Ursus Maximus wrote:
Tim,
If only everyone had the same understanding that you have, there would
be no problem. But many, if not most, Baha'i's, understanding of
statements by the Central Figures is that They (and the Universal
House of Justice) are infallible, so as to mean that they can't make a
mistake, literally.
Have you got any sources from within the Faith that the Universal House
of Justices statements should be taken figuratively?
Thus, if the Universal House of Justice publishes someting that,
subsequently turns out to be incorrect
Such as? Until you can bring up an instance, you're just fishing.
in soem point of fact, then
many Baha'is will argue forever that the incorrect statement publised
by the House is in fact "correct" and will engage in convoluted logic
to try to justify that the House's statement (subsequently shown to be
incorrect) is in fact correct and the whole rest of the world is
wrong.
Seer supposition on you part Ron.
In other words, Baha'is will engage in superstitious, anti-academic,
anti-scientific rhetoric and bigotry.
Seer 'clap trap' Ron.
And if you don't already see
that happening, please wake up and look around you.
Bring some examples and proof them.
We have Baha'is publishing papers "supporting" their understanding
that evolution, as currently accepted, is wrong in ways that can be
"enlightened" by Baha'i beliefs.
Proof please?
We have Baha'i physicists trying to
"enlighten" other physicists to see the error of their ways in the
light of our Baha'i "knowledge".
Would it be to much to ask for references, that can be checked?
And, lest it be left unsaid, the Universal House of Justice does write
things that are factually incorrect,
Like?
whether we like it or not. This
is reality.
Without proof it's just misinformation, Ron.
Also, if we read the Writings as science and history, we
will be mis-educating ourselves, and wind up living in a mythical
world-space out of touch with reality.
Be scientific and follow the rules. Proof your conclusions!
I have no interest in debating with anyone who claims that the Central
Figures and the Universal House of Justice have never and will never
be factually incorrect on anything;
Like to slander but don't like to have to proof it? Rich!
any more than I desire to debate
someone who claims I am a female (since I know myself to be male).
But sadly, many Baha'is do most fervently believe that the Universal
House of Justice and the Central Figures can never make a factual
mistake; and no amount of evvidence will ever change such a person's
mind.
Name a Baha'i, even one would do.
But, though such beliefs be held by those of highest rank, they are
still wrong and ultimately lead to most gievous kind asof mischief.
I think reckless, innuendo is grievous, don't you?
Albert
Ron
On 4/4/06, Tim Nolan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:"A very common Baha'i attitude is that if one of the Central Figures
wrote something that comes into conflict with scientific knowledge,
then science is wrong because our Central Figures are infallible.
The Universal House of Justice, the source of all good and freed from all
error, wrote this in their message to religious leaders:
"...
religion and science are the two indispensable knowledge systems through
which the potentialities of consciousness develop. Far from being in
conflict with one another, these fundamental modes of the mind's exploration
of reality are mutually dependent and have been most productive in those
rare but happy periods of history when their complementary nature has been
recognized and they have been able to work
together. The insights and skills generated by scientific advance will have
always to look to the guidance of spiritual and moral commitment to ensure
their appropriate application; religious convictions, no matter how
cherished they may be, must submit, willingly and gratefully, to impartial
testing by scientific methods."
I don't think it is correct to believe the Central Figures were ever wrong.
But much of what they wrote is metaphorical, symbolic and not meant in a
material sense.
As to ether, Abdu'l Baha explicitly says in Some Answered Questinos that
ether is an intellectual reality, not a phenomenal reality. Maxwell's
equations may be relevant to this. As to evolution, I know of nothing in
the Writings that denies the theory of physical evolution.
Evolution is about the body, the physical house we live in for a short time.
Evolution has nothing to say about the soul,
which is the reality of a human being. So, when Abdu'l Baha said humans
have always been human, this does not contradict evolution, because Abdu'l
Baha was, in my opinion, talking about the human spiritual reality, not
about the appearance of the physical body.
Tim Nolan
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments
