Bahai's philosophy and sexual freedom

All research or scholarship questions
Guest

Bahai's philosophy and sexual freedom

Postby Guest » Fri Apr 22, 2005 4:36 pm

the actual days we live now we got a long waited mankind freedom: sexuality

Bahai's as filosophy, religion, ethic study and so on is still now not only revolutionary as very valuable and remarkable, even for people are not Bahai and not intented to be

The problem is some Baha'is writings seems to force sexuality into mariage - what can be understood as a huge obstacle for most of the people curious about Baha'i - maybe making them a bit scarry, when i truly believe the main Bahai's point is not on this way - and maybe making people started to be in a Baha'i community and lacked interest because not wanting to feel quilty by their convict ideology constrasting with the most ortodox Baha'i minds, when one of the first points is efforting of avoiding any kind of conflict, what is very remarkable anyway

do this subject deserves discussion in your viewpoint and on any others using this forum?

Guest

Postby Guest » Mon Apr 25, 2005 3:37 pm

The reasons to be chaste and faithful are innumerable and plenty.

If you look at a law and say "Oh how terrible this is. Obeying this is going to be very annoying." Then undoubtedly it will be.

But, if you look at a law and say "God has made this law for my benefit. And, I will obey it out of my love for him."

Then, as you read more of the Writings and continue to pray more. You may begin to understand why it's there.

There are so many many good quotes about this. I feel a little bad because I can't recall them at the moment.

But, even if you're non-religious, you could look at one episode of (forgive me) "Jerry Springer" and you could see why chastity was so important.

There is one quote I know, but it's my mom's quote. "There are some freedoms that pin you down and some limitations which let you sour"

I'd appreciate it if some of you all could find some good quotes for me. I don't have Ocean on my computer and my library is in storage at the moment.

Keyvan

Postby Keyvan » Sun May 29, 2005 11:08 pm

exploiting the sex impulse for earthy pleasure, is another example of materialism. ideally we would use it only when necessary, to have children. but that is never the case.
but, there are some defined guidelines, for example we are prohibited though from sex outside marriage and lechery.
i think prohibition in lechery is what you should investigate. and find meaning in why

Guest

Postby Guest » Mon May 30, 2005 1:57 pm

Sex has also an important function in the coupling of man and wife. The initmacy re-visited is very important for the psyche of the partnership and set sit apart from friendship and other family membership.

There are several other reason for the sexual impulse inside a marriage. Not just reproductive.

Jasper

Andrew

The ONly Purpose of Sex is for Reproduction

Postby Andrew » Thu Jul 14, 2005 10:05 pm

Hello Keyvan

I would like you to expand on your reasoning as to how the only function to have sex is to reproduce. And I would like you to explain why that is an ideal. I would also like to know why you think sex for pleasure is wrong. I assume that is what you think since most people I meet are dualistic thinkiers which means if one thing is right than the opposite is wrong. If you do not think this way then I would still like to hear an expansion on the first two ideas I asked for.

Thank you,
Andrew

Keyvan

Re: The ONly Purpose of Sex is for Reproduction

Postby Keyvan » Fri Jul 15, 2005 7:45 pm

Andrew wrote:Hello Keyvan

I would like you to expand on your reasoning as to how the only function to have sex is to reproduce. And I would like you to explain why that is an ideal. I would also like to know why you think sex for pleasure is wrong. I assume that is what you think since most people I meet are dualistic thinkiers which means if one thing is right than the opposite is wrong. If you do not think this way then I would still like to hear an expansion on the first two ideas I asked for.

Thank you,
Andrew


Hey Andrew,

Clearly every action we commit in the material world must be done with respect to God's intention for us and the Cause of God. Every moment and every breath we must question "How does this help the Cause?" Even in the act of eating. Are we eating for better nutrition, or to be a glutton?
Now with this mindset, the way I see it we hae two types of provisions set forth by God and revealed to us by the founders of the faith. These are: legal provisions, and ideal provisions.
Legal provisions are clear and cut, either its prohibited or its not. Ideal provisions are more of something that is done but the state of mind is too fine to be clear cut.
Let me give an example. Back to food and consumption. If i eat a doughnut, is that for nutrition or for my own gluttony? Maybe its both, maybe its too close to call, its only defined by my conscience which I myself may not even be sure of. Thus it can be tamed, but thats as far as it can go. Tamed to the ideal.
However, to drink alcahol is something in which there is no nutritional value, unless advised by a doctor for some reason. Alcahol intoxicates, and is wrong for countless reasons, to do it in its very nature is wrong. It cannot be tamed.
In sexuality we are at the same level. To have sex, must be done with respect to God's intention for our sexual impulse. The writings say we must detatch from the desires of the animals (animals have sex for pleasure, not for any Cause of God). To have sex within marriage, its just a state of mind to question if it is happening to conceive a child, or not. Its very difficult to make provisions within marriage because its so often such a fine line. Its such a gray area in other words. Thus, sex must be tamed within our own state of mind within marriage to be only for the true purpose to have sex. We can assume Abdul Baha only engaged in this for the purpose of having children, and never to any slight excess. Now there are legal provisions too to sexuality. THat which we can say CANNOT be tamed. That is, sexual acts done only for pleasure. Sex outside of marriage is done for pleasure. If not for pleasure and for a child, then it is still wrong because conception must be done within the family unit. Homosexual actions are wrong too for that same reason. We can in no way "tame" homosexual actions to be done for the Cause of God (to have children). That is why The Guardian said "to say it is ideal is no excuse." If we could, it would not be prohibited.
Thus, such actions, including sexual ones, are prohibited if they are not "tamable" to the ideal.
Now what I gave are general examples. Of course many people try to slice things up and find exceptions to this general guideline, as ive presented it to others before, and they have responded in such a way. But when you think about it this really does follow through with virtually every material world action you can think of, no contradictions and no exceptions.
Please tell me if you have anymore questions. ;)

-Keyvan

Dawu d

Postby Dawu d » Fri Jul 15, 2005 10:17 pm

It sounds like you are arguing that sex desires are not tamable, therefore Baha'i restrictions on sexuality are unrealistic, and infractions thereof not to be taken too seriously. (Cf. back-biting).

I'm going out on a limb here, but you're not married, are you? :lol:

Logically, we could compare the situation with laws against theft. Law or no law, we can predict rather confidently that theft will occur (or be attempted). We can even predict certain patterns in its fluctuation. Does that make the law nonsensical? Surely not.

On the other hand one could argue that unlike theft, sex desire is something that affects nearly everybody. Yet every society that we know anything about, has taken efforts to regulate it.(At the same time, none of them appear to do so with complete success.

Keyvan

Postby Keyvan » Fri Jul 15, 2005 10:40 pm

Dawu d wrote:It sounds like you are arguing that sex desires are not tamable, therefore Baha'i restrictions on sexuality are unrealistic, and infractions thereof not to be taken too seriously. (Cf. back-biting).

I'm going out on a limb here, but you're not married, are you? :lol:

Logically, we could compare the situation with laws against theft. Law or no law, we can predict rather confidently that theft will occur (or be attempted). We can even predict certain patterns in its fluctuation. Does that make the law nonsensical? Surely not.

On the other hand one could argue that unlike theft, sex desire is something that affects nearly everybody. Yet every society that we know anything about, has taken efforts to regulate it.(At the same time, none of them appear to do so with complete success.




no no no, the contrary. I am saying sex desires ARE Tamable within marriage. Therefore there is no law to say "we must have sex only to have a child." Imagine having sex with your wife. Its only a state of mind from one second to the next where you would ask "am i doing this for a child or for pleasure" it is so fine a line that it can be merged, therefore there is no law against having sex for pleasure within marraige.
But, sex outside of marriage, in its very essense, is a direct violation, an action commited beyond a slip of a state of mind. you either do it or you dont. plain and simple.
Theft is the same way. Theft you either do it or you dont. its wrong in its essense.
In addition, no law is of equal difficulty in temptation. We are prohibited from murder, yet how many of us really have the desire to do that? Rather extra-marital or pre-marital sex is more tempting.

Keyvan

farid
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 12:48 am
Contact:

Postby farid » Sat Jul 16, 2005 11:47 pm

Keyvan

As I understand-correct me if I am wrong- you are defining “untamable” as things that can’t be beneficial in any way, as a result, they are good candidates for being prophibited.

- so why is that smoking is not prohibited the way alcohol is while alcohol may be beneficial in some cases while smoking is all harm?

To have sex, must be done with respect to God's intention for our sexual impulse.

We get God’s will from his prophets. Please let me know where in Bahai writings we have this as the intention of God that sex is only for making kids.

The writings say we must detach from the desires of the animals

It seems to me that what you have made of “desires of animals” is wrong . You seem to think that whatever animals desire, or the way they desire something, should be avoided by humans. This is not correct in my opinion. Here are some examples:
-Animals get hungry and it drives them to eat. There is nothing wrong if humans do the same. In other words hunger and thirst are animalistic desires, but its quite ok for humans to use them.
-Animals make homes desiring protection. It’s quite ok for humans to do the same for the same reason.
-Animals escape from danger out of fear, and its quite ok for humans to get scared from natural dangers and escape them out of fear.
-animals enjoy playing in a beautiful day , and humans also enjoy playing outside in a beautiful day.

As you see, not all the things that animals desire should be avoided by humans.

Guest

Postby Guest » Sun Jul 17, 2005 2:36 pm

that is not what i means. please read a little closer. by "Untamable" i mean it is something where you CAN draw a line, where the question is not a state of mind but the action itself.
for example, when having sex, its only a state of mind for what purpose one is doing it. so we must strive for the ideal. to "tame" our thoughts, avoiding any sign of lechery
however, the very act of a pre-marital extra-marital or homosexual affair in NO STATE OF MIND can be considered ideal. thus, in its essense, in its very action it is wrong.

the difference between us and animals, is that we can uphold material world actions for the Cause of God alone, animals do not have these guidelines, thus they endulge in any animal impulse. im not saying were different from the animals in instinct or desires. of course not, we are all living material world beings, and God gave such instincts for us so that we can thrive. BUT, we are soldiers. we follow ordainances and actions for one purpose. if those instincts we share with animals help us survive and thrive so that we may build the Cause of God, then that is how we use them.
if those instincts are for any excess, well then that is an exploitation, no matter how near to the ideal. Abdul Baha only followed the ideal, never to an excess, in both action and mind.
we cannot achieve that, but we must strive to.

on this issue of sex just for children here is a quote from The Guardian


The recrudescence of religious intolerance, of racial animosity, and of patriotic arrogance; the increasing evidences of selfishness, of suspicion, of fear and of fraud; the spread of terrorism, of lawlessness, of drunkenness and of crime; the unquenchable thirst for, and the feverish pursuit after, earthly vanities, riches and pleasures; the weakening of family solidarity; the laxity in parental control; the lapse into luxurious indulgence; the irresponsible attitude towards marriage and the consequent rising tide of divorce; the degeneracy of art and music, the infection of literature, and the 188 corruption of the press; the extension of the influence and activities of those "prophets of decadence" who advocate companionate marriage, who preach the philosophy of nudism, who call modesty an intellectual fiction, who refuse to regard the procreation of children as the sacred and primary purpose of marriage, who denounce religion as an opiate of the people, who would, if given free rein, lead back the human race to barbarism, chaos, and ultimate extinction -- these appear as the outstanding characteristics of a decadent society, a society that must either be reborn or perish.
(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 187)

Keyvan

Postby Keyvan » Sun Jul 17, 2005 2:37 pm

that is not what i means. please read a little closer. by "Untamable" i mean it is something where you CAN draw a line, where the question is not a state of mind but the action itself.
for example, when having sex, its only a state of mind for what purpose one is doing it. so we must strive for the ideal. to "tame" our thoughts, avoiding any sign of lechery
however, the very act of a pre-marital extra-marital or homosexual affair in NO STATE OF MIND can be considered ideal. thus, in its essense, in its very action it is wrong.

the difference between us and animals, is that we can uphold material world actions for the Cause of God alone, animals do not have these guidelines, thus they endulge in any animal impulse. im not saying were different from the animals in instinct or desires. of course not, we are all living material world beings, and God gave such instincts for us so that we can thrive. BUT, we are soldiers. we follow ordainances and actions for one purpose. if those instincts we share with animals help us survive and thrive so that we may build the Cause of God, then that is how we use them.
if those instincts are for any excess, well then that is an exploitation, no matter how near to the ideal. Abdul Baha only followed the ideal, never to an excess, in both action and mind.
we cannot achieve that, but we must strive to.

on this issue of sex just for children here is a quote from The Guardian


The recrudescence of religious intolerance, of racial animosity, and of patriotic arrogance; the increasing evidences of selfishness, of suspicion, of fear and of fraud; the spread of terrorism, of lawlessness, of drunkenness and of crime; the unquenchable thirst for, and the feverish pursuit after, earthly vanities, riches and pleasures; the weakening of family solidarity; the laxity in parental control; the lapse into luxurious indulgence; the irresponsible attitude towards marriage and the consequent rising tide of divorce; the degeneracy of art and music, the infection of literature, and the 188 corruption of the press; the extension of the influence and activities of those "prophets of decadence" who advocate companionate marriage, who preach the philosophy of nudism, who call modesty an intellectual fiction, who refuse to regard the procreation of children as the sacred and primary purpose of marriage, who denounce religion as an opiate of the people, who would, if given free rein, lead back the human race to barbarism, chaos, and ultimate extinction -- these appear as the outstanding characteristics of a decadent society, a society that must either be reborn or perish.
(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 187)

Guest

Postby Guest » Sun Jul 17, 2005 2:39 pm

if those instincts are USED for any excess**

Keyvan

Postby Keyvan » Sun Jul 17, 2005 2:50 pm

in addition, i understand how many would say sex brings emotional relief, etc. and not just children. now imagine he who would eat food for emotional relief. is that not a material world desire like sex? even if at a different plane?
this is not to say that you cannot enjoy something and have a taste for it, be it sex or food, but that everything we can get to advance our emotional/spiritual station can and should come from Building the Cause of God and the Writings.
many say finding a life partner can bring such joy. while it can be yes, remember the writigns also say that while marriage is encouraged its not the central purpose of life. thus, to find a life partner is not primary. thus what we are left with, our requirement, is to build the Cause. this is the end equation.
now many would have an issue with this, either because they have not experienced such a great station in their lives from Building the Cause and reading the writings, or they feel they have but not as much as their life partner has given them, etc. well the issue is that we as humans must strive to get to the spiritual point where spirituality can replace all else. we can go our whole lives and not find it, maybe no one has yet, save Abdul Baha.

farid
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 12:48 am
Contact:

Postby farid » Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:15 pm

First issue:
I don’t know why you are saying that my understanding of “untamable” is wrong.
My definition is exactly what you are saying, only with a different and yet simpler language to make it easier to use:
You say “untamable is what in NO STATE OF MIND can be considered ideal” ; as a result , to know what is tamable and what is untamable , we have to know what is ideal first. For example if we say:
the ideal in eating is to be nourished by it or
the ideal in sex is to procreate by it,
getting nourished and procreate are benefits we can get from these actions since we have defined our benefit or goals first as our ideal.
So untamable can be translated to : things that can’t be beneficial in any way.
In fact you did the same when you ruled alcohol as untamable based on its lack of benefits or anti-benefits:
However, to drink alcahol is something in which there is no nutritional value, unless advised by a doctor for some reason. Alcahol intoxicates, and is wrong for countless reasons, to do it in its very nature is wrong. It cannot be tamed.


