these two is the more enviable? Assuredly we should choose the present state of Peter, for he possesses immortal life whilst Caiaphas has won eternal shame. The trials of Peter tested his fidelity. Tests are benefits from God, for which we should thank Him. Grief and sorrow do not come to us by chance, they are sent to us by the Divine Mercy for our own perfecting.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks, p. 50)
"

Yeshua

My dear and beloved brother Essence,

As opposed to our dear brother Bruce, who I think in his desire for truth has let correct faith go before respect and charity in this single instance (orthodoxy [correct belief] instead of orthopraxy [correct living]) in failing to perceive the sincerity and heartfelt nature of your words irrespective of their 'corectness' or not, and our dear brother Orthodox, who will probably not appreciate your words because of his current state of mind and hardness of spirit, I really appreciate what you wrote above. In fact, I find it deeply moving.

Your love for Baha'u'llah which has led you to write that brave statement above is so very admirable.

How can I not be moved by the genuine, potent commitment and loyalty of believers to their chosen faiths?

It is beautiful. It is wonderful. Your earnest and commited heeding of the dictates of your conscience is a powerful example to all in this thread.

If this forum had a like button, I would have 'liked' what you wrote above.

May God Bless you for such steadfastness and devotion to the Baha'i Faith and Baha'u'llah. May followers of all religions possess such depth of commitment!

LordOfGoblins

Yeshua
You basically did what I was trying to do but in a far more skilled way!!!
WHy cant I have those verbal skills???
DAMIT!!

Yeshua

You expressed yourself better than me!

Isn't it a sign of true wisdom if truth can be expressed simply and with few words? Abdu'l-Baha said that we are all too have the faith of Peter - yes, not a dry, intellectual, wordy faith but the faith of a simple, earnest, hard-working, down to earth fisherman who from his humble abode by the sea, through the power of Christ, became a fisher of "men", of souls.

That is why in the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches, one is given the title of "Theologian" not because one has great knowledge of all matters of faith and can wax lyrical about the articles of faith but rather because one has underwent genuine mystical experience, union with God. Theology is not "doxy" (belief) but rather "praxis" (experience); it is not about learning facts and having a great brain for accumulating knowledge but about living a life of union with God, a life of true mystical experience.

"Theologian" was not applied to Saint Symeon (949–1022 AD) in the modern academic sense of theological study, but to recognize someone who spoke from personal experience of the vision of God. One of his principal teachings was that humans could and should experience theoria (literally "contemplation", or direct experience of God). Symeon endured severe opposition from church authorities, particularly from the chief theologian of the emperor's court, Archbishop Stephen, who at one time was the Metropolitan of Nicomedia. Stephen was a former politician and diplomat with a reputation for a thorough theoretical understanding of theology, but one which was removed from actual experience of the spiritual life. Symeon, in contrast, held the view that one must have actual experience of the Holy Spirit in order to speak about God, at the same time recognizing the authority of scripture and of the earlier church fathers.

In Archbishop Stephen, the 'archenemy' of Saint Symeon, we see the erroneous kind of theologian/ religious person, with a purely intellectual knowledge of faith - like scientific facts - unaccompanied by genuine spiritual experiences of the Divine.

In one of his hymns, Saint Symeon had Christ speaking the following rebuke to the bishops::

"They (the bishops) unworthily handle My Body
and seek avidly to dominate the masses...
They are seen to appear as brilliant and pure,
but their souls are worse than mud and dirt,
worse even than any kind of deadly poison,
these evil and perverse men!" (Hymn 58)

I have a tendency for "verbage", which can actually be a weakess if I don't make use of it properly, and in humility.

May we all have the gift of simple, down to earth faith! And may we never fall into the trap of possesing the deficient faith of a Caiaphas or an Archbishop Stephen!

Essence of GOD

thank you, thank you a thousand times.
god bless you for seeing the essence of my words.

i love you man

Yeshua

I love you too my dear brother

BruceDLimber

But what I am referring to is this passage:

"It is even possible that the condition of those who have died in sin and unbelief may become changed; that is to say, they may become the object of pardon through the bounty of God, not through His justice; for bounty is giving without desert, and justice is giving what is deserved. As we have the power to pray for these souls here, so likewise we shall possess the same power in the other world, which is the Kingdom of God.... Therefore in that world also they can make progress. As here they can receive light by their supplications, there also they can plead for forgiveness, and receive light through entreaties and supplications."
--Some Answered Questions

Peace, :-)

Bruce

Truthseeker96

thats how I feel about the Baha'i Faith, I will stand by it forever. Orthodox , i been reading all the posts i can find from you and it seems you just like trying to poke holes in somthing that you cant. My one question is why do you always come here and disrepect our faith when we show the upmost respect for yours. If you wanted to learn more then you'd be respectful.so whats your reason to do all this it seems to upset people. If you read this than thanks for giving us more to make our faith stronger but please show a little respect even if you dont believe .

