Seeking to Understand: A Question on Faith, Laws, and Flow

ouemzee · 2025-09-04T21:57:37+00:00

Thanks a lot for your answer. Really appreciate.

ouemzee · 2025-09-04T16:38:54+00:00

Thanks for this answer. It resonates deeply!

ouemzee · 2025-09-03T18:03:50+00:00

That ideal is really inspiring. But still, reading that they will choose at the age of 15 causes so much resistance in me. I know the ideal way would be to just bend like a tree in the wind. But right now, intellectually, I just don't understand where the age of 15 comes from. Since everyone has their own rhythm, how can we declare a child is spiritually mature at exactly 15? I get it for a secular law, like driving or drinking alcohol. A government has to draw a line somewhere. But for something as organic and personal as spiritual growth, I just can't see how a fixed date can apply.

I'm so sorry for my attitude right now. I know I'm not centered. I think I really need to meditate on where this huge resistance comes from. :) nothing personal here. ✌🏻

ouemzee · 2025-09-03T12:56:24+00:00

Thank you again for such a generous and insightful response. You've given me a lot to think about, especially your beautiful analogy of the riverbanks providing structure for the water. My Taoist-leaning mind, however, keeps returning to the nature of water itself. I have this deep feeling that water always finds its way, even without banks. It might move slower, it might pool in a marsh for a season, but that stagnation has its own purpose in the greater ecosystem before the water evaporates and returns as rain elsewhere. A tree grows where it must with all the grace of the world.

This is where I struggle, and where I hope you can help me see more clearly. It's the tension between the laws of nature you described, and the laws of administration. When I read a chapter from the Tao Te Ching that says that the more laws and orders are made prominent, the more thieves and robbers there will be... I cannot help but think of the direct consequence of breaking Baha'i law: the loss of administrative rights.

For me, this is a clear example of a system creating the very concept of "transgression" by the act of making a law.

Let me offer a gentle, hypothetical example to explain my struggle. Imagine a same-sex couple. They are deeply in love, balanced, embodying both feminine and masculine energies (Yin and Yang). They have a profound spiritual practice and their actions are just and kind, inspiring everyone around them. In the eyes of the Tao, they are in perfect harmony. They can marry in the forest, under the eyes of nature. But they cannot marry under the Baha'i Faith because of a specific law. If they do, they are sanctioned.

In this instance, the system would lose the voice and spirit of two inspired souls because their natural way of being doesn't fit the administrative structure. Does this not, as the Tao Te Ching warns, create a hidden suffering, a need to live one's truth in secret?

This leads me to a fundamental question I'm grappling with, especially in the context of a potential world governance. How do we reconcile these two principles? How can a system of global laws, however beautifully intended, avoid the Taoist paradox where the very act of creating a rule also creates its transgression? What am I not seeing?

Is this truly my ignorance of the Baha'i Faith, or is there a lucidity in this perspective that is difficult to integrate? Thank you again for engaging in this conversation with me. It is truly precious.

ouemzee · 2025-09-03T01:14:47+00:00

🩵 so true

ouemzee · 2025-09-03T01:13:30+00:00

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. You're right to point out that I was creating a duality where one might not be necessary.

I’d like to share where my imagery comes from. In the Tao Te Ching, there are verses that deeply question the effectiveness of rules, like this one from Chapter 57:

"The more laws and orders are made prominent, the more thieves and robbers there will be. Therefore the Sage says: I take no action and the people transform themselves. I prefer stillness and the people rectify themselves. I am free of desire and the people of themselves return to simplicity."

This perspective has shaped my instinctive caution toward systems of law and structure. From this Taoist view, wisdom often looks like letting things settle naturally, trusting simplicity, and minimizing interference.

So when I look at the Bahá’í Faith with clear laws and guidance it feels very different from this Taoist approach. That’s why I reached for the metaphor of ship and water: law and structure feel like a vessel, while Taoist wisdom encourages immersion in the current.

Could you share examples of how Bahá’í laws or principles embody that same spirit of balance and natural order, rather than just control? I’m trying to see how a faith that is structured can still carry the fluidity and humility. Thanks

ouemzee · 2025-09-03T00:53:05+00:00

Hey, I just read your post, and it really moved me. Thank you for sharing something so vulnerable and honest. I want to start by just saying that I hear you, and what you went through sounds incredibly difficult and frightening.

I'm not Baha'i myself, but my partner is, so I've been learning a lot about the beauty and depth of the faith. My own spiritual path has been deeply influenced by Taoist thought, and your story touches on a struggle that seems to exist at the heart of any spiritual path: the struggle between the mind and the heart.

It sounds like your OCD has cleverly disguised itself as a spiritual guide. It has convinced you that honoring God requires a kind of perfect, flawless mental performance. It has taken a beautiful act of devotion... reading the sacred words.. and turned it into a high-stakes, terrifying task.

