Susan
WOOF! Color me embarrassed. Of course you're right and I plea
exhaustion when I wrote that. I remember reading of a North African
Scholar who declared that the tales of the Mahdi were folktales and I,
somehow, transposed this onto Ibn Khaldun. Nonetheless it is sloppy
scholarship and I
We're Cool. Apology accepted.
-Gilberto
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 19:30:15 -0800, Rich Ater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Susan
WOOF! Color me embarrassed. Of course you're right and I plea exhaustion
when I wrote that. I remember reading of a North African Scholar who
declared that the tales of
In a message dated 1/7/2005 11:27:25 P.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I can
take something seriously, but not agree with it. Ibn Khaldun comes to mind. A
brilliant man, the Muqaddimah was sheer genius. He was in the employ of the
Ummayyads. To curry favor with
Gilberto:
I never said Islam was the only religion that preaches finality. It
clearly teaches that Muhammad was the last prophet. Christianity does
not teach that Jesus was the last prophet. Judaism does not teach that
Moses was the last prophet.
I just don't want to overgeneralize
G:
Fine. Then as long as you recognize that, we are done. And to keep
dwelling on it is unnecessary.
No, We're not. At least not in the sense you think. As I said in my past posting, just because Christianity allows for prophets, by their definition; not your's, does not mean that
In a message dated 12/28/2004 7:37:54 A.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"In the mundane case it is easier to deal with the idea that nothing
isperfect so its not a big deal for it to be improved upon later. Like
asports record... there is always going to be
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:39:18 -0800, Rich Ater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto,
Sorry it has taken so long to respond.
G:
It's ok.
Gilberto:
Christianity does not teach that Jesus is the last prophet. Christianity
does teach that to really get access to God properly you
have to go
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 19:11:29 -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
Gilberto:
In general sure. In this case it's different.
Gilberto,
This, I guess, is none of those areas where we part company. To me
it is no different. I understand that it is to you. You consider Islam
the last revelation, period. I consider Islam another stop on the path
of
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.
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 19:59:26 -0800, Rich Ater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto:
In general sure. In
://home.apu.edu/~CTRF/articles/2003_articles/Fackre.pdf
Cheers,
Steve Cooney
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gilberto Simpson
Sent: Saturday, 8 January 2005 9:20 p.m.
To: Baha'i Studies
Subject: Re: Past Revelations
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 21:26:44
IMO, Baha'i soteriology is both particularist and inclusivist. That is because the particularity of the Baha'i primary sources admit the possibility of redemption for those who are not Baha'is. It is difficult to make a similar case, although some have tried, from the texts incorporated into the
Mark: IMO, Baha'i soteriology is both particularist and inclusivist. That is because the particularity of the Baha'i primary sources admit the possibility of redemption for those who are not Baha'is. It is difficult to make a similar case, although some have tried, from the texts incorporated
Hi, John,
At 09:22 AM 1/9/2005, you wrote:
Mark, Doesn't this also fit, from Baha'u'llah?
Thanks. I just finished writing a short paper on this subject, and I added it.
With regards, Mark A. Foster 15 Sites: http://markfoster.net
Sacred cows make the tastiest hamburger -- Abbie Hoffman
It seems like something very different is being claimed by Bahais
though. I don't think I've ever heard a Muslim call Muhammad the
Revealor. God was the source of the revelation, it was conveyed by
Gabriel, and given to Muhammad. (Saaws) Muhammad was more a passive
recipient in the process. That
Hi, John,
At 09:33 AM 1/9/2005, you wrote:
Have you seen anyone do it from Islamic primary sources. I'd say it would be
easier because it is wholly authentic, and much longer.
Yes, especially in certain branches of Tasawwuf (Sufism). Gilberto has also
given some examples of texts which could
On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 07:33:56 -0800 (PST), John Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark: IMO, Baha'i soteriology is both particularist and inclusivist. That is
because the particularity of the Baha'i primary sources admit the
possibility of redemption for those who are not Baha'is. It is difficult to
Gilberto,
At 09:51 AM 1/9/2005, you wrote:
It seems like something very different is being claimed by Bahais though.
