Scott,
At 01:28 AM 12/12/2004, you wrote:
>>"Do what thou wilt." IS the sum of the law. It is the exercise of will that
>>we are granted in this existence. One must, of course, be prepared to face
>>the consequences of willfullness, but the exercise of will is why God created
>>us.<<
As a soci
"Do what thou wilt." IS the sum of the law. It is the exercise of will that
we are granted in this existence. One must, of course, be prepared to face the
consequences of willfullness, but the exercise of will is why God created
us.
Regards,
Scott
___
Hi, Susan,
At 06:10 PM 12/11/2004, you wrote:
>>Most Protestants don't live in the US, however it is the evangelical wings
>>that are growing world wide as well, so maybe you are right.<<
Yes, I think, increasingly, it is true on a global level, as well. However, I
was referring to the U.S. (th
Gilberto,
At 06:30 PM 12/11/2004, you wrote:
>>But why? In what sense is Crowley better? I mean from a certain point of view
>>I might be able to sympathize. I sort of have a visceral reaction those folks
>>too. But that's just it. A *visceral* reaction.<<
It is ultimately a personal response.
In a message dated 12/11/2004 5:18:08 P.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I
would prefer Crowley to the guards of the "new" mainstream Protestantism any
day, e.g., Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Franklin Graham..
Mainstream? God help us!
_
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 17:16:41 -0600, Mark A. Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gilberto,
> At 04:09 PM 12/11/2004, you wrote:
> >>What is surprising is that a Bahai (or anyone else who followed a religion
> >>which adhered to "standard" "traditional" morality) would favorably compare
> >>Crowle
Susan,
At 05:45 PM 12/11/2004, you wrote:
>>Mainstream? God help us!<<
You don't think that Falwell, Robertson, and F. Graham represent the *new*
mainsteam Protestantism? That concept has been discussed in the religious
studies literature, including the sociology of religion, for quite some tim
"You don't think that Falwell, Robertson, and F. Graham represent the *new*
mainsteam Protestantism?"
Dear Mark,
Most Protestants don't live in the US, however it is the evangelical wings
that are growing world wide as well, so maybe you are right.
warmest, Susan
_
Gilberto,
One more point.
At 03:55 PM 12/11/2004, you wrote:
>>Really!?!? I don't understand? What is the appeal? Besides, I've even heard
>>from some followers of Thelema that in some ways the movement has already
>>been "corrupted" to Crowleanity.<<
There are many Thelemite groups. The larg
Gilberto,
At 04:09 PM 12/11/2004, you wrote:
>>What is surprising is that a Bahai (or anyone else who followed a religion
>>which adhered to "standard" "traditional" morality) would favorably compare
>>Crowley to mainstream Christianity.<<
I would prefer Crowley to the guards of the "new" mains
In a message dated 12/11/2004 4:09:38 P.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What
is surprising is that a Bahai (or anyone else who followed areligion which
adhered to "standard" "traditional" morality) wouldfavorably compare
Crowley to mainstream Christianity.
Dear Gi
Gilberto,
At 03:55 PM 12/11/2004, you wrote:
>>Really!?!? I don't understand? What is the appeal? Besides, I've even heard
>>from some followers of Thelema that in some ways the movement has already
>>been "corrupted" to Crowleanity.<<
I have, since I was in my teens, admired Aleister Crowley'
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 16:56:50 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In a message dated 12/11/2004 3:55:31 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Really!?!? I don't understand? What is the appeal? Besides, I've even
> heard from some followers of Thelema that in so
In a message dated 12/11/2004 3:55:31 P.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Really!?!? I don't understand? What is the appeal? Besides, I've
evenheard from some followers of Thelema that in some ways the
movementhas already been "corrupted" to Crowleanity.
Mark was into th
On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:10:52 -0600, Mark A. Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, Gilberto,
Hello there Mark
Gilberto:
> >>I mean, if in 1000 years someone comes saying they are the next
> >>Manifestaion except they are preaching doctrines reminiscent of the
> >>Satanism of Anton LaVey or Als
>>The last three paragraphs of a lecture by A. Einstein, 1920:<<
IMO, a careful reading of `Abdu'l-Baha's comments on ether will show that He
used it as a metaphor for spirit. He was a storyteller. If He were alive today,
He might instead speak of bits and bytes.