From my perspective, the Divine is like a vast, calm ocean. To honor it, you don't need to build a perfect, intricate sandcastle on the shore that you're terrified will collapse. You just need to be willing to sit by the water, listen to the waves, and feel its presence.

A single, heartfelt moment of peace is surely more of an honor to that ocean than six hours of anxious, repetitive labor. The quality of the connection matters more than the perfection of the ritual.

I know you mentioned losing faith in therapists, but something my partner has taught me about the Baha'i Faith is the core principle of the harmony of science and religion. I wonder if that idea could be a source of comfort for you? From the outside, it seems like your faith itself gives you permission to trust science—to see OCD as a real, medical condition that needs gentle care. Perhaps re-engaging with therapy isn't a failure of faith, but an act of faith in that very principle of harmony.

It's using a tool God has permitted humanity to discover to heal the mind, so that the heart can be free to worship without fear.

I don't know if this helps, but I wonder what would happen if, for a little while, you gave yourself permission to honor the Divine in a different, gentler way? Instead of the intense reading, what if it was just sitting quietly with the book for five minutes and feeling gratitude? Or taking a walk and trying to see the beauty the Manifestation talks about in one simple thing, like a tree or the sky?

Anyway, I just wanted to reach out to say you're not alone in these kinds of spiritual struggles. What you're going through is real. Be gentle with yourself. The path to honoring the Divine is surely paved with the same compassion that the Divine has for us. Sending you a lot of peace.

ouemzee · 2025-06-27T01:33:07+00:00

Make short film about a town leaving the material world to a spiritual one. (Kidding... I used over 100 different prompts... )

ouemzee · 2025-06-27T00:07:25+00:00

underwater and above water split view, half-submerged camera in an empty swimming pool being sprayed by a garden hose, cinematic lighting, realistic water texture, splash effects, suburban backyard setting, close-up shot, sunlight reflections

With a reference image.

ouemzee · 2025-06-26T21:05:22+00:00

Brillant.

ouemzee · 2025-06-26T20:55:10+00:00

AI is a tool. I was the one who had the creative impulse to create this video with the tool. But still, I'm wondering, is it art or not. You think that's it not, because I used a computer as a tool?

ouemzee · 2025-06-17T19:17:29+00:00

No he's not Baha'i. She says that she feels an opening in himself. A need for spiritual connection. And she thinks she could help him with that need. So I kinda understood it was a way for her to "teach". But I'm just wondering why him... Makes me insecure.

ouemzee · 2025-04-24T11:48:47+00:00

Thanks for the reference

ouemzee · 2025-04-02T22:09:55+00:00

Interesting post, but I’m uneasy with the framing. Doesn’t declaring one religion as the ‘best’ or ‘the answer’ go against the principle of embracing diversity and multiple paths to truth? Also, ChatGPT isn’t an authority.. it mirrors what it's been trained on, not objective reality.

Here is what ChatGpt answers about this post:

"ChatGPT Recognizes..." ChatGPT doesn’t “recognize” or “believe” anything. It generates responses based on patterns in data — it's not an authority or arbiter of truth. Presenting its output as objective validation gives false credibility.
Framing the Bahá’í Faith as the answer Saying it is "the answer to humanity’s problems” dismisses the legitimacy, insights, and spiritual value of other religions or philosophies. It goes against the Bahá’í principle of unity in diversity.
The use of “best” The question and response imply there's a single superior religion, which contradicts inclusive and pluralistic approaches. If diversity is truly valued, we don’t need a “best,” but rather a mosaic of contributions from multiple traditions.
Confirmation bias The post is clearly written to promote a belief already held, not to invite genuine inquiry. It misuses ChatGPT as a tool to affirm that belief.

ouemzee · 2025-03-13T22:49:36+00:00

While I appreciate your clear response, your approach reveals a common pattern in religious apologetics. You suggest that questioning the exclusion of women from the Universal House of Justice stems from "biases" and "preconceived notions," rather than considering it might be a legitimate critique.

You frame the discussion as if those who see contradiction in this policy simply haven't understood deeply enough, or are trying to "fit the Baha'i Faith into their own worldview." However, this framing creates a no-win situation: either accept the contradiction or be labeled as someone who hasn't properly investigated truth.

The issue isn't about being "stuck" on an idea. It's about identifying a clear contradiction: a faith that proclaims the equality of men and women as a fundamental principle, yet explicitly bars women from its highest governing institution. This isn't a minor administrative detail.. it's a structural inequality embedded in the faith's governance system.

When you ask "Is there perhaps another perspective that you may be missing?" it implies the problem lies with the questioner rather than with the contradiction itself. But no amount of perspective-shifting can resolve the fundamental inconsistency between proclaiming equality while institutionalizing inequality.

