Gilberto Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For example, in the Bible Jesus is made to say to Peter "on this Rock
I will build my church". From a Catholic perspective Peter is the Rock
and the passage establishes (in part) his authority as the first Pope.
But for Protestants the "rock" isn't Peter himself, it is Peter's
confession "Thou art the Christ" Both Catholics and Protestants can
accept the authority of the Bible and its authors even though they
disagree about the meaning of this particular passage.
> members of the Baha'i Faith beleive that these cognitive dissonances can only > be resolved by acknowledging that sucvh persons don;t beleive in the Station of > Baha'u'llah.
I don't think that is a good argument because there are other points
of tension and dissonance in the faith as well.
> the sunni and the shiah agree there is no Sealed Text naming a Successor.
> thus they are perfectly free to disagree with one another over the
> Imamate/caliphate issue without losing touch with Muhammed (pbuH).
But the real issue is whether the Bahai writings are so clear that
anyone who disagrees with the majority interpretation can't really
believe in the text themselves.Gilberto,
I think you can point out all the organized dissonant groups and link them to a particular point in the succession of authority in the faith.
I am going to ignore the Babis and Bayanis, etc, at this point because since they do not accept the station of Baha`u'llah, they cannot be lumped in with "Baha`i's by self-definition."
So, we have those who quibbled over the succession of Abdu'l Baha, those who quibbled over the succession of Shoghi Effendi and those who quibble with whether or not the Guardianship could come to an end.
Perhaps we would do better limiting the discussion to those groups enumerated above?
Regards,
Scott
Arnold J. Toynbee
