Talk:Non-Bahá'í

Do we need this article
Hmm. Christian, when I first came across this page, my immediate reaction was to nominate it for deletion. I'm not sure this word, and its usage in Baha'i circles is important enough to warrent an article - surely this should be a paragraph in the main article, or part of some other article. It's only because it's you, and I know you've got good intentions that I'm hesitating about that. PaulHammond 15:14, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Mmm, I'm not so sure. It is sufficiently part of Baha'i discourse, inasmuch as key figures within the Baha'i faith have made comments at conferences, and there is a language shift under way, albeit sub-conciously. The main reason for putting it here is that given the inclusiveness of the Baha'i Faith, the whole non-Baha'i phrasology ends up creating (in some people's view) an inside-outside dichotomy. While there is such a dichotomy, it is of decreasing practical value, since there are very few Baha'i activities in which a non-Baha'i cannot participate.

Possibly a re-name to "Inclusion and Exclusion in the Baha'i Faith" might be better, and this point can be a sub-point in a larger article on the topic. There is certainly an exclusivity with respect to Baha'i belief that the Manifestation of God is the only reliable means to know God. This wouldn't rule out the validity of nature religions, but necessarily suggests that nature itself is not sufficient, and that Baha'is consider Pagan and Neo-pagan beliefs to be "missing something", however commendable some Baha'is may otherwise find them. Likewise with the Sufi path, etc... Also, there are grave consequences for those who learn about Baha'u'llah and reject him from a spiritual perspective. However, even such people are not rejected by the Baha'i Community, and are still welcomed into their activities. So it seems like an important issue. i was looking at a smaller piece of it that came up recently in conversation. Thoughts? -- Christian Edward Gruber 15:43, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)


 * I think that this is perhaps worthy of the dictionary, but not an encyclopedia. Peter Smith's A Concise Encyclopedia of the Bahá'í Faith does not have an entry for example.


 * Jeff3000, Cuñado and I are trying to beef up the "References" sections of several of these articles. We drew lots and I got this page. Blimey, but I can't find formal references for much of anything on this page that doesn't belong on other pages.


 * We use "non-Bahá'í" the same way Jews use "gentile" or Christians use "non-Christian". While they think that they are on the "right path" themselves, they are no more likely to be perjorative in that usage than we are, so I don't see the need to pen an apologia.


 * I think that the page should be deleted, and I'm already de-linking this from several articles. MARussellPESE 05:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that it should be deleted. -LambaJan 19:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)