Susan,
Some more thoughts on the subject:
I have looked at some more statements by the House of Justice, and I am
wondering whether the House sees its primary function as an elucidation of the
Texts and the interpretations of the Guardian, not as legislation per se.
Rulings on legislation
Ahang,
At 10:38 AM 1/26/2005, you wrote:
In other words, in this instance, is there a difference between the scope of
House of Justice without a living Guardian and one with a living Guardian?
I will make a qualified response, since, officially, I don't know.
It seems to me that elucidation as
Hi, Susan,
But I don't think that is a term which Baha'u'llah uses either. To my
knowledge it goes back to the Guardian.
Yes. However, at least use of the term perfect Exemplar may give some
*interpretive* authority to the idea that `Abdu'l-Baha was covenantally
protected (ma'sum/'ismat) from
Yes. However, at least use of the term perfect Exemplar may give some
*interpretive* authority to the idea that `Abdu'l-Baha was covenantally
protected (ma'sum/'ismat) from impurity/sin.
Dear Mark,
But that is circular. If Abdu'l-Baha was not infallible then one can
question whether or not He
Yes, that is a good point. However, I did find one passage, in the
Suriy-i-Ghusn, Tablet of the Branch, which implies (moral?) error for those
who reject `Abdu'l-Baha
Dear Mark,
And we have similiar statements from Abdu'l-Baha regarding the House of
Justice. ;-}
I don't think there is any
Sorry. The first message got truncated. I resent.
Regards, Mark A. Foster http://markfoster.net [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sacred cows make the tastiest hamburger. Abbie Hoffman
__
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as:
If there are other areas in which the House of Justice is given covenantal
protection (ma'sum/'ismat), or infallibility, I think they would need to be
substantiated from the Sacred Texts or the interpretations of the Guardian.
Dear Mark,
You ommitted one very important quote:
Unto the Most Holy
Hi, Susan,
I am combining a response to both messages.
At 07:27 AM 1/24/2005, you wrote:
problems which have caused difference and questions that are obscure are
both rather vaque categories and it is from these that the House draws its
authority to elucidate. Granted that the House considers
I know that the World Centre was unable to produce a specific reference to
that effect. However, given that 'ismat/ma'sum translates as protection
(i.e., from impurity or sin), how else can `Abdu'l-Baha's station as a
perfect Exemplar be understood?
Dear Mark,
But I don't think that is a term
I do appreciate to read what you have to say on the same subject. Thanks so
much for sharing your ideas.
Dear Firouz,
Well, I haven't written a whole lot on it because my own conception of
infallibility is still somewhat (and maybe always will be)amorphous.
Anything I write on the topic is still
Hi, Susan,
At 11:15 PM 1/23/2005, you wrote:
But given that fact, I don't think it makes sense to simply confine it to
certain narrow functions.
From a minimalist standpoint, I think one should only affirm infallibility
when it has been specifically authorized. With regard to the House of
11 matches
Mail list logo