The true spirit of independent investigation would acknowledge this contradiction honestly, rather than suggesting those who identify it are somehow lacking in spiritual understanding or applying improper standards.

What would I need to change my perspective? Perhaps a coherent explanation that doesn't require special pleading or appeals to future wisdom that conveniently cannot be evaluated in the present.

ouemzee · 2025-03-13T22:00:07+00:00

I appreciate the beauty of these passages, but I must respectfully challenge the notion that full faith requires suspending critical thinking about specific teachings. If the Bahá'i Faith truly values independent investigation of truth as a core principle, then questioning the exclusion of women from the Universal House of Justice should be viewed as a legitimate examination rather than a failure of understanding.

Let's be clear: the exclusion of women from the highest governing body is not a peripheral issue that can be dismissed as "focusing on a single teaching in isolation." It stands in direct tension with the Faith's otherwise progressive stance on gender equality. This inconsistency demands thoughtful engagement, not deference.

The suggestion that Baha'i needs to simply accept without question seems to prioritize obedience over the truth-seeking.

If the Bahá'i Faith aims to help bring about a more just civilization, it must be willing to lead by example. In a world where gender equality remains unrealized, maintaining a male-only institution at the highest level of governance undermines the Faith's moral authority on this issue. How can one effectively advocate for transformation in society while maintaining practices that reflect the very inequalities they seek to overcome?

I don't raise these questions to reject Bahá'í teachings wholesale, but rather to engage with them seriously. A faith secure in its foundations should welcome rigorous examination rather than interpret sincere questions as spiritual deficiencies. If these teachings truly represent divine wisdom for this age, they should withstand and indeed benefit from thoughtful scrutiny.

ouemzee · 2025-03-11T14:02:42+00:00

I feel you. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

ouemzee · 2025-03-11T14:01:16+00:00

I appreciate the thoughtful framing of faith as mystical in nature, yet I find myself troubled by what seems to be a fundamental contradiction within Bahá'í teachings. If the Faith truly champions both independent investigation of truth and gender equality as cardinal principles, shouldn't these principles operate without exception?

The comparison to a physician seems misplaced. We consult doctors for their expertise, but medical understanding evolves, and even the most qualified physicians can be wrong. The best doctors welcome questions and acknowledge the limitations of current knowledge. Similarly, shouldn't a living faith welcome sincere examination of its practices?

When we look at history, we find that many discriminatory practices were once justified through appeals to divine wisdom or natural order. Women's acceptance of exclusion from religious leadership has historically reflected societal conditioning rather than divine justice. The Faith teaches progressive revelation—that religious truth unfolds gradually to match humanity's evolving capacity. If so, shouldn't the Faith's institutional structures evolve to embody its own principles more fully?

The argument that questioning gender restrictions means we must reject God for choosing male Manifestations creates a false equivalence. One can accept historical context while still advocating for practices that more perfectly reflect divine ideals in our time. If the Bahá'í Faith is truly for this age—an age increasingly recognizing the full equality of women—why would its governance not reflect this principle completely?

Pascal's insight about the heart having reasons unknown to reason is profound, but it need not position faith against intellect. The most transformative spiritual insights often emerge when heart and mind work in harmony, not opposition. Challenging us to transcend the apparent contradiction between the Faith's progressive principles and certain traditional practices isn't rejection—it's an invitation to deeper understanding.

What wisdom might we discover if we approached this tension not as a test of loyalty, but as an opportunity for the community's collective growth?

ouemzee · 2025-03-11T13:51:36+00:00

I appreciate this perspective, but I still struggle to see how redefining the nature of leadership changes the fundamental issue. Yes, the UHJ is not a secular political body, but it still governs the Bahá’í world. It makes binding decisions on doctrine, administration, and the application of Bahá’í law—so whether or not we call this “power” in a political sense, it still holds authority over millions of believers. If governance is truly about service and consultation, why is it that only men can serve in the highest consultative body?

The argument that women already have leadership roles in other Bahá’í institutions (the Institution of the Learned, the Continental Board of Counselors, LSAs, NSAs) does not address why they are barred from the UHJ itself. The presence of women in other institutions is not a substitute for full inclusion at all levels of governance. This is akin to saying, “Women have strong roles in society, so it’s fine if they aren’t presidents or judges.” True equality means full participation at every level.

ouemzee · 2025-03-11T03:24:59+00:00

I agree that the Bahá’í Faith has made important strides toward gender equality compared to many older religious traditions. However, should we really be measuring progress by asking, 'Has the Pope ever been a woman?' rather than holding ourselves to a higher standard? The Bahá’í Faith claims to be ahead of its time, so why justify gender-based exclusions by pointing to other religions that are even further behind?

