> That would all suggest living authorities in the Bahai faith who
> interpret the texts for others.
Dear Gilberto,
The House of Justice does have the power of elucidation which to my mind
involves the application of Baha'i law. My understanding is that they don't
interpret doctrinal matters howe
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 00:55:57 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In a message dated 1/5/2005 11:50:05 PM Central Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> It was my understanding that the UHJ would interpret and make laws.
> And that in the past some aspects of the Administrative
In a message dated 1/6/2005 12:35:43 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How can the UHJ prevent schism and correct individuals withoutactually interpreting the text themselves?
THey can rely on the interpretations already made by the Guardian, Abdu'l Baha and the Sacred Writings
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 00:55:57 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In a message dated 1/5/2005 11:50:05 PM Central Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> It was my understanding that the UHJ would interpret and make laws.
> And that in the past some aspects of the Administrative
In a message dated 1/5/2005 11:50:05 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It was my understanding that the UHJ would interpret and make laws.And that in the past some aspects of the Administrative Order coulddecide that some individual's interpretation of the teachings of theBahai
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 21:36:37 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In a message dated 1/5/2005 8:34:36 PM Central Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I'm a little puzzled by what you are saying. Because it seems to me
> that the Bahai faith has a more narrowly defined set of l
Gilberto;
At 09:34 AM 1/5/2005, you quoted from the Qur'an:
>>[3.7] He it is Who has revealed the Book to you; some of its verses are
>>decisive, they are the basis of the Book, and others are allegorical; then as
>>for those in whose hearts there is perversity they follow the part of it
>>whic
In a message dated 1/5/2005 8:34:36 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm a little puzzled by what you are saying. Because it seems to methat the Bahai faith has a more narrowly defined set of leaders whichinterpret the Bahai writings.
Actually, there is no one alive today to i
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 15:52:26 -0800 (PST), John Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> G: Saying God CAN'T do something is "tying up his hands"
> Saying God CAN do something but in his sovereign authority and
> omnipotence chose to do something different is not "typing up his
> hands"
> J: The st
To me, and *practically* speaking, believing that the Qur'an is the Word of God is entirely different from following it. I as a Baha'i do not *follow* the Qur'an. I do not observe its laws, say its prayers, etc. etc. I follow Baha'u'llah, observe His laws, say His prayers.
I do agree, that spe
In a message dated 1/5/2005 6:04:12 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
J: Baha'is do not follow the Qur'an at all. We follow the writings of Baha'u'llah.
We are not bound by the Qur'an. But we certainly follow its spirit as Baha`u'llah says repeatedly that the Qur'an is the Wo
G:"The effort made by men to reconcile the Word of God with the views of their leades is a wasted effort. Rather man must cast all aside save the Word of God." I'm a little puzzled by what you are saying. Because it seems to me that the Bahai faith has a more narrowly defined set of leaders whic
G: Saying God CAN'T do something is "tying up his hands"Saying God CAN do something but in his sovereign authority andomnipotence chose to do something different is not "typing up hishands"
J: The statement "tying up his hands" would only make sense if you believe that Baha'u'llah is true. Bec
In a message dated 1/5/2005 4:07:40 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But if Bahaullah said "weigh not the book..." it gives me theimpression of asking the reader NOT to hold the Bahai writings up tocertain kinds of scrutiny and that tends to inspire suspicion. It'slike the use
" Let me say it this way
then. I think that
it should be ok to be critical and compare and contrast a scripture.
"Kick the tires" so to speak. That's how you find the truth. The Quran
actually asks the reader to check it for discrepancy. It dares people
to try to imitate it."
Dear Gilberto,
Baha
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 11:30:53 -0800, Richard H. Gravelly
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> "Say: O leaders of religion! Weigh not the Book of God with such
> >> standards
> >> and sciences as are current amongst you, for the Book itself is the
> >> unerring
> >> Balance established amongst men. In t
"Say: O leaders of religion! Weigh not the Book of God with such
standards
and sciences as are current amongst you, for the Book itself is the
unerring
Balance established amongst men. In this most perfect Balance whatsoever
the
peoples and kindreds possess must be weighed, while the measure of
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 17:24:06 -0800, Richard H. Gravelly
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Gilberto wrote:
> > So I would say the Bahai use of the term is certainly different from
> > the original. And I'm not convinced it is even applicable.
