Hi, Gilberto,
At 11:24 PM 1/26/2005, you wrote:
>>So would it be fair to say that the sinlessness is a non-falsifiable
>>statement? You aren't saying that they conform to some prior moral
>>principles, but that by definition, beecause they are the Manifestation they
>>could do no wrong?<<
Yes, IMO, protection ('ismat) from sin is not ultimately falsifiable. One would
need to be in an equal or superior position to the Prophet in order to falsify
it.
On the other hand, I *could* decide that, based on my own will or conscience, a
particular Prophet does not conform to sinlessness (as I understand it).
However, I don't think that is a very good idea. ;-)
>>Just as earlier when we first started talking, you wouldn't exclude Crowley
>>from being a Manifestation just on moral grounds.<<
I don't recall having used the term "moral grounds," or anything like it, in my
messages. You would need to show me what you have in mind. I said that, as a
sociologist of religion and an individual, I would accept that Crowley (or
anyone else) is whom he (or she) claims to be in the context of a particular
paradigm.
Regards, Mark A. Foster � http://markfoster.net � [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Sacred cows make the tastiest hamburger." ---- Abbie Hoffman
__________________________________________________
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[email protected]
To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
Mail - mailto:[email protected]
Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st
News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st
Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist
Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