Second issue:
I agree with you as far as : we have to direct our actions towards what God wants for us, and this is why I asked you to give me an example in writings where you have seen such a thing that : God’s intention is that sex be done solely for the goal of procreation, as you mentioned. In other words, as I understood, you believe that the ideal is to have sex only with the intention of having kids.
In your last post you have given this quote as the basis of your notion:

… who refuse to regard the procreation of children as the sacred and primary purpose of marriage

this quote to me doesn’t mean what you undersatand of it, unless you replace “marriage” at the end of it with “sex” and “primary” with “sole” , and it seems to me you have done this mentally. In other words if the quote was:
… who refuse to regard the procreation of children as the sacred and sole purpose of sex ;
then what you are saying would be correct.

Can you say that because of this quote, spiritual union between man and wife is not a purpose of marriage? You know how much we have it in writings that man and wife should be connected in a spiritual union , which is eternal. It’s correct that the primary purpose of marriage is to have kids, but it doesn’t mean that there are not many other important purposes in it. In fact, even if a man or woman are not able to procreate, they are still better off to get married. It means that there are many other reasons to get married. Sexual satisfaction if one of these reasons.

Keyvan

Postby Keyvan » Sun Jul 17, 2005 11:00 pm

I agree with you that there is a greatness to the spiritual union between a man and wife. But dont you see? This is a SPIRITUAL union, not a physical one. The physical one is petty. A few muscle contractions, and a release of bodily fluids thats all it is. The urge for it is the same as the animals, instinct to thrive.
With that said, I stand by the quote i raised as an answer your question. You have to extrapolate a little conceptually i know.

Here is another quote by The Guardian on sex.


Regarding your questions: by holiness in our Bahá'í teachings is meant attachment to God, His Precepts and His Will. We are not ascetics in any sense of the word. On the contrary, Bahá'u'lláh says God has created all the good things in the world for us to enjoy and partake. But we must not become attached to them and put them before the spiritual things. Chastity in the strict sense means not to have sexual intercourse, or sexual intimacies, before marriage. In the general sense it means not to be licentious. This does not mean we Bahá'ís believe sexual relations to be impure or wrong. On the contrary they are natural and should be considered one of God's many blessings. He does not know anything about whether albumen and delicious food affect sex; this is a medical question. Sex is a very individual matter, some people are more passionate by nature than others, and might consequently suffer more if forced to be continent. But when the world becomes more spiritual there will not be such an exaggerated emphasis on sex, as there is today, and consequently it will be easier for young people to be chaste and control their passions. A man of noble character and strong willpower, could certainly remain faithful to his wife during a long absence!

(Shoghi Effendi, The Light of Divine Guidance v II, p. 69)


Thus we can see that there is a ideal, but we are not prohibiting from straying from that ideal within the provisional confines of marriage. It is just that, "an ideal". Though, we should just like anything else strive for it.

The reasons for why we stray fromt he ideal or just stray so much taht its a flat out violation of the laws is much owed to the emphasis of sex in society, and as society becomes more spiritaul we wont have that problem. Aside from that, some are more passionate than others, this is another reference to our animal instincts. physical attraction we can agree in its utter essense is a material world desire, in no way would it be spritual since sich senses of sight, smell, and feel of another person is not relevent.

farid
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 12:48 am
Contact:

Postby farid » Mon Jul 18, 2005 1:06 am

You haven't answered the problems I raised with your use of that quote.

This was also part of the quote you had in your post:

On the contrary, Baha'u'llah says God has created all the good things in the world for us to enjoy and partake of. But we must not become attached to them and put them before the spiritual things. (Shoghi Effendi: Light of Divine Guidance Vol.2, Page: 71)

In other words, we can enjoy food and sex , but we should not be attached to them and put them before spiritual things, and also we should have them as we are allowed to ( within marriage in case of sex). This is the ideal thing as specified by writings, not what you are saying. We have to be very careful in reading the writings, not to understand them the way we like them to be or mean, but to be quite willing to accept what they are telling us, even though they are not exactly the way we think they should be. You never see anywhere in writings such a thing even as an advice to try to limit sex to procreation, so you cannot say that this is the ideal thing. The ideal is what is specified for us in writings , not what we add to them.

Thou hast written that they have pledged themselves to observe maximum austerity in their lives with a view to forwarding the remainder of their income to His exalted presence. This matter was mentioned at His holy court. He said: Let them act with moderation and not impose hardship upon themselves. We would like them both to enjoy a life that is well-pleasing. (Baha'u'llah: Huququ'llah, Page: 508)

Keyvan

Postby Keyvan » Mon Jul 18, 2005 11:26 am

farid wrote:You haven't answered the problems I raised with your use of that quote.

This was also part of the quote you had in your post:

On the contrary, Baha'u'llah says God has created all the good things in the world for us to enjoy and partake of. But we must not become attached to them and put them before the spiritual things. (Shoghi Effendi: Light of Divine Guidance Vol.2, Page: 71)

In other words, we can enjoy food and sex , but we should not be attached to them and put them before spiritual things, and also we should have them as we are allowed to ( within marriage in case of sex). This is the ideal thing as specified by writings, not what you are saying. We have to be very careful in reading the writings, not to understand them the way we like them to be or mean, but to be quite willing to accept what they are telling us, even though they are not exactly the way we think they should be. You never see anywhere in writings such a thing even as an advice to try to limit sex to procreation, so you cannot say that this is the ideal thing. The ideal is what is specified for us in writings , not what we add to them.

Thou hast written that they have pledged themselves to observe maximum austerity in their lives with a view to forwarding the remainder of their income to His exalted presence. This matter was mentioned at His holy court. He said: Let them act with moderation and not impose hardship upon themselves. We would like them both to enjoy a life that is well-pleasing. (Baha'u'llah: Huququ'llah, Page: 508)


I believe i made mention to that part of the quote. The way I see it, and I hope you can agree, material pleasures can in no way, not in a million years, under a million possibilities, hold a candle to spiritual fruits. That we ca go our whole lives attempting to enrich spirituallity in its fullness into our lives and may not ever achieve it. Once we do or near it, or at least advance ourselves so much that we can see everything else in existance is pale in comparison, then such petty things of the material world become meaningless. I think to not see this is to underappreciate the true greatness of the "spiritual things" being refered. I see it like this and not as much as when a mother tells her child, "eat your dinner before your desert"

I read another quote by Baha'u'llah I believe, I cannot locate it at the present time, but it basically said that in the matter of luxury idems and material goods, our first duty as individuals is to recognise One God, our second is to put our funds, wealth, service, work, mind, into the Cause of God to be of an utter devout state, and THEN worry about material luxuries and idems. I see great Wisdom to this, as the previous quote. It is nto to say that "YES get to the point where you can indulge in material luxuries" but rather I see the image of a rollar coaster.
Those first two stages elevate oneself higher and higher, and the third will drop one down. As if to say, after reaching the bliss of the first two, having detached from worldly things, why would anyone want to go to the third?
such is the importance and meaning of "detachment" as I see.

farid
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 12:48 am
Contact:

Postby farid » Mon Jul 18, 2005 12:47 pm

There is no question that attaining more spirituality is the main goal of our life. the Question is the way to reach it. What you are saying as a way, is only what you have come to conclude from writings, not what the writings say. Also , as I tried to show, I think your understanding is not correct.
I even agree that wife and husband should not indulge in sexual pleasure and should have control over it and should do it only when they physically feel the need, without other stimulants. But what you are saying is so different. You have made some assumtions here that are wrong , based on writings. One of your assumtions is that involving in material issues, keep you away from spirituality. This is wrong according to writings.
In the last quote I had in my post, you see that Baha'u'llah wants the couple to enjoy the material aspect of their lives. Also you have made the assumtion that any amount of sex prevents you from spirituality, but its again contradictory to writings, since we are never allowed what may be detrimental to spirituality. At least you have to have some advice or guidelines for it, but you have nothing in writings that sex should (or better be) limited to procreation.
Sex , like food, is detrimental to spiritualiy when it gets out of hand. Out of hand in this case for sex is out of marriage and used more than the natural physical need.
You seem to be a logical person, so I don't understand why you still disagree with me on this, while very cleary we have this, again:

On the contrary, Baha'u'llah says God has created all the good things in the world for us to enjoy and partake of. But we must not become attached to them and put them before the spiritual things. (Shoghi Effendi: Light of Divine Guidance Vol.2, Page: 71)

Sex is referred in writings as a blessing from God, so we also have to enjoy it . The only limitation is not to put it before spirituality. It means that reaching to sexual pleasure shouldn't become the reason for our other actions. The main goal and reason for our lives should be spirituality, and sex shouldn't replace it,i n the same way that pleasure of food should'nt be the reason we live or work, but it doesn't mean we should not enjoy eating.

If man and woman are to have sex only to procreate, then a lot of things has to change dramatically,eg then probably you also say that they should sleep in separete beds, to avoid temptations or dress in a certain way in fron of each other.

Let me give you some examples from Islam

Muhammad says to Muslims, that when you see another woman other than your wife and it arouses you, go home and have sex with your wife.
So you see satisfying sexaul desire is a funtion of marriage.

Also when a buch of Muslims decide to limit material things and joys in their lives ,Muhammad addresses them very strongly and forbids them to avoid pleasures of life.

First sex was forbidden during the fast month, but when the followers tell Muhammad this law is tough on them , he changes it and allows them to have sex, let alone saying that you have to have it only when you want to procreate.

In the Tablet Ibn zebh, Bahaullah addresses catholic priests who avoid marriage and tells them that there is nothing wrong in marriage, and the reason Jesus did not marry was because he was always on the move. This very clearly is referring to sexual pleasure of marriage, since catholic priests avoid marriage to avoid sexual pleasure, not to avoid procreation, so when Bahaullah tells them its ok to marry, he is saying that sexual pleasure is ok inside marriage, or he could tell them to marry but have sex only to procreate, but he does not.

Keyvan

Postby Keyvan » Mon Jul 18, 2005 7:13 pm

I will strongly put my foot down that my evaluation is dead on and not incorrect in the slightest, but i will explain why.

recognise that laws and ordainances in Islamic and Christian conceptual understandings are very partial and misguided. they believe that the next world will be as material as this world. priests living without wives and in piety, is not done for a reason ANYWHERE near what im talking about. they do it perscriptively, something they will do in order to get something back in return. a chore.
rather, we should look towards elements of zardosthi studies for the answer to something like this.
this world and everything of it is nothing but atoms, a pile of dust, something we are plugged into. im emphasise this phrase "plugged into" a matrix our souls are placed in. i world we conduct ourselves in, the same way a construction worker opperates a crane.

lets take that example..i like it.

lets pretend someone is using a crane to build a Mashriqu'l-Adkhar. Lets say someone has been given the honor to use that crane to put the final ornament on top. after having done so. the man uses the crane off to the side to play with as a game. if that worker was truely aware of the great thing he has just done, what purpose would there then be for such bland "amusement" does that work itself not suffice the man? is that honor not great enough to keep him content? thus the man must not fully appreciate or be conscious of the honor.
what im saying is that we will strive our whole lives to put the temple. and once we do what is the point!!??! of anything else

to be truely spiritual we must recognise that the material world is truely nothing, compared to the spiritual world. cleanse our minds of any other understanding, and the more conscious we get of the fact that we are spirits that happen to be temporarily plugged into the material world, the better we can prioritise and not be compelled by material world senses of touch, smell, taste, sight, and sound, for those are truely nothing special.

IDEALLY we could recognise that. then we dont even have to be told the laws,we will just know the difference between what is good for the Cause and our short time on this earth, and what is a distraction.

thus i cannot agree with the evaluations you have extrapolated from that Tablet.

farid
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 12:48 am
Contact:

Postby farid » Tue Jul 19, 2005 12:20 am

The basis of all you are saying as I mentioned before comes from this assumtion that any type or amount of involvement in material things keeps us away from spiritual things. Am I right?
I am curious to know if there is any material involvement or joy you have in mind that you think is not detrimental to spitituality.
what do you say about enjoying from sciece? ejoying learning about scientific facts is not a spiritual pleasure .So , do you also say that we should try to enjoy sciece not for itself, but for what we can do by it?
Don't get me wrong, I also believe that the main focus in learning should be what we can do with it to serve others and the Cause of God, but I don't believe that we should not enjoy the scientific facts in the way.

