Re: Paul Hammond's post of 18th June
- From: steveblomberg7@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 19:43:59 -0700
On Aug 3, 10:22 pm, steveblombe...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Jun 18, 3:02 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:> On 4 Jun, 12:25, steveblombe...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Jun 4, 6:21 pm, PaulHammond <pahamm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:> On 2 Jun, 13:13, steveblombe...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
<snipped earlier stuff that was unnecessary>
It was. Every single word of the title is a testimony to the
What I snipped was answers and responses going back about
6 cycles.
Yes. You said you di not speak Persian and could not verify anything I
said about the tone, and the meaning of the words.
I have not snipped a word of your most recent message to which this
was a reply.
But did you respond?
I'm sure all of this points are addressed more than once in the long
post
I re-posted a few days back.
Apparently, you haven't read the long post that I re-posted a couple
of
weeks back - the one I wrote on the bank Holiday, 28 May.
I did. Very thorougly. I jumped from one tree to another and did your
best to loose me.
In the end you had nothing to say about the syntax and semantics of
the title and why I said they did refer to a physical primary school.
You also failed to say what links the statemnt of authority to the
title itself when I asked you repeatedly.
You also miserably pretended that you did not understand the simple
meaning of resurrection from Bayan.
You constantly ignored the guts of my argument which was the clause
'in the next resurrection'.
You did not understand the meaning of 'dismissing'.
You however have not had any argument yet and you have already
dismissed the Bahai argument.
This sounds like something I have said many times about you.
I don;t think so! Look above.
Confusing, seeing as how it appears as part of YOUR post.
here should be nothing confusing if you:
- Sit with your Iranian Bahai friends and discuss with them everything
I have said about the meaning of those words in the title.
- Stop saying you don't understand resurrection and you are happier
with 1844 being the next resurrection than the previous one.
more than once that the fact that we've talked about your
interpretations
You have not brought any reason against these:
- Illumination does not mean 'illumination of mind'. It is meant to
give blessing to a place.
I think it does mean illumination of the mind.But not 'munavvar'.
That is the meaning of the word Munavvar.
I thought you said you did not know Persian and could not say
anything.
This proves that you are not after the truth of any matter. You are
just trying to gratify your sense of being right.
Well, you are not. You are getting desperate.
The illumination is very loose translation. Talk to an Iranian and ask
him what does it mean when someone enter someone's home and and he is
told you have "munavvar"ed our place.
- The title includes a reference to 'Khaneh' or House. This means
physicality!
Like, Universal House of Justice? House of spirituality?
I don't answer for the Bahais. But what they intend to say by it is a
physical house where their elected reps. gather and decide for their
spirits!
These all refer to the people as well as the place.
What people. uhj is a place.
Whitehouse is a place too. They also represent institutions. We know
that by the evidence we have before us.
Despite not being able to refute my arguments that go back to the
semantics and syntax of the title, you have not yet given me one iota
of evidence that says it is not a reference to a physical school.
- The title is in instructive mode. Your only defence against this is
your igornace of the Persian language!
And many more.
It is these reasons that you have HAD NOTHING to say.
I've had plenty to say. I seem to have said it several times over.
No! You had nothing to say. You have nothing to say here either.
You said you did not know Persian. Is that still your argument?
The last long response I wrote took me three hours.
That was a complete fiasco. Go back and read it together my very
detailed response to it.
You don't appear to listen, because a nuymber of times you have
heard somthing I *didn't* say.
I don't listen?
I have listened to you much more than what you could possibly have to
say.
You never ever gave any response to my detailed analysis of the
meaning of the words and tyheir implications in the title.
You never ever gave a reason as to what the statement of the authority
got to do with the physicality of the school.
You never ever refuted or had anything to say about 'in the next
resurrection' which the guts of the argument against the crappy Bahai
claim for 1863 adding 19yearsto the previous resurrection and
holding the time of the dismissal same as the time of annunciation.
of Baha'u'llah's claims of innate knowledge as well as talking about
your interpretations of the Bab's tablet containing reference to
The innate knowledge HAS NOTHING to do with the physicality of the
school
Why are you suggesting that I ever said it did?
You are defending the Bahai position. That IS the Bahai position.
Now you know it. I have asked you several times: If that was not
Husayn-Ali's argument, what was it?
unless you fall back on to the Bahai position that Husayn-Ali
(i.e. God forbid HWGSMM) needed not to go to school like ignorant
children.
