Response to Baha'i International Community's web site

[0099wrestler]

What Bahai Faith teaches is already found in the Bible and Qur'an. Mohammad's last speech said no new faith. That means a new messenger can come, but no new scriptures. The Qur'an, Chapter Two, The Cow, verses 8 - 20. There you will find Baha u llah, who says he is a peacemaker. There you will also read of your own peace making efforts.

[MrNeosoul99]

COVENANT BREAKER ALERT!!!!

[TheNorasTwins2010]

@MrNeosoul99

Did you learn only to repeat others!!! you dont have any real prove that they are covenant breaker and you are not.

[masterbreti]

wow, you broke the covenet, you are disgusting, please repent before its too late

[CandlesOfUnity]

PROMOTION of Youtube playlist "Candles of Unity", a broad introduction to the Baha'i Faith, the fastest growing world religion through which the plan of God for humanity is now clearly known.

[fctchk]

The corpses of the founders of this religion have barely gone cold in their graves and already we have a soap opera tin pot power struggle raging at the top.

This is the religion that wants to supersede all religions? Its already dead in the water and proving itself just as silly as all religions that came before it. Religion is over folks, crushed by science- face it, forget about it, and join the 21st century.

[sourpatch2007]

The only thing significant about this video is that he is using firefox.

cheers

[bmisaghi009]

I'm pretty sure you are a covenant breaker who is denying the obvious truth.

[jagoldberg99]

I am pretty sure you don't know what you are talking about. Who has the right to declare someone a CB? ONLY THE GUARDIAN. Look at your own Writings

[Ken00bie]

he did not declare you a CB he said "I am pretty sure."So yes you are right he can not declare you.But you come across as very defensive.You are a CB.Statments like this you should waste your time on.

[jagoldberg9]

I am defensive! What a laugh. You sick cultists demanded that my wife and kids leave me simply because I found the truth about the Baha'i Faith and then you have the arrogance and audacity to say that I am defensive about being a CB. You are spiritually sick!

[gearoid1905]

I think you may be a convenent breaker.

[orthodoxbahai]

Really? Do you know the definition of a covenant breaker? It is to oppose the Guardian. So, maybe you are one? Study. Read the Writings. Ignorance is no excuse.

[gearoid1905]

I beleive one of us must be.

[cableguy60]

yes the gaurdian and he left no WRITTEN will naming a successor

[orthodoxbahai]

The Will and Testament says it is incumbent upon the Guardian to name his successor during his lifetime. This can only mean "NOT BY A WILL." Why is that the heterodox Baha'is do not know these basic things about their own Faith?

[cableguy60]

i ask the same question but no proper answer

[orthodoxbahai]

The other Baha'is are actively opposing the OBF and the Guardian. It is our duty to defend the Covenant against the violators. Your organization has even taken the OBF to court to try to get the Judge to order us not to use Baha'i or the Greatest Name. You are villains and then you wonder aloud why we care what you believe. It is because what you believe is evil and you are perpetrating evil that we oppose your organization.

[jagoldberg99]

The difference is the authority, but we assert that difference means everything. The fundamental verities of the Faith are involved here. It does not matter to us what you believe. We are out here simply teaching our Faith to all who wish to hear. Those who do not wish to hear should move on.

[mavaddat]

In what sense are you "teaching" if all you want is people who "listen"? What if people have a different opinion than yours? You just ignore them? They "should just move on"? Are you not then merely talking-at people? Is that not just advertising? Sloganeering? How can that be said to be teaching?

[jagoldberg99]

My point was that the OBF is not seeking recruits. The OBF teaches anyone who wants to know. No question is off limits and we are not afraid of contrary opinions. But we are not trying to make Orthodox Baha'is. Our duty is to let our teachings be known. Your duty is to accept or not.

[mavaddat]

Then it is not appropriate to call what you do "teaching" in any sense. It is, at best, public relations. But more appropriately, advertising, sloganeering or propaganda.

Teaching requires a conversation wherein all parties remain open minded. There is no duty to accept or reject anyone's ideas. There is only a duty to investigate the truth.

[mavaddat]

I have a question for you. Why does it matter what other Bahá'ís believe? I asked this before, but you ignored it. Except for what existing authority you obey, what is the difference between your Bahá'ís and the mainstream Bahá'ís?

[masudrules]

the difference, if I may jump in, is the struggle for power...they want it, no matter what the price...if they agree with all the Baha'i teachings, the ONLY reason it matters what other Baha'is believe is that they want POWER..."perpetrating evil" he says, does that not represent a Machiavellian approach to issues?