Now I have a practical question about this and I also like to repeat a queston you didn't answer:

-Probably you believe somebody like you who dosen't want to have much sex , has to talk about this issue before marriage with anybody he has in mind as a potential spouse, and only if he finds a like-minded person, he can think about marring her, since otherwise it's not fair.
Now my question is that how many like-minded people in this issue have you met in your whole life?People who like you believe sex should be tried to be done only for procreaton.In other words, dosn't this make marriage almost impossible? I have had many good Bahai friends , and none of them think the way you do. In fact I have never met even one Bahai person to think the way you do in my whole life, not even teachers of Bahai classes. Dosn't this make marriage almost impossible?

-I asked you if you believe that man and wife should sleep in separate beds when they don't have the plan of having a new baby and also dress very cautiosly not to arouse each other.

Keyvan

Postby Keyvan » Tue Jul 19, 2005 3:14 pm

farid wrote:The basis of all you are saying as I mentioned before comes from this assumtion that any type or amount of involvement in material things keeps us away from spiritual things. Am I right?
I am curious to know if there is any material involvement or joy you have in mind that you think is not detrimental to spitituality.
what do you say about enjoying from sciece? ejoying learning about scientific facts is not a spiritual pleasure .So , do you also say that we should try to enjoy sciece not for itself, but for what we can do by it?
Don't get me wrong, I also believe that the main focus in learning should be what we can do with it to serve others and the Cause of God, but I don't believe that we should not enjoy the scientific facts in the way.

Now I have a practical question about this and I also like to repeat a queston you didn't answer:

-Probably you believe somebody like you who dosen't want to have much sex , has to talk about this issue before marriage with anybody he has in mind as a potential spouse, and only if he finds a like-minded person, he can think about marring her, since otherwise it's not fair.
Now my question is that how many like-minded people in this issue have you met in your whole life?People who like you believe sex should be tried to be done only for procreaton.In other words, dosn't this make marriage almost impossible? I have had many good Bahai friends , and none of them think the way you do. In fact I have never met even one Bahai person to think the way you do in my whole life, not even teachers of Bahai classes. Dosn't this make marriage almost impossible?

-I asked you if you believe that man and wife should sleep in separate beds when they don't have the plan of having a new baby and also dress very cautiosly not to arouse each other.



youre looking at it very black and white, and i think its keeping you from seeing what im trying to say. youre just looking at obsticle vs. goal. im saying all that exists, TRUELY exists, is a spiritual world that is so grand it makes the material world look like the size of an atom. if we are truely conscious of this there is no NEED for material pleasures, its meaningless. and it is virtually impossible for someone who is TRUELY conscious of this spiritual world to be even at all longing for a material pleasure.
youre looking at it through a islamic-christianic sense, and thats the complete wrong idea of what im trying to say.

think about this. then ask me your question again if you still dont get it.
what im trying ot explain to you is a fundamental of spiritual understanding, which can the slightest ease have us pre-empt laws before they are asked of us, for it becomes obvious when we have that mindset what we should be doing.

i dont understand why you are not getting what im trying to say. ive explained it to countless people this way and they got it straight up.

Keyvan

Postby Keyvan » Tue Jul 19, 2005 3:19 pm

think of it this way. i take your brain, and plug it into a low-bit computer game, where i have you do a few basic things. inside you can also play games like pong and tic tac toe. now if you were born with me plugging you into this then you would think that those games are so great. if you had seen this world unplugged, all you would want is to just get out and not waste your time with such miniscule things. even not even getting out,b ut just to be conscious and closer to the world otuside would blow away your value to that.

and now you are asking me specific quiestions of should you play pong like this and liek that...when can you...this and that.

im saying HELLO?!?! its not anything to be concerned about.

specifically this is why we should KNOW without being told that lechery is wrong. what kind of person ignorant of the spiritual world which is the only truth, would care to put focus on such a small material thing.

farid
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 12:48 am
Contact:

Postby farid » Tue Jul 19, 2005 4:58 pm

My questions, was about marriage. Marriage is a very important issue in life as said to us by writings over and over. You don’t want to do something that makes marriage hard , let alone almost impossible . The world we live today has already done this to a great extent, you don’t want to add to it. So I don’t know why you are referring to my question as dealing with “miniscule things”, unless despite of all the writings we have about importance of marriage, you think it’s a miniscule thing. You have to be honest with the one you are going to marry. You cannot not talk about it with her today, but tomorrow suddenly say that I am not going to have sex with you more than the numbers of kids we want.
Another thing in my question was about an issue you have to deal with from the first day after your marriage. You cannot hold an idea that is completely impractical.
Opposite sexes before marriage should keep a certain distance, and avoid get intimate to the level it may tempt them to do what they should not. Now I am going to live with a girl under one roof and sleep with her on one bed. Why we should put ourselves under so much temptation? What do you think about unmarried friends living in a house together or sleeping on one bed . Let’s say I have a female friend (not a girlfriend), and we enjoy each other’s company. Do you think it’s wise that we decide to live in one house? Or sleep in one bed? The answer is no, since its like standing on a cliff. Now if you think married people should also have the same relation as unmarried people, then it’s also unwise for them to be close to each other. No wise person wants to put himself in danger.
You may say that the custom of husband and wife sleeping on one bed is wrong. Then my question is that why this is also prevalent among Bahais and never criticized by any Bahai writer so far? Unless you think you are the first one in Bahai world who has come to notice this problem.
Before you form any idea , you have to see if what that idea necessitates is practical at all. Look at Bahai teachings, they all are practical in the real world, or it would be meaningless to have them. What you are saying on the other hand is impractical.
Another thing that you are saying implicitly is that writings have failed to guide us on this important issue, as you explicitly said that Islamic laws are “misguided”. If you don’t make writings the model you want to follow, sooner or later you will fail and do yourself harm.
Religious teachings don’t put unbearable burden on us, and if you do that with yourself, you will only harm yourself.

Keyvan

Postby Keyvan » Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:33 pm

first of all stop putting words in my mouth. if youre going to say i "explicitly said" something then quote it. i said islamic UNDERSTANDINGS are off, not the laws for their time and place. im saying they expect the spiritual world to mirror this one, which is an absurd notion.
you said
Another thing in my question was about an issue you have to deal with from the first day after your marriage. You cannot hold an idea that is completely impractical.


this goes back to what is ideal. if youre looking at it through a spiritual lens, sex right after marriage for pleasure is not practical. it represents a submission to temptation
just because the US had the atomic bomb, does that mean they just HAD to drop them 6 months after creating them?
im not saying taht we should stop the idea of that, becasue its such an ideal, perhaps no one will ever get to that point, but it is just that, "an ideal" if Abdul Baha was not planning on children right away, in sincerely doubt He was in a rush to have sex on His wedding night. someone of such spiritual fulfillment, love, and non-material contentment, needed not exploit a few muscle contractions and a fluid exchange, just "because"
sorry to put out such an inappropriate image, but you know what i mean.
Rather, Abdul Baha was too humble and content to have been beckoned by a material desire.
your definition of "completely impractical" is defined by the "norm" of the material world. for i dont believe there is anyone alive today who is so spiritual that they can defy such "norms"

as for other questions.


"The pilgrim's note reports the Master as saying: 'Women and men must not embrace each other when not married, or not about to be married. They must not kiss each other... If they wish to greet each other, or comfort each other, they may take each other by the hand.' In a letter to an individual written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi it is said: 'The Master's words to... which you quoted, can certainly be taken as the true spirit of the teachings on the subject of sex. We must strive to achieve this exalted standard.' (October 19, 1974)

(From a letter of the Universal of Justice to the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States, February 10, 1974)

(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 439)


Also, in the Persian Writings, it says that an unmarried man and woman may not sleep in the same bed together unless they are siblings.

as for other things, im gonna stop you right here because thast where you began to put words or almost put words of what i "may say" in my mouth. and im gathering youre trying to say im taking the "strict" route

thus, i see your issue as only seeing "black and white" "good and bad" "day and night"

what im trying to tell you is to de-root that way of thinking, and rather, just erase everyting you know about everything. imagine we are just spirits with no senses but spiritual ones. now imagine we are plugged into the material world. get your head into thinking like that, and youll know whats "practical" for your time here and whats not
youll never achieve consciousness though, youll always succumb to this world first, just because youve seen this world and not that one.

farid
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 12:48 am
Contact:

Postby farid » Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:11 pm

first of all stop putting words in my mouth. if youre going to say i "explicitly said" something then quote it.


If you take a look back at those posts with a focus on the context inwhich you said what you said , you'll see for yourself that I didn't put any words in your mouth. I am busy these days, but as soon as I get some time, I will write about it.

imagine we are just spirits with no senses but spiritual ones. now imagine we are plugged into the material world

I don't believe that this example explaims even roughly our situation, so I don't put myself in that situation to understand anything. Again , hopefully I'll get some time soon to write about it, but if you think closely about the two, you'll see we can't use this model to understand our world.

Keyvan

Postby Keyvan » Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:00 pm

farid wrote:
first of all stop putting words in my mouth. if youre going to say i "explicitly said" something then quote it.


If you take a look back at those posts with a focus on the context inwhich you said what you said , you'll see for yourself that I didn't put any words in your mouth. I am busy these days, but as soon as I get some time, I will write about it.

imagine we are just spirits with no senses but spiritual ones. now imagine we are plugged into the material world

I don't believe that this example explaims even roughly our situation, so I don't put myself in that situation to understand anything. Again , hopefully I'll get some time soon to write about it, but if you think closely about the two, you'll see we can't use this model to understand our world.





dont get offended but, i think your basic understanding of the spiritual world is just not there. on that level we are closer to zardoshti understandings than islam/christian understsandings

and yes you did put words in my mouth. i said islamic UNDERSTANDINGS, are wrong. Baha'u'llah corrected this, in the way Muhammad corrected Christian understandings of Jesus.

you said to me

as you explicitly said that Islamic laws are “misguided”.



the fact that you would mis perceieve what im trying to explain to you
enough so that you would put words in my mouth to that level, and in that form, proves what i said above about your understandings.

again dont be offended. its just something to think about.

at this point. ill ask you to see the film "The Matrix" lol. im really running out of ways to write it to you.

farid
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 12:48 am
Contact:

Postby farid » Mon Jul 25, 2005 10:56 am

keyvan, forgive me on my delay for writing the reponse I promised earlier. I have written the bulk of it , but i have to go through it a couple of times before posting it to make it as clear as I can and easy to understand. just to tell you I have not forgotten it and that I am working on it.
I actually quessed that you were basing many of the things you said on Matrix. I have seen first and second part of if.
You said :your basic understanding of the spiritual world is just not there.
spirituality is an endless journey towards God. There is no there and here . People are at differnt distances based on their effort. Now if you are comaring me with yourself and finding me behind of you, you might be right. But usually we cannot be sure who is really ahead or behind. Only God is aware of the hearts. Because of this , we better use the words of those who we are sure are ahead of us and far ahead. We know who these figures are for us Bahais. So I always try to base my understading on what these figures say.
As I said I want to write my post more organized and clear this time, so you can easily refer to any part you may not agree and thus we can discuss them more easily.

farid
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 12:48 am
Contact:

Postby farid » Mon Jul 25, 2005 12:52 pm

I thought since posting my main post may take some time, I can write about an issue that is not much connected to that in a separate post now, and it’s the matter of “ putting words in your mouth.” as you put it. In this way, while I am working on the other post, you can read this one and write about it if you like.

I gave you three examples of guidelines given to Muslims by Muhammad.

These are those three again:

Muhammad says to Muslims, that when you see another woman other than your wife and it arouses you, go home and have sex with your wife.
So you see satisfying sexaul desire is a funtion of marriage.

Also when a buch of Muslims decide to limit material things and joys in their lives ,Muhammad addresses them very strongly and forbids them to avoid pleasures of life.

First sex was forbidden during the fast month, but when the followers tell Muhammad this law is tough on them , he changes it and allows them to have sex, let alone saying that you have to have it only when you want to procreate.


In response to these you said:i

recognise that laws and ordainances in Islamic and Christian conceptual understandings are very partial and misguided

But when I said

…you explicitly said that Islamic laws are “misguided”.

You said in response:

i said islamic UNDERSTANDINGS are off, not the laws for their time and place.

Ok, let’s go through these first:

a
1)we understand things in the context they appear. Now the context here is those three examples that I have given first , since it was in response to these examples that you said laws and ordainances in Islamic and Christian conceptual understandings are very partial and misguided

Those three example are not about what Muslims have come to believe. They are about cases thatMuhammad directly himself guided them. So when in this context you say that understandings are very partial and misguided or that islamic NDERSTANDINGS are off
,it automatically will mean that this misguidance was done my Muhammad himself.
If you had said what you said not in reponse to those three examples , then it would be a differnt story. But you said it right after I gave you cases of how Muhammad had guided Muslims.
2)Why would I or you even care about what Mulims believe or don’t believe ? There was no reason for you to repudiate this, since I did’nt say anything on this issue.
3)Besides this, it’s an obvious fact for Bahais that Muslim and Christian beliefs are a tangle of right and wrong, truth and superstition. Why would you like to repeat something which is abvious as day and at the same time not at all related to our talk?

This is why I asked you to go back and read what you said in the context. I hope you agree with me now, but if you still don’t , please let me know with what part of what I just wrote you don’t agree.

b
the first time you said:

laws and ordainances in Islamic and Christian conceptual understandings are very partial and misguided

the second time you dropped "laws and ordainances" part and just said:
UNDERSTANDINGS are off

1)you should either talk about law and ordinances or understandings, these are not the same. You have both of them in the first one. The one that based on it I said what I said.
2)why did you drop "laws and ordinances" the second time?
3) when you mentioned "law and ordinances" , you couldnl't be referring to those made by Muhammad's followers, since I did't say anything about any law made by Muhammad's followers. So you had to be referring to laws made by Muhammad himself, since this is what I was talking about in those examples.