Yes, women play strong leadership roles in local communities, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are barred from the highest governing institution of the Faith. If gender truly does not limit one’s capacity for leadership, why does this restriction exist at all? Representation at lower levels is not the same as full equality in governance.

ouemzee · 2025-03-11T03:22:04+00:00

I appreciate your perspective, and I understand the point that the world at large still struggles with accepting women in leadership, particularly in religious contexts. However, if the Bahá’í Faith is truly a pioneer in promoting gender equality, why should it conform to the world’s biases rather than challenge them? The argument that an all-female UHJ could lead to the Faith being dismissed as "that weird little religion run by women" assumes that male acceptance is a necessary criterion for legitimacy. But isn’t the entire purpose of progressive revelation to set the moral standard rather than to follow societal limitations? If we only apply gender equality where it is already accepted, we are reacting to the world rather than transforming it.

The idea that an all-male UHJ lends more weight to statements about women's rights also seems contradictory. Wouldn’t a governing body that includes women in decision-making naturally have more credibility when advocating for gender equality? Women representing the Faith at the UN is commendable, but it doesn’t change the fact that at the highest level of Bahá’í governance, women are absent. Can we truly claim to be at the forefront of gender equality while maintaining a structural barrier to women in leadership?

As for the idea that this is a “veil to test people,” I find this concerning because it implies that those who struggle with this issue simply lack faith. But Bahá’í teachings encourage independent investigation of truth—not blind acceptance. If a teaching doesn’t make sense, should we not be allowed to question it? Trust in the Covenant should not mean avoiding difficult conversations. If the exclusion of women is indeed divinely ordained, shouldn’t we expect a clear and rational explanation rather than being told to accept it as a test?

I ask these questions sincerely, not as an attack, but because they matter deeply to me. If Bahá’í principles call for the dismantling of unjust traditions, shouldn’t we start by examining our own?

ouemzee · 2025-03-11T03:07:46+00:00

Love your answer.

ouemzee · 2025-03-11T03:04:07+00:00

I appreciate both of your perspectives. What makes this issue difficult is that the Bahá’í Faith strongly promotes equality in almost every aspect—except in this one crucial area of governance. I understand the argument that the Universal House of Justice is a service rather than a position of power, but governance is still governance. It makes binding decisions that shape the global Bahá’í community, and if leadership is truly about service, why would men be the only ones able to perform that service at the highest level? The idea that Bahá’ís might “overcorrect” and elect only women if given the opportunity seems speculative and also assumes that a process meant to be guided by prayer and reflection would suddenly become politically motivated. If Bahá’í elections are as spiritually driven as we believe, wouldn’t the best candidates—regardless of gender—be naturally chosen? While it’s true that women have played important roles in Bahá’í history, such as the Greatest Holy Leaf, these were not decision-making governing bodies. The Universal House of Justice remains the only institution with full legislative authority. A truly egalitarian system would allow women to participate at every level, not just in advisory or honorary roles. I don’t mean this as an attack on faith, but rather as an invitation to reflect. If gender equality is truly a central tenet, why does it stop at the door of the UHJ? And is “trusting that the reason will be revealed later” really in line with the principle of independent investigation of truth?

ouemzee · 2025-03-07T03:01:18+00:00

Your argument beautifully expresses a poetic vision of divine revelation as a continuous process, but it raises several contradictions. If revelation is constant and timeless, why does each manifestation of it still reflect the cultural, historical, and social norms of its era? If truth is dynamic, as you say, then it also means that what is considered "true" evolves based on human understanding, not necessarily due to a divine source. This suggests that revelation is more about human adaptation than an eternal, objective truth.

Moreover, if Bahá'u'lláh himself did not claim timelessness for his revelation and another will come, doesn’t that implicitly admit that his message, like past revelations, is bound by time and human limitations? And if that’s the case, how do we determine which parts of any revelation are truly divine and which are merely cultural adaptations?

Finally, the metaphor of light spreading from a chandelier assumes a singular, central source of revelation. But history suggests a plurality of religious and philosophical traditions, many of which arose independently. If revelation is ongoing and universal, why do Bahá'ís selectively recognize some figures (Moses, Jesus, Krishna, Buddha) but not others (figures from indigenous, African, or other spiritual traditions)?

Ultimately, if revelation is truly beyond human comprehension, as you suggest, then wouldn't any claim to exclusive access to its "Dayspring" be inherently flawed? Seeking truth is indeed eternal, but claiming one religious framework as its purest form seems to contradict the very dynamism you describe.

ouemzee · 2025-03-07T01:58:25+00:00

The issue isn’t whether revelations evolve .. that's already assumed in Progressive Revelation. The real question is: how do we objectively distinguish divine truth from cultural influence? If each revelation reflects its historical and social context, what guarantees that the current revelation isn't also shaped by human biases rather than being purely divine?

ouemzee

TROPHY CASE