Very much so. Here are my own understandings:
The Baha'i concept of divine Manifestation is probably closer to the mainline
christologies of Protestantism, Roman Catholicism,
Oops!
The Angel Gabriel does not refer to something apart from Muhammad. It was a
metaphor for His divine nature, His Holy Spirit, which enabled Him, Mirza
Husayn Ali (Baha'u'llah's human side), to deliver His message.
I forgot I was talking about Muhammad.
With regards, Mark A. Foster 15
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 11:18:52 -0600, Mark A. Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto,
At 09:51 AM 1/9/2005, you wrote:
It seems like something very different is being claimed by Bahais though.
Mark:
Very much so. Here are my own understandings:
The Baha'i concept of divine
Hi, Gilberto,
At 11:47 AM 1/9/2005, you wrote:
But if there is this real distinction between the Manifestation and the
Essence of God, what reason would there be to blur that distinction with
language which could lead to confusion?
What language?
Is it in order to make it easier for people
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 12:08:31 -0600, Mark A. Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, Gilberto,
At 11:47 AM 1/9/2005, you wrote:
But if there is this real distinction between the Manifestation and the
Essence of God, what reason would there be to blur that distinction with
language which could
At 01:25 PM 1/9/2005, you wrote:
When you say that the Manifestations can be called God.
Oh, okay. It is because Baha'u'llah has said that the Prophets can call
Themselves God:
Were any of the all-embracing Manifestations of God to declare: I am
God, He, verily, speaketh the truth, and
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 14:16:57 -0600, Mark A. Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 01:25 PM 1/9/2005, you wrote:
When you say that the Manifestations can be called God.
Oh, okay. It is because Baha'u'llah has said that the Prophets can call
Themselves God:
Sure I understand that. And what I'm
Gilberto,
At 02:30 PM 1/9/2005, you wrote:
Sure I understand that. And what I'm saying is that it seems like there is a
high potential for confusion.
And there are different viewpoints on this subject among Baha'is. However, I am
not sure that confusion is always a bad thing.
With regards,
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 21:26:44 -0800, Rich Ater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto:
[The doctrine of the finality of prophethood is] not logically
necessary but various Islamic texts inform us that
Muhammad was the final
prophet. If I accept Muhammad and the Quran and
even if I throw out
Dear Khazeh,
My original question:
So my question to you is whether you are willing to say:
all that is vouchsafed [to Baháu'lláh] was indeed Mentioned before [to
Muhammad]?
Peace
Gilberto
http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist/m43251.html
Dear Gilberto of course in the spirit of the
Dear Khazeh,
My original question:
So my question to you is whether you are willing to say:
all that is vouchsafed [to Baháu'lláh] was indeed Mentioned before [to
Muhammad]?
Peace
Gilberto
http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist/m43251.html
Dear Gilberto of course in the spirit of the
Dear Khazeh,
You cut and pasted the following assertion:
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 19:14:52 -, Khazeh Fananapazir
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nowhere in the Gospels do we find any reference to the
unity of nations or the unification of mankind as a
whole. When Jesus spoke
to those around Him,
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 14:16:50 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 1/8/2005 1:13:34 PM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Gilberto:
Ok. Then if all that was vouchsafed to Bahaullah was already mentioned
to Muhammad, I just think it makes alot more
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 11:49:53 -0800 (PST), John Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto:
Ok. Then if all that was vouchsafed to Bahaullah was already mentioned
to Muhammad, I just think it makes alot more sense for me to look to
those great Muslim interpreters, scholars, and saints to unpack
Gilberto: I would say that in a real way there isa huge amount of content already contained in even just "La ilaha illaAllah" (No god but God) "and the rest is commentary" so even juststicking to the Quran is huge amount of fleshing out and unpacking.Alot more unpacking with details and examples
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 19:24:15 -, Khazeh Fananapazir
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear Khazeh,
My original question:
So my question to you is whether you are willing to say:
all that is vouchsafed [to Baháu'lláh] was indeed Mentioned before [to
Muhammad]?