Why did'nt you before coming to the conclusion that I have "put words in your mouth", just simply ask me first why I said what I said?
Do you see now that I didn't put any words in your mouth?

Keyvan

Postby Keyvan » Wed Jul 27, 2005 2:08 am

i think you said what you said because you assumed i was taking apart Muslim and Christian laws.

thats not what im saying. were on the same level that the muslim and christian understandings are a battle of good and evil, right and wrong.

ok, but what its not is a battle of consciousness and ignorance.

they cannot possibly within their understandings have achieved this consciousness. they expect the world of God to be the same as this world.

Zardoshtis however are conscious, since they very distinctly identify the "corpeal world"

basic stuff...we know this

well what i dont understand. and my questiont o you is, say you could completely detatch from the limitations of our belief in the primacy of this world, and RATHER be totally aware that primacy is only in the next world, how can we then go back to this world and revel in material things?

yes of course we can "enjoy" them, becuase our brains are built with a reward center, and our bodies react to material senses. this is merely artificial though. simple mechanics. to be totally conscious of the greater world what is the purpose of anything else?

now, onto love and marriage. there is a differnece between the spiritual love humans share and the psychological love that humans an animals share. the love that we share with the animals, the lesser one, is of no importance compared to the spiritual one

if we have a relationship built completely on spiritual love, we would be at such elevated states that the pleaseure of a sexual experience will be marginalised to much that it would be irrelevent. try to understand how much i emphasise the spiritual world and spiritual consciousness MARGINALISES the importance of this world

and by the importance of this world i dont just mean to the ideal, i mean that we as individiuals, as truely spiritaul individuals will have reprioritiesd our values

to be 100% spiritual would be able to not eat or sleep or do anything within this material world but stand still and no matter how much pain or anything one would consider we would experience as such, we would be totally 100% happy, because those material affects are NOTHING compared to eve nteh slightest fragment of a fraction of a taste of just one of hte bounties of the spiritual world.

clearly our marriages must be based on spiritual love, so how then can you say that material acitons coudl somehow act with the spiritual love.

and im not saying this on a common level, im talking about the ideal because with the exception of Hazrat Abdul Baha no human being will ever achieve anything near to that "100%"

farid
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 12:48 am
Contact:

Postby farid » Wed Jul 27, 2005 4:09 am

keyvan, I am fond of this subject. I liked the first matrix

I will use the new material you had at your last post in what I promised you I was going to write.

It's not a nice feeling to think somebody has put words in your mouth to prove himself right. That's why I tried to explain it for you .

you said: laws and ordainances in Islamic and Christian conceptual understandings are very partial and misguided.

can you explain to me what is "a law or ordiance in conceptual understanding of a belief"?

please don't say again that you meant " their understading" , I know now what you meant. My question is that if you meant only " their understanding", then where does "law and ordinance " fit to this?

Did you do a mistake in writing by putting "laws and ordainances" where you shouldnt' have?
If you did a mistake in writing , then you cannot say that I was putting words in your mouth.
All I said was : "you explicitly said that Islamic laws are “misguided”.
Isn't this what you explicitly said?
When anybody reads something, he or she does'nt look into author's mind, they read his words and they understand them in the context used.
Now, you used the words laws and ordiances and you used them in the context of the example I had given of Muhammad's guidances.

All you said in your last post that was related to my last post was this single sentence:
i think you said what you said because you assumed i was taking apart Muslim and Christian laws.

No, I did'nt assume you were taking them apart. You are including both of them ,aren't you?

can you explain why muhammad had given those guidelines(in those three cases I mentioned) to his followers, let say eg, when you get aroused, go home and have sex with your wife? does it show to you that marriage also has a sexual function or not? to control you rsex desire and keep it from getting loose?

You also said : they do it perscriptively, something they will do in order to get something back in return

I am confused about this :what is this prescrition? who has given them this prescription?

Guest

Postby Guest » Wed Jul 27, 2005 5:45 pm

laws and ordainances [as respected] in Islamic and Christian conceptual understandings are very partial and misguided

Keyvan

Postby Keyvan » Wed Jul 27, 2005 5:59 pm

THAT is what i meant. i though tyou would have picked up on that.



and no i am not including the ideas of the people of the time of past dispensations in reference to this.

i do not see Muslims as ones who could have seen on this plane, not for any fault of their own, but because this level of spirituality was not meant for their time.

they were still coming out of savagry, and needed to be tamed.
thats very direct but thats just how i see it.

this level of spirituality is much more refined for a more educated and developed people, arabs just needed reform school and thast what islam was.

as if to say, "sit down, shut up, stop raping your sister, burying your daughters in the sand, etc, etc. and well give you a candy bar and 70 virgins, ok!!!"

its not that the "70 virgins" was a lie, but that it was allegorical and not revealed before the Bahai Dispensation.

just like i believe the fatherhood and sonship of christianity was to be as such. the romans needed a gradual way of coming back from paganism, replacing hercules (half god/half man) with Jesus.
and say...later on if the papacy of peter could have been succeeded legitimatly and not usurped by paul, later popes could have stepped it down and brought the correct interperetation.

its only for Bahais to know all of this, and thus to have cut through all the cobwebs of materialism to see the true nature of the spiritual world.

you say you are fond of the matrix. say neo just finished a mission, but stayed in the matrix to play a game of tennis. sure maybe the others whose level of matrix consciousness were not as advanced as neos could have taken pleasure in such activities, but such things would have been so belittled and marginalised in relevence to...ANYTHING...to Neo. he wouldnt want to do something so artificial. he had more important things to do while in the matrix adn wouldnt stand idly until the mission of their people as a whole was accomplished and they won the war. THEN he could rest, but outside the matrix..in reality..for the matrix isnt real.

thus...we must strive our whole lives to live and act accordingly to efficiancy, become totally conscious to the nature of the world outside of this, and thus we wont even have a desire to anything other than build the Cause.

farid
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 12:48 am
Contact:

Postby farid » Wed Jul 27, 2005 7:27 pm

how could I possibly quess that you meant it this way when you had dropped as respected . So do you see now that if I got it wrong it was because you did'nt write it right? I hope you can agree with me.

Keyvan

Postby Keyvan » Wed Jul 27, 2005 9:27 pm

farid wrote:how could I possibly quess that you meant it this way when you had dropped as respected . So do you see now that if I got it wrong it was because you did'nt write it right? I hope you can agree with me.



no in fact, after my last post today i showed a few other people that line in context and asked them what they thought i meant. their responses were consistant with my expectations.

the key word is UNDERSTANDINGS, since what we were talking about in general are understandings of spirituality.

farid
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 12:48 am
Contact:

Postby farid » Wed Jul 27, 2005 10:21 pm

Keyvan , I am sure I am not as good as you and your friends in English, being it my second laguage. So maybe this was one reason that I got it different from the people you showed it to. Another reason that I think is more likely is that those people were not aware of the context of our discussion.
since you said it right after I mentioned those examples of muhammad's words, I took it as you were refering to laws made by him
Anyway, I want you to know that I didn't have the intention of putting words in your mouth and if you think I did, it was not deliberate.

farid
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 12:48 am
Contact:

Postby farid » Thu Jul 28, 2005 11:01 pm

By the way , you didn't answer this question I asked you before, I repeat it here:

You said : they do it perscriptively, something they will do in order to get something back in return

what prescrition? who has given them this prescription?

Keyvan

Postby Keyvan » Fri Jul 29, 2005 2:15 pm

well i showed them in context, but its ok

anyway. by perscriptively i mean their understanding of the Quran is that it is one big manual to get them into heaven and avoid hell. we now look back and see the Quran, the TRUE understadning of the Quran, as one big poem to prepare us for Baha'u'llah. THEN wiht Baha'u'llah have we arrived on what true spitituality and true purpose of following laws are, and why they are needed.

in other words their view of laws is a chore from parent to child, like washing the dishes, or cleaning your room, or no candy before dinner.

material things they want and believe are the essense of existance, whereas our writings reveal that those things that they are perscribed to avoid are not of any essense since the TRUE world, the spiritual world of God marginalizes THIS material world with alli ts desires to be smaller thana grain of sand.

majnun
Posts: 247
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 11:56 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

about the Qur'an

Postby majnun » Fri Jul 29, 2005 2:28 pm

Here is a diplomatic quote from a special book:

Wahid 3, Bab 3
Today nothing is sadder than the Furqan (Qur'an), though all read it, yet have of its mercy naught but curses.

Wahid 3, Bab 4
By as much as the Apostle of God was more excellent than Jesus, by so much was his Book superior to the Gospel; and the same holds good of subsequent Manifestations. Blessed is that soul which in each Manifestation becomes arrayed with the garment of the tradition of 'Askari. (the eleveth imam that is).

There are many mentions of the inutility of older scriptures,
described in various ways by the Bab.

Individuals should not turn their heads away when
they hear this call from above. The Bayan is easy
to understand. It is so, just to
prepare our minds to heavier shockers ahead.

Majnun.

farid
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 12:48 am
Contact:

Postby farid » Fri Jul 29, 2005 9:05 pm

I will only try to show here that what you are saying is contradictory to the writings. I am not going to talk about the philosophy of being plugged to this word and it being a game. I will talk about this separately and I will later post it. So please when you want to talk about this post, only do it by focusing on the writings, not what you have drawn from other sources or your thoughts. You may want to show me that I haven't understood the meaning of these writings correctly and tell me where you think I am going wrong:

1)
The Baha'is do not believe in the suppression of the sex impulse but in its regulation and control.
(From a letter dated 5 September 1938 written on behalf of Shoghi
Effendi to an individual believer)
(Shoghi Effendi: A Chaste and Holy Life, Page: 56)

2)
The proper use of the sex instinct is the natural right of every individual, and it is precisely for this very purpose that the institution of marriage has been established.
(Shoghi Effendi: A Chaste and Holy Life, Page: 56)

3)
A couple who are physically incapable of having children may, of course, marry, since the procreation of children is not the only purpose of marriage.
(Multiple Authors: Lights of Guidance, Page: 380)


1-acting on what you call ideal requires suppression of the sex impulse. let's say a Bahai man at the age of 18 gets married and he and his wife don't want more than two kids. God gives them two in the frist two years of their marriage. Now according to what you consider ideal, he should suppress his sex impulse. This is contradictory to what we have in the first guote.

2-In the second quote you see that proper use of sex instict is the natural right of every individual. Then it goes on to say that marriage provides it.
It does'nt say that making children in the marriage provides it.
In other words never in the writings I have seen such a thing that sex must be only in the case of making kids. If you have, please mention the quotes.

3- as I showed you before, although the primary purpose of marriage is making kids, it's not all of them. You see here what I told you before very clearly.

a)how do you explain these quotes?

b)You said :your basic understanding of the spiritual world is just not there. But how do you compare yourself with somebody like Guardian?
Don't you think if what you are saying is contradictory to what Guardian has said , then maybe you shoulld reconsider it?

c)Have you any support for your idea from writings? and if you don't , why do you say I will strongly put my foot down that my evaluation is dead on and not incorrect in the slightest?

d) if your answer to c is no, then have you at least any support for your idea from any acknowledged Bahai writer?

e)if your answer to d is also no, then how do you answer this question that why no Bahai writer has ever said what you are saying?
Do you believe that you are the first one to notice it?

f)if your answer to c is no, then why is that the writings have failed to provide us with any guidance on that?

Keyvan

Postby Keyvan » Sun Jul 31, 2005 2:58 am

dont make such accusations of as though im crossing a line when the only problem is youre not understanding what im saying


the fact that you would think by any means i suggest "suppression" of hte sex impulse proves your understanding of spirituality is just not there


"suppression" is the COMPLETE OPPISATE of what im talking about.

im saying the MENTALITY needs to changed, so that there would be no desire there to suppress in the first place.

the ROOT of it is the consciousness of its value. the end of it is the desire.

the root needs to be taken care of, then the desire will not be there. do you understand now?


whta happened to neo, when he made that first jump? he fell flat on his face? material impulses are not something you FIGHT, its something you have to realize dont even truely exist.



you shouldnt get ahead of yourself with an unapplicable line of questioning for something you dont understand enough in the first place.

now read that. meditate. and then come back to me.

farid
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 12:48 am
Contact:

Postby farid » Sun Jul 31, 2005 3:46 pm

1)the only problem is youre not understanding what im saying

I asked you to talk about the writings but you again went back to your story of neo. I hope you don’t think that this story is sent to us from God the way writings are. You shouldn't base your argument on any story , no matter how you like it. I told you I like it too, but I differntiate between it and writings.
It’s fine to form ideas based on other sources, but you should know that if those ideas are not compatible with the writings, they have no worth.

2)the root needs to be taken care of, then the desire will not be there.

a)Tell me where have you got this?
-Is it your own personal experience? Or you have any source for saying this? have you taken care of the roots and your sexual desire disapeared?
do you have to leave the roots alone for a short while when you want to procreate ? let me know how it works.
-If it is your personal experience why do you think it works the same for everyone? do you think that everyone is exactly like you? maybe your sexual desire is so weak due to your biology that it disapears , but how do you know it's the same thing for another person with a differnt biology?

b)why is it that other bodily desires like eating and drinking and sleeping don’t disappear with spirituality? What is so different about sexual desire that makes it dispear when you “take care of the roots” , but other desires remain there. They get regulated , but they don't disapear. Don't you think it's the same with sex desire?
why is it that the desire to laugh and enjoy flowers and open air and hang out with good friends and travelling and seeing beautiful places don't disapear with spiritualiy?

c) How do you know that sexual desire doesn’t serve any purpose beyond procreation? Do you have definite answers from medical doctors or it's just your own understanding? do you have reasons from writings ? Have you seen it anywhere in writings that its only good for procreation?

3)"suppression" is the COMPLETE OPPISATE of what im talking about.

