Joy, Love & Peace to Everyone,

Ηaving been friends with many people that are Baha'is for some years now I have become acquainted and very interested in the Baha'i teachings. I have read a lot about the Baha'i faith and I have studied the Ruhi book 1 two times in study circles and now I'm studying the book 2. I also go to many events and celebrations of the Baha'i faith... they drag me there... just kidding ...

Nevertheless, I haven't found the will(?) to become a Baha'i since I'm interested about spirituality in general and not specifically in any one particular religion or faith. Officially I was born Christian but I wouldn't call myself one. I would call myself ... everything and nothing ... if that means anything... :-) but anyway ...

The Baha'i faith, I noticed, in its interaction with other religions, among other things, suggests to and challenges other religions to expand and maybe even reform their teachings. Expansion of the teachings without some kind of reform I don't think it's totally possible. What I was wondering is, if officially the Baha'i faith has done any reform in its own teachings? Has that happened over any issue in the Baha'i teachings? Does anybody know anything about this?

More Joy, Love & Peace,
Nikos

The Bahai Faith had the original intention of being progressive and changing and evolving and expanding with the times in terms of the teachings.  However, instead it has fossilized into a vehicle for the strict adherence to the dated words of its former leaders.  Specifically, on another thread, you mention the fact that the faith bans homosexual behavior and women from the UHJ.  Its unfortunate that Shoghi Effendi, the last officially appointed leader of the Bahai Faith, died in 1957, before the major gay emancipation events occurred following the civil rights movement.  He also missed the scientific 'revolution' of the 70s that rendered homosexuality nonpathological (ie not 'against nature' as Shoghi Effendi called it).  Shoghi Effendi was a product of his time.  For at that time, even science was on 'his side' so to speak.

Its also unfortunate that everything Shoghi Effendi (and Abdul Baha) said has to be taken as though Bahaullah himself stated it.  All Bahaullah stated was that male anal rape (ie sodomy) was prohibited.  Shoghi Effendi interpreted that to mean all that stuff about 'not matter how fine the love....etc'.   I understand part of why the UHJ is upholding it though.  To maintain the integrity of Bahai unity and reputation throughout the homophobic (majority) world (especially the Middle East, were Bahais are continually persecuted). 

I say what's right is right.  Science indicates that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, thus the Bahai Faith (in upholding the 'harmony of religion and science') should follow suit.  Period.  In addition, the Bahai Faith itself states that women and men are spiritual EQUALS.  Yet Abdul Baha (supposedly) prohibited women from serving on the UHJ.  This is (perhaps) because at that time, scientists were still questioning the intellectual capacity of women (a dated line of inquiry).  Hence Abdul Baha was also a product of his times. 

Thus, IMHO, the time of fulfillment of Abdul Baha's promise (supposedly in reference to this) that the reason why women aren't allowed will be as obvious as 'the Sun in the sky' (or something like that) has come and gone.  Clearly, it was due to the sexist mentality of his time.  That time has passed, so Bahais should get past it too.  They should stand up for what's right regardless of possible persecution.  The Bahai faith has a history of this (martyrs), yet the UHJ is being so protective of these out dated ordinances just for the sake of 'global unity' (ie they don't want to follow the Anglican church model).  It's like instead of worshiping God, they worship unity!!  Yet unity at all costs can lead to things like the Holocaust! 

Having to explain that the Bahai Faith is the 'teaching for this day' in the same breath as stating these limitations and ordinances was quite embarassing and confusing for me when I was a Bahai.  I'm glad that part of my life has passed.  The guilt literally used to keep me up at night sometimes!  I just knew there was an answer to it all in the scriptures.  Yet all I found were authoritative statements that only made sense when viewed from the context of the time in which they were made.....Furthermore, in part because it appears that it will never budge on these issues, the Bahai Faith will very likely never prosper in the West.  Furthermore, as Western influence increases throughout the world, it will approach obscurity even faster than it currently is now.

One good thing about the teachings of the faith though is that, in embracing Buddhism as 'of God', the minds of those former JudeoChristian-Islamics who honestly explore this aspect of the teachings can become more open to the Eastern ('nonthiestic') religions.  IMHO, it is becoming increasingly archaic to conceive of Ultimate Reality (a Buddhist concept that is as close an analogy to 'God' as exists in that faith) as a 'person/personality'.  IMHO, if there is any purpose to the Bahai Faith, it is to open the minds of God-believers to this understanding.  Nothing more, nothing less. 

