A shared challenge regarding the foundation of ethics

[seer]

Baha'i spiritual laws deal directly and specifically with the questions of diversity of beliefs, and separation of religion and state. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam do not.

Governments dominated by Judaism, Christianity and particularly Islam in recent history have actively suppressed and persecuted religious minorities, and that is the issue which you are dodging. Including Atheism does not change the picture,

Your challenge of 'being young' is not remotely relevant, because every religion began young. Do you believe Islam could not be considered a valid religion when it was 'young.'

The thing is that the Baha'i faith never had the power to oppress, there was never a Baha'i nation, nor was there ever a nation that was largely Baha'i - so they never had the kind of influence necessary to really oppress a minority. Never mind the fact that there is nothing in the teachings of the New Testament in general or the teachings of Christ or His example that would justify oppressing anyone. But men are wicked, they will use any doctrine or excuse for advantage and control. And Baha'i followers are just as wicked as any other group of men, they only have lacked the opportunity.

[siam]

1) Polygamy infringes on the equal rights of a woman, because she does not have an equal right to choose a man or men...or another woman. As for Sati, the social expectations for the widow to throw herself on her husband’s funeral pyre effectively force her to commit suicide. Again, an infringement of her equal rights!
Woman seen as “chattels” of their husbands without equal rights dates back to the earliest times in all the Abrahamic religions. As for homosexual marriage it is their right to marry their person of choice and NOT the right of others to discriminate against them.



2) I agree. But that is the fault of US hypocrisy, not the Geneva Convention.
Nothing has been good at preventing wars, period. We are a fractious species. No wonder the advanced aliens keep away.
Totally agree.

1) --So you are like the French---unless the woman plays by "our" rules she is "oppressed" (or not in her right mind...or whatever) Even if a woman claims she is wearing hijab without coercion and of her own free-will---the French insist she is "oppressed" simply because she refuses to follow their rules!!!
Abrahamic religion and mysogyny---perhaps we need to re-examine? All history is biased--so it is always better to see various sides of the issue? Of the Abrahamic religions, (Roman) Christianity may have been misogynistic (relatively)---not because of Christianity---but because of the Greco-Roman (pagan) culture of its heritage. (...the pagan Visigoths were far more gender egalitarian---relatively...as was ancient Egyptian)
ex---In Judaism, it is the women's heritage that determines the status of the child, Women were considered Prophets etc.....
http://www.jewfaq.org/women.htm

(Personally, I think an exclusive focus on women's rights erases issues of non-gendered power differentials and its effects on the weak of society...it is better to focus on non-gendered human rights and responsibilities--because some men are also at a disadvantage....This is also a criticism leveled at Western Feminism by some Muslim women advocating for rights....In Islam, Men and Women are inherently equal---therefore oppression is not exclusive to women alone but can effect all genders....)

2) Agree

[siam]

1) Baha'i spiritual laws deal directly and specifically with the questions of diversity of beliefs, and separation of religion and state.

2) We are not talking about imperfect human endeavors, and that is passing the buck. Spiritual leadership and guidance provided by the scripture, history and leadership in the religion is what is lacking in ancient religions including Islam. When almost all Islamic countries persecute, restrict, and marginalize religious minorities you need to address this up front and not dodge the issue. It is a fact that Christians and Jews are being driven out of most Islamic countries in recent history, and the Baha'i Faith is considered illegal in most Islamic countries, and punishable by death in many.

3) I endorse the concept of creative solutions, but this concept by the way is humanist without specific guidance from the scripture of the religion. As an up front principle we have 'The Independent investigation of Truth' in the Baha'i Faith

1)Separation of religion and state---Does this mean that Bahai do not have any ethico-moral principles regarding State torture and other such practices?...or declaration of war by the State, or issues of Justice, poverty and welfare, health, education...etc?........these are all civic issues and therefore "political" in nature....but a separation means that if the government decides a particular issue---the Bahai have no say in it ---unless they use NON-RELIGIOUS/SECULAR language to express their views....In other words----Bahai ethico-moral principles have no place whatsoever in such a society...?!....

