Re: Luke 21:33 the Qur'an
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 themselves are residing in relation to the Cause. Is that where you want to be? That's the best they can offer you Sincerely, Brent, I would really like to know to whom or to what your referring to? I am not reading any other internet groups or lists, haven't for long time, and no books that aren't official Baha'i books. I have no idea who you think I am being influenced by. Susan has often expressed thoughts tha tI am being influenced by others and this bothers me because, for bettter of for worse, my thoughts are my own thought. \ \ As for idolatry; when I was a Crhistian, from about 1966-1994, considered that fundamentalist Christians idolized the Bible, and I often commented to them about this. So, you think I am influenced, but like it or not, some things are just true and different people will come up with them individually, it happens all the time. Please, though, tell me whop you think is influencing me so I can know. Seriously, it is very hard to know who one is supposed to avoid in this faith, since it is mostly by innuendo and no is named. __ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: Mail - mailto:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.net New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
Questions about Omniscience and related matters
Dr. Maneck, I understand that you and many others on this List, and many Bahai scholars and Administrators believe in Omniscience at Will, Omnipotence at Will, and other similar concepts that I have difficulty with. I would sincerely like to better understand how you maintain these beliefs and incorporate them into a consistent world view. I hope you, and Brent Poirier and others on this list, can find time to comment on a few questions that I run into when I try to think through the consequences of such beliefs. 1. What languages did the Central Figures speak and write and understand? For instance, I know that the Guardian translated some Writings of the earlier Central Figures into English; so I suppose He spoke English as well as Persian, Arabic, and possibly other languages that he learned at Cambridge? What languages were spoken by Abdul Baha, and what language were his books written in? Did He speak any English? Did He use any interpreters in His travels? Did Bahaullah speak any English or any language bedsides Persian and Arabic? Did the Bab speak Persian and Arabic, or any others? 2. The Quran and Bible describe the lives, to same extent anyway, of several Manifestations. The descriptions therein, to my mind, are inconsistent with an understanding of Them as Omniscient at Will and Omnipotent at Will. For instance, Muhammad was very careful to make sure that He was seen as a human being, not God. He is even said to have been illiterate. Abraham had doubts. How else could His faith have any meaning? Surely someone Omniscient at Will could not have had doubts. In fact, Omniscience at will and Omnipotence at will, seem to me to make a mockery of the lives and struggles of all of the Prophets and Manifestations. If Abraham were Omniscient, He knew he would find a scapegoat and would not have to sacrifice His son. Truly I find this to rule out the real meaning of all Their lives, if they were Omniscient. Why did Bahaullah need to have a Maiden appear in the Prison to announce His mission if He already knew about it at birth? Did He as an enfant only pretend to at first be unable to talk, and then to learn how? This seems beneath all dignity to me. The plain language of the Bible and Quran seem to tell us that most Manifestations did not know of their status until a specific point in their adulthood. 3. Since it seems to me that the Bahai Faith is very unlikely to be able to grow enough to have any major impact any time soon, it seems that 1000 years is a short time. I do not think the Great Peace can come about in 1000 years. Is it therefore possible that the 1000 year Bahai period will be the beginning only, and that the full fulfillment will not occur until many Manifestations later; all in sort of the Cycle of Fulfillment as Brent Poirier mentioned recently, but not within 1000 years; maybe 10,000 years or even 100,000? If a future Manifestation points out that some things Baha'is take literally should really only be understood symbolically (in other words, precisely as Baha'u'llah did in the Kitab i Iqan with respect to Christianity), then why should we condemn such understangings by current day people? Was a Christian who understood the Resurection of Christ to be symbolic wrong and apostate until 1844 (and also the second coming)? Is a Baha'i who believes that Infallibillity is symbolic, wrong and an apostate? How can you be so sure a future Manifestation won't make that precise point? 4. Does Omniscience include the ability to know all about the future, as well as the present and the past? It seems to, since you believe in literal prophecies? How do you reconcile belief in Omniscience and Omnipotence (at will or otherwise) with the real world in a logically consistent manner? This completely baffles me. You must compartmentalize your mind and have one rational side to deal with the real, everyday world, and one irrational side to believe in Omniscience and other ideas. Pardon me for adding this paragraph, but this is the conclusion that I always come to when I try to accept Omniscience, Omnipotence and literal Infallibility. Since every Manifestation acted consistently with natural law, and acted as if They were not omniscient and omnipotent, to believe that they were Omniscient and Omnipotent means believing that They lived their lives acting in a false way, in some cruel and sordid Joke pretending to be human in the real world when in reality They were Magicians above it all. Please dont just read this and respond only to my personal conclusions in the last paragraph, but rather I am really really interested in how you answer and think about the specific questions I ask in the paragraphs above. Ron Stephens __ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, use