You are talking of what leads to sex desire being completely disappeared, since you say the desire will not be there. But the writings talks about “regulation and control.” How comes you saw suppression and didn’t see regulation and control ? here it is again:

The Baha'is do not believe in the suppression of the sex impulse but in its regulation and control.

Regulation and control means adjusting it to the right amount, not making it disappear, the way you say it.

4)you skipped the second and third quote. Here is the second quote again:

"The proper use of the sex instinct is the natural right of every individual, and it is precisely for this very purpose that the institution of marriage has been established."

if it is only procreation that allows for sex, why in this quote it does'tn say that procreation inside marriage provides proper use of sex instinct, instead of marriage?

5) I also asked you : Have you any support for your idea from writings? and if you don't , why do you say I will strongly put my foot down that my evaluation is dead on and not incorrect in the slightest?
should I assume that since you haven't answered this question , you do'nt have any support from writings?
if this is true, then you may want to answer the second part: why do you say I will strongly put my foot down that my evaluation is dead on and not incorrect in the slightest?
do you have this attitude with all of your ideas? with everything you think of and you don't have any support for? do you think this is the right attitude?

Keyvan

Postby Keyvan » Sat Aug 06, 2005 4:10 pm

im strongly puting my foot down because you have not said anything to counter me. the reason why you still have not, is becaus you still have not understood what im talking about

i bring up a movie to find a way to relate it to you. you see, in teaching, its not unwise to do that, in fact many people i know have come to the faith or are researching the faith that have before hand turned it away because they didnt understand it until i explianed it to them as such. it matters not if they are children or adults.

im not talking about getting rid of hte desire. its not like theres a cause and effect, its that this world doesnt even really exist. its about being conscous of that.

to enjoy the flowers in the field or the blue sky, these are things given to us to enjoy which serve no other purpose than the experience. they are pure.
sex is done for a purpose.

there are no provisions how on how or when you can enjoy nature, the fact that sex has provisions makes it clearly different

and you know what. i did not always think this way. and back before i started becoming conscious of this i was more tempted and commiting of things i now consider horrible. i can never be fully conscious. only Abdul Baha has achieved this state. but the more i read the more it all clicks and i understand, the easier and easier it has become to abstain from such things. and not abstain in the controlled sense but to think of it as nothing in the first place.

farid
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 12:48 am
Contact:

Postby farid » Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:29 pm

you have not said anything to counter me

When you express an idea and you claim that it’s the truth and you expect others to agree , you must bring proof for each component of that idea. If you cannot do this, you cannot expect anybody to accept it.
For a Bahai, you have to have your proofs from two sources, science and writings.
In my previous post, I questioned each component of your idea and you haven’t given proof to even one of them. So anybody who rejects your idea is doing a wise thing.
If you think I haven’t countered you, it's mainly because you haven’t presented any proof yet. So there is nothing for me to disprove. I am just waiting to see where and how you formed these ideas and I haven't heard anything but from the movie.

I bring up a movie to find a way to relate it to you.

It’s ok to use a movies as an example, but after you’ve done that, you should move to writings and science to prove what you are saying. In your case, you haven’t moved from your movie to anything else.

in teaching, its not unwise to do that, in fact many people i know have come to the faith or are researching the faith that have before hand turned it away because they didnt understand it until i explianed it to them as such.

Those people as you said were not Bahais, but I am a Bahai, so you can use Bahai writings as proof of what you are saying with me. I don’t know why you are mixing these two different situations.

im not talking about getting rid of hte desire.

I also didn’t use “getting rid of something “.I exactly used the sentence you used when I was asking my questions , which was: the root needs to be taken care of, then the desire will not be there.

I asked you if the desire is not there, then how do you use it when you want to procreate? do you leave the roots alone for a while?

to enjoy the flowers in the field or the blue sky, these are things given to us to enjoy which serve no other purpose than the experience. they are pure.

You have formed a new idea here, which shows you have the habit of forming ideas without having any support for them. You cannot just use your common sense for things that may have very precise biological or spiritual reasons.
How do you know and from where that there is no other purpose in doing these but “the experience”?

sex is done for a purpose.

And you think the only purpose for it is procreation. That’s why I asked :

“How do you know that sexual desire doesn’t serve any purpose beyond procreation? Do you have definite answers from medical doctors or it's just your own understanding? do you have reasons from writings ? Have you seen it anywhere in writings that its only good for procreation?”

the fact that sex has provisions makes it clearly different

the provison for sex (as I see it in many places in writings ) is that it must be done inside of marriage. If you believe that the provision is that it must be done just for procreation, you have to quote that provision from writings. You shave not done this yet.

Guest

Postby Guest » Sun Aug 07, 2005 11:46 pm

farid wrote:“How do you know that sexual desire doesn’t serve any purpose beyond procreation? Do you have definite answers from medical doctors or it's just your own understanding? do you have reasons from writings ? Have you seen it anywhere in writings that its only good for procreation?”


Farid, I think the bahá'í writings says the *main* purpose of sex is procreation not the *only* purpose, the writings says there should be spiritual and physical unity in the couple.

Thanks,

-JdE

Guest

Postby Guest » Mon Aug 08, 2005 12:14 am

I should say the main purpose of marriage is procreation not the *only* purpose, the writings says there should be spiritual and physical unity in the couple, and also sexual impulse is in the correct channel when is performed inside this institution.

-JdE

Here some quotes:

"...They should realize, moreover, that the primary purpose of marriage is the procreation of children. A couple who are physically incapable of having children may, of course, marry, since the procreation of children is not the only purpose of marriage. However, it would be contrary to the spirit of the Teachings for a couple to decide voluntarily never to have any children."
(From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer, November 3, 1982)

"The Bahá'í Faith recognizes the value of the sex impulse, but condemns its illegitimate and improper expressions such as free love, companionate marriage and others, all of which it considers positively harmful to man and to the society in which he lives. The proper use of the sex instinct is the natural right of every individual, and it is precisely for this purpose that the institution of marriage has been established. The Bahá'ís do not believe in the suppression of the sex impulse but in its regulation and control."(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, September 5, 1938: Messages from the Universal House of Justice, 1968-1973, p. 108)

"… For Bahá'u'lláh explicitly reveals in His Book of Laws that the very purpose of marriage is the procreation of children who, when grown up, will be able to know God and to recognize and observe His Commandments and Laws as revealed through His Messengers. Marriage is thus, according to the Bahá'í Teachings, primarily a social and moral act. It has purpose which transcends the immediate personal needs and interests of the parties..."
(From letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, October 14, 1935)

farid
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 12:48 am
Contact:

Postby farid » Mon Aug 08, 2005 3:41 am

Thank you quest, this is what I have been telling keyvan many times. I used the same quotes you had in my previous posts, but Keyvan thinks non of them counter his belief that sex only must be done for procreation.

Guest

Postby Guest » Mon Aug 08, 2005 2:38 pm

farid wrote:Thank you quest, this is what I have been telling keyvan many times. I used the same quotes you had in my previous posts, but Keyvan thinks non of them counter his belief that sex only must be done for procreation.


Ok, Farid, the quote is clear, it says "the procreation of children is not the only purpose of marriage", I think there should be equilibrium between this two: one is enjoy sexual marital life, but not go to extremes (adultery, sodomia, lechery) and also decide to deprive sex in a marriage or do sterilization to don't have any children, "it would be contrary to the spirit of the Teachings for a couple to decide voluntarily never to have any children."

JdE

farid
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 12:48 am
Contact:

Postby farid » Mon Aug 08, 2005 2:54 pm

Yes, I also see it the way you see it. thanks again.

brettz9
Posts: 1368
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 12:12 pm
Contact:

Postby brettz9 » Mon Aug 08, 2005 4:03 pm

Hello all,

Let me first start by saying that I see how Keyvan could come to this conclusion (I myself entertained this thought at one point). It would be plausible for someone to take such a position (if not likely/essential), were it not for some other Writings which I include below (in addition to several of the points Farid made).

I will start with those quotations which I think unequivocally refute this idea (but after a selection of quotations on birth control), and then I will cite others which may not be as unequivocal, but which may provide some additional confirmation as well as perhaps simply and hopefully be of interest.


Birth Control

Some have taken the early (first?) quotation of the Guardian on the subject of birth control (included in the following letter on behalf of the House of Justice) out of the context of the question being about PERMANENT methods of birth control (and the context of subsequent quotations) to claim that there was some contradiction with later statements on the subject. As should be evident from the following, there is no contradiction (and thus the statements permitting birth control should argue against sex (necessarily at least) needing to always be with the intention of having children):

With regard to birth control an individual asked the beloved Guardian a similar question in 1935, and the Guardian’s secretary replied on his behalf on 14 October 1935:

“As to the problem of birth control, neither Bahá'u'lláh nor 'Abdu'l-Bahá have revealed anything direct or explicit regarding this question. But the Bahá'í Teachings, when carefully studied imply that such current conceptions like birth control, if not necessarily wrong and immoral in principle, have nevertheless to be discarded as constituting a real danger to the very foundations of our social life. For Bahá'u'lláh explicitly reveals in His Book of laws that the very purpose of marriage is the procreation of children who, when grown up, will be able to know God and to recognize and observe His Commandments and Laws as revealed through His Messengers. Marriage is thus, according to the Bahá'í Teachings, primarily a social and moral act. It has a purpose which transcends the immediate personal needs and interests of the parties. Birth control, except in certain exceptional cases, is therefore not permissible.”

Another believer, having read this letter, asked the beloved Guardian whether all birth control methods of any purpose were absolutely prohibited by Bahá'í Teachings. The secretary of the beloved Guardian wrote on his behalf on 4 February 1937:

“The Guardian has…given his careful consideration to your question regarding the Bahá'í view of birth control.

“…there is no reference whatsoever in the Writings on this subject. The utmost we can say is by way of reference from what Bahá'u'lláh has revealed regarding the nature, purpose and character of marriage.

“We, as Bahá'ís, are not therefore in a position either to condemn the practice of birth control or to confirm it.

“Birth control, however, when exercised in order to deliberately prevent the procreation of any children is against the Spirit of the Law of Bahá'u'lláh, which defines the primary purpose of marriage to be the rearing of children and their spiritual training in the Cause. The Universal House of Justice will have to consider this issue and give its verdict upon it.”

The Universal House of Justice feels that the time has not yet arrived for legislation on this matter, and that these instructions provide sufficient guidance for the friends for the time being.

(From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to a National Spiritual Assembly, 26 August 1971, emphasis added, cited at http://www.bnasaa.org/ABORTION.htm )


"To use birth control in order to have no children at all thwarts the purpose of marriage."

(Letter from the Universal House of Justice, dated February 27, 1973, in Developing Distinctive Bahá'í Communities, p. 19.1)


As discussed earlier, the "sacred and primary purpose of marriage" does not exclude other purposes...To draw the conclusion that every single sexual act must be for this purpose is unwarranted...What it is speaking against, as I think is clearly seen by an understanding of all the quotations above is that it is speaking against simply marrying for companionship without interest in serving the world by raising up a child and PERPETUALLY avoiding this.

One might be tempted to nevertheless argue that it would be advisable to have many children like how some Catholics (or Mormons) do, that having many children is a good thing (and that it is bad to have sex that does not seek to do this), note the Universal House of Justice dispels this:

There is nothing in the Sacred Writings specifically on the subjects of birth control, abortion or sterilization, but Bahá'u'lláh did state that the primary purpose of marriage was the procreation of children, and it is to this primary purpose that the beloved Guardian alludes. . . . This does not imply that a couple are obliged to have as many children as they can; the Guardian's secretary clearly stated on his behalf, in answer to an inquiry, that it was for the husband and wife to decide how many children they would have. A decision to have no children at all would vitiate the primary purpose of marriage unless, of course, there were some medical reason why such a decision would be required.

You and your husband, therefore, should have no feeling that you are obliged to add to your already large family. This is a matter entirely for you to decide, and there are many methods of preventing conception, including self-discipline and restraint, to which you can have recourse. Sterilization, however, would be a more far-reaching action than any of these, with implications and results beyond those necessary for the immediate purpose of limiting the size of your family, and is not permissible in Bahá'í law except in rare instances where it is necessary for a medical reason.

(Letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice, dated January 28, 1977, cited at http://www.bnasaa.org/ABORTION.htm , emphasis added)


In a letter written to an individual believer on 3 February 1932, the beloved Guardian’s secretary wrote on his behalf:

“You inquired whether we have anything in the teachings concerning birth control and the sex element in marriage. Shoghi Effendi says that there is scarcely anything on that subject in the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh and the Master except a constant emphasis on mutual fidelity. Both Bahá'u'lláh and the Báb emphasise the need for children in marriage. The latter, for example, states that to beget children is the highest physical fruit of man’s existence. But neither say whether the number of children should be limited or not. Or if it is to be limited what is the proper method to be used.”

Bahá'u'lláh stated that the primary purpose of marriage was the procreation of children, and the beloved Guardian alludes to this in many of the letters that were written on his behalf on this subject. This does not imply that a couple are obliged to have as many children as they can; the Guardian’s secretary clearly stated on his behalf, in answer to an enquiry, that it was for the husband and wife to decide how many children they would have. A decision to have no children at all would vitiate the primary purpose of marriage and would be contrary to the spirit of the law of Bahá'u'lláh, unless, of course, there were some medical reason why such a decision would be required.

(From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to a National Spiritual Assembly, 16 March 1983, cited at http://www.bnasaa.org/ABORTION.htm , emphasis added)


AND:

"As to birth control methods, the House of Justice does not wish to comment on the effectiveness or possible hazards of present-day contraceptive agents, and leaves it to individuals to decide what course of action they will take in light of the teachings and the best medical advice available...."

(From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer, March 4, 1981: From a compilation entitled, Birth Control and Related Subjects, p. 3, in Lights of Guidance, p. 349, emphasis added)




At the very least then, the above should confirm that we cannot say that birth control is wrong (though perhaps we can think it if our conscience leads us to this conclusion), at least until the Universal House of Justice adds any further legislation on the subject.

