Divine revelation

[robrecht]

Thanks, Sen.

[shunyadragon]

Is there a spiritual law that is not in the Bible? Does the Bible have a specific law that Christians have to obey that is not in Baha'i? (My guess is that there is no such law in the Bible, but I'm not sure).

The spiritual laws I can think of are: (1) The Harmony of Science and Religion. (2) Legal and Social Equality of Women. (3) The prohibition of all forms of slavery and involuntary indentured servitude.

I may add more after some thought. Some Spiritual Laws are matter an evolution of the Spiritual teaching or Law and not the fact that there is no such previous Law.

[robrecht]

The spiritual laws I can think of are: (1) The Harmony of Science and Religion. (2) Legal and Social Equality of Women. (4) The prohibition of all forms of slavery and involuntary indentured servitude.

I may add more after some thought. Some Spiritual Laws are matter an evolution of the Spiritual teaching or Law and not the fact that there is no such previous Law.

With respect to 2), have you figured out yet whether or not women may or should be elected to the Universal House of Justice?

What happened to 3)?

[shunyadragon]

With respect to 2), have you figured out yet whether or not women may or should be elected to the Universal House of Justice?

What happened to 3)?

Sorry missed three. We have discussed the question of UHJ. I do not try to (figure out????, more awkward terminology) Baha'i scripture. Notice I said, legal and social equality, and not whether at present they may be elected to the UHJ, which may change in the future as some Baha'is propose. This spiritual law is indeed absent from Judaism, Christianity and Islam, as well as the other spiritual laws mentioned.

It is awkward to personally demand that the spiritual laws and teaching conform to the way you want them to be.

[robrecht]

Sorry missed three. We have discussed the question of UHJ. I do not try to (figure out????, more awkward terminology) Baha'i scripture. Notice I said, legal and social equality, and not whether at present they may be elected to the UHJ, which may change in the future as some Baha'is propose. This spiritual law is indeed absent from Judaism, Christianity and Islam, as well as the other spiritual laws mentioned.

It is awkward to personally demand that the spiritual laws and teaching conform to the way you want them to be.

So you have now determined once again that women may not be elected to the Universal House of Justice? I ask because you have flip flopped on this issue a couple of times recently.

[shunyadragon]

So you have now determined once again that women may not be elected to the Universal House of Justice? I ask because you have flip flopped on this issue a couple of times recently.

You used a bait and switch. You cited different sources. One some Baha'is believe it so. A source I was not aware of. I referred you to Haifa and where the translation now takes place. Then you cited the Universal House of Justice specifically and I answered at the time that the UNJ of Haifa, Israel reflected the current view, and I acknowledged it may change. I believe at the time I answered all your questions. Dialogue DONE. No further discussion needed unless you can provide further relevant information or questions I have not addressed.

[robrecht]

You used a bait and switch. You cited different sources. One some Baha'is believe it so. A source I was not aware of. I referred you to Haifa and where the translation now takes place. Then you cited the Universal House of Justice specifically and I answered at the time that the UNJ of Haifa, Israel reflected the current view, and I acknowledged it may change. I believe at the time I answered all your questions. Dialogue DONE. No further discussion needed unless you can provide further relevant information or questions I have not addressed.

'Bait and switch' implies that I intentionally misled you, which, of course, I would never do and did not do. So that's another false ad hominem on your part. Allow me to refresh your memory as to the real nature of this exchange from my perspective.

OingoBoingo first brought up the fact here that women are not eligible for election (nine members every five years) to the Universal House of Justice, the governing body of the Baha'i faith. You gave what I considered a very encouraging initial response, namely, 'that ALL religious scripture must be interpreted in the light of the evolving knowledge science including Baha'i scripture' (70 cf 130), but then you said here that 'women not being allowed to be elected to the Universal House of Justice is not an issue of science but is rather a spiritual law' and, more specifically, "a spiritual law in the scripture of the Baha'i Faith" (100).

You considered OingoBoingo's attempts to engage in discussion of this and related matters to be "no intellible response nor meaningful dialogue" and so you said that you would not discuss this further with him (81), and that he had a history of being hostile to the Baha'i faith (87 147). By the way, OingoBoingo denied your ad hominem charge against him (91). NormATive and I thought he had brought up some interesting points, but you claimed that OingoBoingo had not posted 'the current position of the official Baha'i Doctrine' (93). And yet, by your own words, and your affirmation of the spiritual law in the sacred Baha'i scriptures, OingoBoingo appeared to have quoted the Baha'i doctrine accurately, at least with respect to the restriction of women from leadership positions within the Universal House of Justice.

I did my own quick research of this question and posted the position of the Universal House of Justice (104). Your position at that time was that the spiritual law that women may not be elected to the International House of Justice is not likely to change but could change, but only with another act of divine revelation and not through the evolution of scientific knowledge nor the decisions of the International House of Justice (130, 132). This seems to be related to your, as yet unexplained, belief that ‘the spiritual law and teachings in the Baha’i sacred scriptures are infallible and inerrant (156).

I also went looking for any Baha’is who did not accept this view and asked what you thought of their theological argumentation (518), which you accepted as valid, at least in part because of ‘their interpretation of the word 'rajul' (528) in Baha’i Revelation (530). You considered this to be ‘a scholarly process in studying the Arabic and Persian to come up with the best translation and understanding of Revelation’ (538). While you considered this to be simply a matter of translation (544), I considered the document to also be addressing larger interpretative issues of culture and sexism, including sexism on the part of some Baha’i leaders (545). In addition to trying to point out to you the more important issues that should not be avoided in this discussion, I also pointed out to you the weaknesses of some of their competitive argumentation (551), the conflicting claims of various bodies claiming to be the Universal House of Justice and my reasons for doubting the authenticity of this one (552 554 556), which you first understood to be the Universal House of Justice taking successively different positions (553) but eventually realized maybe you needed to look into this further (555), and now you appear to reject it altogether because it is not coming from the right source, ie, it is not from the authentic or authoritative Universal House of Justice (591).

If you would have been willing to engage in the actual work of theological argumentation and critical interpretation of your own religious beliefs, you would not have been subject to a so-called ‘bait and switch’ changing approach to authoritarian statements and claims. But your approach refuses to ‘answer the specific questions of what is Revelation and what is not, and you have ‘no desire to reform or change a religion from within’, which you view pejoratively as ‘a process of human pick and chose, or which shoes fit, which you avoid when considering what is Revelation. Once you accept a belief system, you accept what that religion teaches as Revelation’ (538). Personally, I think you would be much better served by a greater willingness to engage in rational reflection upon your own or other Baha’i claims of revelation that you prefer to merely accept without giving a rational account of why you accept certain scriptures as infallible and inerrant.

Before you accuse me (again) of being hostile to the Baha'i faith, or again refuse to discuss this matter, let me reassure you again, that I am in no way hostile to the Baha'i faith/philosophy; from what little I know of it, it seems to me like a very good approach to God and other faiths.