FJR – bahai, like most religions, affirms the basic value of honesty and truth. it also calls up humanity to engage in self-examination.

so far so good.

unfortunately bahai culture is frequently dishonest. some of the folk versions of bahai are absurdly hostile to any expression of nonconformism. in such an atmosphere, exploitation begins to brew. all failures are projected onto the lowly followers, the leaders cultivate a false sense of perfection, and create a set of false interpretations designed to shield themselves from criticism. any further criticisms results in a vicious cycle of conflict and scapegoating where the critics are accused of being spiritually inferior or deficient. when they get angry about such accusations, this is then held up as “proof” that the abusive/corrupt leaders (or their apologists) are “right”, and the critics “wrong”.

in the end, the failed leaders are of course shown to be the main source of error.

this is an old, corrupt game that the leadership of all religions has descended into from time to time. it “all about attachment” – power, to importance.

it is a sign of the need for a new paradigm, etc.

FJR – bahai, like most religions, affirms the basic value of honesty and truth. it also calls up humanity to engage in self-examination.

so far so good.

unfortunately bahai culture is frequently dishonest. some of the folk versions of bahai are absurdly hostile to any expression of nonconformism. in such an atmosphere, exploitation begins to brew. all failures are projected onto the lowly followers, the leaders cultivate a false sense of perfection, and create a set of false interpretations designed to shield themselves from criticism. any further criticisms results in a vicious cycle of conflict and scapegoating where the critics are accused of being spiritually inferior or deficient. when they get angry about such accusations, this is then held up as “proof” that the abusive/corrupt leaders (or their apologists) are “right”, and the critics “wrong”.

in the end, the failed leaders are of course shown to be the main source of error.

this is an old, corrupt game that the leadership of all religions has descended into from time to time. it “all about attachment” – power, to importance.

it is a sign of the need for a new paradigm, etc.

Ultimately, my biggest problem with intellectual discussion online, in a medium such as this, is that there is something lost in the typed response medium. Ultimately, before most of the viewers have even read my comments, there is a large chance that they already know what they believe, and will approach my post based on how it relates to what they believe. There simply is not the opportunity to demonstrate your beliefs, and to exemplify your character, the person who is speaking, over the internet. That is no means meant to sound arrogant, as if I might sway someone if we were to consult in person, but I do believe that there is no substitute for real, human interaction.

Ultimately, there will always be those who criticize the Administrative Order, and I do believe that independent investigation of the truth is extremely important. That entails that individuals will ASK QUESTIONS, when they find a situation they are not clear on. However, one area where many people I notice struggle is the process of asking a question, then fairly evaluating the responses. Rather than being caught in the dichotomy of one believing they are absolutely right, and others are wrong, we must recognize that each perspective is based out of some truth.

I believe it was Abdul Baha who said that the belief of the individual that they are totally right, and another is totally wrong is the single greatest barrier to unity.

As for the reference to taqlid, Baquia, I believe you are misinterpreting Baha’u'llah’s intention in the quotation. While it is definitely warned that any individual gain too large an influence, and individuals always independently discern what is true, there also must be institutions to provide guidance, as Baha’u'llah and Abdul-Baha repeatedly state. If you would like to further discuss the subject, you are more than welcome to bring it to the forums to which I have linked.

Ultimately, many people on the internet already know what they believe and are not looking to change or enhance their perspectives. Every individual must walk their own path, and I only hope that when the hour strikes, every believer can honestly say that they did all in their power to work towards the unity of mankind.

Ultimately, my biggest problem with intellectual discussion online, in a medium such as this, is that there is something lost in the typed response medium. Ultimately, before most of the viewers have even read my comments, there is a large chance that they already know what they believe, and will approach my post based on how it relates to what they believe. There simply is not the opportunity to demonstrate your beliefs, and to exemplify your character, the person who is speaking, over the internet. That is no means meant to sound arrogant, as if I might sway someone if we were to consult in person, but I do believe that there is no substitute for real, human interaction.

Ultimately, there will always be those who criticize the Administrative Order, and I do believe that independent investigation of the truth is extremely important. That entails that individuals will ASK QUESTIONS, when they find a situation they are not clear on. However, one area where many people I notice struggle is the process of asking a question, then fairly evaluating the responses. Rather than being caught in the dichotomy of one believing they are absolutely right, and others are wrong, we must recognize that each perspective is based out of some truth.

I believe it was Abdul Baha who said that the belief of the individual that they are totally right, and another is totally wrong is the single greatest barrier to unity.

As for the reference to taqlid, Baquia, I believe you are misinterpreting Baha’u'llah’s intention in the quotation. While it is definitely warned that any individual gain too large an influence, and individuals always independently discern what is true, there also must be institutions to provide guidance, as Baha’u'llah and Abdul-Baha repeatedly state. If you would like to further discuss the subject, you are more than welcome to bring it to the forums to which I have linked.

Ultimately, many people on the internet already know what they believe and are not looking to change or enhance their perspectives. Every individual must walk their own path, and I only hope that when the hour strikes, every believer can honestly say that they did all in their power to work towards the unity of mankind.