On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 21:16:45 -0600, Don Calkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 5:09 PM -0600 12/24/04, Gilberto Simpson wrote: > >Some relevant passages from Susan's paper below. [deleted]
> >If they are accurate then it seems likely that even if we ignore the > >the statements about collective security and righteous warfare in the > >Bahai writings, that it would be possible to invoke "hikmat" to > >apparently suspend the Bahai 'abrogation' of holy war "to ensure the > >protection of the Faith" "to guard and protect the Cause" Don: > The Writings are pretty explicit that this is not the case Gilberto: The writings are also pretty explicit about a strong belief of freedom of speech an unfettered expression and yet you still have review. Gilberto: My impression of what is going on is that the Bahai have is perhaps more clear than other religions about not having any absolutes. So given a particular circumstance, most if not all the rules would be subject to suspension if necessary. So yes you might have rules which cover certain behaviors but the rules all have exceptions. > Baha'u'llah indicates that t Here is a recurring trouble I have about the Bahai faith. I think that I just a fundamentally different perspective on time and morality. > This is a quote of a part of the Suriy-i-Haykal > 42 Beware lest ye shed the blood of anyone. Unsheathe the sword of your > tongue from the scabbard of utterance, for therewith ye can conquer the > citadels of men's hearts. We have abolished the law to wage holy war > against each other. God's mercy, hath, verily, encompassed all created > things, if ye do but understand. > (--Baha'u'llah, The Summons of the Lord of Hosts, Page 78-9) But in Susan's paper she suggests that all the laws in the Aqdas are dependent on the exercise of wisdom. I think part of my misgivings with the Bahai faith have to do with a different attitude towards time and morality. I mean, if something is immoral, why wouldn't it always be immoral? (given sufficiently similar situations) Morality shouldn't depend on merely the passing of time on the calendar. So if you really believe that Muhammad and Hussein practiced something called "holy war" why was it ok then, and not ok now? And it wasn't just "ok" if we are talking about the behavior directed by a Manifestation and one of his infallible successors. So why would the rules change? Did the value of human life rise over the years? Are human beings incapable now of sinking to brutal depths (Rwanada, the killing fields of Cambodia, communal violence in Gujurat, the holocaust, bosnian genocides) Are you saying that it is absolutely impossible for the Bahais to be in a situation similar to those of the the early Muslims under Muhammad and Hussein? Peace GIlberto "My people are hydroponic" __________________________________________________ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: Mail - mailto:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.net New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