In my understanding, the essential teachings and principles of Mahayana (Nichiren/SGI) Buddhism are a simpler, yet more comprehensive and coherent way towards self development and a true harmony between science and religion.  IMHO, assuming that the Bahai teaching that these elements are truly appropriate for this age is accurate, the Bahai Faith is actually meant to be a baby step towards a more mature way of looking at existence.  It is unfortunate that the supposed most 'up to date' God-believers of this day (ie Bahais) must wait 800+ years to get the next tidbit towards this understanding.  But, for a subset of Bahais, I have faith that the Bahai experience can point the way/act as a gateway to the philosophies of the Far East; the land of the rising sun (ie of that which is current wisdom and appropriate insight for this age).  It happened for me after all, and I am eternally grateful to my experience and understanding of the Bahai Faith for that reason.  Other than that, IMHO, there is little other unique purpose for the Faith.  It is a potential gateway for JudeoChristian-Islamics towards Eastern/Buddhist wisdom.  A stepping stone.  That is all.  In fact, the next major spiritual insight for humanity (ie what Bahais are expecting 800+ years from now) will very likely derive from the Buddhist tradition, NOT from among Bahais.       

Peace.

oyuwould have to be very speciifc as to what u meant...
otherise it's whatever....
frimstance, on another thread u referenced 2 issues that u don;t like.
and?
   u do;t like them
the Divine  did not ask u to like them.  The Divine made you to investyiate with all your heart for signs of the Divine. you will find them and accept them, or reject them where u will.

Wow, Truth, either you are laboring under some misconceptions about the Baha'i teachings or I am.

It has been my independent investigation that the matter of the "men" of the Universal House of Justice was from the Word of Baha'u'llah and clarified by 'Abdu'l-Baha.  Likewise, the interpretations current today about the prohibition of active homosexuality is akin to active sexuality in general: not the domain of a religion. 

I guess there are lots of religions that will urge you to have all the different kinds of sex you want, but that isn't the Baha'i Faith.  Instead we focus on spirituality.

It isn't a matter of liberal or conservative, it is a matter of purpose.  My religion is to bring about a better, unified, human race.  Sex and  money have their place in a human life, but they should not be central to that life.  If they are we are just animals who can talk.

Instead, the teachings I adhere to say we should focus on the virtues: love, justice, mercy, perfections, glory, knoweldge, majesty, wisdom, beauty, and what will inspire those things in others. 

Sex just doesn't do that.  It is nice though, as is having a lot of money, and a big fancy dinner.  I'll give you that.

--Kent

truth27,
science cannnnnot determine morality.
   the "nature" the Guardian speaks of is spiritual...an area where science can say >>>>>>>nothing<<<<<<<<<
without making a claim to be a religion itself.
:"All Bahaullah stated was that male anal rape (ie sodomy) was prohibited."
factuallly untrue. as noted on the other new thread.
thus , u are goin with some random translation on a Verse by some uncapabl;e person when it sits u, and denying the TExt when it suits you.
   it was the beloved Guardian who de-emphasised this issue of women drubbing by translating the term as lechery.
   para 107 is open to wide interpreation...
   a couple using a dildo >instad of a penis, not inaddition to,<< is committing sodomy.
   male anal rape when the victm has ben gotten frunk is an entirely differnet word in arabic than livat. which pra 107 does;t use.
   the pra can be equallly as well read as saying that Baha'ullah is ashamed to admit that the human race thinks that if it nobody couldf get pregant, it isn;t sex ual activity....a point made..a few years ago by a usa prsident.. "i did not have sex with that woman" he was right. she fellated him. no babies thataway.
  imho this is the >>>>attitude<<<<< BAha'u'llah is talknig about. one the Guardian reflects, with gentleness...as did the UHJ when It had one of It's members make the comment that the AO wasn;t about to be peering into the windows of married couples...which thence includes the idea, also evolved if that is the word of the week, from science and and such that the mating dance of ach couple of individual, and if doldos are part of it..it's all good. if not, it's all good.
  :"I say what's right is right" so does God. the difference is, God knows.
  :"Yet Abdul Baha (supposedly) prohibited women from serving on the UHJ. This is (perhaps) because at that time, scientists were still questioning the intellectual capacity of women"
factually untrue as well.