Re: The Baha'i Praises of Islam
Hello Gilberto and Mark, Gilberto wrote: In the Bahai writings I think Paul is described as a saint and an apostle and a most faithful servant of Jesus and his epistles are quoted from as well. I guess, that just implies a certain amount of respect but doesn't necessarily imply infallibility. Ron replies: In my opinion, infallibility, when interpreted and understood in the English language with all of its connotations from Christian history, always, always, always causes the most major of problems. Again, in my opinion there are no such things as infallible understandings of any Writings. Having authorized interpreters does not eliminate this problem, since their authorized Interpretations (writings) also must be understood and interpreted. Mark wrote: Regrettably, the particularized counsel furnished in the epistles traditionally attributed to the apostle Paul was, within a few centuries of his passing, inappropriately institutionalized and universalized into supposedly inerrant bedrock of faith. The main branches of Christendom were forever frozen in the past. The Pauline letters should have been regarded as an example to believers who, like Paul, had spiritually experienced the risen Christ, or Inner Light, without having encountered him in the flesh. Then later Christians could have been 'Pauls' to their own nations and communities. http://exemplars.bahaifaith.info/ Ron replies: Yes, I think you make a very important point here, and one that needs to be heard by Baha'is today, in order to avoid making similar mistakes to the ones the early Christians made. Statements by our Central Figures were often made to address particular circumstances, and yet we are inappropriately institutionalizing and universalizing them into supposedly an inerrant bedrock of general rules that are then applied literally under inappropriate circumstances, freezing the Bahai community into rigid positions that are out of touch with current and future reality. A great example of this, in my opinion, is the policy of Review. Another example is the electoral system, the minute and specific details of which are prematurely fossilized in a form appropriate to a smaller community of 50 years ago but wildly inappropriate to today and even more so in regards to the future. Peace, Ron Stephens __ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: Mail - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.net New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
Re: The Baha'i Praises of Islam
Mark wrote: If it were up to me, I would end it today. However, as time goes on, review may become increasingly irrelevant anyway. For instance, how will the fact that Google is about to digitize several major libraries relate to the absence of a global policy regarding online review? Well, one way the policy of review hurts is that there a lot less books written about Baha'i related topics, than there would be without review. Why invest the time and effort to write a book when it may never see the light of day because of review? There are also a lot less magazine articles, newspaper articles, and other communication pieces written and communication activities undertaken than there would be without review. The consequence is that the Faith gets a lot less publicity, and therefore gets noticed a lot less. On top of all that, the Baha'i books that are published are a lot less creative than they otherwise would have been, and so we get a lot of the same kind of books written over and over again, rather than new kinds of thinking, which would be more interesting and useful and therefore help to attract a lot more seekers to the faith. Without review, for all we know, there might have been Baha'i best-sellers; books about the Baha'i Faith, in whole or in part, that sold so many copies than they were atop the New York Times best sellers charts. We'll never know what we have lost. Yes, the internet helps. But the internet is not optimal for all kinds of communication, and internet communication has its down sides, as we all have seen. Ron __ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: Mail - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.net New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
RE: Science and the Future of Religion
