So if some new religion came about tomorrow which thought that the San
francisco Yellow Pages were holy revelation from God you don't think
it would be possible to ever refute their claim?
Needless to say, such a claim would be self-refutable.
I guess this is an attempt at humor?
On second
Gilberto,
At 01:49 AM 1/16/2005, you wrote:
Fair enough. I don't think I ever said that they were. Are most Bahais
willing to assert that Shoghi Effendi made factual errors?
Not most Baha'is I know. However, I suspect that, just through osmosis, many
Baha'is on the Internet are more open to
And one can start to suggest properties that
beings with souls have which might be verified or disproven.
And how would one establish a that these properties do indeed establish
that
the being who possesses them has a soul? Would this be a falsifiable
criteria?
It would depend on the
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 12:09:24 -0600, Susan Maneck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto:
And one can start to suggest properties that
beings with souls have which might be verified or disproven.
Susan:
And how would one establish a that these properties do indeed establish
that the being
In a message dated 1/15/2005 12:32:26 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As far assouls go, I do remember a long time ago that I read a blurb aboutparanormal researchers weighing bodies at the moment of death and theyfound that there tended to be a small but measurable weight
So then (I guess this would be a question more for Mark) what is theappropriate Bahai response? Are you saying that yes, there is afactual error but it isn't really important... like the Biblemistaking Isaac for Ishmael? Are you saying that it is still true thatZechariah is Mary's father but
Gilberto,
At 12:32 PM 1/15/2005, you wrote:
So then (I guess this would be a question more for Mark) what is the
appropriate Bahai response? Are you saying that yes, there is a factual error
but it isn't really important... like the Bible mistaking Isaac for Ishmael?
Are you saying that it is
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 18:22:48 -0600, Mark A. Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First, I would accept it on face value. I do see how one could possibly
know if it is a factual error, but I would have no problem in the event an
error was committed.
That should be, 'I do **not** see how one
And one can start to suggest properties that
beings with souls have which might be verified or disproven.
And how would one establish a that these properties do indeed establish that
the being who possesses them has a soul? Would this be a falsifiable
criteria?
And Mark (correct me if I'm