2) Oppression---It is because of ISIS and the "Purists" that I am thinking of such issues---Exclusivism ---or what we Muslims refer to as "Takfirism" is a problem---particularly when this kind of zealotry gets bound up with territorial attachment/nationalism. That is why I am thinking about issues of Pluralism, Globalism and the ideologies of Nation-State and the patriotism is generates, as well as, governance and the various power structures involved in large complex group structures.
ISIS and the "Purists" are a Modern phenomenon (as are other such groups such as the 969 movement of Buddhism...etc)---a lack of/weak ethico-moral education might be one of many causes---if so, one must strengthen ethico-moral education through philosophies/religio-philosophies (one can't do it through science....) To do so will necessarily require that we take a deep and serious look at our ethcio-moral heritage and to live by it in sincerity and with integrity...
Much of the ideals of Modernity are not worth the paper they are written on because of our hypocrisy---and this hypocrisy comes about precisely because there is no accountability in our Modern paradigms....

3) Yes humanism---whether it is the Confucian based humanism or the Western Atheist based humanism---or other kinds---is a good endeavor....but if we are going to impose a humanist mono-culture on everyone on earth---why be a Bahai? of what use would any ethico-moral principles of Bahai be if they can never be implemented in the lives (lived reality) of those who are Bahai? They would simply remain as irrelevant good ideas....?....

[siam]

The thing is that the Baha'i faith never had the power to oppress, there was never a Baha'i nation, nor was there ever a nation that was largely Baha'i - so they never had the kind of influence necessary to really oppress a minority. Never mind the fact that there is nothing in the teachings of the New Testament in general or the teachings of Christ or His example that would justify oppressing anyone. But men are wicked, they will use any doctrine or excuse for advantage and control. And Baha'i followers are just as wicked as any other group of men, they only have lacked the opportunity.

This is the problem I am pondering.....

If I understand the "Modern Project"...the claim was that since religion had been bad for humanity, the solution was to create a "neutral" (public) space that would balance out the various contentions of religions. Thus religion and its ethico-moral principles were "privatized"....
....this has not solved the problem---instead those who have been marginalized, have lost their identity-constructs and are now angry.....
It is no use to sweep this "problem" under the rug/to ignore it, because as we have seen with ISIS---anger is global too...it effects all of us....we need global identity-constructs that will clearly show us "the way"/s , that have clear ethcio-moral principles and ways of implementing them for that particular group-identity construct.....?.....

[Tassman]

1) --So you are like the French---unless the woman plays by "our" rules she is "oppressed" (or not in her right mind...or whatever) Even if a woman claims she is wearing hijab without coercion and of her own free-will---the French insist she is "oppressed" simply because she refuses to follow their rules!!!

Well there’s the social pressure aspect from all sides, but my main objection is to the wearing of any form of religious identification by anyone, because of the proselytising implications. I also object to public religious monuments and public religious displays like Christians cribs. There's no place for such public displays in a secular society.

Abrahamic religion and mysogyny---perhaps we need to re-examine? All history is biased--so it is always better to see various sides of the issue? Of the Abrahamic religions, (Roman) Christianity may have been misogynistic (relatively)---not because of Christianity---but because of the Greco-Roman (pagan) culture of its heritage. (...the pagan Visigoths were far more gender egalitarian---relatively...as was ancient Egyptian)
ex---In Judaism, it is the women's heritage that determines the status of the child, Women were considered Prophets etc.....
http://www.jewfaq.org/women.htm

You’re right of course. It was not the religion per se, but the adoption of the social values of the day, which were then incorporated into the religion. But they were ‘religionised’ nevertheless and laws were enacted and enforced with the understanding that they were religion-based.

(Personally, I think an exclusive focus on women's rights erases issues of non-gendered power differentials and its effects on the weak of society...it is better to focus on non-gendered human rights and responsibilities--because some men are also at a disadvantage....This is also a criticism leveled at Western Feminism by some Muslim women advocating for rights....In Islam, Men and Women are inherently equal---therefore oppression is not exclusive to women alone but can effect all genders....)

“Women's rights” as per LGBT rights or black rights are focused upon because, until relatively recently, these people were denied their full civil rights. It’s a question of redressing the balance.