You are inventing arguments that I didn't make, and also inventing
arguments that the Baha'is do not make.
Rescue Husayn-Ali from the mess he is in.
I have not heard a Baha'i make the argument "Baha'u'llah didn't
need to go to school because he was never an ignorant child".
No!
Well dig deeper. Read it from Husayn-Ali's Aqdas and Abbas's response
to the same thing.
This is not an argument the Baha'is make. It's not a Baha'i position.
It's not my position.
You're pulling it out of the air.
No I am not.
that is Husayn-Ali's argument for rejecting the physicality of the
school.
You tell me! If that is not, then what is it?
I don't think there is anything left. It is all left to you.
"primary schools" "nineteenyearsof respite" and "dismissing the
people of the bayan while he was sucking at his mother's breast"
does not mean that *I* have made any link between these two
entirely seperate conepts.
Yes! They are different. The 19yearsthing has nothing to do with the
physicality of the school.
2 hings were put up here. The Bayani position that the school meant
here is a physical school like the reference made in Bayan which you
have conceded to be a refrence to a physical school and hence the fake-
hood of Husayn-Ali's claim because he was at least 30yearsold when
these provisions were being put to paper.
Bollocks! The fact that there is a reference to Baha'u'llah going to a
school does not say ANYTHING about the time period when he might
have gone to the school.
Read again what you said.
There is no "reference to Baha'u'llah going to a school".
There is a reference to the school which HWGSMM could attend.
"the time period when he might have gone to the school" does not
usually happen after the age of 30. Specially if it is a primary
school.
I've said this several times - but you're apparently determined to
ignore that
point.
You are lying. Show me where you said and I did not respond.
The second thing is the Bahai bogus interpretation of the 19years
which is taken out of its context as just 19yearswithout a single
reference to its context.
Not a single Bahai has stepped forward to tell me what is this "in the
next resurrection' which the 19yearsis supposed to occur in, is
doing here and what when did the resurrection of Bayan begin.
I'll say it again for clarity.
I believe that the question of whether baha'u'llah did or did
not claim innate knowledge has no bearing whatsoever on
the physicality or otherwise of the "school" mentioned by
the Bab in theNineteenyearstablet.
Excellent. So, all the stuff you have been producing on the innate
knowledge was just red herring.
No.
It was a response to another line of argument that YOU were making
suggesting that your interpretation of Baha'u'llah's words regarding
this tablet showed him being "angry and dismissive".
I brought up Husayn-Ali's response to argue two things:
- That his explanation for the school not being a physical one by
erecting a 'school of God' was irrelevant. Which you agreed.
- That his tone and wording of his argument was the tone of someone
who was pissed of at someone telling him he was lying.
Mind you, Husayn-Ali saying he knew about the tablet when peole of
Bayan were rocking in their cradle means that there was a time when he
did not know, that is before people of Bayan were born. That cannot be
a divine knowledge which is established before anything.
If I told you: I knew Bahaism inside out when you were crying in your
mother's arms. It does imply that I know a lot obout Bahaism but I am
ridiculing you as well and I am telling you this because I have
contempt for you.
That is a common expression.
I put a different interpretation forward.
Your interpretation did not help refute the argument I brought forward
which was Husayn-Ali being irrelevant.
You not reading a sense of someone being pissed off from Husayn-Ali's
response still have not explained what was Huisayn-Ali's argument
against the phsyicality of the school.
You are the one that has confused my entirely separate arguments.
Don't
put the blame for this on me.
There is no confusion on my part.
I argued for the tone of Husayn-Ali's remark as being from someone who
is pissed off.
I also argued that his argument was irrelevant to the case of the
nature of the school in the title.
I remind you that this IS the only line of defence by Bahais.
No it isn't.
No!
What is it then? ...
read more »- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
==
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Paul Hammond's post of 18th June
- From: steveblomberg7
- Re: Paul Hammond's post of 18th June
- References:
- Paul Hammond's post of 18th June
- From: steveblomberg7
- Paul Hammond's post of 18th June
- Prev by Date: Re: Asparagus' many identities. On ex-bahai it posts as W.E.
- Next by Date: Re: Asparagus' many identities. On ex-bahai it posts as W.E.
- Previous by thread: Paul Hammond's post of 18th June
- Next by thread: Re: Paul Hammond's post of 18th June
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