> Dear Gilberto: As one who has embraced the Baha'i Faith b
Gilberto wrote:
So I would say the Bahai use of the term is certainly different from
the original. And I'm not convinced it is even applicable.
Dear Gilberto: As one who has embraced the Baha'i Faith because of the
Qur'an, I have read your posts, and the posts sent to you with some
interest. The
In a message dated 1/4/2005 6:00:20 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, I didn't mean to imply that Bahais allow themselves to use chemical intoxicants."My people are hydroponic"
I didn't think you had, I was just saying that although muslim prayer form is not binding on Ba
In a message dated 1/4/2005 5:57:59 P.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I
don'tthink that that kind of success is much of an indication of truth.
Infact, I think in general the liberation theology perspective
(whereGod is on the side of the poor and the oppressed) is
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 18:44:14 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In a message dated 1/4/2005 3:17:31 PM Central Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Actually, given the wine-imagery in some of the Bahai writings and
> given that Bahais are also "exempt" from Muslim prayers, I
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 14:50:35 -0600, Susan Maneck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "It would appear that the Jews
> of Medina, seeing the poverty of the Muslims, derided the latters'
> conviction that they were struggling in God's cause and that the
> Qur'an was divinely revealed. Thus, the "saying" of t
In a message dated 1/4/2005 3:17:31 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Actually, given the wine-imagery in some of the Bahai writings andgiven that Bahais are also "exempt" from Muslim prayers, I would beslightly surprisedif Bahais didn't make a similar argument.
We are also exe
"It would appear that the Jews
of Medina, seeing the poverty of the Muslims, derided the latters'
conviction that they were struggling in God's cause and that the
Qur'an was divinely revealed. Thus, the "saying" of the Jews mentioned
in this verse, "God's hand is shackled", as well as the parallel
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 13:50:23 -0600, Susan Maneck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Saying God CAN'T do something is "tying up his hands"
> Saying God CAN do something but in his sovereign authority and
> omnipotence chose to do something different is not "typing up his
> hands"
> Dear Gilberto,
> And
"Saying God CAN'T do something is "tying up his hands"
Saying God CAN do something but in his sovereign authority and
omnipotence chose to do something different is not "typing up his
hands"
Dear Gilberto,
And do you really know of any instances where the Jews literally said this,
or was it not
On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 18:59:57 -0800 (PST), John Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > > J: But you do not accept the appearance of anyone on par with Prophet
> > > Muhammad, i.e. Baha'u'llah, who revealed a brand new Qur'an equal to the
> > > Qur'an you currently use, do you. In that respect, I
On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 18:12:17 -0800, J. Vahid Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear Gilberto,
> You asked:
> "Do you know where those other numbers come from? I think the only
> number I've heard of was 10 because in Genesis when Abraham was
> haggling with God to spare Sodom, God said that if t
Dear Brent,
"Behold," Bahá'u'lláh further explains in the Kitáb-i-Badi', one of His
works refuting the arguments of the people of the Bayan, "behold, how
immediately upon the completion of the ninth year of this wondrous, this
most holy and merciful Dispensation, the requisite number of pure,
"The Tradition of the Thirty-six Hidden Just Men,"
Vahid, do you, or does anyone else, see a relation between this tradition and
this somewhat mysterious statement of Baha'u'llah?
Brent
"Behold," Bahá'u'lláh further explains in the Kitáb-i-Badi', one of His works
refuting the arguments of the
> > J: But you do not accept the appearance of anyone on par with Prophet> > Muhammad, i.e. Baha'u'llah, who revealed a brand new Qur'an equal to the> > Qur'an you currently use, do you. In that respect, I believe that you are> > "tying up the hands of God".> I disagree with how you are characte
Dear Gilberto,
You asked:
"Do you know where those other numbers come from? I think the only
number I've heard of was 10 because in Genesis when Abraham was
haggling with God to spare Sodom, God said that if there were 10
righteous men in Sodom he wouldn't have destroyed it."
