Divine revelation

[OingoBoingo]

You have repeatedly ignored the fundamental principle of the Baha'i Faith that ALL religious scripture must be interpreted in the light of the evolving knowledge science including Baha'i scripture.

Explain then how the current Baha'i beliefs about homosexuality, that homosexuality is aberrant, and requires treatment, is interpreted in the light of the evolving knowledge of science. This should be good. While you're at it, explain to us all why females are not eligible for election to the Universal House of Justice if the Baha'i faith is a bastion of social and legal equality of women. These issues really sound like the workings of a religion that has, as you say, clung "to ancient paradigms with little or no relevance to today' knowledge of the world we live in today."

[OingoBoingo]

Does he do that on purpose? Or is he just "not all there"?

I don't know. There are a lot of signs that point in that direction. In a recent thread with robrecht about Star Trek and his own personal sci-fi writings he was completely incapable of seeing that a post he wrote was obviously contradictory. It took like a couple pages of robrecht repeating his own words back to him again and again (with quotation marks and everything) before it finally clicked in his head, and he realized that he forgot a word or something that totally changed his original meaning. I mean, that's a small example of larger issues, but it gets the idea across. Something ain't right about that boy.

[Cow Poke]

I don't know. There are a lot of signs that point in that direction. In a recent thread with robrecht about Star Trek and his own personal sci-fi writings he was completely incapable of seeing that a post he wrote was obviously contradictory. It took like a couple pages of robrecht repeating his own words back to him again and again (with quotation marks and everything) before it finally clicked in his head, and he realized that he forgot a word or something that totally changed his original meaning. I mean, that's a small example of larger issues, but it gets the idea across. Something ain't right about that boy.

Thanks. Resisting. Temptation. To. Say. More.

[shunyadragon]

being physically evolved from the animal kingdom

Explain then how the current Baha'i beliefs about homosexuality, that homosexuality is aberrant, and requires treatment, is interpreted in the light of the evolving knowledge of science. This should be good. While you're at it, explain to us all why females are not eligible for election to the Universal House of Justice if the Baha'i faith is a bastion of social and legal equality of women. These issues really sound like the workings of a religion that has, as you say, clung "to ancient paradigms with little or no relevance to today' knowledge of the world we live in today."

You have a hostile combative view of the Baha'i Faith, and you have ignored my posts in the past explaining some of these issues. It is a problem continuing any dialogue with you, but the following points may help, but I doubt it.

(1) Whether women are allowed to be elected to the Universal House of Justice is not an issue of Science. It is a spiritual law. Even the social and legal equality endorsed by the Baha'i faith is not an issue resolved by science. Science has not determined males and females are socially equal.

(2) The Baha'i view of homosexuality is changing based on science, but the spiritual law will remain that homosexual marriage and homosexual acts will most likely remain unchanged. The spiritual Laws of behavior are not always dependent on whether the behavior is a natural behavior according to science, nor whether it is treatable according to science. It is most likely that many forms of deviant sexual behavior such as forms of pedophilia and rapists may not be found to be treatable conditions. Treatability by science is not a criteria for whether something is moral and ethical or not. The Baha'i Faith does not oppose secular laws giving equal rights to marriage, and supports equal treatment of homosexuals and transgender people under secular law. .Just because certain behaviors are found to be natural behaviors according to science does justify considering them spiritually moral and ethical. This line of reasoning that natural behavior according to science should be considered moral and ethical can lead to justify a great deal of immoral behavior.

(3) The Baha'i Faith view of physical evolution is to accept the scientific knowledge of evolution, regardless of scripture. Spiritually the Baha'i Faith considers humanity a unique spiritual kingdom separate from the animal kingdom, but accepts humanity as evolved from the animal kingdom. The Baha'i teachings describe the evolution of humanity the intent of God regardless of the forms humanity evolved through to become human. This belief in the intent of God in evolution was to counter the growing conclusion by many that humanity was the result of random processes.

(4) Many spiritual laws of the Baha'i Faith are unique not found in other religions of the past and fast becoming the standard of the modern world such as the mandatory education of all children, male and female.

[robrecht]

A couple of corrections still needed:

"Just because certain behaviors are found to be natural behaviors according to science does [not] justify considering them spiritually moral and ethical. ...

(3) The Baha'i Faith view of physical evolution is to accept the scientific knowledge of evolution, regardless of scripture. Spiritually the Baha'i Faith considers humanity a unique spiritual kingdom separate from the animal kingdom, but accepts humanity as [what?]."

[shunyadragon]

What makes you think you understood Darth Executor's claim any better than your initial misunderstanding of Jedidiah, who was speaking of accepting Scripture as divine revelation?

The statements I quoted did not indicate this. I simply understood them as cited. If they wish to further explain their view then they are welcome. By the way many Christians do believe in personal communication and Divine 'personal' Revelation from God, ie talking to God personally, therefore the misunderstanding is possible.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelation

A revelation communicated by a supernatural entity reported as being present during the event is called a vision. Direct conversations between the recipient and the supernatural entity,[4] or physical marks such as stigmata, have been reported. In rare cases, such as that of Saint Juan Diego, physical artifacts accompany the revelation.[5] The Roman Catholic concept of interior locution includes just an inner voice heard by the recipient.