Yeshua

Nicely put brother!

Orthodox

See Arthra that distinction isn’t clear, I don’t think there is any reason as to suppose that murder cannot be a social teaching like eating certain foods within bahai. In fact all practices could be social teachings and they would be immoral in certain generations but not now, for instance you might say the monks are committing an immoral or evil action right now but in the past they were not, the same with murder.
Now essence, what you fail to see is that I am not dooming you to hell I am only asking the question, since things are subjective in the mind of God in Bahai, that is say Monasticism was once good and now it is evil. Or Polygamy was once good then evil then good again and now I believe evil again where is the consistency?
Now bruce you can ignore the hadiths that’s fine, historically I doubt all of them with the exception of some (the satanic verses seem the most likely to be true) but since you know nothing of muhammad’s life without them you need them in order to know anything, even your prophet quoted from them while rejecting the ones he personally didn’t like.
And Blinky I am no athist.

LordOfGoblins

Yep. He can do what he wants. Thats why things like slavery which is pretty much a decadent practice was not forbidden in the oldtestament. Cos the law changes. If the next manifestation was to permit murder though, obviously an upright man will have trouble recognising him as the new manifestation of God. First you have to recognise him before you have any reason to believe in his laws. What is his reason for permitting such a radical backwards step?
It comes down to judgement.


XXXVII. Blessed is the man that hath acknowledged his belief in God and in His signs, and recognized that "He shall not be asked of His doings." Such a recognition hath been made by God the ornament of every belief, and its very foundation. Upon it must depend the acceptance of every goodly deed. Fasten your eyes upon it, that haply the whisperings of the rebellious may not cause you to slip.

Were He to decree as lawful the thing which from time immemorial had been forbidden, and forbid that which had, at all times, been regarded as lawful, to none is given the right to question His authority. Whoso will hesitate, though it be for less than a moment, should be regarded as a transgressor.

Whoso hath not recognized this sublime and fundamental verity, and hath failed to attain this most exalted station, the winds of doubt will agitate him, and the sayings of the infidels will distract his soul. He that hath acknowledged this principle will be endowed with the most perfect constancy. All honor to this all-glorious station, the remembrance of which adorneth every exalted Tablet. Such is the teaching which God bestoweth on you, a teaching that will deliver you from all manner of doubt and perplexity, and enable you to attain unto salvation in both this world and in the next. He, verily, is the Ever-Forgiving, the Most Bountiful.

(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 86)

Magi728

Great Question .. Orthodox...



I Would Say that the Teachings of Baha'u'llah will not be found to be wrong..but out dated.

For that future era, if not, there would be no need nor cause for another prophet to arrive.


With Love,


Magi.......

Magi728

And I See In Another Attention, That Prophet Arriving as a Woman. To Fulfill the True Equality of * Progressive Revelation *.




With Love,



Magi.......

Nima21

Where did the figure of 2000 years come from?

tonyfish58

Welcome Nima - The poster usually gets the quotes/references a bit wrong.

1000 years would be the inference. That is after the expiration of a full thousand years the way is open for another Prophet.

Regards Tony

BlinkeyBill

Dear Orthodox
Quote:-And Blinky I am no athist.End quote

Sorry it is just that your argue like one.

Quote:-Now was the law abrogated? No it was fulfilled and explained in Christ. Jesus explains that Moses gave the law because of their weak hearts and goes on to show the true meaning and way things should be. He never ordains marriage for everyone.End quote.

Now to my understanding from my bible Christ was talking about divorce, in what you paraphrase concerning Moses abrogating the law. This in no way defends your belief that Christ did not sanction marriage. As to every one marrying even Baha'u'llah does not say that, I understand He says it is commendable or encouraged, but also if one stays celibate there is no shame

You have far different understandings of the Bible than many other Christians, to argue about them in a Baha'i forum is interesting. Why do you not argue your ideas in a Christian forum I am sure you will get the reaction you crave far better there.

peace brother you walk your path and we Baha'i's will walk ours