On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:07:58 +0700, Firouz Anaraki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto:
You seem to be suggesting that Muslim countries shouldn't have democracy.
On the opposite, I would love to see democracy everywhere with and without
Muslim World.
You were speaking positively about
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:57:36 -0600, Mark A. Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto,
At 09:44 PM 1/13/2005, you wrote:
What I would say is that religious exclusivism is one thing, and
finality is another. And finality in Islam is alot clearer, more
decisive, more emphasized than finality
Gilberto:
You were speaking positively about Turkish secularism (in spite of the
fact that the Turkish military respresses Muslims). In alot of parts
in the Muslim world, if the governments became more democratic, then
that would mean more power for the Islamic parties but you've
commented about
Gilberto,
At 02:44 AM 1/14/2005, you wrote:
The fact that you have to add any kind of caveat (most conservative)
underlines the fact that there is a difference. For the overwhelming majority
of Muslims, not believing in the finality of Muhammad's prophethood excludes
one from Islam. The
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 06:51:30 -0600, Mark A. Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto,
At 02:44 AM 1/14/2005, you wrote:
The fact that you have to add any kind of caveat (most conservative)
underlines the fact that there is a difference. For the overwhelming
majority of Muslims, not
Gilberto,
You simply reposted my message.
With regards, Mark A. Foster 15 Sites: http://markfoster.net
Sacred cows make the tastiest hamburger -- Abbie Hoffman
__
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com
To
Gilberto Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 07:48:03 -0800 (PST), JS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: G: Just to try to explain more why I think it is reasonable to draw a distinction between exclusiveness and final, and perhaps why I see it as a real difference (and why Bahais seem
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:11:56 -0800 (PST), JS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
J: I can't remember point of this theat anymore. But I thought it was to
show that just as Christians believe in the Finality of the Bible and the
Finality of Jesus, Muslims believe in the finality of Muhammad and the
G: Yes, I understand that this is what Bahais are trying to say. ThatChristians have a concept of finality, but were wrong because Muhammadcame afterwards. So the point is to try to say that the Muslim conceptof finality is the same, and equally wrong, so it would make it moreplausible that
Dear Brent,
Your wrote:
Ron, it's clear from your last word, where you have been reading.
Just as critical thinking is an important part of examination of revealed
religious truth, so is evaluation of what others write about religion. Where
exactly are they leading you? To where they
G: And the point I'm making is that even from a Christian perspective,they aren't claiming finality for themselves in the same way thatMuslims are. That in concrete ways they are actually open to futurerevelation and future prophets and future messages.
J: Gilberto, reading this again, I have
Gilberto,
At 09:34 AM 1/14/2005, you wrote:
Just to try to explain more why I think it is reasonable to draw a
distinction between exclusiveness and final, and perhaps why I see it as a
real difference (and why Bahais seem not to) I would say this.
I didn't say there weren't differences. I
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:58:44 -0800 (PST), JS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
G: Yes, I understand that this is what Bahais are trying to say. That
Christians have a concept of finality, but were wrong because Muhammad
came afterwards. So the point is to try to say that the Muslim concept
of
My
understanding is that the word siyasat in 19th century (and early 20th
century) Persian and Arabic means leadership and not politics as it is
commonly used. The 1943 translation of the eighth Ishraq in the Baha'i World
Faith reads:
"Administrative affair are all in charge of the House of
Susan,
At the top of the document Jonah states "Note: the article "Church and State in the World Order of Baha'u'llah," by Sen McGlinn, also addresses these issues." Is this the document that the Universal House of Justice isrefuting?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My understanding is that the word
In a message dated 1/14/2005 3:47:37 P.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At the
top of the document Jonah states "Note: the article "Church and
State in the World Order of Baha'u'llah," by Sen McGlinn, also addresses
these issues." Is this the document that the
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:05:01 -0800 (PST), JS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto,
Now that we all seem to be in agreement all of a sudden, how do you read the
following passage from the Kitab-i-Iqan that I quoted earlier?