Babylonian Talmud, tra
On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 02:11:25 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In a message dated 1/2/2005 11:49:00 PM Central Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Fair enough, but if we want to get down to brass tacks, and think
> about how to best describe the relation between the religi
In a message dated 1/2/2005 11:49:00 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Fair enough, but if we want to get down to brass tacks, and thinkabout how to best describe the relation between the religions witheducational levels, it makes ALOT more sense for the direction to bereversed
On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 21:08:24 -0600, Don Calkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 2:40 PM -0500 1/2/05, Gilberto Simpson wrote:
> >I haven't found a really good concise description of the concept of
> >perfect man in the way I would like,
>
> The idea is very old, and has gone thru many variations, e
On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 21:15:25 -0600, Don Calkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 9:43 PM -0500 1/2/05, Gilberto Simpson wrote:
> >But then once you say that religions are "progressive" then you end up
> >ranking the religions according to how old they are and you can't help
> >but insult the religio
At 9:43 PM -0500 1/2/05, Gilberto Simpson wrote:
>
>But then once you say that religions are "progressive" then you end up
>ranking the religions according to how old they are and you can't help
>but insult the religions which came before.
>
Most of their adherents probably feel that way. But then
At 4:38 PM -0500 1/2/05, Gilberto Simpson wrote:
>3. More generally, if you really look at Sufism and realize that it is
>a living part of Islam, and really appreciate its function, then I
>think it is alot harder for Bahais to make the case that Islam (in the
>sense of following the Quran, and sun
At 2:40 PM -0500 1/2/05, Gilberto Simpson wrote:
>I haven't found a really good concise description of the concept of
>perfect man in the way I would like,
The idea is very old, and has gone thru many variations, especially in
Jewish, Persian and Islamic cultures.
The oldest versions are at least
On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 23:14:01 -, Khazeh Fananapazir
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear Gilberto Simpson
> Today in your letter on the net
> http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist/m43095.html
> you write:*
> To be honest, for me it isn't about liking or disliking the concept. I'm not
> saying
On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 15:19:21 -0800 (PST), John Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> G: 2. Muslims aren't necessarily "tying up the hands of God" by saying
> prophethood is over.
> J: But you do not accept the appearance of anyone on par with Prophet
> Muhammad, i.e. Baha'u'llah, who revealed
G: 2. Muslims aren't necessarily "tying up the hands of God" by sayingprophethood is over.
J: But you do not accept the appearance of anyone on par with Prophet Muhammad, i.e. Baha'u'llah, who revealed a brand new Qur'an equal to the Qur'an you currently use, do you. In that respect, I belie
Dear Gilberto Simpson
Today in your letter on the net
http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist/m43095.html
you write:*
To be honest, for me it isn't about liking or disliking the concept. I'm not
saying that Islam is better just because there is this concept of al-insaan
al-kamil. I guess what I
On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 20:57:29 -, Khazeh Fananapazir
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So that Insaan e Kaamil [Perfect Man] concept that you like is there par
> excellence in the Manifestation.
>
To be honest, for me it isn't about liking or disliking the concept.
I'm not saying that Islam is bette
f the dispensation of Muhammad, or starts a
new one***
My answer would take assistance from three sources
Number 1
The Perfect Man is par excellence in Bahai revelatory language the
Manifestation of God [al-Maz.har al Ilaahi]. No one can over-emphasize this
Teaching.
Baha'u'llah says in
ether
this figure is a part of the dispensation of Muhammad, or starts a new
one.
[begin quote]
The Perfect Man holds a unique position within the general framework
of the quasi-mutual relationship between God and His creation, as both
an intermediary and a comprehensive being. The perfection of man
47 matches
Mail list logo
