On Dec 29, 2004, at 12:29 AM, Susan Maneck wrote: "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?
I take Their statements literally unless thye violate natural law. The existence of a human who inspired the stories about Abraham does not require violation of physical laws of the universe, it is , in other words, credible, even when understood literally. So I do take it literally.
"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.
As usual, there is the question of waht does "omniscient at will" mean? I apply to the this statement of the Guardian's secretary the standard raised by Baha'u'llah when assessing the Books of previous Manifestations: is it credible literally, or does it require spiritual interpretation to make it credible? Doe sit conform with logic , common sense and human reason when taken literally? If not, could it not be spiritual adn symbolic in meaning? is the Guardian's secretary now a higher authority than the text of teh Quran to which Baha'u'llah applied this standard in teh IqaN? You begin to see how our literal understanding of Infallibility begins to cause absurdities, (as secretary with more Authority than than Muhammad and Baha'u'llah combined).
""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.
What are these miracles "associated: with Baha'u'llah? How are they associated? Did Baha'u'llah record them Himself? Keep in mind, I *do* most assuredly believe in miracles. But the miracles I believe in are spiritual, not violations of natural physical law.
God is a law maker, not a law breaker.
"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.
I agree, Their Divine Nature is completely real, but spiritual, not physical. Their physical natures were human. You do in spiritual realities, do you not?
__________________________________________________ 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