Susan, what a beautiful concept you describe below. Your pre-modern mind was always more open to miracles than mine, would that mine were more like yours! Susan wrote: I mentioned the Asharites who shared this perception. They saw existence as made up of atoms, but these atoms were not particles as we currently see them. They were more like mathematical points on a line, the will of God being the only thing that gave them any continuity whatsoever such that if God's active involvement in the universe were to cease for a moment all existence would cease to be. __ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: Mail - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.net New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
re: Science and the Future of Religion
Brent, Thanks for your kind comments (and for listening to me so thoughtfully). I am meditating upon your thoughts as I work this week. Hopefully I will digest my frustrations and get over them. ;-))) __ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: Mail - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.net New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
Re: Ether and Evolution and Infallibility
Brent, thank you for a very thoughtful reply. It certainly helps me to understand how you think about these kinds of issues and why you believe as you do. I think that there probably are many Baha's who have similar views as yours. Your thoughtful analysis and sensitive approach are appreciated. A few comments to your post follow: Ron wrote: I brought up two examples of areas where a strictly literal view of the infallibility of the Writings (in this case the Writings of Abdul Baha) leads some Baha'is to see the necessity to dis-believe in the science of evolution and quantum physics. Do you believe in the need to come up with a Baha'i parallel evolution and an alternative Baha'i quantum physics? I ask this because I am genuinely curious. I have seen public public statements by high level Baha'i individuals in the past, about their apparent requirement that good Baha'is have a strictly literal understanding of infallibility. I find this problematic but I would like your honest opinion on the two specific instances I mention above. Brent responded (excerpts): Big subject. I think I'll start with the broad perspective, then come down to the specifics The Master has linked light and heat and magnetism as waves of the ether. I think it was Steve Friberg, who is a physicist, who said that in his view, the Master's descriptions fit very well into modern quantum physics; are merely a difference of terminology. My own non-scientific view includes this: If you start with the assumption that the amplitude and frequency of waves tells you something about the substance through which they are passing; then light passing through empty space gives evidence that it is passing through a more dense substance than anything else in the universe Ron replies: Yes, I understand your point of view, and I can certainly not disprove it. But the theory of the ether was disproven by a specific scientific experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment. It is virtually impossible that this could be overturned. As an analogy, we will certainly come up with better understandings of gravity in the future, but we will not ever find that objects in the earths gravitational field fall *upwards* rather than downwards. Brent wrote: And even if a Counsellor stood up and criticized people who did not believe in ether, I would probably say, So what? I do not over-value the views of eminent Baha'is. But I don't see this as a matter of compulsion. Ron replies: that is a key point to me, the importance of lack of compulsion on theological beliefs. But there are various kinds of compulsion. When I heard a most prominent BahaI describe anyone who questions a literally inerrant understanding of infallibility as being an attacker of the faith, it curdled my blood. He made specific reference to a position of belief that infallibility is related to sinlessness. This is a position I consider reasonable that I learned from this list (Dr. Maneck), and I certainly do not consider myself as an attacker of the faith. That expression struck me as particularly mean-spirited. Ron __ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: Mail - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.net New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
RE: Book of Daniel fulfilled
Hello James adn thank you for your comments, James Mock wrote: What is a known law? If you had asked people 600 years ago, they would have proven to you that the world is flat. We cannot accept things known today as scientific fact. . James, what you say is certainly ture in some instances. But the theory of the ether was disproven by a specific scientific experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment. It is virtually impossible that this could be overturned. As an analogy, we will certainly come up with better understandings of gravity in the future, but we will not ever find that objects in the earths gravitational field fall *upwards* rather than downwards. So, if a Prophet writes about objects falling upwards due to the force fo gravity, thgen I think it is fair to say that He is speaking symbolically and not literally. Baha'u'llah, I believe, made precisely this point when He ridiculed anyone who believed that Christ rose physcially into the clouds and into the heavens. Do you see my point? Ron __ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: Mail - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.net New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
Can the Baha'i Faith be a Big Tent or not?