© Copyright Original Source

speaking in tongues in some churches is considered a 'personal direct communication' with God as Divine Revelation.'

The LDS has their own version.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelation

Each member of the LDS Church is also confirmed a member of the church following baptism and given the "gift of the Holy Ghost" by which each member is encouraged to develop a personal relationship with that divine being and receive personal revelation for their own direction and that of their family. The Latter Day Saint concept of revelation includes the belief that revelation from God is available to all those who earnestly seek it with the intent of doing good. It also teaches that everyone is entitled to personal revelation with respect to his or her stewardship (leadership responsibility). Thus, parents may receive inspiration from God in raising their families, individuals can receive divine inspiration to help them meet personal challenges, church officers may receive revelation for those whom they serve, and so forth.

The important consequence of this is that each person may receive confirmation that particular doctrines taught by a prophet are true, as well as gain divine insight in using those truths for their own benefit and eternal progress. In the church, personal revelation is expected and encouraged, and many converts believe that personal revelation from God was instrumental in their conversion.[37] Joseph F. Smith, the sixth president of the LDS Church, summarized this church's belief concerning revelation by saying, "We believe… in the principle of direct revelation from God to man."[38] (Smith, 362)

© Copyright Original Source

There are numerous more examples I can cite. The problem remains with so many getting different versions of direct communication 'Divine Revelation' is true. I think it is a worthwhile issue that needs further clarification.

[robrecht]

The statements I quoted did not indicate this. I simply understood them as cited. If they wish to further explain their view then they are welcome. By the way many Christians do believe in personal communication and Divine 'personal' Revelation from God, ie talking to God personally, therefore the misunderstanding is possible.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelation

A revelation communicated by a supernatural entity reported as being present during the event is called a vision. Direct conversations between the recipient and the supernatural entity,[4] or physical marks such as stigmata, have been reported. In rare cases, such as that of Saint Juan Diego, physical artifacts accompany the revelation.[5] The Roman Catholic concept of interior locution includes just an inner voice heard by the recipient.

© Copyright Original Source

speaking in tongues in some churches is considered a 'personal direct communication' with God as Divine Revelation.'

The LDS has their own version.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelation

Each member of the LDS Church is also confirmed a member of the church following baptism and given the "gift of the Holy Ghost" by which each member is encouraged to develop a personal relationship with that divine being and receive personal revelation for their own direction and that of their family. The Latter Day Saint concept of revelation includes the belief that revelation from God is available to all those who earnestly seek it with the intent of doing good. It also teaches that everyone is entitled to personal revelation with respect to his or her stewardship (leadership responsibility). Thus, parents may receive inspiration from God in raising their families, individuals can receive divine inspiration to help them meet personal challenges, church officers may receive revelation for those whom they serve, and so forth.

The important consequence of this is that each person may receive confirmation that particular doctrines taught by a prophet are true, as well as gain divine insight in using those truths for their own benefit and eternal progress. In the church, personal revelation is expected and encouraged, and many converts believe that personal revelation from God was instrumental in their conversion.[37] Joseph F. Smith, the sixth president of the LDS Church, summarized this church's belief concerning revelation by saying, "We believe… in the principle of direct revelation from God to man."[38] (Smith, 362)

© Copyright Original Source

I think it is a worthwhile issue that needs further clarification.

Jedidiah did already clarify his meaning, which I thought was obvious all along. Darth did not respond to you. As far as additional belief in the possibility of some sense of personal experience of or communication with God apart from divine revelation as contained in or reflected in scriptures, I would not be surprised if they also believe in that (I do). Is that not part of Baha'i experience?

[Jedidiah]

One or more posters considered Christians talking to God as 'Divine Revelation.' At least one stated that if a Christian did not believe they talked with God, then they were not a Christian.

I seem to have missed this claim. Who made it and where?

I still fail to see where you got the claim that anyone said any thing remotely like, "if a Christian did not believe they talked with God, then they were not a Christian." We said that we received revelation from God, referring to Scripture. How in the world do you get what you stated from that.

Fact is I routinely talk to God. This is normally called prayer. It is not divine revelation. It is not any sort of revelation since God is already aware of everything I talk to Him about.

[OingoBoingo]

You have a hostile combative view of the Baha'i Faith, and you have ignored my posts in the past explaining these issues. It is a problem continuing any dialogue with you, but the following points may help, but I doubt it.

You've never explained the issue of female inequality and treatment of homosexuality in the Baha'i faith. At least, not in any thread I've ever been a member of.

(1) Whether women are allowed to be elected to the Universal House of Justice is not an issue of Science. It is a spiritual law. Even the social and legal equality endorsed by the Baha'i faith is not an issue resolved by science. Science has not determined males and females are socially equal.