[shunyadragon]

The thing is that the Baha'i faith never had the power to oppress, there was never a Baha'i nation, nor was there ever a nation that was largely Baha'i - so they never had the kind of influence necessary to really oppress a minority. Never mind the fact that there is nothing in the teachings of the New Testament in general or the teachings of Christ or His example that would justify oppressing anyone. But men are wicked, they will use any doctrine or excuse for advantage and control. And Baha'i followers are just as wicked as any other group of men, they only have lacked the opportunity.

First, your neglecting the OT references the endorse violent solutions against non-believers, and basically Jesus and the New Testament references endorse the OT.

First, you need to take a more complete look at the New Testament, and how it may be interpreted. You can start with the Book of Revelation endorsing violent campaign against evil.

The parable of the unforgiving servant in chapter 18 Mathew clearly threatened extreme violence against one and the family that would not repent and believe.

The parable in Matthew 25 also advocated violence for the disobedient.

This is only the beginning . . .

It is clear and well known that When Christianity became Roman it indeed did oppress, and violently exterminated the opposition.

Claiming the Baha'i Faith is young or new is a classic selective dodge. When Christianity was young does that discount the validity of Christ and his teaching. Your also neglecting the teachings of the Baha'i Faith applied to these issues.

You need to address the teachings of the Baha'i Faith and not obfuscate an empty argument.

[seer]

First, your neglecting the OT references the endorse violent solutions against non-believers, and basically Jesus and the New Testament references endorse the OT.

No Shuny, Christians are called to follow the teachings of Christ, not the Mosaic law, and your religion teaches that Moses was a Manifestation of God. And that the Torah was the "Book of God."

Verily, I now declare to you that Moses was the interlocutor of God and a most noteworthy prophet; that Moses revealed the fundamental law of God and founded the real ethical basis of the civilization and progress of humanity. What harm is there in this? Have I lost anything by saying this to you and believing it as a Bahá’í? On the contrary it benefits me, and His Holiness 279 Bahá’u’lláh, the founder of the Bahá’í Cause, confirms me, saying: “You have been fair and just in your judgment; you have impartially investigated the truth and arrived at a true conclusion; you have announced your belief in Moses a prophet of God and accepted the Torah the book of God.”

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/c/BWF/bwf-17.html

So stop being your hypocritical self...

First, you need to take a more complete look at the New Testament, and how it may be interpreted. You can start with the Book of Revelation endorsing violent campaign against evil.

Show me where in Revelation where believers are called TO HARM anyone?

The parable of the unforgiving servant in chapter 18 Mathew clearly threatened extreme violence against one and the family that would not repent and believe.

The parable in Matthew 25 also advocated violence for the disobedient.

Show me here where believers are called TO HARM anyone. And you believe that Christ was a Manifestation of God - correct? So why don't you like the teaching of God?

It is clear and well known that When Christianity became Roman it indeed did oppress, and violently exterminated the opposition.

Yep, men can be wicked.

Claiming the Baha'i Faith is young or new is a classic selective dodge. When Christianity was young does that discount the validity of Christ and his teaching. Your also neglecting the teachings of the Baha'i Faith applied to these issues.

No I'm claiming that you have no power, and you are just as wicked, or not, as other men. You have not had the opportunity.

You need to address the teachings of the Baha'i Faith and not obfuscate an empty argument.

You mean like New Testament's teaching to love ones neighbor? To love ones enemies? To follow the Golden Rule? To help the poor?

[shunyadragon]

No Shuny, Christians are called to follow the teachings of Christ, not the Mosaic law, . . .

Matthew

5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

and your religion teaches that Moses was a Manifestation of God. And that the Torah was the "Book of God."

Verily, I now declare to you that Moses was the interlocutor of God and a most noteworthy prophet; that Moses revealed the fundamental law of God and founded the real ethical basis of the civilization and progress of humanity. What harm is there in this? Have I lost anything by saying this to you and believing it as a Bahá’í? On the contrary it benefits me, and His Holiness 279 Bahá’u’lláh, the founder of the Bahá’í Cause, confirms me, saying: “You have been fair and just in your judgment; you have impartially investigated the truth and arrived at a true conclusion; you have announced your belief in Moses a prophet of God and accepted the Torah the book of God.”