However, I think the following make it more difficult to hold to this position (unless one argues that they are referring only to cases such as genetic abnormalities -- see http://www.bnasaa.org/ABORTION.htm )

"What can now be considered to be a form of family fertility control for some patients are those methods of intervention which are reversible and therefore do not necessarily bring about permanent sterility. Where such methods have been employed, the wish by patients to have additional children, for whatever reason, can be realized through a corrective operation."

(From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer, April 18, 1982: From a compilation entitled, Birth Control and Related Subjects, p. 3, in Lights of Guidance, p. 350)


and:

"It is clear that to have a surgical operation merely to avoid unwanted children is not acceptable. However, as in the case of abortion, circumstances might exist in which such an operation would be justified. Individual believers called upon to make such a decision must be guided by the Baha'i principles involved, the best professional advice available to them, and their own consciences. In arriving at a decision the parties must also take into consideration the availability, reliability and reversibility of all contraceptive methods."

(From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer, October 25, 1971, Lights of Guidance, p. 348)


Now, If "reliability", "reversibility" and "availability" are (pragmatic) factors which they may take into consideration, it would be a stretch, I think, to say that self-discipline alone was intended (one will not need to reverse "self-discipline" as a method unless maybe one can hypnotize oneself to never want sex again!).


The following quotation from Shoghi Effendi I think may also amplify the above in allowing for birth control (or physical satisfaction derived from sex without the purpose of procreation). Note, he is not talking about having more babies:


"He suggests to you that perhaps you are not giving your husband enough of your love, physically and spiritually, to keep his interest centred in you. Marriage problems are often very involved and subtle, and we Baha'is, being enlightened and progressive people, should not hesitate, if it seems necessary or desirable, to turn to science for help in such matters."
(Shoghi Effendi: Preserving Marriages, p. 451, emphasis added)




Consummation argument

There is also an argument based on the fact that for marriage to take place, there is a requirement (which though it can met by the couple simply residing together) for consummation of the marriage to take place on the wedding night:

"The consummation of marriage by a couple is, as you aptly state, an intimate and private matter outside the scrutiny of others. While consummation normally implies a sexual relationship, the Bahá'í law requiring consummation to take place within twenty-four hours of the ceremony can be considered as fulfilled if the couple has commenced cohabitation with the intention of setting up the family relationship."

(From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer, dated 28 July, 1978, Lights of Guidance, p.390)


If the purpose of this law is not to bind the couple together, then it would seem to contradict the permission given to the couple as to when to decide to have children. Also, the couple is incapable of having children, then this requirement for consummation could only be met in the scenario you mention if they take the exception to the law, rather than the law itself.



Physical is good too inside of marriage

Please note that 'Abdu'l-Bahá DOES refer to a physical union as well as a spiritual one in the following...Although He speaks of the greater importance of the spiritual, he does not obliterate its importance here:

O thou dear handmaid of God! Thy letter hath been received, and its contents were noted.

Marriage, among the mass of the people, is a physical bond, and this union can only be temporary, since it is foredoomed to a physical separation at the close.

Among the people of Baha, however, marriage must be a union of the body and of the spirit as well, for here both husband and wife are aglow with the same wine, both are enamoured of the same matchless Face, both live and move through the same spirit, both are illumined by the same glory. This connection between them is a spiritual one, hence it is a bond that will abide forever. Likewise do they enjoy strong and lasting ties in the physical world as well, for if the marriage is based both on the spirit and the body, that union is a true one, hence it will endure. If, however, the bond is physical and nothing more, it is sure to be only temporary, and must inexorably end in separation.

When, therefore, the people of Baha undertake to marry, the union must be a true relationship, a spiritual coming together as well as a physical one, so that throughout every phase of life, and in all the worlds of God, their union will endure; for this real oneness is a gleaming out of the love of God.

('Abdu'l-Bahá, Selections from the Writings of 'Abdu'l-Bahá, sec. 84, p. 117, emphasis added)


Note in the following, the Guardian does not reply that the reason the sex instinct is not evil is that it can cause children; he says that it "can bring joy and satisfaction to the individual". Since the purpose of the Cause is in fact to serve humanity for bringing about their happiness, this can be a worthy end in itself (though admittedly not to extremes):

"Sex instinct, like all other human instincts, is not necessarily evil. It is a power which, if properly directed, can bring joy and satisfaction to the individual. If misused or abused it brings, of course, incalculable harm not only to the individual but also to the society in which he lives. While the Baha'is condemn asceticism and all extreme forms of self-mortification they at the same time view with disfavour the current theories of sex ethics which cannot but bring ruin to human society. In the Baha'i Cause marriage has been encouraged, but made somewhat difficult, conditioned as it is upon the consent of the four parents. Divorce, on the other hand, has been made relatively easy, and the sociologists are just beginning to realise the importance of this law...."
(Shoghi Effendi, Unfolding Destiny, p. 435)


And from the Holy Qur'án:

The believers must (eventually) win through,-
Those who humble themselves in their prayers;
Who avoid vain talk;
Who are active in deeds of charity;
Who abstain from sex,
Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame,
But those whose desires exceed those limits are transgressors;-

(Qur'án 23:1-7)


Your wives are your field: go in, therefore, to your field as ye will; but do first some act for your souls' good: and fear ye God, and know that ye must meet Him; and bear these good tidings to the faithful. Qur'án 2:222 (Rodwell, 2:223 in traditional numbering)


Now, being that the latter two were revealed in a prior Dispensation, one may question the applicability of this (e.g., the impression some may get from the latter verse that there can be imposition on the wife). But I think it is a further example of not constraining sex within marriage (at least to such an austere degree).



Spiritual is influenced by the physical too (though to an ideally lesser degree)

While you are quite right, I think, Keyvan, to give much greater importance to the spiritual, we should be careful not to overstate it. Consider the following letter on behalf of the Guardian referring to the importance of the physical environment and conditions upon man's spiritual nature ('Abdu'l-Bahá also gives such examples of the physical's impact on the spiritual when speaking of music, cleanliness, etc.)

We cannot segregate the human heart from the environment outside us and say that once one of these is reformed everything will be improved. Man is organic with the world. His inner life moulds the environment and is itself also deeply affected by it. The one acts upon the other and every abiding change in the life of man is the result of these mutual reactions.

No movement in the world directs its attention upon both these aspects of human life and has full measures for their improvement, save the teachings of Bahá'u'lláh. And this is its distinctive feature. If we desire therefore the good of the world we should strive to spread those teachings and also practise them in our own life. Through them will the human heart be changed, and also our social environment provides the atmosphere in which we can grow spiritually and reflect in full the light of God shining through the revelation of Bahá'u'lláh.

(From a letter on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, dated 17 February 1933 to an individual believer, in Conservation of the Earth's Resources, section 3.3)




Homsexuality is not stated as wrong because of it being merely for the sake of not producing children

I think that though we may be tempted to find one clear-cut reason why homosexuality is wrong, I don't think you can generalize to say that all sex without a procreational intent is wrong. Sex is clearly to be within (heterosexual) marriage, and generally toward the lines of procreation (not for just mere perpetual satisfaction of one's desires without the responsibility of bringing up a child, if possible). In the case of homosexuality, there is a document from the House which simply says effectively, it should be accepted in this case because God says so. Other rationales may have to do with the complementarity of the sexes, etc.

Of course for non-monogamous sex, there are other issues of compromised security (especially but not exclusively for the woman), future marital happiness, etc.

Sex IS tamable when there is the mutual commitment of marriage, and when the thoughts of the couple are generally directed to having children. You really do need, as Farid says, evidence to say otherwise, at least if you say it should be so for others.

Sex in marriage as a tool for sustenance in service (and a service in itself)

Keyvan said:

lets pretend someone is using a crane to build a Mashriqu'l-Adkhar. Lets say someone has been given the honor to use that crane to put the final ornament on top. after having done so. the man uses the crane off to the side to play with as a game. if that worker was truely aware of the great thing he has just done, what purpose would there then be for such bland "amusement" does that work itself not suffice the man? is that honor not great enough to keep him content? thus the man must not fully appreciate or be conscious of the honor.
what im saying is that we will strive our whole lives to put the temple. and once we do what is the point!!??! of anything else


Are you saying that the man who on videotape playfully danced at the celebration of the Mashriqu'l-Adhkár was being disrespectful? Don't prior scriptures even predict of songs and dances to be sung in praise of such developments?

It is nice to hear someone speak of reverence in a world environment which is so lacking in it nowadays, but I think this may be going to the other extreme...We have to guard against puritanism as much as against laxity...I seem to remember just reading (forgive my lack of a source) the beloved Guardian referring to religious conservatism being perhaps more dangerous than the evils of secularity. I realize you are certainly not saying this to be hard of heart, but after weighing the evidence with both heart and mind (and consultation), we should be just as predisposed to consider whether we may be (out of our love) going a little too far in the strictness direction as well as the laxity direction. There is also a pilgrim's note about Bahá'ís being capable of fanaticism as well.

Where I think your admirable dedication to a central focus on the Cause of God is a little off mark is that some sentiments like playing, joking, the arts, rest and relaxation (the lives of the Central Figures and their Writings bear witness to the need or advantage of all of these in their place) do not require and even in some cases cannot allow a conscious intellectual thought of God during their experience--at least in their entirety or in an intellectual sense (such extremes can take the pleasure and relaxation out of these things, in some cases)...

This is not to say one should not praise God for these experiences, but I think we really have to broaden our definition of sustenance for ourselves and of service to others. These are all accepted and embraced by the Cause and they are tools toward the Cause, whether directly or indirectly in sustaining the individual, and thus the society. Otherwise, we will miss out on the happiness which it is our Faith's purpose to bring.

Bahá'u'lláh wrote that we should OBEY the command to marry (though exceptions can be made to this personal "law") as an assistance to ourselves. Shoghi Effendi variously translated (or Bahá'u'lláh revealed it differently) a passage in Bahá'u'lláh's message to the monks as stating that marriage was "conducive to fidelity" and was "that which will demonstrate fidelity". Although the companionship of marriage (besides sex) with a life partner is a most signficant factor toward conducing to fideltiy, if sex were to be limited to those MOMENTS where procreation was intended, I bet there would be a lot more strain and difficulty, as Farid suggests.

On your comparison to eating, I think we also need to be careful with such leaps...Who says eating for emotional relief is necessarily bad? Clearly, it is not healthy to do in all circumstances, just as sex used in this way would not be healthy. But, if it helps one to reward oneself after a lot of work, or to pick up one's spirits again after some setbacks, wouldn't it be logical and practical to do just that--to be of better spirits for serving others?

Excess, Moderation, Purpose

Benjamin Franklin, while being somewhat austere, wrote that one should only have sex for procreation or for health. If you ever have chronicly poor health, God forbid, or examine studies on the subject, you will see how sex can boost your health (and thus ability to be happy and bring happiness to others). Not to mention emotional health. Although the relative emphasis is on the spiritual, there are plenty of examples where we are advised--even commanded--to take advantage of physical things...It may, I would venture, be even easier for someone who is younger to say this, as despite hormones, one as a younger person, also has more energy to control these impulses.

you said:

to enjoy the flowers in the field or the blue sky, these are things given to us to enjoy which serve no other purpose than the experience. they are pure.
sex is done for a purpose.

there are no provisions how on how or when you can enjoy nature, the fact that sex has provisions makes it clearly different


I know I go on walks through nature with a purpose--to refresh myself (and get ideas). It is not bad to have a purpose and do something for enjoyment as well. To say that it can be abused or that it is regulated by laws is not a sufficient rationale. Anything can be abused, and everything IS regulated by the law of moderation in our Faith.

Other points brought up in the posts of this thread

1) 'Abdu'l-Bahá is to have said (in a pilgrim's note) that we should spend half of the day on material affairs and the other on spiritual ones.

2) Just as with pilgrim's notes, Hadith are interesting, but we need to take them with grain of salt...

3) You said:

later on if the papacy of peter could have been succeeded legitimatly and not usurped by paul, later popes could have stepped it down and brought the correct interperetation.

Maybe and maybe not...They were not guaranteed that guidance as the Imáms were (and certainly not the protection of the Covenant in this age). But it is a good point to mention the tragedy of the Church Fathers' excess in this regard of praising celibacy (as the Qur'án later strongly corrected).


4) As far as the future promise of reward, I think it would stand to reason that if Shoghi Effendi wrote that very few people act out of love alone and need an element of fear to regulate their conduct, Bahá'u'lláh's admonition to teach children of the "Promise and the Threat as recorded in the Book" (but not to lead to "bigotry" or "fanaticism") should show that the promise of reward is a human desire to have. Although the Báb states this motivation is not a worthy ideal (though He also says Paradise will still be the reward of the believer--he just shouldn't attach himself to it), again, very few people (think of it for yourself, for example) cannot be benefited, especially in moments of difficulty and weakness, by an additional material incentive...And not all priests act so selfishly...Bahá'u'lláh speaks of these too...Despite the despicable perversion of this motivation by their clergy, the audacity in action of suicide bombers should testify to the power of the promise of future reward ('Abdu'l-Bahá refers to this power in its benign form in the last chapter of Some Answered Questions in speaking of the virtue of the early Christians--a virtue which has since been minimized by clergy imposing an extreme interpretation of the doctrine of grace over works).

5) The Bahá'í Writings make absolutely clear (stating that these are requirements of belief in one God) that the station of the Manifestations of God are equal...The Holy Books can be included in devotional services ('Abdu'l-Bahá even used the example in Some Answered Questions of Persians now going back to read from the Bible as a proof of the POSITIVE transforming power of religion--in Secret of Divine Civilization he also says that if the Imám had not known of the Jewish traditions or a Muslim did not know of the Gospel, there would not/could not be success for the Faith).