Mark A. Foster * http://markfo
The last three paragraphs of a lecture by A. Einstein, 1920:
"
Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter
are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the
electromagnctic field, our present view of the universe presents two realities
which
Ronald Stephens:
But the theory of the "ether" was disproven by a specific scientific
experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment. It is virtually impossible that
this could be overturned.
Firouz:
Just a few months ago I read in some American Science Journal that the
theory of ether could be pr
James Mock wrote:
>
>There is but one power which heals -- that is God. The state or condition
>through which the healing takes place is the confidence of the heart. By
>some this state is reached through pills, powders, and physicians. By others
>through hygiene, fasting, and prayer. By others
In a message dated 12/10/04 9:27:32 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is but one power which heals -- that is God. The state or condition
through which the healing takes place is the confidence of the heart. By
some this state is reached through pills, powders, and physi
In a message dated 12/10/2004 11:27:33 AM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is but
one power which heals -- that is God. The state or condition through which
the healing takes place is the confidence of the heart. By some this state
is reached through pills, powde
Ron wrote:
Do you see my point?
Your point is understood. This non-scientific mind, however, would assert
that "nothing is final."
There is but one power which heals -- that is God. The state or condition
through which the healing takes place is the confidence of the heart. By
some this state
Hello James adn thank you for your comments,
James Mock wrote:
>What is a "known law"? If you had asked people 600 years ago, they would
>have "proven" to you that the world is flat.
>
>We cannot accept things "known" today as scientific "fact."
>
. James, what you say is certainly ture in som
even where they contradict known laws of nature and common sense>
What is a "known law"? If you had asked people 600 years ago, they would
have "proven" to you that the world is flat.
We cannot accept things "known" today as scientific "fact."
Mathematicians, astronomers, chemical scientists co
Hi, Ron,
At 06:08 PM 12/9/2004, you wrote:
>>Mark, your view that texts have no meaning seems extreme. It would also seem
>>to rule out the possibility of communication, woudln't it? Yet humans do
>>communicate. Don' t they?<<
As I see it, we discover meaning *through* (not in) texts. The tools
I want to ask questions of Brent and Mark, related to the discussions
in this thread.
Mark, your view that texts have no meaning seems extreme. It would also
seem to rule out the possibility of communication, woudln't it? Yet
humans do communicate. Don' t they? If I say that I want to believe i
First a quote:
"Papal infallibility and biblical inerrancy are the two ecclesiastical
versions of this human idolatry. Both papal infallibility and biblical
inerrancy require widespread and unchallenged ignorance to sustain their claims
to power. Both are doomed as viable alternatives for t
Hi, Gilberto,
At 01:35 PM 12/9/2004, you wrote:
>>But isn't there an underlying constant even if specific formulations might
>>change? I think John Hick tries to unify the different religions by saying
>>they are all about teaching the ego to conform to the nature or Reality or
>>something like
On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 12:44:04 -0600, Mark Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IMO, the spiritual truth which "never changes" is the Covenant, not any
> particular set of doctrines.
But isn't there an underlying constant even if specific formulations
might change? I think John Hick tries to unify th
Hi, James,
You quoted:
>>The religion of God has two aspects in this world. The spiritual (the
real)
and the formal (the outward). The formal side changes, as man changes from
age to age. The spiritual side which is the Truth, never changes. The
Prophets and Manifestations of God bring always t
Mark wrote:
IMO, the principle of Baha'i relativism establishes a Prophet as the
ultimate Standard of truth in each Dispensation (even if it differs with
the "truths" revealed by other Prophets). If there is, as Shoghi Effendi
wrote, no absolute truth, whatever a particular Prophet designates, o
Brent,
At 03:23 AM 12/9/2004, you wrote:
>>In my view, a careful reading of those passages where Shoghi Effendi speaks
>>of the relativity of religious truth, he is neither speaking of moral
>>relativism, nor is he saying everybody's view of the meaning of the
>>Revelation is just ducky and equ
A few points:
1. In my view, a careful reading of those passages where Shoghi Effendi speaks
of the relativity of religious truth, he is neither speaking of moral
relativism, nor is he saying everybody's view of the meaning of the Revelation
is just ducky and equally valid. I suggest that an
Hi, Gilberto,
At 07:50 PM 12/8/2004, you wrote:
>>So in no way do you use the prophecies about the Mahdi to identify the mahdi?