(2) The Baha'i view of homosexuality is changing based on science, but the spiritual law will remain that homosexual marriage and homo sexual acts will remain unchanged. The spiritual Laws of behavior are not dependent on whether the behavior is a natural behavior according to science. The Baha'i Faith does not oppose secular laws giving equal rights to marriage, and supports equal treatment of homosexuals and transgender people under secular law. .Just because certain behaviors are found to be natural behaviors according to science does justify considering them spiritually moral and ethical. This line of reasoning that natural behavior according to science should be considered moral and ethical can lead to justify a great deal of immoral behavior.

(3) The Baha'i Faith view of evolution is to accept the scientific knowledge of evolution, regardless of scripture. Spiritually the Baha'i Faith considers humanity a unique spiritual kingdom separate from the animal kingdom, but accepts humanity as. The Baha'i teachings describe the evolution of humanity the intent of God regardless of the forms humanity evolved through to become human. This belief in the intent of God in evolution was to counter the growing conclusion that humanity was the result of random processes.

(4) Many spiritual laws of the Baha'i Faith are unique not found in other religions of the past and fast becoming the standard of the modern world such as the mandatory education of all children, male and female.

Most of the above is unintelligible, but basically what we can take away from the parts that are, is that, as long as you label something a "spiritual law" any religious belief is just dandy.

(1) Men and women aren't equal according to science? That's your best excuse for why, on one hand, you can state that the Baha'i faith is a bastion of "social and legal equality [for] women", while acknowledging that women are not permitted to be leaders in your faith? Do the social sciences not count as science in the Baha'i faith when it comes to equality? Are you saying that the Baha'i faith could hypothetically create a restriction on black members in leadership like the Mormons did, and that would be A-OK because black equality is not established by science?

(2) Basically what you're saying is that the Baha'i view is something like "hate the sin, but not the sinner", right? Boy that sounds familiar. The Baha'i faith's position that homosexuality is "an aberration" and an "affliction" that should be "subject to treatment" is "relevant to today's knowledge of the world we live in?" Really?

(3) If the Baha'i view is to accept scientific knowledge regardless of what scripture says, then I don't see how that's any different from any Jewish or Christian non-literalist who holds the same view in their religion. Instead of bitching and complaining every chance you can get that other religions are not as good as yours for being old fashioned and out of date, you should keep in mind all of those religionists who have no issue accepting the current scientific consensus regardless of a literalist reading of their scriptures.

And no, the Baha'i view is notthink that one species evolves into another species. For example, that the animal evolved until it became a human being. But the prophets teach that this theory is erroneous

[shunyadragon]

You've never explained the issue of female inequality and treatment of homosexuality in the Baha'i faith. At least, not in any thread I've ever been a member of.



Most of the above is unintelligible, but basically what we can take away from the parts that are, is that, as long as you label something a "spiritual law" any religious belief is just dandy.

No intellible response nor meaningful dialogue. This is my last effort.

[robrecht]

No intellible response nor meaningful dialogue. This is my last effort.

Obviously there's some history of animosity between the two of you, but I thought his response was intelligible and meaningful. If you'd rather explain it to me via PM, I would be open to hearing your understanding and critique of his points.

[shunyadragon]

Obviously there's some history of animosity between the two of you, but I thought his response was intelligible and meaningful. If you'd rather explain it to me via PM, I would be open to hearing your understanding and critique of his points.

It was meaningless, and he failed to respond.

Actually no, not necessary. Yes, there is a history of his hostility toward the Baha'i Faith. He has failed to comprehend the concept of evolving knowledge in the Baha'i Faith and the relationship with science. If you have any meaningful comments please reveal them.

If you choose to respond, be specific and do not use the OingoBoingo shotgun.

[robrecht]

Actually no, not necessary. Yes, there is a history of his hostility toward the Baha'i Faith. He has failed to comprehend the concept of evolving knowledge in the Baha'i Faith and the relationship with science. If you have any meaningful comments please reveal them.

It seems like his comments about patriarchy, literalism, and homosexuality merit a response from you, regardless of the history of animosity. They seem like meaningful points to me.

[OingoBoingo]

No intellible response nor meaningful dialogue. This is my last effort.

Well that wasn't unexpected. What could you possibly say? I know you feel you have to save face by saying that my response was unintelligible and meaningless (I won't even point out the irony there...wait...did I just do that?). Hopefully this was a lesson for you. Maybe in the future your attitude towards other's belief systems won't be nearly so condescending (I have my doubts though). Honestly, I feel I handled the conversation with kid's gloves.

[NormATive]

It was meaningless, and he failed to respond.

Actually no, not necessary. Yes, there is a history of his hostility toward the Baha'i Faith. He has failed to comprehend the concept of evolving knowledge in the Baha'i Faith and the relationship with science. If you have any meaningful comments please reveal them.

I agree with Robrecht. Personally, I would like to know if the Baha'i is currently addressing these issues. If what OingoBoingo posted is the current position statement of the "official" Baha'i doctrine, I don't see it as that much different from Christianity, Islam and Orthodox Judaism in regards women and homosexuals.

NORM