Beside this passage, there is yet another verse in the Gospel
-- Original Message --
From: Brent Poirier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Baha'i Studies bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 00:17:32 -
Let's face it, we can discuss this stuff for centuries, but it all comes
down to this. To anyone who
Gilberto, you stated: Also, since being burned alive is
the punishment for arson in the
Bahai faith, I'm not sure on what grounds you are objecting to
the above.
Would you please provide your source for this statement - Book
and page from Baha'i Sacred Scripture ?
Thank you!
Sandra
Gilberto,
At 02:55 PM 1/14/2005, you wrote:
I agree. This is one of the things which for me strongly indicates that
Christianity is more open to future prophets coming than Islam.
Well, we don't seem to agree on this point. I still contend that there is no
such thing as prophets. There is only
Sandra,
Here is the quotation:
Should anyone intentionally destroy a house by fire, him also shall ye burn;
should anyone deliberately take another's life, him also shall ye put to
death.
-- Baha'u'llah, Aqdas: Notes, p.203
With regards, Mark A. Foster 15 Sites: http://markfoster.net
Gilberto,
I have a feeling that youare hesitating a bit about responding to my question about what you think about the verse I quoted from the Kitab-i-Iqan. So I assume that you still do not acknowledge the perspective purporting the finality of the Bible and the finality of Jesus. I would say
Hi Gilberto,
The idea is that in order for a theory or a statement to be meaningful, it has to be falsifiable.If you can't really do that,
so the argument goes, what you are saying ultimately has
no meaning or content
This criterion may useful in the field of science, which is
the process
Dear Susan,
FirouzIslamic governments and Islamic parties say that they are just accountable to God not to people.Susan Don't we say the same thing about own institutions?
Yes, we do. But the Baha'i institutions exist, and operate
based on the explicit, written statements of Baha'u'llah
or His
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:22:20 -0800 (PST), Tim Nolan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear Susan,
FirouzIslamic governments and Islamic parties say that they are just
accountable to God not to people.
Susan Don't we say the same thing about own institutions?
Yes, we do. But the Baha'i
Gilberto, I have a suggestion. How about you and I go into a Christian forum of *your* choosing (why not Catholicism), and wewill ask them whether they believein the Finality of the Bible in the same sense that you believe in the Finality of the Qur'an. Will you do that with me?
Here are two
But the Baha'i institutions exist, and operate
based on the explicit, written statements of Baha'u'llah
or His successors. Can Islam make the analogous claim?
Analogous, yes, but obviously not the same. But perhaps in the same since
that Christian claims to finality are analogous to Muslim
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
G: But in some ways the larger issue is that if Susan hadn't made hercomment and I hadn't read similar things elsewhere and I had heardyour accusation towards Islam for the first time, then it would havebeen misleading. I'm "ok" with the idea that western liberals like theidea of a secular
I
think that it should be possible for us to come up with a reasonable
definition of prophet such that a good number of Christians will
allow for future prophets after Jesus but the typical Muslim will not
allow for future prophets after Muhammad.
Dear Gilberto,
Obviously if one wanted to come
Dearest John Smith
Nothing, absolutely nothing can replace the perusal of the Iqan Itself but I
thought a brief review of Chris Buck's book may be helpful to you. Please
forgive my presumption in sharing it with you
Well may it be claimed that of all the books revealed by the Author of
the
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 00:07:34 -0600, Susan Maneck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The largest Christian group, namely the Catholic Church clearly and
explicitly says that individuals can receive private revelation. Some
of these revelations have been written down. Some of these might even
be highly
In a message dated 1/15/2005 1:15:33 A.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What
exactly did he say about them? And how do you know they are the
same?
I don't have the book with me right now. Have you never read "That which
Delivers from Error"? It is a classic.
"And
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 23:37:27 -0600, Susan Maneck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I
think that it should be possible for us to come up with a reasonable
definition of prophet such that a good number of Christians will
allow for future prophets after Jesus but the typical Muslim will not
allow for
34 matches
Mail list logo