The Báb's emphasis, as Shoghi Effendi makes clear (in his own writing), was to make a dramatic break from the past. Much of it was not meant to be implemented literally. The emphasis on Bahá'u'lláh as the Most Great Spirit, for example, is established to simply be metaphor for emphasing the greatness of this day and Revelation. Each successive Manifestation does provide a greater effusion of grace...But when the Manifestation Himself holds such praise for the previous Holy Books, both explicitly and indirectly through quoting from it, not to mention His appointed interpreters, it becomes even blasphemous to take this so literally. We are told that if a Tablet of Bahá'u'lláh seems to contradict one of 'Abdu'l-Bahá's to accept the latter, since He alone was empowered to authoritiatvely provide clarification of what Bahá'u'lláh really meant. Likewise should we realize that Shoghi Effendi and the House of Justice are not going to go beyond their sphere (nor could they conceivably willingly delegate their letters to others without oversight or at least mentioning any limited applicability they were to have).

6) Psychologists recognize the need for the sublimation of our animalistic impulses. Often suppression can even cause more indulgence (as the quotes of Bahá'u'lláh on priests and monks being told to marry indicate), but to sublimate to some degree can be of great benefit for ourselves and others.

best wishes,
Brett

Guest

Postby Guest » Tue Aug 09, 2005 12:33 am

Congratulations Brett, a masterful explanation!
guest (JdE)
P.S. now let's we put this on practice!

brettz9
Posts: 1368
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 12:12 pm
Contact:

Postby brettz9 » Tue Aug 09, 2005 1:05 pm

P.S. now let's we put this on practice!


God? Is that you? :)

farid
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 12:48 am
Contact:

Postby farid » Tue Aug 09, 2005 3:56 pm

Thanks bett for taking your time and writing such a comprehensive post.
When I was wriring on this subject, I mostly tried to find out by my questions what keyvan had as the proof or evidence, and from what source he was making those.
As I pointed out, when we form an idea, although the idea itself dosn't have to be in the writings in its final form, but the components or prinicples that the idea stands on, has to be confirmed by writings. It's like math in which based on some accepted principles, you can make complicated math. Also , the idea in its final form, should not contradict what we have in writings. This was my focus in what I wrote on this subject, but since you have added many extra points to it, I like to write a little on some of them.

In the case of homosexuality, there is a document from the House which simply says effectively, it should be accepted in this case because God says so.


As we know, homosexuality is a much worse action than adultery, to the degree that Bahaullah says his pen cannot write on this issue.
If the reason behind ban on these two were the same, then it would be an action wrong as much as adultery , but it's much worse


if you ever have chronicly poor health, God forbid, or examine studies on the subject, you will see how sex can boost your health (and thus ability to be happy and bring happiness to others).


In his book, Kimyaye saadat ( the elixir of salvation) , Ghazali talks about spiritual benefits of sexual desire. He says that pleasures of this world, leads us to get a glimpse of the pleasures of the next world. He says since the sexual pleasure is the biggest or the most intense of bodily pleasures, so it better than other pleasures tells us about spititual pleasures. He says, when we see that in this material world, such an intense pleasure is available, how much more intense will be the pleasures of the next world.

In my opinon _I haven't read or heard this form anywhere, so it can be wrong , I like to read what you think about it brett_ procreation is not a reason for the existence of sexual pleasure. This is a sublte point:
We don't have to enjoy from sex to procreate. There are many other actitivites in our lives that we do , just becaue they are beneficial. They might even be paiful, like vaccinatnion.
Based on the evolution theory, we can say that since those with stronger sex impulse procreated more, it led to this desire getting stronger during time.All it says is that, having stronger sexual desire leads to more procreation, not that its necessary for procreation. These two are quite differnent.
Maye there was a time millions of years ago, when prehistoric man didnt know how to procreate , and it was only his sexual impulse who led him to do it. We can say that at that time, sex impuse was necessary for procreation;it's not like this today.
Although sexual pleasure plays a role in physically making sex possible, but, the driving force of this pleasure in my opinion is not necessary for procreation. Even if it was a mere painful experience, still people would do it to procreate.Even if instead of pleasure, it was pain who was making sex physically possible, we would do it when we wanted to have kids.
Now if this opinion of mine is correct, it means that sex has other roles than procreation, and procreation is not one of them.

On the other hand, sex plays an important role in physical union of man and woman, as writings talk about this, and also is a strong incentive for marriage. One of the examples I like about this is when they liken sex to spice of food. Although it may not be the food itself, but it plays a crucial role in making our stomach and mouth ready to eat food and digest it, and makes it an enjoyable even.

Have you ever read anywhere in the writings that sex impuse plays a role in procreation directly ?Maybe I am being forgetful, but I can't remember anything of this sort. Sex makes marriage more probable , and in this way, it helps in procreation. So it acts indirectly.

brettz9
Posts: 1368
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 12:12 pm
Contact:

Postby brettz9 » Tue Aug 09, 2005 10:16 pm

As far as homosexuality vs. adultery, I don't think that a leap can be made that the former is far worse (if at all or the other way around even). Note in the Notes to the Aqdas of the verse you are speaking of, it states that it has the implication of paederasty (or child abuse). This crime, which clearly violates the most basic trust and mental well-being of an innocent, clearly belongs in this strong category.

The word translated here as "boys" has, in this context, in the Arabic original, the implication of paederasty. Shoghi Effendi has interpreted this reference as a prohibition on all homosexual relations.


Although Shoghi Effendi writes in the above that the prohibition also extends to homosexuality, this does not necessitate such a leap as to equate the two.

Notice, for example, in the following how one might basically see that he is NOT placing it as significantly worse than any other sexual vices. This is very different from the wording used against child abuse in the Writings (see the supplement to "Developing Distinctive Bahá'í Communities" on Domestic violence). In fact, in its usage of the phrase "however repulsive it may be to others",

"The question of how to deal with homosexuals is a very difficult one. Homosexuality is forbidden in the Bahá'í Faith by Bahá'u'lláh; so, for that matter, are immorality and adultery. If one is going to start imposing heavy sanctions on people who are the victims of this abnormality, however repulsive it may be to others, then it is only fair to impose equally heavy sanctions on any Bahá'ís who step beyond the moral limits defined by Bahá'u'lláh. Obviously at the present time this would create an impossible and ridiculous situation.

"He feels, therefore, that, through loving advice, through repeated warnings, any friends who are flagrantly immoral should be assisted, and, if possible, restrained. If their activities overstep all bounds and become a matter of public scandal, then the Assembly can consider depriving them of their voting rights. However, he does not advise this course of action, and feels it should only be resorted to in very flagrant cases."

(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States, August 20, 1955, in Lights of Guidance, no. 1230)


I for one think he is saying that we should be careful to examine our motives for reacting against this as some of us do, and while certainly not accepting it, put it in proportion to other vices we may see as more "acceptable". The House of Justice also indicates that we should not go to the extremes which most people gravitate toward in this age of "resignation" to it on the one hand, or to "condemnation" of the person on the other. (Ruhiyyih Khanum, on a somewhat related matter (related not only statistically but because of the possibly greater stigma in the case of homosexuality), urged strongly at the World Congress for Bahá'ís to be compassionate regarding the AIDS crisis (I think she said so directly, but if not, by implication.)

and again...

To regard homosexuals with prejudice and disdain would be entirely against the spirit of Bahá'í Teachings. The doors are open for all of humanity to enter the Cause of God, irrespective of their present circumstances; this invitation applies to homosexuals as well as to any others who are engaged in practices contrary to the Bahá'í Teachings.

(Letter from the Universal House of Justice, dated September 11, 1995, to a National Spiritual Assembly, in Developing Distinctive Bahá'í Communities, pp. 6.8-6.9)


If the Qur'ánic Dispensation is any indication, then adultery (between married persons--not in the connotation of premarital sex), with its explicit punishment of stoning is stronger than that for homosexuality which was not spelled out in the Qur'án itself. (Though granted, the law for adultery between married persons was not spelled out in the Aqdas though it was for unmarried persons.)

Yes, interesting points of Ghazali you raise. I have also seen some other Muslim author speak of the divine unity powerfully represented in the physical union of man and woman.

As far as evolution, yes, especially with men, the desires may have been evolutionarily adaptive, but on the other hand, perhaps there is also some evolutionary incentive for the fathers to also stick around to protect and procure for the offspring, assisting the mother (as licentious fathers could or would not really do).

I think your argument separating the two on this subject is a good one. (Of course, we cannot and are not to separate them entirely, both because it is a moral imperative from our Writings not to (especially if separating sex from marriage too), and because human beings are strengthened by the bonds that marriage and family bring. In Mr. Furutan's book, there is a quotation listed of 'Abdu'l-Bahá stating that a house without a child is like a house without a light.

One thing which really got me through some very difficult times was watching good-natured family sitcoms (reruns, since there aren't many (if any) nowadays on television to speak of). It is a basic human need to be sustained in the comfort of such a family environment (even fictional ones can help!--Thank you Mr. Cosby and Family Ties...). 'Abdu'l-Bahá refers to the regret a man (who was negligent earlier) would have later in life if not having started a family...

Have you ever read anywhere in the writings that sex impuse plays a role in procreation directly ?


Do you mean to ask whether it says that the sexual impulse leads to procreation, that the desire aids the chances of success in procreation, or what?

Maybe I am being forgetful, but I can't remember anything of this sort. Sex makes marriage more probable , and in this way, it helps in procreation. So it acts indirectly.


Yes...That brings to mind for me the quotation about the importance of getting married young (while still in possession of one's physical vigour). The motivation for this need not be sexual, but the end result of marrying young would lead to more chances of a successful procreation and child-rearing (assuming the would-be parents have been raised to be mature individuals)...

best wishes,
Brett

Guest

Postby Guest » Tue Aug 09, 2005 11:10 pm

brettz9 wrote:that brings to mind for me the quotation about the importance of getting married young (while still in possession of one's physical vigour)...


Brett, do you think the importance mentioned in the writings to get married young is just because of health?
Thanks,
JdE

brettz9
Posts: 1368
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 12:12 pm
Contact:

Postby brettz9 » Tue Aug 09, 2005 11:50 pm

Brett, do you think the importance mentioned in the writings to get married young is just because of health?


No...In this case, what I was speaking of was health as a means toward being better equipped to give children the attention (and resources) they deserve (not to mention the physically greater likelihood of successfully having children). It is more difficult to do this when one is older. But, certainly, I do think that marriage is "a fortress of well-being" which can bring physical, emotional, social, and spiritual health to the couple and others associated with them. Of course, as with all benefits, as Keyvan was suggesting earlier, health, wealth, and other such material benefits, are to be channeled back, with gratitude, into service to all mankind.

best wishes,
Brett

farid
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 12:48 am
Contact:

Postby farid » Wed Aug 10, 2005 2:24 pm

I liked the point on homosexuality you raised brett. Always I had the impression that the word ghelman is used by Bahaullah just to refer to homosexuality. I had it in the back of my mind as why Bahaullah used this word indead of Lavat though. So I think we have two possilibities:

if Bahaullah was refering to the one done on boys when he said my pen shrinks to talk about it, then as you said , this is a leap. In this case, we should say that Bahaullah only banned this type of homosexuality, and the ban on the general form of it was later added by Guardain when he was interpreting this.

the second situation , which I am inclined towards, is that Bahaullah banned all forms of it, and when Guardain was interperting it, he did'nt add anything to it, but just made the meaning clear. Also we have this:

Homosexuality is forbidden in the Baha'i Faith by Baha'u'llah;
(Multiple Authors: Lights of Guidance, Page: 368)

As you see, it says it's banned by Bahaullah ,not,the Guardian.
So if we say that when Bahaullah was using the word ghelman, he was meaning all types of homosexuality, then there is no leap in what i said.
In other words, in this case, there are not two things, it's one.

On the other hand, the quote you menioned , in my opinon, is talking about another issue:

"The question of how to deal with homosexuals is a very difficult one. Homosexuality is forbidden in the Bahá'í Faith by Bahá'u'lláh; so, for that matter, are immorality and adultery. If one is going to start imposing heavy sanctions on people who are the victims of this abnormality, however repulsive it may be to others, then it is only fair to impose equally heavy sanctions on any Bahá'ís who step beyond the moral limits defined by Bahá'u'lláh. Obviously at the present time this would create an impossible and ridiculous situation."

This quote is talking about the way to deal with this problem, which is with kindness . It is not saying that the reason it must be dealt with kindness is that it's not worse than adultery.
You can think of many other sins , much worse than both of them, which there is no punishment for in the writings. So we cannot use the amount of punishment as to how bad the sin is. If you could do this, then we had to say, that having sex with boys is not worse than adultery , since there is no punishment for it in Aqdas, but you also agree that in this meaning- with boys - it is worse than adultery.
I might be wrong though, I have to read more about it.

Brett, you talked about separating two things which shouldn't be entirely separated. I didn't understand what you mean. what were the two things I separated? you said:

Of course, we cannot and are not to separate them entirely, both because it is a moral imperative from our Writings not to (especially if separating sex from marriage too

majnun
Posts: 247
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 11:56 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

gay baha'i website

Postby majnun » Wed Aug 10, 2005 8:25 pm

There is a gay baha'i website.

http://www.gaybahai.homestead.com/

Dont forget that "GAY" is the name of the plane that
dropped the bomb on the Japanese.

Majnun.

brettz9
Posts: 1368
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 12:12 pm
Contact:

Postby brettz9 » Wed Aug 10, 2005 10:43 pm

Dear Farid,

I agree with you that your option 2 is the only viable one. There is an organic unity we must realize between the ministries of each of the Heads of the Faith. Shoghi Effendi does not add to the laws in his role as interpreter, though he may spell out provisions as the head of the Faith and Guardian.

