Gilberto Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 9/5/05, Scott Saylors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Gilberto Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>
> 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.
Scott:
> I think you can point out all the organized dissonant groups and link them
> to a particular point in the succession of authority in the faith.
I think the discussion has become less clear. I'm not sure what you
want to show.
If you agree there are groups of people who consider themselves to be
Bahais but who are different from "Haifan Bahais" under the UHJ I'm
not sure what else to talk about on this point.
> So, we have those who quibbled over the succession of Abdu'l Baha, those who
> quibbled over the succession of Shoghi Effendi and those who quibble with
> whether or not the Guardianship could come to an end.
Ok.
Plus possibly "fundamentalists" v. "non-fundamentalists"I would point out that this cannot be established. Those you would call "fundamentalist" and "non-fundamentalist" are all either in obedience to the authority of the Universale House of Justice or they are not. If they are not they are a dissident group and can probably be traced back to some point in the succession.
> Perhaps we would do better limiting the discussion to those groups
> enumerated above?
>
Again, I'm not sure what you want to show. I'm basically just saying
they exist. And it is weird to say they don't exist. What are you
saying?
Regards,
Scott
Arnold J. Toynbee
