Re: No ambiguity

Hi Larry,

You honestly see "little in Baha'u'llah's teachings or laws" as essential?
And here I was thinking that you had a reasoned approach. Excuse me, but
have you ever heard of the Covenant?

And you pick the nit of an arsonist to make your point? It would not test
my faith if the Universal House of Justice ruled that an arsonist did not
have to be burned to death, but rather his right pinky could be singed. I
see that as a bit of ambiguity that I could accept. But to say because
Baha'u'llah said that about arsonists there is no need to follow any laws is
selling the baby to slavery and drinking the bathwater with extra strong
detergent.

I have known that it is possible for reasonable people to just change their
minds about the Baha'i Faith. But usually it is alcohol or sex.
That's what I see people quitting for. But I don't see them
follow religious discussions as you are doing. And I have
never before met someone who tried to convince me that what they were doing
was right and true and good.

I accept some ambiguity, but not enough to change my religion. The
mechanics of it works for me. The conceptuality is something I could never
dispose of. My religion is such a part of my life and my thoughts that I
can't
possibly say to myself "these laws aren't important". Who am I to say that
I want something more than what God will allow? I want what He wants me to
have and nothing more, and for that I am grateful.

Sorry, Larry, but I am not sure I can read much more from you. This is a
serious blow, that you are trying to convince me that these nits you are
picking mean the religion is wrong. I think I told you when you were
Heather that it is like you were moving to Mexico because the President here
is a jerk, and you know what? Poor people just aren't treated fairly in the
United States. Well, I will visit you in Veracruz, amigo, but I am staying
here.

--Kent

"diamondsouled" <rowe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1150841977.832425.3650@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Howdy Susan, Albert, Kent, Doug and all,

Sorry for not answering questions addressed to me more promptly but
I'm still getting used to doing this on google instead of outlook
express.

To tell the truth there is very little in Baha'u'llah's teachings or
laws that I see as unessential. One such example though is from the
Kitab-i-Aqdas.

When Baha'u'llah states in his Aqdas that arsonists should be burned
this must be viewed with a critical eye and weighed as to it justness
and equity. To literally do as Baha'u'llah states in this Baha'i law
would of course be unacceptable in any case of arson. To see that this
is the case requires that we interpret what Baha'u'llah is literally
saying. As no existing Baha'i institution has the responcibility or
power of interpretation it is our own responcibilty to interpret
whether or not such a law is just or equitable.

Even though Baha'u'llah literally states in his Epistle to the Son of
the Wolf that:

"Know thou for a certainty that whoso disbelieveth in God is neither
trustworthy nor truthful. This, indeed, is the truth, the undoubted
truth. He that acteth treacherously towards God will, also, act
treacherously towards his king. Nothing whatever can deter such a man
from evil, nothing can hinder him from betraying his neighbor, nothing
can induce him to walk uprightly.

(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 232)

.. if we were to treat all Buddhists and atheists as though they were:
"neither trustworthy nor truthful.", it is we who would be in error and
not them, even though we would be holding to a literal interpretation
of what Baha'u'llah has written in his Epistle. This again requires
that we interpret Baha'u'llah's teachings.

When I was referring to unessential Baha'i doctrines I was referring
more to Baha'i doctrines that have arisen since Shoghi Effendi's
untimely death. Doctrines which are based soley on the personal
interpretations of the Administrative Order and or the personal
interpretations of individuals within the Administrative Order.

To conclude that the personal beliefs and interpretations of
individual Baha'is, such as Brendan, no longer meet the requirements of
Baha'i membership requires that the personal Baha'i beliefs and
interpretations of individual members of the Baha'i Administrative
Order be used as a standard for Baha'i belief. In no case, such as
Brendan's, have I ever seen their NSA's state what specific Baha'i
belief(s) of these individuals no longer meets the requirements for
Baha'i membership, only vague references to what they have stated on
Internet forums. How is a person to respond to these vague accusations,
where is the justice and equity in such vague accusations?