[mavaddat]

masud, I agree. However, what if the situation was reversed, and the membership of the Haifan Bahá'ís was swapped with the Orthodox Bahá'ís? I do not doubt for a moment that Haifan Bahá'ís would be equally obsessed with pulling recruits from the Orthodox Bahá'ís as the Orthodox Bahá'ís.

You see, Haifan Bahá'ís are no less obsessed with power... it's just that they already have it, and the Orthodox want it.

If power and authority did not matter, then there would be no Bahá'í Faith to speak of.

[masudrules]

I think you're confusing "power" with an authoritative allocation of values; Haifan Baha'is, as you put it, DON'T have power; power over who? the whole point of Baha'i elections is not that the elected body represents the interests of the voters, rather it represents the interests of the Cause...Haifan Baha'is wouldn't be pulling "recruits", we'd be teaching about the basic Baha'i principles as we are now; these power disputes are EXACTLY what's wrong with the world today...

[mavaddat]

You are flat lying to yourself if you don't think that the Haifan Bahá'í leadership has power over its members, Masud. The UHJ can make laws and change them as it pleases that are binding on the entire int'l Bahá'í community. It also has the unique authority to "elucidate" the official Bahá'í writings. How is that NOT power?

I agree that the power disputes are what's wrong with the world. I also think that the Bahá'í Faith is at its core an inseparable part of that problem.

[masudrules]

plus, these covenant breakers, even though they seem to have a "common enemy" (the Haifan Baha'is) can't even unite!! there's the BUPC, Orthodox Baha'is, Neal Chase, Sodomaghian, etc...I think it's pathetic

[mavaddat]

Don't kid yourself, Masud. From the perspective of each of these sects, your sect is just another one of the "Covenant Breakers" who cannot unite. The divisions in the Bahá'í Faith show the fundamental nonsense of it all, not just part of it.

[masudrules]

The House can't legislate mavaddat I thought you would have known that; "as they please"? yes mavaddat, the House is going to tell us all that we should drink...I see what you said as authority, order, and, best of all, guidance, why do you have to think in such Machiavellian terms? oh right, the Enlightenement, how could I forget?? Really, what power dispute is going on AT THE CORE of the Baha'i Faith? (NOT in weak, isolated schisms)

[mavaddat]

This is so great. I love that I know more about your own religion than you do, Masud.

The Guardian explicitly enjoins the UHJ to be the Legislative body of the Bahá'í AO. See Bahai(dot)org article-1-3-6-1.

It's amazing to me that you want to defend the Faith and yet you are so profoundly ignorant of its fundamental institutions.

I never said a power dispute is happening WITHIN the Haifan tradition. Bahá'ís are competing for power among all the other religions of the world.

You seem lost...

[masudrules]

I could also say that there's a "power dispute" is going on between different scientists, couldn't I? Stephen J. Gould vs. Richard Dawkins, for example, and this illustrates the nonsense of it all; the absurdity is striking

[mavaddat]

You clearly don't understand what a power dispute is, Masud. Your profound ignorance shines again.

Since we are disagreeing, you must think that WE TOO are having a "power dispute", right? What a puerile and stupid conception of power.

The nature of real power disputes is that the powers in question are arbitrary. Gould & Dawkins are not arguing for their authority. They are arguing about facts, which are not arbitrary.

Religious authority is utterly arbitrary, which is why it requires faith.

[masudrules]

first of all, it's not arbitrary (i.e. based on or subject to individual discretion or preference or sometimes impulse or caprice), it's based on what we consider to be God's Word...and Gould and Dawkins aren't arguing about facts, that doesn't make any sense, you can't argue about a statement that is objectively true and can be verified...the goal of religion is NOT power, otherwise the same must be said of science

[mavaddat]

What you "consider to be God's Word" is utterly a matter of historic accident -- arbitrary in the deepest possible sense.

If you had been born in India, chances are you would have been a Hindu. If in Saudi Arabia, a Sunni Muslim. If the ancient Greeks had survived until today, you would be believing in Zeus or Apollo.

Real truth, which science investigates, is never a matter of accidental circumstances, but instead, reasons and evidence. Faith is inescapably capricious and arbitrary.

[masudrules]

Really? real truth? like when "scientists" thought the earth was flat?

[mavaddat]

No scientists ever thought the Earth was flat, you history illiterate. Educated people have known that the world was spherical since the days of Aristotle. Since then, only religious people have thought that the Earth was flat. Geez, you really don't know much, do you?

Anyway, the fact that scientists makes mistakes (and correct them) doesn't meant that scientific beliefs are a matter of pure accident. If you didn't have such a muddled mind, you would see that clearly.

