Who among us has the courage to accept science & modern law

This is an archived post from the old bulletin board. For new posts, see the forum.

Posted by Stuart Gilman ( on December 23, 2002 at 06:27:22:

In Reply to: Re: Maid is euphemism for mistress - without question posted by Misagh on December 22, 2002 at 23:25:30:

As interesting as this post by Misagh may be, if confirms not denies everything I have said. In fact, I spent wasteful time looking for a contradiction to my original post.

The only comment I wish to repeat is about tranquillity and marriage.
If anything, monogamy is scientifically proven to be the most untranquil relationship one can ave, particularly among Caucasians and Muslims. More spousal murders are committed between married persons than any other form of "murder".

To say that Baha favoured monogamy for the sake of justice and/or tranquillity is an error. A scientific, factual, undisputed error.
You answer, "how dare I utter the words that Blessed Beauty was in error"?

Have I not also spoken honestly and humbly about God's errors, which are far greater than Baha'u'llah's. To revere God and Baha'u'llah does not lead me mindlessly into stupidity. The acceptance of science and the evolution of science is so important to me in being and becoming a Baha'i, and has allowed major changes in 150+ years in the pronouncements of Baha'i. Why would one "error" - tranquillity in marriage - cause anyone such concern?

Blessed be the errors, as well as all the Brightest Wisdom and Holiness of Baha'u'llah!

It is also possible, given the voluminous output by Baha'u'llah and the secretarial transcriptions, that this paragraph may have been incompletely given. Surely, if we could speak with Him today, He would be the first to contextualize 63, elucidate and make it so clear there would ne no error. But, as it is, we are left with para 63 as it is. To refer to notes and other writings over 150 years since the Manifestation is fine and good. But more important to me, as a student, is the mind of Baha'u'llah, not the words and minds of those who come after him. Of course, as a Baha'i, the words of those who followed him ARE important ad relevant, but as compensations and geographical adapations as well as conformist edicts - going with the times, regions, cultures and politics of different continents and countires - I still prefer the authority of original works. I, myself, can determine the fidelity is best. I do not need anyone's wisdom to know this, nor any edict. I do not need anyone to tell me to refrain from sexual deviance, I know this. Religious leaders and their institutions seem to think we are children, requiring direction for every move we make. The central doctines of Baha'i, summed up in nine edicts, leads a wise man to all knowledge of what he should do to be righteous and just. Though my wisdom and intelligence do fail me often, I set myself aright quickly.

Who needs to enshrine an edict against wife abuse? Not me, it a natural inference from the Basic Laws. Or against homosexual acts? Given the primary edict to marry and have family, I am now faced with gay couples who adopt children as a dilemma. Certainly, they can both abstain from sex, be good parents and raise Baha'i children. Did Baha'u'llah foresee this?

The assimilation of science and religion is the greatest strength and greatest challenge for Baha'i. It requires courage to embrace the two. In my experience, few among us have that courage.



this topic is closed - post at bahai-library.com/forum