Gilberto,
At 12:06 PM 1/12/2005, you wrote:
I'm not blaming them. I'm describing them. All I'm saying is that the
concept of finality of revelation is not as essential, or emphasized, or as
clear in Christianity as it is in Islam. It's not the most common argument
Christians have against Islam.
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:33:46 -0800 (PST), JS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
G: So if the Quran has a sentence in it which contradicts satatments in
the Bahai faith then that is a problem (for the Bahai faith). For the
Bahai faith, everything in the Quran is true, so whatever
interpretation the
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:16:54 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 1/12/2005 7:44:01 PM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Christians have a similar relation to the Jewish scriptures. This is
because the Old Testament is part of the Christian Bible.
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:23:41 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 1/12/2005 7:44:01 PM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ok. But when it comes to interpreting equality of women in the Quran,
I've noticed several Bahais not engage in the same kind of
The various theological positions on the subject have been differently
classified by theologians. One classification distinguishes four main
opinions:
1) an ecclesiocentric universe and an exclusive Christology.
2) a Christocentric universe and an inclusive Christology;
3) a theocentric
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:14:47 -, Khazeh Fananapazir
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto,
At 12:06 PM 1/12/2005, you wrote:
I'm not blaming them. I'm describing them. All I'm saying is that the
concept of finality of revelation is not as essential, or emphasized, or as
clear in
Prof Mark Foster said to my kind brother Gilberto:
You don't think that the statement, I am the Way, the Truth, and the
Life.
No one comes to the Father except through Me, is the principal argument
used by the fundamentalist and conservative evangelical websites against
Islam? Mark Foster
Gilberto,
At 10:33 PM 1/12/2005, you wrote:
So if the Quran has a sentence in it which contradicts satatments in the
Bahai faith then that is a problem (for the Bahai faith). For the Bahai
faith, everything in the Quran is true, so whatever interpretation the verses
have, they have to be
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 06:08:19 -0600, Mark A. Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto,
At 10:33 PM 1/12/2005, you wrote:
So if the Quran has a sentence in it which contradicts satatments in the
Bahai faith then that is a problem (for the Bahai faith). For the Bahai
faith, everything in the
Gilberto:
And it is clear that in certain parts of the Muslim
world, the people there clearly want religious parties to have a
greater role in the government because they see the secular
governments as corrupt and not promoting their interests.
That's true to some extent. How about when the
Hi, Gilberto,
At 06:29 AM 1/13/2005, you wrote:
I'm not sure about infallibility but it is my understanding that what the
Bahais say about the Quran should logically imply that everything in the
Quran is true. And so if the Bahai faith is true and the Quran is true then
they ought to be
Islamic governments and Islamic parties say that they are just accountable
to God not to people.
Dear Firouz,
Don't we say the same thing about own institutions?
warmest, Susan
__
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as:
Gilberto,
At 09:34 AM 1/13/2005, you wrote:
Have you read much about philosophy of science and Popper's idea of
falsifiability?
Sure, logical positivism and the Vienna Circle (to which Popper had some
connection) had a not inconsiderable influence on my own field. I am more of a
pragmatist
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 05:51:36 -0800 (PST), JS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
G: But the same isn't true in Christianity (at least not as I've
experienced it or studied it). Christianity as a whole CLEARLY allows
for prophets coming after Jesus. I'm not sure why there is even any
question.
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:00:38 -0600, Mark A. Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto,
[I am the way the truth and the life...etc]
At 03:07 AM 1/13/2005, you wrote:
But there the issue is exclusivity and the emphasis isn't on being
chronologically last. Maybe its a fine distinction and I'm
Ibelieve the main problempreventing us from completely agreeingwith one anotheris that we are using the same word to mean different things. I will try to explain what I mean below.
Gilberto Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 05:51:36 -0800 (PST), JS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: G:
In a message dated 1/13/2005 12:58:35 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No. The Christian New Testament was finished (and presumably started)well after Jesus earthly ministry. Bible-believing Christiansnecessarily have to accept that revelation comes after Jesus.
But they
Dear Heather,
Thank-you for your appreciation. I hope you don't make the same mistakes as so many parents do. Giving your kids useless directions like "avoid all arousal" (completely impossible in our sex saturated society),'Give it to God' (Huh??), 'Burn it off with exercise'(Yeah, THAT
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:20:04 -0800 (PST), JS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe the main problem preventing us from completely agreeing with one
another is that we are using the same word to mean different things. I will
try to explain what I mean below.
G: I think I see what you are
Gilberto,
At 12:27 PM 1/13/2005, you wrote:
Well that's just it. How do you know its the Will of God if you don't test and
examine it? We live in a world with more than one religion.
I am not sure how you would test the Will of God. Examine it? I suppose one
could try. However, from my
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:35:26 -0800, Ronald Stephens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark, I was a Christian. There is no doubt in may mind than you are right on
this. To a Christian, who reads his Bible the same way as a Baha'i reads
our Writings, then
I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No
Gilberto,
At 12:57 PM 1/13/2005, you wrote:
No. The Christian New Testament was finished (and presumably started) well
after Jesus earthly ministry. Bible-believing Christians necessarily have to
accept that revelation comes after Jesus.