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/c/BWF/bwf-17.html

True, but the references to violence against non-believers are not from Moses. He brought the commandments, but he is not the author of Genesis nor the the rest of the Pentateuch attributed to him.

Show me where in Revelation where believers are called TO HARM anyone?

Your taking a very naive view of the NT, Book of Revelation, and the parables are enough to advocate violence against non-believers

Show me here where believers are called TO HARM anyone. And you believe that Christ was a Manifestation of God - correct? So why don't you like the teaching of God?

I believe in Christ, but I believe the NT was added to and corrupted.

[seer]

Matthew

5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

What is your point?

True, but the references to violence against non-believers are not from Moses. He brought the commandments, but he is not the author of Genesis nor the the rest of the Pentateuch attributed to him.

So you agree that the death penalty for things like homosexuality, working on the Sabbath, adultery, etc.. as found in the Torah were the Law of God - correct?

Your taking a very naive view of the NT, Book of Revelation, and the parables are enough to advocate violence against non-believers

Shuny, I know scripture way better than you - so I will ask again, where does Revelation call believers to HARM anyone? I will be waiting.

If you reflect upon the essential teachings of Jesus you will realize that they are the light of the world. Nobody can question their truth. They are the very source of life and the cause of happiness to the human race. The forms and superstitions which appeared and obscured the light did not affect the reality of Christ. For example, His Holiness Jesus Christ said: “Put up the sword into the sheath.” The meaning is that warfare is forbidden and abrogated; but consider the Christian wars which took place afterward. Christian hostility and inquisition spared not even the learned; he who proclaimed the revolution of the earth was imprisoned; he who announced the new astronomical system was persecuted as a heretic; scholars and scientists became objects of fanatical hatred and many were killed and tortured. How do these actions conform with the teachings of Jesus Christ and what relation do they bear to his own example? For Christ declared: “Love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you that you may be sons of your Father which is in Heaven; for He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and 251 the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust.” How can hatred, hostility and persecution be reconciled with Christ and His teachings?

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/c/BW...=highlight#gr5

So your own religion agrees with me!

I believe in Christ, but I believe the NT was added to and corrupted.

I see, so God could not preserve the teachings of Christ? Then why does your religion quote from the New Testament? From Christ and, Paul, etc..?

[Charles]

What is your point?

I got shunyadragon's point, seer. I feel confident you will be able to get it too. Try again.

[seer]

I got shunyadragon's point, seer. I feel confident you will be able to get it too. Try again.

Sorry, this is to involved to play tag with Shuny, but if someone wants more info they can go here: https://bible.org/article/mosaic-law...-new-testament

[siam]

Well there’s the social pressure aspect from all sides, but my main objection is to the wearing of any form of religious identification by anyone, because of the proselytising implications. I also object to public religious monuments and public religious displays like Christians cribs. There's no place for such public displays in a secular society.

“Women's rights” as per LGBT rights or black rights are focused upon because, until relatively recently, these people were denied their full civil rights. It’s a question of redressing the balance.

There is an interesting conflict of ideas between the first part and the second part above?---You want a homogenized society where everyone is the same---Yet, you divide people into problem groups---such as women, LGBT, Black...etc and rather than finding wholistic solutions, you want band-aid solutions for each divided group?

I think the inverse might work better?....

The celebration of positive diversity (as identity-constructs) that give (positive) meaning and purpose to large complex groups for the benefit of humanity is good...It increases our inherent human capacity for altruism, compassion, and mercy....and these characteristics play an important role in our bio-chemistry promoting (individual) happiness. It is easier to be kind to people who are "like us" than those who are different from us---but that is the reason we must promote difference---so that we can increase in civility and kindness.

When secular society has no place for positive diversity---it also decreases space for kindness and civility in our hearts and behavior towards the "other"...this then promotes "systems" that encourage exclusion and entitlements creating spaces for injustice and inequality.....?....


