Baha’i Justice

Susan wrote:

I think you need a lesson in history. Christianity survived precisely because it *did* have a locus of authority unlike the gnostics who fragmented endlessly and eventually dissipated.

I’m a Christian and don’t need you to teach me my own history. The “locus of authority” that you speak of was responsible for the stagnation and corruption of the Christian faith — just like the UHJ. Christianity survives today precisely because the Christian community rejected that authority.

Susan wrote:
As for Ruhi, somehow I don’t think you’ve actually read the books. Nowhere does it forbid individual interpretation.

From Ruhi:
“We believe that the habit of thinking about the implications of the
Writings with the minimum of personal interpretation would eliminate a
great share of the disagreements which afflict consultation in many
communities, and would make the activities of our communities more
effective.” Marcello

No one religious group can claim to have copyright over their religious words and symbols. Would the US court allow one group to exclusively use the words “Christ”, “Muhammad”, “Islam” or “Christianity”? James

Marcello wrote:
The great religions have lasted for thousands of years precisely because there was no central authority controlling the dialogue (although the Vatican certainly gave it a good try!). In contrast, the hierarchy of the Baha’i Faith seeks to create “unity” by stifling diversity. In the Ruhi books, they’ve even gone so far as to forbid individual interpretation. Until the Baha’i Faith can break free of this inflexible dogma, it’s unlikely to find a place alongside the great religions.

I think you need a lesson in history. Christianity survived precisely because it *did* have a locus of authority unlike the gnostics who fragmented endlessly and eventually dissipated.

Ultimately any religion which takes revelation seriously has to accept an authority outside of the self.

As for Ruhi, somehow I don’t think you’ve actually read the books. Nowhere does it forbid individual interpretation. Susan

Marcello wrote:

Depends what you mean by “teaching”. If you mean that the hierarchy dictates the dogma and the laypeople accept without questioning, then you have a point. But in all the great religions, “teaching” involves discussion, debate and argument. The great religions have lasted for thousands of years precisely because there was no central authority controlling the dialogue (although the Vatican certainly gave it a good try!). In contrast, the hierarchy of the Baha’i Faith seeks to create “unity” by stifling diversity. In the Ruhi books, they’ve even gone so far as to forbid individual interpretation. Until the Baha’i Faith can break free of this inflexible dogma, it’s unlikely to find a place alongside the great religions.

Your points are either invalid or downright factually incorrect.

Although agree with you, I don’t believe everything in Ruhi but neither does everybody. Therefor by your definition Ruhi is a good tool because it causes discussion, debate, and argument. At least the circles that i’ve been in.

Please don’t make me go into detail. Every Baha’i knows that they can interpret anything to mean anything and everything crazy that their mind thinks of EXCEPT if it contradicts what the Head of the Faith has written. I have been in many, many, MANY, Baha’i communities including a year at The Baha’i World Centre and have not witnessed what you would refer to as “stifling diversity”. Lorenzo

Fredrick is a wanna-be Martin Luther.

Fredrick who posted above spends all his time spamming Baha’i discussion forums with his full name and “organization” which is basically just a website which he says grows in “adherents” whenever he gets an email.

He was kicked out of the Baha’i Faith for his radical views and now spends all his time making inflammatory statements about the Baha’i Faith and the Baha’i Administration.

His dream is to be the next Martin Luther

He is not to be taken seriously. Egomaniac

Lorenzo wrote:
We could go on and on with this discussion but it all boils down to one basic question:
-Who is actively teaching Baha’u’llah?

Depends what you mean by “teaching”. If you mean that the hierarchy dictates the dogma and the laypeople accept without questioning, then you have a point. But in all the great religions, “teaching” involves discussion, debate and argument. The great religions have lasted for thousands of years precisely because there was no central authority controlling the dialogue (although the Vatican certainly gave it a good try!). In contrast, the hierarchy of the Baha’i Faith seeks to create “unity” by stifling diversity. In the Ruhi books, they’ve even gone so far as to forbid individual interpretation. Until the Baha’i Faith can break free of this inflexible dogma, it’s unlikely to find a place alongside the great religions. Marcello