While encouraging those Bahais who are upset about the Ruhi Method to get over it and move on, Dick Detweiler wrote : Surely the tent is big enough for that? I agree with him and I am not too concerned about the Ruhi methods. I have attended Ruhi classes and they dont bother me, although I fail to see how much good will come out of them either. To me, Ruhi is irrelevant to the big picture, but the question of whether or not the BahaI Faith can be a big tent is relevant. I believe than the Faith is shirking in numbers and in general failing to excite enthusiasm because we are projecting ourselves as a very small tent. I believe that there could be a big demand for a Faith that allows people to believe in religion but also in science and reason. I also believe that the Writings of the Faith offer us the option to be just that sort of community. But in practice, I believe we project an image of being another literal, inerrant religion like evangelical Christianity or ultra-conservative Islam. I dont think there is a market for such a new religion because there are already an excess of such religions, and people can readily see the problems they bring about. If we believe in a literally inerrant scripture (which we call the Writings) then how do we differ from evangelical Christians who believe the same about the Bible, or ultra conservative Muslims who believe the same about the Quran? Of course, we can just say our scriptures are inerrant and theirs arent, but they say the same themselves about their scriptures. And, most importantly, doesnt Bahaullah caution against precisely such a literal inerrant approach in His Book of Certitude? This major theme of the Book of Certitude seems to be something that never gets discussed and never is taken seriously. Its hard to even discuss this topic, but if we ignore it because of the pain and sensitivity involved, then we will continue to be seen as being far to the right of evangelical Christianity, a sort of return-to-Medieval attitudes religion, rather than a viable religion for the future. Ron __ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: Mail - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.net New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
Re: Can the Baha'i Faith be a Big Tent or not?
Oh, one other point I wanted to make but I forgot. It is my impression that, in the Book of Certitude, Baha'u'llah makes a case that the over-emphasis on literalism by proponents of relgion is a leading cause for the decline of religious faith and the declining respect for religion. Am I correct in my impression? I believe that Baha'u'lah would make the same criticism today of Baha'i attitudes, that He made when He wrote the Book of Certitude. On Friday, December 10, 2004, at 09:27AM, Ronald Stephens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While encouraging those Bahais who are upset about the Ruhi Method to get over it and move on, Dick Detweiler wrote : Surely the tent is big enough for that? I agree with him and I am not too concerned about the Ruhi methods. I have attended Ruhi classes and they dont bother me, although I fail to see how much good will come out of them either. To me, Ruhi is irrelevant to the big picture, but the question of whether or not the BahaI Faith can be a big tent is relevant. I believe than the Faith is shirking in numbers and in general failing to excite enthusiasm because we are projecting ourselves as a very small tent. I believe that there could be a big demand for a Faith that allows people to believe in religion but also in science and reason. I also believe that the Writings of the Faith offer us the option to be just that sort of community. But in practice, I believe we project an image of being another literal, inerrant religion like evangelical Christianity or ultra-conservative Islam. I dont think there is a market for such a new religion because there are already an excess of such religions, and people can readily see the problems they bring about. If we believe in a literally inerrant scripture (which we call the Writings) then how do we differ from evangelical Christians who believe the same about the Bible, or ultra conservative Muslims who believe the same about the Quran? Of course, we can just say our scriptures are inerrant and theirs arent, but they say the same themselves about their scriptures. And, most importantly, doesnt Bahaullah caution against precisely such a literal inerrant approach in His Book of Certitude? This major theme of the Book of Certitude seems to be something that never gets discussed and never is taken seriously. Its hard to even discuss this topic, but if we ignore it because of the pain and sensitivity involved, then we will continue to be seen as being far to the right of evangelical Christianity, a sort of return-to-Medieval attitudes religion, rather than a viable religion for the future. Ron __ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: Mail - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.net New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
RE: Book of Daniel fulfilled
