Firouz,
At 05:34 AM 1/23/2005, you wrote:
I thought the House is infallible on matters of legislation. Are you saying
they are infallible on every decision they make?
If I might throw in my 2¢ here. To my understanding, the infallibility of the
House of Justice refers to its legislative
In a message dated 1/23/2005 5:36:54 A.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I thought the House is infallible on matters of legislation. Are you
saying they are infallible on every decision they make?
Dear Firouz,
No, I didn't say that either. I just said there is
In a message dated 1/23/2005 5:36:37 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dear Susan,
I thought the House is infallible on matters of legislation. Are you saying they are infallible on every decision they make?
Best regards,
Firouz
I think she was saying there is no
Susan,
I have my own personal opinion as
well, which differs somewhat from Schaefer's, but I figured Gilberto was asking
for something authoritative.
warmest, Susan
Dear Susan,
Thanks so much for your reply. I read Schaefer's article some
time back and personally based on my own
for your comment. Here is my question. Let's assume that the House
of Justice actually consulted on the contents of Century of Light and
decided to write it by themselves, similar to Ridvan Messages, do you then
consider it Century of Light still an infallible document? How do you
regard
Hi, Firouz,
At 09:17 PM 1/23/2005, you wrote:
Thanks for your comment. Here is my question. Let's assume that the House of
Justice actually consulted on the contents of Century of Light and decided
to write it by themselves, similar to Ridvan Messages, do you then consider
it Century of Light
.
The following is from the preface to that document (written by the House of
Justice):
Century of Light, prepared under our supervision, reviews these two processes
and the relationship between them, in the context of the Bahá'í Teachings. We
commend it to the thoughtful study of the friends
In a message dated 1/22/2005 2:41:47 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So which statements are infallible? They have to be actually writtenby house members and approved by them as the house of justice?
The House is infallible in its decision amking and consultation. The book
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 15:49:32 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 1/22/2005 2:41:47 PM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So which statements are infallible? They have to be actually written
by house members and approved by them as the house of
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 16:54:40 -0600, Mark A. Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, Gilberto,
At 02:41 PM 1/22/2005, you wrote:
So if the Universal Houes of Justice is supposed to be infallible, and
supervises a document, and allows it to be released then that document
isn't infallible?
In a message dated 1/22/2005 6:48:21 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Isn't the book the result of a decision made by the House?
No.
Scott
__
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com
To
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:56:11 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 1/22/2005 6:48:21 PM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Isn't the book the result of a decision made by the House?
No.
But it was under the supervision of the house?
In a message dated 1/22/2005 8:58:17 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But it was under the supervision of the house?
The House commissioned it, the House did not write it. The House reviewed it, they did not write it. The House made a decision to publish a book on the topic,
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 22:00:16 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 1/22/2005 8:58:17 PM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But it was under the supervision of the house?
The House commissioned it, the House did not write it. The House reviewed
it,
In a message dated 1/22/2005 9:30:40 P.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is there
an exhaustive statement somewhere which explains thedifference between
which actions, decisions, statements from the UHJare infallible (in which
sense?) and which are not?
Nope.
In a message dated 1/22/2005 9:30:38 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is there an exhaustive statement somewhere which explains thedifference between which actions, decisions, statements from the UHJare infallible (in which sense?) and which are not?
The UHJ legislates, it
16 matches
Mail list logo