I am a BUPC and we were the ones to blame for the sans-Guardians raising such a fuss. We have websites published that promote the Guardianship through the only ones in the Will & Teatament who are given this priviledge, namely – the Aghsan. The Aghsan are the male descendants of Baha’u’llah and are the only ones who are allowed to fill this position. Abdu’l-Baha over and over again proclaimed Mason Remey to be his “Aghsan” his son. Abdu’l-Baha did not speak English, and when in the multitude of letters Abdu’l-Baha wrote to Mason he always addressed them with “My dear Son” which was written by Abdu’l-Baha as “My dear Aghsan” This is what Abdu’l-Baha wrote. Funny how people always forget about that. Mason Remey deposited copies of his diaries all over the world, and in Mason’s diaries he describes his last meeting with Abdu’l-Baha before his passing at the sea of Tiberias in the Holy Land. Here he descibes how Abdu’l-Baha proclaimed outright “I have adopted you as my son.” In the Diaries of Juliet Thompson Abdu’l-Baha is quoted in a letter saying “You are my real son. I have an idea for you and hope that it will come to pass.” An adopted son has all the right and priveledges of a natual son. A hereditery lineage includes adopted children and this is and will continue to be the “Straight Path” that we are admonished in the writings to follow. The Great-Grandson of Abdu’l-Baha through Mason Remey is alive and teaching and fighting these enemies of the Cause of which is the “Kingdom of God on Earth” How can you have a “Kingdom” without a King? The King is the Guardian who sits at the head of the ture Universal House of Justice but only has a vote of one in the decision making process and has no veto power. This is Justice. Justice in not any one man making all the decisions and interpretations, this is tyranny. The Kingship is that which is passed down from Baha’u’llah as He Himself proclaims

“THE Most Great Law is come, and the Ancient Beauty ruleth upon the throne of David. Thus hath My Pen spoken that which the histories of bygone ages have related.”

(Baha’u’llah, The Proclamation of Baha’u’llah, p. 89)

The Histories of bygone ages prove that Baha’u’llah is indeed a direct throne line descendant of David and we have compiled the Genealogy that now even the Sans-Guardian admit to using in their teaching efforts becasuse nothing elses is as authoritative. These facts, just like the prophecies Baha’u’llah Himself fulfills, cannot be denied. To any truly discerning individual, this is the essence of discovery and truth at it is confirmed and related in the pages of documented history. This is why the Guardianship cannot and will not ever come to an end, because it is the fulfillment of the prophecies for Baha’u’llah as the Great descendant of David who appears and bring the “Kingdom of God” on earth. Victor

We could go on and on with this discussion but it all boils down to one basic question:

-Who is actively teaching Baha’u’llah?

As a student of Baha’i organizations, as one who accept Baha’u’llah’s message for humanity as the healing medicine for a sick world, I asked myself which of these Baha’i organizations is teaching Baha’u’llah?

It is evident that The Orthodox Baha’is are concerned only with self glorification with ample evidence being their own website where 95% of their articles are why they’re right and everybody is else is wrong. Their own Hands of the Cause and general members also prove this point.

The Reform Bahais are also only concerned with self glorification, specifically the glorification of Fredrick as their Big Cheese.

As for the Baha’is Loyal to the IV Guardian, their Guardian Soghomonian has a policy against teaching their Faith.

The Baha’i World Faith is the only Baha’i community that teaches Baha’u’llah, simple as that.

In my humble opinion all Orthodox and CB organizations exist for one reason and one reason only: to destroy the Baha’i World Faith.
To this bears witness their ‘ridvan messages’, their ‘nawruz messages’, their ‘hands’ and their general membership. Lorenzo

Susan wrote:
The only thing that was said about the Reform Baha’i Faith was the doubts expressed as to whether there really was such an organization apart from Fred himself. Fred has been linked to a number of websites claiming to represent Baha’i sects which in fact no longer exist.

Let me clarify the above the statement. It is in reference to Fred’s accusation that his so-called Reformed Baha’i was slandered in the recent court cases. The judge in the Court of Appeals which Fred gave us the MP3 link was not referring to Fred’s organization (if indeed there is one) but to whether or not the Remeyites who are bound by this court injunction could *theoretically* call themselves Reformed Baha’is. Susan

The only thing that was said about the Reform Baha’i Faith was the doubts expressed as to whether there really was such an organization apart from Fred himself. Fred has been linked to a number of websites claiming to represent Baha’i sects which in fact no longer exist. Susan