Comparative Views: Consequence of "Sin"

[arthra]

Just read the Kitab-i-Aqdas...more than enough rules for me. No shaving of head or growing hair beyond the earlobe...

I still like to use Ocean though....

Many of the laws of the Aqdas like the one you cite above are not enforced as yet. Also a good portion of the book concerns abrogating earlier Muslim and Babi laws. The inheritance laws are for those who die without making Wills...so they are a template for people in the future who do not draw up Wills. None of these inheritance laws are enforceable as yet.

And again for a "law book" the Aqdas is remarkably brief. Most communities where I live have law libraries with laws and precedences that would dwarf many times the mere size of the Aqdas.

- Art

 

[iBrian]

Thanks for the explanation - I simply meant that I thought there was an issue of ostracism raised on the "Baha'i and Politics" thread. Is being able to vote and be voted such an important issue for Baha'is that removal causes disfunction, or are there other features of community involvement removed (such as communal participation in feasts?

 

[BruceDLimber]

Thanks for the explanation - I simply meant that I thought there was an issue of ostracism raised on the "Baha'i and Politics" thread. Is being able to vote and be voted such an important issue for Baha'is that removal causes disfunction, or are there other features of community involvement removed (such as communal participation in feasts?

Uh, Brian, you may want to check my posting #16: this sounds like you haven't read it.

And yes, please note that both participation in Baha'i administration and participation in the Nineteen-day Feast are considered very important, central activities!

Regards,

Bruce

 

[smkolins]

Thanks for the explanation - I simply meant that I thought there was an issue of ostracism raised on the "Baha'i and Politics" thread. Is being able to vote and be voted such an important issue for Baha'is that removal causes disfunction, or are there other features of community involvement removed (such as communal participation in feasts?

Beware oversimplification. If a Baha'i looses administrative rights, they can and should still be in the company of Baha'is, just not as freely as normal. For example if a Baha'i were to get drunk often and proclaim the Founder as one promoting drink all all this be witnessed by impartial witnesses then that person would likely have their rights limited as it is clear they have a problem. But if the whole community would simply withdraw all contact and shun such a person then the community would have its own problem.

 

[iBrian]

Uh, Brian, you may want to check my posting #16: this sounds like you haven't read it.

Oops, sorry about that - looks like I inadvertently missed an entire page here -thanks for the info.

 

[Popeyesays]

Uh, Brian, you may want to check my posting #16: this sounds like you haven't read it.

And yes, please note that both participation in Baha'i administration and participation in the Nineteen-day Feast are considered very important, central activities!

Regards,

Bruce

In #16 Bruce mentioned that he thought one could not have a Baha`i wedding ceremony while rights were removed, that is correct.

In my experience probably 90% of the time that admin rights are revoked it has SOME thing or other to do with marriage and chastity laws.

Marriage requires that the parties not have had the marriage arranged by any but themselves. It requires that all living natural parents give consent to the wedding. It requires that if one party is not Baha`i and wishes another ceremony that both Baha`i and other ceremony occur on the same day (though not at the same time - in other words they must be separate ceremonies). It must be witnessed by two individuals acceptable to a local assembly. And any Baha`i partner must be in "good standing" (not have had his/her rights revoked at the time).

Remember that any revocation of rights is TEMPORARY, and an individual may go to an assembly and find a way to have those rights re-established.

Regards,
Scott

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

The UNPARDONABLE sin is failure to educate children.

In fact, the Baha'i scriptures agree with the Bible: the only unpardonable sin is blasphemy against the Spirit!

But the Baha'i scriptures go on to define what this is (instead of leaving it subject to debate)--specifically, hatred of Spiritual Light in general as contrasted with hatred or rejection of any given Divine Messenger.

'Abdu'l-Baha explains this in some detail in Some Answered Questions.

Regards,

Bruce

 

[smkolins]

5. The UNPARDONABLE sin is failure to educate children. In context I think this means keeping a child back from education, but it can be interpretted far more broadly than that. This particular sin supports the great Baha'i philosophy that religion is the great educator of humanity, and that God has done us the greatest good by perpetuating revelation to us. It also supports the Baha'i idea that sin ultimately is the result of ignorance.

I agree with Bruce and others that the metaphysical unpardonable sin, one rooted into existence itself (my own words) is rejection of the Holy Spirit. In the comment above I see more of a practical aspect of sin - a sin with profound implications. Baha'is beleive education of children is so important that someday, when this law hinted at above is enforceable, parents will loose their rights of parenthood if they raise their children without education, in ignorance:

"Unto every father hath been enjoined the instruction of his son and daughter in the art of reading and writing and in all that hath been laid down in the Holy Tablet. He that putteth away that which is commanded unto him, the Trustees are then to take from him that which is required for their instruction if he be wealthy and, if not, the matter devolveth upon the House of Justice. Verily have We made it a shelter for the poor and needy. He that bringeth up his son or the son of another, it is as though he hath brought up a son of Mine; upon him rest My glory, My loving-kindness, My mercy, that have compassed the world."

Thus the sin of not educating children can result in removal of parent-rights and seemingly unpardonable, just as the punishments for some sins are final. One may achieve spiritual forgiveness after death for these sins, but with respect to the limitations of the world, are kind of unpardonable. I say "kind of" partly because I'm speaking generally of many specifics.

 

[iBrian]

But the Baha'i scriptures go on to define what this is (instead of leaving it subject to debate)--specifically, hatred of Spiritual Light in general as contrasted with hatred or rejection of any given Divine Messenger.

Would that mean that it is not regrded as a sin to reject the Baha'i faith or its messengers, then?

I think there's certainly a strong argument within mainstream Christianity that rejecting Christianity and its exclusive teachings would be an effective rejection of the Holy Spirit.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

Would that mean that it is not regrded as a sin to reject the Baha'i faith or its messengers, then?

I think there's certainly a strong argument within mainstream Christianity that rejecting Christianity and its exclusive teachings would be an effective rejection of the Holy Spirit.

Given that one of the central Baha'i principles is Individual Investigation of Truth--that is, that it is every person's duty to investigate the various religions, decide where the truth lies, and follow that!--, no, choosing another path is not sinful. This is one of the reasons why the Baha'i scriptures explcitly recognize and praise the other great religions.

As to your second point, this is what our scriptures describe as rejection of a given lamp rather than as rejection of the light itself. Considerable difference!

I refer you to the chapter in 'Abdu'l-Baha's Some Answered Questions about "Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" for the details. You can find this at:

www.reference.bahai.org or
www.bahai-library.org

Best,

Bruce

 

[smkolins]

Greetings!



Given that one of the central Baha'i principles is Individual Investigation of Truth--that is, that it is every person's duty to investigate the various religions, decide where the truth lies, and follow that!--, no, choosing another path is not sinful. This is one of the reasons why the Baha'i scriptures explcitly recognize and praise the other great religions.

I generally agree. I would suppose that if one rejected *all* of the Prophets, and the Religions of God, then I could see that one has in fact then denied the Holy Spirit. Also I would suppose there is a difference from choosing one or another religion and actively denying any. Not sure exactly how that would play out.