My reply: But Baha'is almost all the time assume that the Central Figures were omniscient at will.
Dear Ron, Again, the letter written on behalf of the Guardian applied that phrase solely to Baha'u'llah. As far as what Baha'is do 'all the time' what's that to you? "Also, how can an Interpreter interpret something said by Baha'u'llah, if Baha'u'llah was Omniscient and the Interpreter isn't? Isn't that backwards?" Because Baha'u'llah may be omniscient doesn't mean you have to be omniscient to understand anything He said. "For instance, if Abdul Baha said something that can be construed to deny the validity of evolution, then Baha'u'llah's statement that true religion must agree with science, is made null and void." What specific statement of Baha'u'llah's did you have in mind here? Most of the statements regarding the agreement of science and religion which I am familiar with come from Abdu'l-Baha's authorized interpretation of Baha'u'llah's teachings. Throw out Abdu'l-Baha's interpretations and you will probably have to throw out this principle as well. ;-} "We also completely ignore and disregard Baha'u'llah's explicit distinction between the Most Great Infallibility and other infallibility." We do? I don't. Do you? "My reply: I assume Abraham actually existed. Of course there is no objective proof for this, but I take the Manifestations' Word for this" You mean, Their omniscience? "Why strain at a gnat and swallow a camel? This drives me crazy when you do it, often, Dr. Maneck. You accept wildly improbable notions like "Omniscience at Will"" Apparently we have different ideas as to which are the gnats and which are the camels. I accept that the Manifestation is 'omniscient at will' because the Guardian indicated this was so. "Isn't it infinitely more likely that He did not *know* in advance, because He had no way of knowing until "God" announced it to Him," Ron, I know nothing whatsoever about how a Manifestation receives revelation. In this case, I just take Abdu'l-Baha's word for it as Brent has quoted from Some Answered Questions. "But I think you and many Baha'is do away 1005 with the human nature of Baha'u'llah and make him only a "God", capable of anything and everything except being human." And I think it is rather presumptious of you to assume what I do what I say I don't do. "Now, if Terry Culhane's and Mojan Momens' ideas of the Baha'i Faith leading a re-spiritualization of the planet without eliminating and destroying the older Faiths, were considered acceptable, then I could imagine a re-born and spiritualized planet in 1000 years, just barely. But that view is not in favor, is it?" I don't think you've got Moojan's, Terry's or the administration's views right, frankly. But what does it matter what any of us think? What do the Writings and the authoritative interpretations have to say on the question? "Why can't we join-with good thinking and intentioned Muslims (like Gliberto) and Christians and Jews and Buddhist and Hindus and build a better world without strife over theology?" Did anyone say we couldn't? "Tell me, Dr. Maneck, let's say even in the years between 50 AD and 550 AD, before the dawn of Islam and so still, well within the Dispensation of Christ, if a person proclaimed that they understood the Resurrection and Second Coming exactly as Baha'u'llah explained them in teh Iqan, woudl they not have been considered heretical, even though they had only orthodox beliefs otherwise?" In 50 A.D I'm not sure it would have been a problem. As for 550 A.D., such a person would have been presumed to be a docetist because that was the context in which these ideas were promoted. In fact, that is the reason that Christians began to insist on the physicality of the Resurrection. "Now my question is, after Baha'u'llah gave us the Iqan, should we as Baha'is behave exactly like those early Christians and consider Baha'is who take similar stands on theological questions, to be heretics?" Your question is only meaningful if you first establish two things. 1) That there is indeed a correspondence between the two views of these two eras. 2) And that Baha'is are indeed 'acting like those early Christians" in response to them. "or should we try to be just a little more open minded about the possibilities than those early Christians?" I think we are open to lots of possibilities, Ron. It strikes me that you are fixated on a single one. "Susan, if asking questions and seeking to understand the truth is to "raise the standard of revolt, wax stubborn and open wide the door of false interpretation [ijtihad]" than I 'll just have to take my chances" No, it isn't. And I'm certainly not suggesting that you are doing this. But there are others out there who are challenging the notion of infallibility *precisely* in order to do this. One has to discern motivations. "I guess. Dr. Maneck, my *whole point* is, adn has always been, that one can believe in science , reason adn logic and still be a Baha'i in good standing and be on Firm Ground with respect to the Covenant. I resent your implications., but I am no longer surprised by them" Ron, you are misunderstanding me completely. I'm not at *all* implying anything about your relationship with the Covenant. What I *am* saying is that there are a lot of people out there who would like to throw out the notion of infallibility precisely *in order* to remake the Faith in their own image, and if you don't recognize this you are being naive. "Susan, I know you say you dont take prophecies literally, but my point is that if you accpet Omniscience, then you must logically also accpet that Manifestations (and by extension Central Figures *AND* the Universal House of Justice can predict the future literally." Ron, *whoever* said the Universal House of Justice was omniscient???? Omniscience and infallibility are two entirely different things. "And that tis precisely what many Baha'is on this list believe!" You know you are going to cause a lot of resentment yourself on this list if you keep telling other people what they believe. "And a combination of inferred literal infallibility and authorized interpretation status makes the Universal House of Justice able to literally and infallibly interpret prophecies by Central Figures," And who said the Universal House of Justice makes authorized interpretations???? "which is exactly what most Baha'is seem ot believe (I think Brent is on record here about that" Brent, do you think the Universal House of Justice is omniscient and makes infallible authorized interpretations? "and indeed it seems to me that the Universal House of Justice seems to take this view when offering their literal interpretation of some of Abdul Baha's and Shogi Effendi's writings to mean that the Lesser Peace e indeed started for sure by 2000." Uh, one would have to be extremely *non-literal* to believe that! But you better go back and read their letter. I don't think it says what you think it said. "My reply: I know what I think the Central Figures mean, and it is prefect accord with our Writings, science and logic and reason; but I I keep hearing form other Baha'is that my understandings are unacceptable" Begging your pardon but more often I see you blasting in here telling us that whatever you think it is *we* believe is unacceptable. "I think you try to have it both ways. You try to uphold logic and reason while failing to recognize some contradictory consequences of a few irrational beliefs." Or maybe I refuse to accept your interpretation of what is logical and reasonable. ""Since every Manifestation acted consistently with natural law," Is this in the Writings somewhere, or just a presumption on your part? My reply: Wow. This baffles me the most. I don't need to quote scripture. Just look at Their lives, all of Them. They lived, they died they breathed etc etc etc. They walked, they didn't teleport themselves. Thye didn't go around violating natural laws. Name on natural law Baha'u'llah violated." There are miracles associated with Baha'u'llah. You chose not to accept them. Whether or not these constituted "violations of natural law" I'm not prepared to say. But I wouldn't make categorical statements about it either way. "My replY: Yes, a Natural one and a very mystical, symbolic one." No, a *divine nature* not a mystical, symbolic one. It is just as real as their human nature. "My reply: I apologize for lumping a lot of things together. I am trying to understand your beliefs, and thier implications." Better to *ask* what they are than presume you know them and demand that I defend your presuppositions. warmest, Susan __________________________________________________ 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