Peace
Gilberto
In a message dated 1/8/2005 3:41:20 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But Muslims aren't just resting with a part. Remember, we agreed. ALLthat is vouchsafed to Baháu'lláh was indeed Mentioned before toMuhammad. ALL of it. There is nothing missing.And in the Quran it says:We
In a message dated 1/8/2005 2:59:21 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But the Quran says of itself:We did not leave anything out of this Book, then all will be gatheredbefore their Lord [for judgement]. (6:38)
Muhammed did not leave anything out of the Book that He was told to
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 17:43:50 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 1/8/2005 2:59:21 PM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But the Quran says of itself:
We did not leave anything out of this Book, then all will be gathered
before their Lord [for
In message
http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist/m43290.html
Dear Gilberto you make several points. This servant, again in the spirit of
amity and affectionate dialogue will remember! And number them and make some
replies. Please God you will look at them with a kindly gaze.
Gilberto:
Point 1]
In a message dated 1/8/2005 6:01:22 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Gilberto:Islamically the Quran wasn't written by Muhammad, it comes from God.
Who said different. Muhammed is the Revealor and I refer to that as authorship. Actually, Gabriel revealed the Qur'an to Muhammed
Gilberto: It doesn't seem to make sense to think that Muhammad was omniscient but then held back important spiritual truths from the ummah. The Quran doesn't suggest it.
John: It is explained by the Qur'an as the Qiyamah, Surah 75.
"1. I swear by the Day of Resurrection; 2. And I swear by the
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 17:43:47 -0800 (PST), John Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto: It doesn't seem to make sense to think that Muhammad was
omniscient but then held back important spiritual truths from the ummah. The
Quran doesn't suggest it.
John: It is explained by the Qur'an
John: It is explained by the Qur'an as the Qiyamah, Surah 75. Gilberto: Could you specifically point to which verse you have in mind and howit points to what we are talking about?
John: What I meant wasthat there are things that will take placeduringQiyamah thatare beyond the
Dear Khazeh,
I'll focus on the more essential aspects to hopefully not get caught
up in details and stick to the more central issues.
On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 01:06:34 -, Khazeh Fananapazir
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In message
http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist/m43290.html
Dear Gilberto
G: Could you specifically point to which verse you have in mind and howit points to what we are talking about?
J:
(1) On Al-Qiyamatu'l Udhma, the Great Resurrection, God will say things and answer questions that are not in the Qur'an:
[2:210] : Will they wait until Allah comes to them in
Ok, other than gender (which I would momentarily exclude only because
I've had that argument several times before and I just want to think
about something else) what would be a concrete example of how we need
more revelation due to human imperfection? I guess what would be an
ideal or
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 15:13:45 -0800, Rich Ater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, other than gender (which I would momentarily exclude only because
I've
had that argument several times before and I just want to think
about
something else) what would be a concrete example of how we need
more
I guess what would be an ideal or principle which is "missing" from
one religion, but present in a later one. Or some other kind of example
which would show the need for *progressive* revelation.
Is the sunlight of Thursday sufficient for Friday?
Isn't it necessary for the sun to rise anew each
G: In my opinion to believe otherwise [Prophethood continues]means you aren't really taking the texts or the record seriously.
J: IfBaha'is **didn't** take the Prophet as the Seal seriously, then Baha'u'llah would **not**have the legitimacy to make the claims that He did. In other words, the
G: But what I'm wondering about is if there is something genuinely newthat can't be attained through Islam? Why not just try to be adeepened Muslim?
Here are some in my view:
1. The Covenant of Baha'u'llah naming Abdu'l-Baha as successor, thus ensuring perservation of its Unity and doctrinal
G: But what I'm wondering about is if there is something genuinely newthat can't be attained through Islam? Why not just try to be adeepened Muslim?
Here is another:
8. Baha'u'llah's body of Sacred Scripture(i.e. = Qur'an, not = Hadith), ismore voluminous and covers a wider scope than in any
I don't believe that we will ever know everything, it's one of humanity's limitations. This being the case there will always be need of new
teachers and new laqws to fit the times we live in. I guess for me, I see
Islams legal code as being spent in this time. I also see us
Gilberto:
I see your point and would tend to agree with you in
mundane examples
but when you are talking about divine revelation I think
you start to run into problems.