Except that most evangelical and fundamentalist
Gilberto,
At 03:19 PM 1/13/2005, you wrote:
Christians who focus on the above phrase no one comes to the father except
through me tend to be exclusivists. They believe that in all of history,
Jesus, in some form or another, is the only way to God.
They could be either exclusivists
Ron,
At 02:35 PM 1/13/2005, you wrote:
Let's face it, we can discuss this stuff for centuries, but it all comes down
to this. To anyone who reads the Bible the way we Baha'is read our Writings,
then Islam is false. To anyone who reads the Quran the way we Baha'is read
our Writings, it is clear
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 16:34:51 -0600, Mark A. Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ANYONE who believes in God, the Last Day and does righteous deeds, will
surely meet with their reward. They have no reason to fear and neither will
they grieve.
Your liberal interpretation of this concept,
I think this discussion is getting very frustrating because people
seem unwilling to understand what Im saying and are simply refusing
to see where I am coming from or see it as having any validity.
I understand that if you ignore all the evidence that I'm mentioning
and *choose* to not make
After this servant posted this afternoon there are already so many letters
on the List.
I shall focus with your indulgence on a few postings by Gilberto, Mark, and
John. I liked very much Scotts and Mr Anarakis too.
First I quote faithfully.
Gilberto, my dear brother, writes;
**I'm not sure
Let's face it, we can discuss this stuff for centuries, but it all comes down
to this. To anyone who reads the Bible the way we Baha'is read our Writings,
then Islam is false. To anyone who reads the Quran the way we Baha'is read
our Writings, it is clear that Baha'u'llah is false. It can be
Gilberto,
At 05:48 PM 1/13/2005, you wrote:
But they are not saying identical things.
I have not been saying that any two religious networks, or religions within
them, are saying identical things. In fact, I have insisted on the opposite
point of view. However, it does appear to me that most
Gilberto,
At 05:22 PM 1/13/2005, you wrote:
Even non-liberal Muslims would agree that in other times and places people
got into heaven through believing in Moses, Jesus, Abraham, Noah, etc. and
not just Muhammad. Even non-liberal orthodox Muslims (like the Asharis for
instance) would say that
Are dependent Manifestations also ruled out during the 1000 years? I
seem to recall banned any new person claiming to have revelation. I
don't remember it only limiting independent manifestations.
Excellent question! We tened to bat that one around ourselves. I stand firmly in the I
It seems to be suggesting that with God, God's speech exists in a form
beyond human language, but when God reveals that word to a particular
culture it comes out with particular sounds and letters in the form of
the scriptures we are familiar with.
Which to me suggest that on some level the Torah
Let's face it, we can discuss this stuff for centuries, but it all comes
down to this. To anyone who reads the Bible the way we Baha'is read our
Writings, then Islam is false.
Yet, if one is as fortunate, as was I, to read the Bible for understanding
without reference to what people have
Gilberto Simpson wrote:
Dear Rich,
So we were talking about whether the Bahais are taking the Quran and
other sources seriously. You had said that one can take something
seriously while still disagreeing with it.
Yes. I can respect scholarship, but not necessarily agree with the
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 19:17:10 -0600, Mark A. Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto,
At 05:22 PM 1/13/2005, you wrote:
Even non-liberal Muslims would agree that in other times and places
people got into heaven through believing in Moses, Jesus, Abraham, Noah,
etc. and not just Muhammad.
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 19:11:29 -0800, Rich Ater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto Simpson wrote:
Christianity and Judaism don't claim finality in the same clear
decisive way that Islam does.
I won't speak for Judaism as I've exhausted my
knowledge here, but as someone who spent years
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 18:55:19 -0600, Mark A. Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto,
At 05:48 PM 1/13/2005, you wrote:
But they are not saying identical things.
I have not been saying that any two religious networks, or religions within
them, are saying identical
things. In fact, I
Gilberto,
At 09:44 PM 1/13/2005, you wrote:
What I would say is that religious exclusivism is one thing, and finality
is another. And finality in Islam is alot clearer, more decisive, more
emphasized than finality in Judaism or Christianity.
You do not think that most conservative Christians
Islamic governments and Islamic parties say that they are just accountable
to God not to people.
Dear Firouz,
Don't we say the same thing about own institutions?
warmest, Susan
Dear Susan,
Yes, The Universal House of Justice is accountable to God on religious
matters but not on political matters.
Yes, The Universal House of Justice is accountable to God on religious
matters but not on political matters.
Dear Firouz,
Where in the Writings is that distinction made?
warmest, Susan
__
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as:
The separation of religion from
politics in Islam is not so clear.
Dear Firouz,
I don't really see any clear distinction between religion and politics in
the Baha'i Teachings either accept that matters of legislation rest with our
elected Assemblies, not the Learned. Abdu'l-Baha insisted that
Dear Firouz,
I don't really see any clear distinction between religion and politics in
the Baha'i Teachings either accept that matters of legislation rest with
our
elected Assemblies, not the Learned. Abdu'l-Baha insisted that the clergy
should be separate from the state, but Baha'u'llah placed
42 matches
Mail list logo
