I can't see that your qoute had any relevance to the context whatsoever.
On 3/27/08, Richard H. Gravelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uncharacteristically Susan, you misunderstood the reason for my quoting that
particular passage. We do not teach Jews in Israel. We do not teach anyone
in Israel.
The Verse you quoted is very short, and I feel you have put a lot of
personal interpretation into it to support your view that the very reason
why there is conflict is because they are non-Baha'is. This suggests that if
they were Baha'is, they would not be in conflict with each other. Well, of
On 26 Mar 2008 at 23:56, Brent Poirier Attorney wrote:
If one takes the statement that religious truth is not absolute, but
relative as a broad sweep about the nature of all Revelation, then
your
conclusions logically follow. But I respectfully disagree with the
premise because:
- It
That you cannot see the issue, context, etc. is rather clear from your
responses. But then the post was not directed to you in the first instance.
Dominus vobiscum.
Richard.
- Original Message -
I can't see that your qoute had any relevance to the context whatsoever.
On 3/27/08,
The same theme, it seems to me, is expressed by Baha'u'llah in the following:
If any man were to meditate on that which the Scriptures, sent down from the
heaven of God's holy Will, have revealed, he would readily recognize that their
purpose is that all men shall be regarded as one soul, so
The same theme, it seems to me, is expressed by Baha'u'llah in the
following:
If any man were to meditate on that which the Scriptures, sent down from
the heaven of God's holy Will, have revealed, he would readily recognize
that their purpose is that all men shall be regarded as one soul, so
Thank God for the Covenant!
Dominus vobiscum.
Richard.
- Original Message -
From: Susan Maneck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The same theme, it seems to me, is expressed by Baha'u'llah in the
following:
If any man were to meditate on that which the Scriptures, sent down from
the heaven of
I understand that what you said was not directed to me in the first place,
but since this is a forum, what one says in direction to another person is
not so much a private conversation, but an invitation for other people to
join in if they want to.
I'm not a Baha'i, by the way, so it felt
Dear Matt,
I can't blame you for feeling this way. I'm reminded of a statement
made by Scott Peck in the Road Less Traveled:
Anyone who believes that world peace won't be established until
religious and cultural differences are obliterated – until all Jews
become Christians or all Christians
May God forgive my offenses.
Dominus vobiscum.
Richard.
- Original Message -
From: Matt Haase
To: Baha'i Studies
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 7:11 AM
Subject: Re: Jewish/Arab Peace Song
I understand that what you said was not directed to me in the first place,
but since this is a
I'm not a Baha'i, by the way, so it felt somewhat insulting to hear someone
say that the reason why there is conflict is because they haven't accepted
the Faith.
**Somewhat** insulting? I'd say *very* insulting. Baha'is are not
necessarily better than other people. We are all in this boat
I didn't say what I meant very clearly.
I quite agree that the relativity of religious truth is not only in the
Guardian's writings, but in the Iqan and elsewhere in the Text -- and I
think he's using it to mean Progressive Revelation in the fullness of
that meaning as explained in the
I think that you have all missed the point. The issue has nothing to do with
who is better than whom it is a matter of the individual's responsibility to
turn to God upon His Appearance. Shoghi Effendi has clearly described the
condition of humankind in this regard:
Unmitigated indifference
I think that you have all missed the point. The issue has nothing to do
with who is better than whom it is a matter of the individual's
responsibility to turn to God upon His Appearance.
Then why bring it up in connection with the Arab-Israeli dispute?
The information contained in this
My initial statement was to the effect: The problem, if you will is that
nether has accepted the Faith. It is my opinion that failure to obey God
is at the root of all contention. As a matter of fact; as Abdu'l-Baha put
it:
Remember how Adam and the others once dwelt together in Eden. No
Does this conversation count as a quarrel, a conflict, a dispute?
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Richard H. Gravelly
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My initial statement was to the effect: The problem, if you will is that
nether has accepted the Faith. It is my opinion that failure to obey God
I don't know.
Richard.
- Original Message -
From: Benjamin La Framboise
Does this conversation count as a quarrel, a conflict, a dispute?
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Richard H. Gravelly
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My initial statement was to the effect: The problem, if you will is
Dear friends,
I would like to point out that Richard is forwarding the messages
posted here onto another list without the permission of the authors.
Ordinarily I would remove him for this serious breach of netiquette.
Unfortunately I haven't been able to do so since there was a system
change on
Susan, you know I forwarded my reply to you as a clarification to another
list by inadvertent error. By the way, when you called it to my attention,
I sent an apology by reply but the Mailer Daemon sent it back. Why? And
why do you represent one error as forwarding the messages
posted here
I would like to point out that Richard is forwarding the messages
posted here onto another list without the permission of the authors.
Thanks for letting us know, Susan. I won't respond to him.
Tim
All good art is about something deeper than it admits.
Susan, you know I forwarded my reply to you as a clarification to another
list by inadvertent error.
What do you mean you forwarded it as a clarification? A clarification of what?
By the way, when you called it to my attention,
I sent an apology by reply but the Mailer Daemon sent it back.
- Original Message -
From: Susan Maneck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Susan, you know I forwarded my reply to you as a clarification to another
list by inadvertent error.
What do you mean you forwarded it as a clarification? A clarification of
what?
The punctuation of my first reply was
Baha'i Discuss has an old email address which no longer works. But
since you did this on a public list, that is where I would expect the
apology to be made.
You might have simply sent it on the BS list. It would have been as public
as necessary.
That's not where you did the forwarding to.
23 matches
Mail list logo
