David wrote: It's a pity the Bab didn't address them by
name!
However, David, in -God Passes By-, Shoghi Effendi indicates
that the Bab DID address each of them *by name - the names
bestowed on them by Baha'u'llah in Badasht. This is not to
say all 18 were present; as the Guardian doesn't
Dear people,
Udo Schaefer An Introduction to Bah Law:
Doctrinal Foundations, Principles and Structures
Udo Schaefer has had a lengthy article published in the Journal
of Law and Religion: The contents page only
Is here http://www.hamline.edu/law/jlr/pdfs/18_2.pdf
Has anyone seen
Is there someone on this list in Sacramento, California who can assist me with a brief
research matter?
Thanks
Brent
attorney (at) cybermesa dot com
__
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank
However, David, in -God Passes By-, Shoghi Effendi indicates
that the Bab DID address each of them *by name - the names
bestowed on them by Baha'u'llah in Badasht. This is not to
say all 18 were present; as the Guardian doesn't state that
specifically.''
... By these names they were all
Dear Dean,
I think it would help greatly if someone
would translate the Tablets to the
Letters.
If by help you mean help
to identify the identity of the Letters, no they won't. Both
Moojan and myself commented on this a while back on this list. None
of the Tablets contain anything that you
Didn't our beloved Guardian approve
the publication of the Dawn Breakers?
I thought I read a long time ago somewhere that the Dawnbeakers was
more or
less a work of Shoghi Effendi using Nabil's notes. True, not true?
Strictly speaking, this is not true. Shoghi
Effendi edited Nabil's
On Sun, 4 Apr 2004, David Friedman wrote:
about their tablets? It's a pity the Bab didn't address them by name!
David
Security reasons, dear David, security reasons. Babis could very easily be
killed when/if identified by name. Also, perhaps the Bab addressed more
than one
I emphasize again that the virtue that the
Dawn-breakers was translated/edited by Shoghi Effendi does not by itself
confer upon it any special significance.
I have to disagree with this.
__
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as:
How do you teach the Baha'i Faith to anyone as sacred mythology and not
historical fact?
__
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Baha'i Studies is available
Dear Ahang,
In addition to the following, your opinion that Shoghi
Effendi's edition of the Dawnbreakers "does not confer upon it any special
significance" indeed does not set well with me.
"O my loving friends! After the passing away of this wronged
one, it is incumbent upon the Aghsán
In a message dated 4/5/2004 12:42:57 PM Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How do you teach the Baha'i Faith to anyone as sacred mythology and nothistorical fact?
Perhaps by comparing the lives and acts of the Bab and Baha`u'llah in terms of their similarities to "sacred
How do you teach the Baha'i Faith to anyone as
sacred mythology and nothistorical fact?
Perhaps by comparing the lives and acts of the Bab and Baha`u'llah in
terms of their similarities to "sacred mythology". It is hard, for
instance, to examine the Martyrdom of the Bab without
He is the Interpreter of the Word of God and after him
will succeed the first-born of his lineal descendents."
Dear Dean and Ahang,
The Dawnbreakers is *not* the Word of God however.
And you have to balance this statement with Guardian's own assertion that he is
not infallible in matters
In a message dated 4/5/2004 2:47:09 PM Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So all the Manifestations of God are part of "sacred mythology"?
This is repulsive to me, let alone anyone I might mention the Faith to.
Pehaps this is why I don't teach the Faith well.
To the average
Dean,
When I first saw your earlier posting
referencing sacred mythology, I was inclined to respond, but
decided to see if the thread included additional thoughts. It has a bit,
and I would like to offer my thoughts.
The very distinctions between the notions
of sacred mythology and
Dear Susan,
You've caught me on a slow day, so let
me respond to your posting.
There is a reason that the Guardian
chose to translate
this particular work. However, I think
those reasons
were more theological than because
it was more
historically accurate.
If there were some theological
Ahang wrote:
I wouldn't assume the Guardian felt
'ethically bound' by those standards
of scholarship which binds us academics.
Susan Maneck wrote:
Academics has nothing to do with it.
Any ethical person knows that one can't put words in someone else's
mouth.
Would
Dear Susan,
And you have to balance this statement with
Guardian's own assertion that he is not infallible in matters of history,
etc.
What were the Guardian's exact words regarding his
infallibility?
I thought heclaimed to be infallible only in matters
related to the Faith.
To me, this
In a message dated 4/5/2004 8:03:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If there were some theological reasons, then that needs to be demonstrated. So far, I don't know of any such reason. What aspect of the Dawn-breakers is theological to you? It simply portrays the Babi Faith as
In a message dated 4/5/2004 9:16:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What were the Guardian's exact words regarding his infallibility?
I thought he claimed to be infallible only in matters related to the Faith.
To me, this would include the Faith's history.
He claimed to be
-Original Message-From:
Dean Betts [EMAIL PROTECTED]To:
Baha'i Studies [EMAIL PROTECTED]Date:
06 April 2004 02:15Subject: Re: Letters of the
LivingWhat were the Guardian's exact words regarding
his infallibility?I thought heclaimed to be infallible
only in matters related to the
Dear Susan,
You have access to the original Nabil's
narrative?
You really have not been following Tarikh,
have you?
And where are these copies of Nabil's
text you are working with?
In a safe place ;-}
and through proxies,
such as, Zuhuru'l-Haqq. All of these were discussed in my
Nayriz
Shoghi Effendi was asked several times during his ministry to define the
sphere of his operation and his infallibility. The replies he gave and
which were written on his behalf are most illuminating. He explains that he
is not an infallible authority on subjects such as economics and science,
In a message dated 4/5/2004 11:32:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From reading this quote my understanding is that Shoghi Effendi can be
infallible in regards to history providing he's basing what he says on the
revealed word.
Dear Dean,
Perhaps, but I'm not sure how
In a message dated 4/5/2004 10:32:07 PM Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From reading this quote my understanding is that Shoghi Effendi can be infallible in regards to history providing he's basing what he says on the revealed word. He would be able to tell us that the Writings
Scott,
At 11:40 PM 4/5/2004, you wrote:
I would think also he is infallible when he discusses a part of the Writings that
allude to a scientific process: i.e. his explanation of the copper to gold
transmutation NOT just being a spiritual metaphor but a description of a
scientifically
26 matches
Mail list logo
