Re: No ambiguity
- From: "Kent Johnson" <kent@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 16:22:37 CST
Hi Bill. I guess it is time to recap the recap. In the last recap I asked
why the issue of whether or not Jesus married is comparable to Baha'u'llah
proclaiming Baha'is can have two wives.
You answered with this:
What part of Conferred Infallibility are you having problems with<?
I should ask you right back, which of the two unrelated issues has something
to do with Conferred Infallibility in your mind. Or are you saying that
both of them are related to the issue of Confirred Infallibility? If so,
how?
..sounds to me like your opinion is that the explanations of 'Abdul Baha
are not infallible even though His Holiness Baha'u'llah said they are<
How could you possibly have reached that conclusion from what I wrote?
So it appears from here that since a Baha'i has already accepted
what His Holiness Baha'u'llah has said as the absolute truth in-toto
you are saying that His Holiness Baha'u'llah was a liar and therefore
a false prophet. <
Not at all, Bill.
Or you are saying that the conferred infallibility
regarding the authority of 'Abdul Baha is false, which is IMO is
breaking the covenant with His Holiness Baha'u'llah.<
I have no idea even which issue of the several that you bring up is the one
you are talking about.
Care to enumerate?
Of course, Bill. Just explain to me which issue you want me to talk about.
--Kent
"Bill Pike" <willi4470@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:vgve82t7d0u5k4vfo0s12cudq2o6ve3mdl@xxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 7 Jun 2006 12:07:37 CST, "Kent Johnson" <kent@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hi Bill. Let's recap. I said that Baha'u'llah wrote in his Most Holy
Book
that Baha'is could have two wives, and Abdu'l-Baha "interpreted" that to
mean Baha'is could have only one wife. I said that situation sound silly
to
non-Baha'is, and you answered this:
"No more so than the current Christian discussion as to whether HisWhat part of Conferred Infallibility are you having problems with,
Holiness Jesus Christ was ever married. Marriage was a requirement
for observant Jews of the time and even more so for rabbis."
sounds to me like your opinion is that the explanations of 'Abdul Baha
are not infallible even though His Holiness Baha'u'llah said they are
so. So it appears from here that since a Baha'i has already accepted
what His Holiness Baha'u'llah has said as the absolute truth in-toto
you are saying that His Holiness Baha'u'llah was a liar and therefore
a false prophet. Or you are saying that the conferred infallibility
regarding the authority of 'Abdul Baha is false, which is IMO is
breaking the covenant with His Holiness Baha'u'llah.
Care to enumerate?
Pax Terra
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: No ambiguity
- From: diamondsouled
- Re: No ambiguity
- From: Bill Pike
- Re: No ambiguity
- References:
- No ambiguity
- From: Kent Johnson
- Re: No ambiguity
- From: Bill Pike
- Re: No ambiguity
- From: Kent Johnson
- Re: No ambiguity
- From: Bill Pike
- Re: No ambiguity
- From: Kent Johnson
- Re: No ambiguity
- From: Bill Pike
- No ambiguity
- Prev by Date: Re: No ambiguity
- Next by Date: Re: Our Interfaith Group
- Previous by thread: Re: No ambiguity
- Next by thread: Re: No ambiguity
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|