However, just because Bahá'u'lláh certainly did intend homosexuality to be forbidden in this sentence, does not mean that the degree is necessarily the same. For example, Bahá'u'lláh may condemn violence, and violence can include many things, but this does not mean that a fist-fight is exactly the same according to the law (or to God) as a vicious attempted murder. (Granted, they share the same negative animus (as Christ spoke of in the Bible about someone even calling another a "fool" being in danger of hellfire and relating it as a kind of violation of the law against murder, etc.), but as 'Abdu'l-Bahá points out in Some Answered Questions, people (specifically those not aware of the Prophet) can be held accountable by reason--e.g., murder vs. vengeance would be treated differently by God for the person who had not been reached by the "renown" of the Prophet.)

The reason I am bringing this up, is in no way to undermine the prohibition...I do it, rather, to provide the nuance for how we respond to others (especially those who are not Bahá'ís or who are new to it) with these conditions. Child abuse demands a response of appeal to authorities (civil as well as spiritual), whereas homosexuality (except in certain circumstances in a Bahá'í context) does not.

Also, I did not mean that the Scriptures of the Manifestations would always include penalties for the worst crimes, particularly in the Bahá'í Faith, where Bahá'u'lláh clearly ordained the Universal House of Justice to decide on other matters He did not make explicit in the Text (as with the example perhaps that I gave of the punishment of adultery between married persons not being in the text while it was for unmarried persons). So, as far as we know, the Universal House of Justice may in fact prescribe a severe penalty for child abuse, when in the far future, it has, by the democratic assent of the people's of the world (or certain countries) been given the final authority in such criminal matters.

The passage you cited is not so much talking about kindness here, I would say, as it is with justice (since it is speaking of the Assembly's responsibilities as opposed to the individual's), though of course any Assembly must first attempt to deal with kindness for any situation, as possible.

As far as the things that were not to be separated ENTIRELY, I was referring to the point you made about sexual desire and procreation. While I agreed with your points, I was just adding that, as the quotations Keyvan supplied suggested, we are also not to separate them entirely, since they are both to be (if possible) in a marriage.

Brett

farid
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 12:48 am
Contact:

Postby farid » Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:19 am

It's interesting that the same thing went through my mind. the example I thought about was sex outside of marriage( as "zena" means ). It includes adultery, fornication , rape and other things. But it doesn't mean that they are at the same level, as obviously rape is much worse that others.
Rape has more elements than just "sex ouside or marriage" into it. It also has "violence", and "assault", and ... . adultery , in the sense of cheating, also has other elements other than just "sex outside marriage" , which is cheating over somebody and breaking that trust and hurting somebody , and ruining one or two families this way.
In the same way, murder has many elements more into it than just violence.
I think-and I may be wrong- that when Bahaullha prohibited zena, and ruled out punishment for it, what he meant was the element of zena by itself, not anything added to it. In other words, the punishment of rape can be and should be much worse than the one for fornication.
Nobody should be able to get away with rape with just paying some worth of gold.
In the same way, IF Bahaullha was refering to homosexuality in general when he banned it, then it was the pure element of homosexuality that was ugly enough for him to write about it, not other things like hurting young children and abusing them and causing so much pain to their families and other things.
But still I don't quite udnerstand why Bahaullah used the word ghelman instead of lavat (as used in koran). Mabe the reason was that this form of homosexuality was the more prevelant one at that time. In this case, what you are saying is correct that since it was more connected to kids, it was a much uglier thing. So for all the knowlege I have now, I only can say that I don't know the answer and I think you can be right.

I didn't mean that sex and procreation should be separated, maybe it was due to my poor writing skill that this meaning came out of it. What I meant is that inside of marriage, sex plays other roles than procreation, and in my opinion, or as it seems to me, it doesn't actually play any role in procreation inside of marrige; simply because , everybody can do something which is not enjoyable at all, but so important for its benefits-making kids in this case.

Baha'i Warrior
Posts: 753
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:07 am
Location: U.S.A.

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:26 am

Friends,

I am of the opinion that Baha’is should not formulate their own ideas about things such as homosexuality and adultery. Being a “free thinker” does not mean that you can reject parts of the Baha’i teachings that you do not agree with. Is it good to ask questions, but it is important to always remember that the beloved Guardian was the appointed interpreter of the Baha’i Writings, and if He believed that Baha’u’llah condemned all forms of fornication (especially homosexual relations), then as Baha’is that should be good enough for us. I am not saying it is bad to discuss these things, but to deliberately go against a Baha’i principle is wrong. And also, I personally believe it would be best to for Baha'is to ignore people who call themselves “Gay Baha’is” and their websites (unless you are interested in refuting what they have to say), because they are obviously trying to cause trouble. The Universal House of Justice gives the guidance that we should ignore covenant breaker websites, and while these “gay Baha’is” are not covenant breakers per say, I still think that the principle can be applied here.

farid
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 12:48 am
Contact:

Postby farid » Thu Aug 11, 2005 2:17 pm

but to deliberately go against a Baha’i principle is wrong


yes, but I I wonder if I or brett said anything of this sort. You may want to quote what we said so we also know what you are saying.

brettz9
Posts: 1368
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 12:12 pm
Contact:

Postby brettz9 » Thu Aug 11, 2005 11:47 pm

I think-and I may be wrong- that when Bahaullha prohibited zena, and ruled out punishment for it, what he meant was the element of zena by itself, not anything added to it. In other words, the punishment of rape can be and should be much worse than the one for fornication.
Nobody should be able to get away with rape with just paying some worth of gold.


Yes, as stated in the notes to the Aqdas:
"The Arabic word "ziná", here translated as "adultery", signifies both fornication and adultery. It applies not only to sexual relations between a married person and someone who is not his or her spouse, but also to extramarital sexual intercourse in general. One form of "ziná" is rape. The only penalty prescribed by Bahá'u'lláh is for those who commit fornication (see note 77); penalties for other kinds of sexual offence are left to the Universal House of Justice to determine."

(Note 36, regarding verse 19 on "adultery" being forbidden (no punishment mentioned here))


and

"Although the term translated here as adultery refers, in its broadest sense, to unlawful sexual intercourse between either married or unmarried individuals (see note 36 for a definition of the term), 'Abdu'l-Bahá has specified that the punishment here prescribed is for sexual intercourse between persons who are unmarried. He indicates that it remains for the Universal House of Justice to determine the penalty for adultery committed by a married individual. (See also Q and A 49.)"

(Note 77, on verse 49 regarding the punishment)


You (Farid) said:
I didn't mean that sex and procreation should be separated,


I know you didn't...I was just adding to what you said...

best wishes,
Brett

Keyvan

Postby Keyvan » Sun Aug 14, 2005 4:25 pm

farid wrote:you have not said anything to counter me

When you express an idea and you claim that it’s the truth and you expect others to agree , you must bring proof for each component of that idea. If you cannot do this, you cannot expect anybody to accept it.
For a Bahai, you have to have your proofs from two sources, science and writings.
In my previous post, I questioned each component of your idea and you haven’t given proof to even one of them. So anybody who rejects your idea is doing a wise thing.
If you think I haven’t countered you, it's mainly because you haven’t presented any proof yet. So there is nothing for me to disprove. I am just waiting to see where and how you formed these ideas and I haven't heard anything but from the movie.

I bring up a movie to find a way to relate it to you.

It’s ok to use a movies as an example, but after you’ve done that, you should move to writings and science to prove what you are saying. In your case, you haven’t moved from your movie to anything else.

in teaching, its not unwise to do that, in fact many people i know have come to the faith or are researching the faith that have before hand turned it away because they didnt understand it until i explianed it to them as such.

Those people as you said were not Bahais, but I am a Bahai, so you can use Bahai writings as proof of what you are saying with me. I don’t know why you are mixing these two different situations.

im not talking about getting rid of hte desire.

I also didn’t use “getting rid of something “.I exactly used the sentence you used when I was asking my questions , which was: the root needs to be taken care of, then the desire will not be there.

I asked you if the desire is not there, then how do you use it when you want to procreate? do you leave the roots alone for a while?

to enjoy the flowers in the field or the blue sky, these are things given to us to enjoy which serve no other purpose than the experience. they are pure.

You have formed a new idea here, which shows you have the habit of forming ideas without having any support for them. You cannot just use your common sense for things that may have very precise biological or spiritual reasons.
How do you know and from where that there is no other purpose in doing these but “the experience”?

sex is done for a purpose.

And you think the only purpose for it is procreation. That’s why I asked :

“How do you know that sexual desire doesn’t serve any purpose beyond procreation? Do you have definite answers from medical doctors or it's just your own understanding? do you have reasons from writings ? Have you seen it anywhere in writings that its only good for procreation?”

the fact that sex has provisions makes it clearly different

the provison for sex (as I see it in many places in writings ) is that it must be done inside of marriage. If you believe that the provision is that it must be done just for procreation, you have to quote that provision from writings. You shave not done this yet.




ive already sourced everything earlier in this thread. i didnt say that the only purpose of sex was procreation, but that the Guardian said that procreation is the SACRED and PRIMARY purpose of marriage.
if procreation is the sacred and primary purpose of MARRIAGE which is a more general dynamic institution, is it then thus just about the only purpose for sex which is much more specific and narrow of an institution WITHIN MARRIAGE
jeez.

farid, you asked me some personal questions, so i answered them. dont try to pin me as some sort of feeble attempt on using that as an arguement.

desire and roots. the roots are a lack of consciousness. desire comes from those roots. consciousness of true nature of the material world is the direct escape from this.
im not being a lawyer here
this is derived this from my understandings of what has been directly revealed by Zarathustra and rerevealed more inclusively by Baha'u'llah

its so fundamental, no i will not give you a lesson on spirituality for that. go read yourself. if you dont understand that then go be a muslim and think the spiritaul world doesnt exist and the next world is a direct reflection and continuation of this one.

Keyvan

Postby Keyvan » Sun Aug 14, 2005 4:31 pm

..and that thus everything law in this world must be followed as a chore before the goodies later.

Baha'i Warrior
Posts: 753
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:07 am
Location: U.S.A.

Postby Baha'i Warrior » Sun Aug 14, 2005 4:55 pm

Exactly. The goodies are much better


Keyvan wrote:..and that thus everything law in this world must be followed as a chore before the goodies later.

Keyvan

Postby Keyvan » Sun Aug 14, 2005 6:36 pm

no i meant that sarcastically.

meaning, its not like, clean your room and you can have desert

farid
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 12:48 am
Contact:

Postby farid » Mon Aug 15, 2005 6:16 pm

dont try to pin me as some sort of feeble attempt on using that as an arguement.

If you think that my questions were a feeble argument, then at least read what Brett wrote. Maybe you can relate to his reasons, because I am saying the same things.

desire and roots. the roots are a lack of consciousness. desire comes from those roots. consciousness of true nature of the material world is the direct escape from this.

I didn't ask you what you mean by roots and how it is that when you take care of it, the desires dispear. I asked you some other questions which you didn't answer.

this is derived this from my understandings of what has been directly revealed by Zarathustra and rerevealed more inclusively by Baha'u'llah

1)all I asked for was some writings that you have got your idea from. So if you are saying that Baha'u'llah has said this idea that when you take care of the roots , your desires go away, why don't you write the quotes here?

2)while we believe in progressive revelation, how is it that you use spiritual teachings of Zoroaster , but think Islamic teachings are framed more materialisicly? How many revelations of God were sent down to human after Zoroaster ? so what does progressive revelation mean if God has send a religion like Islam with less spiritual teachings than a religion thousands of years before him?

go be a muslim and think the spiritaul world doesnt exist and the next world is a direct reflection and continuation of this one.

where in the Islamic teachings have you seen such a thing that spiritual world does not exist?
How could Mohammad say such a thing after confirming the teachins of Christ and Moses which are full of spiritual elements? I just wonder how you have come to this conclusion.
Just take a look at all the big Muslim mysic figures. Rumi, Hafez, Sanaii, Attar, Aboo Said Abolkheir, Sheikh Bahai, Sohrevardi, sheikh mahmood shabestari, nezami, Saadi, Ebne arabi, shah nematollha vali, and hunders more.
Many of these were so great in their spiritual station that their poems were used By Bahaullah and Abdulbaha, and Bahaullah used to give their poems to Bahais to read. Bahaullah used to teach a book of Ebne Arabi to Kurds when he was in Soleimanieh. How can such people reach to such a high station if Islam doesn't have spiritual teachings and looks at the next world or spiritual world as material world?

Guest

Postby Guest » Tue Aug 16, 2005 12:00 am

Please friends, be more tolerant and objective, thanks

JdE

farid
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 12:48 am
Contact:

Postby farid » Tue Aug 16, 2005 3:24 am

this is derived this from my understandings

when we express our ideas to others and think that they should agree with them or when we try to convince others that our ideas are right , we have to have either:
1- writings that explicitly support our ideas, or
2- logical proof or evidences for it.

If we have neither, then all we can do is to express that idea tentatively as our own understanding .

Our understadings is only our understandings. Everybody has its own understading. I cannot expect everyboy to accept what I say since I think that way. If I do, then I have to have one of the two things above.
In my opinion, even if we have one of those two or even both, still we have to leave some uncertainty in our head about the issue , since our proofs might be wrong or what we have got as the meaning of the writings might be wrong.

Keyvan

Postby Keyvan » Sat Aug 20, 2005 5:29 pm

ive answered all of that again and again, youre not reading finely enough. and i answered all of those questiosn which you say "i have not answered"

rephrase the last part of what you wrote in your second to last post to me about Islam and the material world. it is unclear the way you wrote it

it is not true that once anotehr religon comes, the understandings of those people are in every aspect more inclusive and advanced

can we not say that our theological concepts stretch more into a realm of Buddhist/Hindu ones, than Islamic ones?

and by concepts i mean understandings of the people

dont disect what im writing now in your typical way. its really annoying. give me a big paragraph. also you have not addressed my responce to your questions. rather you just do this descection thing and ignore everything else.


Return to “Discussion”