[masudrules]

The reason I brought up the Gould vs. Dawkins example was to show the absurdity of your statement: "Bahá'ís are competing for power among all the other religions of the world". That you think that's what Baha'is are doing is irrelevant, that is not the point of religion, rather, it is meant to unite all of humanity

[mavaddat]

Communism is meant to unite all of humanity. National Socialism is meant to unite all humanity.

The goal of uniting all humanity has ever been -- and will ever be -- the goal of authoritarian power-seeking regimes.

[masudrules]

"Communism is meant to unite all of humanity. National Socialism is meant to unite all humanity."

So? I didn't realize I needed to specify that religion wants to unite them in order to live in peace and harmony which WASN'T the case in NS or Communism...

[mavaddat]

Yes it was. The purpose of both Communism and National Socialism was to living in peace and harmony.

I'm done with this conversation. I'm not interested in educating you anymore, unless you want to pay me. Send me a personal message if you would like me to teach you history.

[mavaddat]

Or better yet, just look at the Wikipedia page on the UHJ. You should really be embarrassed to be representing the Faith, Masud. Honestly. You seem to know very little about it.

[masudrules]

Wikipedia isn't my favorite website for these kind of things, but since you mentioned it, here it is: the loosely used term "legislative" is explained in the following way (I added the caps): "It is a legislative institution with the authority to SUPPLEMENT and APPLY the laws of Bahá'u'lláh" So it's not "as they please" and we are not "competing", much less "for power"...would you mind qualifying that statement?

[mavaddat]

Masud, you are clearly trying to cover-up your own ignorance now. Wikipedia isn't your favourite website? Who cares? It's in your own Bahá'í writings: The UHJ was CREATED to legislate.

The UHJ can create laws as they please. I stand by my statement and nothing you have said contradicts that. "Supplement" and "apply the laws of Bahá'u'lláh" does not contradict the fact that they can supplement and aplly laws as they please. How can you not see this?

[masudrules]

they CANNOT create laws as they please, they can create "application clauses", so to speak, but that isn't creating a law...yes, if being elected by secret ballot with no campaigning, and consultation through unanimity after a thorough investigation into the matter means "as they please"...then yes; decisions, in the end, have to be made by people who base their opinion on an analysis of the issues at hand; downplaying all this and reducing it to "as they please" is quite ridiculous...

[mavaddat]

Masud, you continue to embarrass yourself. You really should stop trying to argue this point. You're only making it worse.

The Aqdas says that the UHJ "the authority to legislate" and quotes 'Abdu'l-Bahá saying of the UHJ, "it is this body which will enact laws and legislate upon secondary matters which are not explicit in the Holy Text".

You are just playing with words to cover your previous display of obvious ignorance (about the UHJ's power). This is dishonest and deceitful of you. Stop it.

[masudrules]

look at my statement: "The House can't legislate mavaddat I thought you would have known that; "as they please"?" I was obviously putting emphasis on your statement "as they please" which is why it's in quotation marks...I was saying they can't legislate as they please...it's quite clear, UNLESS you're arguing for the sake of arguing

[mavaddat]

They can legislate as they please. Again, nothing you have said contradicts this. You should take a class on reasoning, Masud. It would help you think more clearly.

If you don't think they can legislate as the please, then please tell me: Who exactly is going to throw them out of office for doing so?

[crimsonperrier]

There is no power dispute; the Universal House of Justice did not take over in the onset of Mason Remey's claim because it did not exist yet. When Shoghi Effendi passed away, all Hands unanimously agreed that no Guardian had been appointed. He left no appointment for the next Guardian and even if he had, this depended upon the acceptance of the Hands of the Cause (according to the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha). When Remey made his claim, all the Hands rejected it.

[crimsonperrier]

Then the House of Justice was elected and the Hands agreed that they could not be elected to it. Thus, relinquishing their temporary central role. In other words, the task of "head" of the faith was removed from all parties and given to a not-yet-existent third party that also happened to be the ordained Supreme Body in the writings of Baha'u'llah, 'Abdu'l-Baha, and Shoghi Effendi.

[mavaddat]

This is your side of the story, but it does not demonstrate that there is no power dispute. The very fact that there are people who dispute who is the legitimate authority of the Bahá'í Faith is sufficient to demonstrate that. So there most certainly IS a power dispute, though you deny it with all the forces of obfuscation.

[firebug]

I'm not even Bahai, but this makes the most sense to me: "not-yet-existent third party that also happened to be the ordained Supreme Body in the writings of Baha'u'llah, 'Abdu'l-Baha, and Shoghi Effendi."

Not only was the UHJ written about by Bahaullah, Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendhi, But was to be the ordained supreme body when mankind was ready for it. Nowhere in Bahai scripture does it say that the guardianship was to be passed down forever and forever. Especially not to Mason Remey.