:I think it would be more precise to say, words have no meaning,
people have meanings.
o that\s so good on so many levels, u may considere it vikinged...with
attribution.
whilst doing a ruhi6 an hour ago i hears someone say about a cup, a person,
a whgatever..that they exist becuase they
i disagree with mark about this, but i understand his view.
in a discussion in which frequently we see terms like most
Moslems think and some poets say there is a strong appearance
that the words are constructs of a culture.
I think it would be more precise to say, words have no meaning,
The verse recommended to me that the meanings of words are
actually given by
God; and that man must recognise those meanings if he is to
understand the
relationship between his existence and the Revelations of God.
Otherwise, I
believe, he will live in a confusion of words.
Dear
Firestarter,
Another way of looking at it, which may be tantamount to the same
reality, I suspect; may, perhaps, begin with: Every word is endowed with a
spirit. One would seek then to discover the spirit of each word; and speak
or write accordingly. This search to discover that spirit
richard,
i would like to thank you for this more/less pellucid statement of a broad,
broad ranging principle.
thank you.
;There is nothing which has intrinsic value. All things of
value are of value, if at all, are so because God has invested them with
value and has defined the manner in which
Thank you Firestarter. I have difficulty with the language. I must however
give credit to Dr. Mark Foster for insisting that words have no meaning.
They are social constructs. I knew that could not be the whole story.
Nevertheless, I must thank him because I was then, after a considerable
time,
On 7/8/06, Richard H. Gravelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto wrote
But still, in terms of the earlier discussion, it is not clear why
saying non-prophets are sinless should be considered shirk.
There are many ways, I believe, that the issue can be approached. I offer
one.
Only the
Gilberto, saying that is more than shirk!!! I seetwo kinds of infallibility, the UHJ and the Guardian haveconferred infallibility,NOT essencial.There is a discussion on what are the limits of conferred infallibility, I considerthat conferred infallibility has nothing to do with a "perfect"
Gilberto Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: So saying that Abdul-Baha, Guardian, UHJ had the same infallibility asBahaullah would also be shirk?Gilberto, Your question is of extreme importance and requires a clear answer. Here is a short excerpt from Abdu'l-Baha's explanation of
Gilberto, as Iskandar said, you will find in the samesource the answer why Manifestations are of a different from we common humans.This is an extract of an article (Udo Schaefer) that I found interesting in relation to the station of the Manifestations of God:Bah'u'llh's revelation
Thanks, I appreciate the more detailed explanation. I think that as
far as your explanation goes, it seems like Bahais are being careful
to not say that the manifestations are actually God.
But still, in terms of the earlier discussion, it is not clear why
saying non-prophets are sinless should
Gilberto wrote
But still, in terms of the earlier discussion, it is not clear why
saying non-prophets are sinless should be considered shirk.
There are many ways, I believe, that the issue can be approached. I offer
one.
Only the Manifestations of God have the two stations. The rest of us
12 matches
Mail list logo