>>You start with the axiom that the Bab was the mahdi, and THEN you interpret
>>everything else in such a way to be consistent with that assumption?<<
The Mahdi, the B
On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 18:31:15 -0600, Mark A. Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mark:
> The words have no meaning, but the Prophets do. Since Mahdi has been
> interpreted as a reference to the Bab, Baha'is would accept Him as such
> based on the authority of the eisegete.
Gilberto
Richard,
At 06:05 PM 12/8/2004, you wrote:
>>Yes. I would imagine that a serving of Ruhi would not sit well after a
>>healthy course of sacred cow.<<
Indeed, or even after a Mandarin salad. ;-)
Mark A. Foster * Portal: http://MarkFoster.net
CompuServe: http://boards.M.Foster.name
_
Hi, Gilberto,
At 05:48 PM 12/8/2004, you wrote:
>>But how does the prophecy actually guide then?<<
For instance: Baha'u'llah predicted the Most Great Peace, and Baha'is are
working toward it.
>>Let me give an example. I've been looking a little into Chinese divination
>>and the I Ching. (with
Well, I would rather not get into a discussion of Ruhi. I just ate. ;-)
Yes. I would imagine that a serving of Ruhi would not sit well after a
healthy course of sacred cow.
;- }
__
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-ar
Richard,
At 05:46 PM 12/8/2004, you wrote:
>>Which in turn may be one of the reasons why in the Ruhi classes the use of
>>the dictionary is discouraged.<<
That strikes me as strange (to say the least). I wonder how many people pay
attention to it.
Well, I would rather not get into a discussio
On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 15:44:10 -0600, Mark A. Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, Gilberto,
Hello Mark
Mark:
> texts, including those containing prophecies, have no inherent meaning.
> The meanings are solely in the minds of the writer and the
> interpreter.
Gilberto:
>
"The texts of the Holy Books are all symbolical, needing authoritative
interpretation."
-- Promulgation of Universal Peace, p.220
IMO, the words symbolize the inspirations of the Holy Spirit.
Which may require the conclusion, among a myriad other possible conclusions,
in my opinion, that investi
Hi, Richard,
At 04:13 PM 12/8/2004, you wrote:
>>Mark, your explanation may shed some light on the operation of the following
>>verse.
>>He it is who hath sent down to thee "the Book." Some of its signs are of
>>themselves perspicuous; - these are the basis of the Book - and others are
>>figur
Mark, you wrote:
The words have no meaning, but the Prophets do. Since Mahdi has been
interpreted as a reference to the Bab, Baha'is would accept Him as such
based on the authority of the eisegete.
Mark, your explanation may shed some light on the operation of the
following verse.
He it is who
Hi, Gilberto,
I wrote:
texts, including those containing prophecies, have no inherent meaning.
The meanings are solely in the minds of the writer and the interpreter.
You replied:
>>This may seem like a silly question then but doesn't that perspective render
>>the whole idea of fu
In a message dated 12/8/2004 3:02:49 PM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
IMO, the
words are a means to have a relationship with the author (or
Author).
I concur.
Scott
__
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:a
Hi, Scott,
At 01:52 PM 12/8/2004, you wrote:
>>I would assert that there is no meaning to or enjoyment of reading the text
>>of anything unless the reader has a relationship to the words on the page.
>>This is a truism whether reading "scripture" or a technical manual.<<
IMO, the words are a me
On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 08:54:38 -0600, Mark A. Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, Brent,
>
> >>Also, as Mark has pointed out, the same verse can be interpreted in more
> >>than one way.<<
>
> Yes, that is sort of what I am saying. However, more specifically, I am
> suggesting that texts, incl
IMO, the spiritual understandings we obtain from Sacred Texts do not come
from the words themselves but from the inspirations we receive by
meditating on them.
