On 9/5/05, firestorm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> it is quite possible that the definition of "beleives" becomes part of this.
> gilberto points out that a say...remeyite.."beleives in" Abd'ul Baha. and
> does a sohrabite... the sohrabite however does not "believe" that the clear
> words of the Master in the W&T apply to him, and thus, by definition, the
> Kitab-i-Ahd is error, and Its Author capab;e of error. the remeyite
> "beleived" in the eternal necessity of a physically present Guardian...which
> means he bleives that the Aqdas erred in allowing for the end of the line of
> Guardians.
I'm not sure about some of the nuances you are refering to above but
there are other ways these issues can be resolved. For example, not
everyone will read the text the same way. So just because you believe
a particular text might be clear and have only one interpretation,
someone else might read the same text differently.
For example, in the Bible Jesus is made to say to Peter "on this Rock
I will build my church". From a Catholic perspective Peter is the Rock
and the passage establishes (in part) his authority as the first Pope.
But for Protestants the "rock" isn't Peter himself, it is Peter's
confession "Thou art the Christ" Both Catholics and Protestants can
accept the authority of the Bible and its authors even though they
disagree about the meaning of this particular passage.
> members of the Baha'i Faith beleive that these cognitive dissonances can
> only > be resolved by acknowledging that sucvh persons don;t beleive in the
> Station of > Baha'u'llah.
I don't think that is a good argument because there are other points
of tension and dissonance in the faith as well.
> the sunni and the shiah agree there is no Sealed Text naming a Successor.
> thus they are perfectly free to disagree with one another over the
> Imamate/caliphate issue without losing touch with Muhammed (pbuH).
But the real issue is whether the Bahai writings are so clear that
anyone who disagrees with the majority interpretation can't really
believe in the text themselves.
>let us do a thought experiment as say a Moslem Claimed that Muhammed,
if >Real, woulda realised the contentions to come, and woulda Written
the name of >the Successor, and therefore Muhammed is nabi but not
Ras'ul?
How are you using "nabi" and "rasul"?
>but he, the discoveror of this idea is by this fact is Ras'ul and
entitled to > command all the faithful---how would he be accepted in
any Islamic community?
I don't get your example. Could you try to make it more clear?
Peace
Gilberto
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto ("e-mail")
is sent by the Johnson County Community College ("JCCC") and is intended to be
confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity named above. The
information may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts
or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail
in error please immediately notify JCCC by email reply and immediately and
permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. Thank you.
__________________________________________________
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[email protected]
Unsubscribe: send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: send subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/all_forums/subscribe?name=bahai-st
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
Mail - mailto:[email protected]
Web - http://list.jccc.edu:8080/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]