Rich:
How so?
Gilberto:
In the mundane case it is easier to deal with the idea that nothing
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 13:40:39 -0800, Rich Ater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto:
I see your point and would tend to agree with you in
mundane examples but
when you are talking about divine revelation I think you start to run into
problems.
Rich:
How so?
Gilberto:
In the mundane case it
On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 20:23:00 -0800, Rich Ater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 19:45:16 -0800, Rich Ater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not true. If I praise the grandeur of Rome it does not mean that
I think we should remain ruled by emperors or that if I say that Rome's time
has
On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 06:38:01 -, Brent Poirier
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Baha'i Writings are filled with praise of the previous
Revelations sent down by God. Similarly, the Writings of all of the
Prophets praise the Revelations that preceded Them.
At the same time, a Revelation is
Gilberto,
At 07:54 AM 12/27/2004, you wrote:
I think that for a lot of people, if you say that their religion is finished
and its force is spent, that would tend to contraadict and overwhelm the
claim that you are praising those revelations.
I would want to see the passage on which that
In a message dated 12/27/2004 8:41:38 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would want to see the passage on which that statement was made. I do not take `Abdu'l-Baha's seasonal analogy as evidence He believed that the force of a Revelation could be spent.
Just because the
In a message dated 12/27/2004 10:45:54 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not sure what you mean. Consider a specific example. Fasting inRamadan. The Quran clearly orders Muslims to fast in the month ofRamadan. And for Muslims this is experienced even today as a
On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 11:48:37 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 12/27/2004 10:45:54 AM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not sure what you mean. Consider a specific example. Fasting in
Ramadan. The Quran clearly orders Muslims to fast in the
In a message dated 12/27/2004 2:57:58 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But again, the question remains, in what sense has the fasting inRamadan become an empty ritual which has been fulfilled in the Bab.Are you saying that literally the Bab makes Muslims (ordinary
On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 16:28:53 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 12/27/2004 2:57:58 PM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But again, the question remains, in what sense has the fasting in
Ramadan become an empty ritual which has been fulfilled in
I think that for a lot of people, if you say that their religion is finished and its force is spent, that would tend to contraadict and overwhelm the claim that you are praising those revelations.
Your view does not makes sense to me because the Qur'an praises Jesus even though it is (in most
G:
But again, the question remains, in what sense has the fasting in Ramadan become an empty ritual which has been fulfilled in the Bab. Are you saying that literally the Bab makes Muslims (ordinary sense) better Muslims?
JS:
Yes, I think that the implication is that in some miraculous way
On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 16:55:04 -0800 (PST), John Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that for a lot of people, if you say that their religion is
finished and its force is spent, that would tend to contraadict and
overwhelm the claim that you are praising those revelations.
Your view does not
On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 18:05:11 -0800 (PST), John Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But then by following his laws wouldn't that imply converting?
Yes. In my view, it does. 'Conversion', I believe, is the first paragraph
of the Aqdas in one word.
So you aren't talking about the Bab or
G:
So you aren't talking about the Bab or Bahaullah helping Muslimsbecome better Muslims. You are talking about Muslims, not beingMuslims anymore and becoming Bahais.J:
By Muslim I mean a follower of the 'eternal Faith of God', not the Religion of Prophet
Gilberto,
Not true. If I praise the grandeur of Rome it does not mean that I
think we should remain ruled by emperors or that if I say that Rome's
time has passed and modern democracy is an improvement that I have
ceased to admire Rome.
Rich
Gilberto Simpson wrote:
On Mon, 27 Dec 2004
On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 19:45:16 -0800, Rich Ater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto,
Not true. If I praise the grandeur of Rome it does not mean that I think
we should remain ruled by emperors or that if I say that Rome's time has
passed and modern democracy is an improvement that I have
The Baha'i Writings are filled with praise of the previous Revelations sent
down by God. Similarly, the Writings of all of the Prophets praise the
Revelations that preceded Them.
At the same time, a Revelation is sent for a specific season. When that season
is finished, the force of the
69 matches
Mail list logo