That may allow some insight into:
5. O SON OF BEING!
Love Me, that I may love thee. If thou lovest Me not, My love can in no wise
reach
In a message dated 12/8/2004 1:41:21 PM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would say
that all texts, as well as verbal communications, are permutations of names
pointing to meaning in the mind of the writer or speaker. IMO, the
spiritual understandings we obtain from S
Hi, Richard,
At 01:23 PM 12/8/2004, you wrote:
>>I ask: Is there, then, a relationship between the text and the reader? If
>>so what is its nature? If not, then why does the reader of the text
>>attribute meaning to the text itself?<<
I would say that all texts, as well as verbal communicati
Mark wrote,
I am saying that texts, irrespective of whether we know the language, have
no meaning. The writer of the text had a particular meaning in mind, and
the reader of the text has a certain meaning in mind. Therefore, the words
in those texts are simply names for the meanings which those
Hi, James,
At 09:53 AM 12/8/2004, you wrote:
>>Mark, the Word has unlimited "meaning"<<
To my understanding, the Word can be used to refer either to divine Revelation
from the Prophet or to the Sacred Texts which are produced from that
Revelation. The meanings of Revelation (the Word) are not i
Mark wrote:
I am saying that texts, irrespective of whether we know the language, have
no meaning.
Mark, the Word has unlimited "meaning"
Know assuredly that just as thou firmly believest that the Word of God,
exalted be His glory, endureth for ever, thou must, likewise, believe with
undoubting
What do you think about this prophecy of Daniel, sure it is no a coincidence, all dates 1953,57,60,63 are relevant for the Cause.
A quote from the House posted on: http://bahai-library.com/uhj/beckwith.daniel.prophecy.html
- The prophecy of Daniel about the 1,335 days is not fulfilled by just o
Hi, Tim,
I wrote:
>>>texts, including those containing prophecies, have no inherent meaning. The
>>>meanings are solely in the minds of the writer and the interpreter.
You asked:
>>Do you say this because texts are nothing more than lines on paper, or pixels
>>on a screen? If I saw a Chine
Hi Mark,
>texts, including those containing prophecies, have no inherent meaning. The meanings are solely in the minds of the writer and the interpreter.<
Mark, Do you say this because texts are nothing more than lines on
paper, or pixels on a screen? If I saw a Chinese text, it would have
no m
Hi, Brent,
>>Also, as Mark has pointed out, the same verse can be interpreted in more than
>>one way.<<
Yes, that is sort of what I am saying. However, more specifically, I am
suggesting that texts, including those containing prophecies, have no inherent
meaning. The meanings are solely in the
In a message dated 12/7/2004 2:16:42 AM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The Master
reportedly told a pilgrim in 1912 that when he saw Adrianople encircled by
armies, that would be a sign that war is near. I understood this to mean
that because Baha'u'llah was in Adri
http://bahai-library.com/?file=uhj_interpretation_biblical_verses.html
I found this quote, regards, Hasan
"You have asked about the meaning of the "four beasts" referred to in Revelations, Ch. 4. Abdu'l-Bahá in a Tablet has given an explanation for the reference to the "beast" mentioned in Rev
Allah'u'Abha Brent,
Below is interesting. Where did you learn this fact about "beasts" in prophecy. It makes sense.
Sandy Pauer
Fort Collins, CO
As far as WWI being predicted in Daniel, I suppose that the references to the various "beasts" could well refer to the countries in
I don't think that the Master meant that every prophecy in the Book of Daniel
would be fulfilled shortly after He made this statement.
First of all, if memory serves correctly, He was speaking of an interview He
gave in a newspaper, the San Francisco Bulletin. There are two interviews in
the mo
Larry,
At 08:25 AM 12/6/2004, you wrote:
>>There is probably a simple explanation for this but it is escaping me.<<
IMO, the most basic explanation is that prophecies do not "mean" anything.
`Abdu'l-Baha meant one thing in one place and something else in another place.
His different interpretat
62 matches
Mail list logo