That the creation of new Baha'i doctrines, from the personal
interpretations of the Administrative Order and or of It's members, is
already occuring is evidenced through the fact that Baha'i declarants
from India are exempted from meeting the requirements for Baha'i
membership which Shoghi Effendi himself set. To tell the truth I'm not
quite sure where the present Administrative Order obtained the
authority to over rule Shoghi's requirement for Baha'i membership but
it has been done.

It appears that the Administrative Order is all too ready to make It's
personal interpretations into Baha'i doctrine when it suits It's
purpose but are unwilling to admit the fact that the personal
interpretations of individual Baha'is are just as legitimate. In this I
see a very slippery slope.

Even though the Administrative Order terms it's personal
interpretations as: "elucidations", when those "elucidations" are used
as a justification to remove individual Baha'is from the rolls It is
appropriating to Itself powers that were to be reserved to the
Guardianship.

Without a Guardian to act, for life, as a living hereditary head of
the Universal House of Justice an irreplacable and vital check and
balance is missing in the present structure of the Baha'i
Administrative Order.

What exactly to do about this situation, to be honest I'm not sure.
That this situation needs to be honestly and openly addressed I have no
doubt whatsoever. That this deficit is already having grave effects on
the Baha'i faith is sadly and starkly obvious.

Elsewhere I've suggested a Baha'i office of an obudsman-person. For a
certainty though some sort of body needs to be created to balance the
void that has been left in the Baha'i Administrative Order without the
check and balance of a living, hereditary, Guardian.

Yours Larry

---------

Albert wrote:
Kent Johnson wrote:
Hi Doug,

I am not sure you understand the concepts we are discussing here Doug.
The
issue is whether or not religious truth is absolute (like whatever the
Writings say is absolutely truth) or if religious truth is relative
(based
upon human frailties and other unnamed exigencies and issues).


The relativity of the Word of God has to do with the capacity of mankind
to understand at the particular time of his/her development. The
capacity of understanding of each soul is different on account of the
relative purity of each soul. The *Word* is not crippled it is veiled.

"O my brother! A divine Mine only can yield the gems of divine
knowledge, and the fragrance of the mystic Flower can be inhaled only in
the ideal Garden, and the lilies of ancient wisdom can blossom nowhere
except in the city of a stainless heart. "In a rich soil, its plants
spring forth abundantly by permission of its Lord, and in that soil
which is bad, they spring forth but scantily."[3] [3 Qur'án 7:57.]

"Inasmuch as it hath been clearly shown that only those who are
initiated into the divine mysteries can comprehend the melodies uttered
by the Bird of Heaven, it is therefore incumbent upon every one to seek
enlightenment from the illumined in heart and from the Treasuries of
divine mysteries 192 regarding the intricacies of God's Faith and the
abstruse allusions in the utterances of the Day-springs of Holiness.
Thus will these mysteries be unravelled, not by the aid of acquired
learning, but solely through the assistance of God and the outpourings
of His grace. "Ask ye, therefore, of them that have the custody of the
Scriptures, if ye know it not."[1][1 Qur'án 16:43.]

(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 190)

Regards,

Albert




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: No ambiguity
    ... This, indeed, is the truth, the undoubted ... interpretations of individuals within the Administrative Order. ... Baha'i membership, only vague references to what they have stated on ...
    (soc.religion.bahai)
  • Re: Recursivity vs. Provability
    ... > * AS OPPOSED to saying that they were true). ... I'm talking about properties of truth and falsity as they were ... that are true under all interpretations, ... > Other logics are possible. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: ZFC
    ... and by standard interpretations of ... For instance, in the abstract of his paper, ' Truth in Complex Adaptive ... Although Platonic truth is, indeed, 'verification free', there is no ...
    (comp.theory)
  • Re: Goedel - interesting problem?
    ... > These sentences are trivial to represent, predicate calculus to form the ... >> on what axioms you are allowed to use. ... >> Truth has to do with interpretations of sentences. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: The REAL Difference Between the Adult and Childrens Versions
    ... > Helena Bowles wrote: ... I've only looked at the christian interpretations ... > Laws, the Laws to do with mildew on the wall, the exhortations against ... > select group of (believing) people, for a time that is long past. ...
    (alt.fan.harry-potter)