Humanity is creative---when we unite to solve problems---we hear each other and when we hear---we understand---then we can come up with the right solutions.
But when we divide and claim only "we" have the right answer then we fall into error because the problem was formulated incorrectly to begin with.....For example, Feminism claimed men were the problem because they were the oppressor and they called it "patriarchy".....completely ignoring the fact that there were plenty of men who were also oppressed---Blacks, the poor, the unempowered/disenfranchised....etc...
Oppression is not about gender---it is about power....or rather the abuse of power....that is why oppression is systemic. (If one individual is unjust to another it is discrimination/bigotry) Ignoring the systemic aspect of the abuse of power cannot generate wholistic solutions!! ----and systemic oppression effects many areas/groups of society....
Systemic oppression requires the State to be complicit in the oppression---because in the Modern system---it is the State that has power....
(...and this has also been the case throughout history that oppression has been systemic and connected with abuse of power)

[Tassman]

There is an interesting conflict of ideas between the first part and the second part above?---You want a homogenized society where everyone is the same---Yet, you divide people into problem groups---such as women, LGBT, Black...etc and rather than finding wholistic solutions, you want band-aid solutions for each divided group?

Not quite. I want an integrated society (not an assimilated homogenised society) where people of different beliefs can live in harmony without imposing their beliefs on everyone else.

I think the inverse might work better?....

The celebration of positive diversity (as identity-constructs) that give (positive) meaning and purpose to large complex groups for the benefit of humanity is good...It increases our inherent human capacity for altruism, compassion, and mercy....and these characteristics play an important role in our bio-chemistry promoting (individual) happiness. It is easier to be kind to people who are "like us" than those who are different from us---but that is the reason we must promote difference---so that we can increase in civility and kindness.

When secular society has no place for positive diversity---it also decreases space for kindness and civility in our hearts and behavior towards the "other"...this then promotes "systems" that encourage exclusion and entitlements creating spaces for injustice and inequality.....?....

Good luck with that when one has a society composed of competing religious or ideological beliefs which are mutually exclusive. This is why the competing worldviews need be subordinated to the overall society with no public displays of religious or ideological differences.

Humanity is creative---when we unite to solve problems---we hear each other and when we hear---we understand---then we can come up with the right solutions.
But when we divide and claim only "we" have the right answer then we fall into error because the problem was formulated incorrectly to begin with.....For example, Feminism claimed men were the problem because they were the oppressor and they called it "patriarchy".....completely ignoring the fact that there were plenty of men who were also oppressed---Blacks, the poor, the unempowered/disenfranchised....etc...
Oppression is not about gender---it is about power....or rather the abuse of power....that is why oppression is systemic. (If one individual is unjust to another it is discrimination/bigotry) Ignoring the systemic aspect of the abuse of power cannot generate wholistic solutions!! ----and systemic oppression effects many areas/groups of society....
Systemic oppression requires the State to be complicit in the oppression---because in the Modern system---it is the State that has power....
(...and this has also been the case throughout history that oppression has been systemic and connected with abuse of power)

The solution is full civil rights for all citizens of all faiths and none, as spelt out in the US Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That way one will not have abuses and oppression among the various groups struggling for dominance.

[Charles]

Sorry, this is to involved to play tag with Shuny, but if someone wants more info they can go here: https://bible.org/article/mosaic-law...-new-testament

I just love the intro to the text you link to:

A great cause of confusion today concerns the place of the Mosaic law in the New Testament believer’s life. While this short study cannot begin to cover all the issues involved, it is my hope that it will shed some light and remove some of the confusion.

So, basically, it is rather unclear, which of course allows for different interpretations. Why would a God not want to make it perfectly clear and obvious what his point was? Now seer has to go for his personal and subjective interpretation.

[Tassman]

I just love the intro to the text you link to:



So, basically, it is rather unclear, which of course allows for different interpretations. Why would a God not want to make it perfectly clear and obvious what his point was? Now seer has to go for his personal and subjective interpretation.

This is why seer’s argument that one must have a divine standard for morality to be real...as opposed to the relative standards of men...is nonsense. Ongoing subjective interpretation of “God’s Law” explains why it has changed so much over the centuries.