James Mock wrote: There is but one power which heals -- that is God. The state or condition through which the healing takes place is the confidence of the heart. By some this state is reached through pills, powders, and physicians. By others through hygiene, fasting, and prayer. By others through direct perception. (Abdu'l-Baha, Abdu'l-Baha in London, p. 95) Would modern science agree with this assertion? James If I put on my scientist hat, I would say that science has nothing to say about the quote above, because the quote is talking about spiritual matters, not scientific ones. As a scientist, one can certainly not state that the mind has no influence on the body, there is plenty of scientific evidence showing the powerful influence the mind has on the body. As to God, though, I do not think science can comment one way or the other. Of course, there are doctrinaire 'scientists' who would reject any mention of 'God' out of hand. But they do not speak for science, only for themselves. I would call such people fundamentalists in the religion of science. But we should avoid being like them, and accept that science is a very important path to truth, and religious writings are not science. There simply is no proof when it comes to ultimate questions like God and religion and the ultimate purpose of life and the universe. We each must investigate for ourselves. But how do we decide whether to accept a certain Prophet's vision? I think that Baha'u'llah addresses this question in the Book of Certitude and He shows that we must use logic and reason. If a Prophet says the universe was creating by constipated ducks, I personally would not buy into that Prophet's religion. If a Prophet says that science is a bunch of nonsense and that we should abandon the scientific method, I wouldn't buy into that Prophet's vision either. The dilemmna I face is this. I have bought into the vision of a glorious Prophet Who asks that we accept His Revelation *because* it is in accord with reason, logic and science, as well as the eternal spiritual principles espoused by all the previous true Prophets; only to later discover that many if not most of His adherents don't buy into His fundamental acknowledgement of science, reason and logic at all, and may even consider such a belief in reason and science to be bordering on heresy. __ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: Mail - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.net New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
RE: Book of Daniel fulfilled
First a quote: Papal infallibility and biblical inerrancy are the two ecclesiastical versions of this human idolatry. Both papal infallibility and biblical inerrancy require widespread and unchallenged ignorance to sustain their claims to power. Both are doomed as viable alternatives for the long- range future of anyone. Bishop John Shelby Spong, Resurrection: Myth or Reality? (San Fransisco: HarperCollins, 1994), p. 99. It seems to me that the recent dialog between Brent Poirier and Mark Foster, and others, raises some points that are central to the dilemmna of religion in the modern world and especially, in the future. Religions can simply not demand any longer, that their adherents must abandon science and logic. One aspect of my readings of the Writings of Bahaullah that led me to accept the Bahai Faith was that Bahaullah was the only Prophet who offered a religious faith that was explicitly compatible with science and logic, most notably in the Book of Certitude. Bahaullah pointed out that no religious person should have believed in literal interpretations of scripture that contradicted the known laws of nature, such as Christ rising physically from the dead or ascending physically into the heavens. It should have been obvious that these things were symbolically pointing to greater truths. So, ever since becoming a Bahai, it has bothered me to no end to continually see and hear other Bahais who believe that believing in strictly literal interpretations of Bahai Writings, even where they contradict known laws of nature and common sense, is a condition of being a good Bahai. For instance, many Bahais believe that Abdul Bahas comments on evolution require us to reject evolution as science knows it; many Bahais also believe that a remark by Abdul Baha about the word ether require us to reject the last 100 years of quantum physics as being contrary to infallible Bahais teachings. I do not see this kind of troublesome thinking anywhere in the Writings of Bahaullah, nor in the Writings of Abdul Baha. Where I do see it , over and over again, is in interpretations of selected quotes from the Writings used by individuals, including prominent Bahais who have a high degree of reputational and status based authority, who insist that selected quotes prove something, or require some particular specific belief on the part of good Bahais. I believe that this kind of thinking is contrary to the very core of the teachings of Bahaullah. And I believe that this kind of thinking prevents the growth of the faith. Most people are just not going to reject science for a religion. Nor should they. When a religious community rejects science for a literal understanding of scripture, they enter into superstition. I certainly do not mean to say that the Writings never mean literal things, far from it. But Bahaullah has given us the test of literalism; when literal reading of a passage of scripture requires a contradiction to science, then it must be interpreted symbolically. As to prophecy, religions have always re-interpreted prophecies to suit the facts, after the fact. We are no exception. Peace has not broken out as of the year 2000. No problem. We have a symbolic interpretation of those prophecies now to cover that. And thats the way it should be. But surely we cannot predict the actual future events based on Prophecies. It just doesnt work that way. Ron Stephens __ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: Mail - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.net New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
Re: Metaphorical Certitude
Thanks for the suggestion, Mark, I looked up George Lakoff on the Wikipedia and a few other sites a found with Google, and he sounds really interesting. His ideas on embodied mind in particular strike a chord with me, since I do believe that human thought is based very much on emotions and other bodily signals, rather than being pure reason, and that's one reason why I think computer based intelligence is a long, long way off; since computers lack emotions and a body and therefore can never really understand and use human language (in my opinion). Which book by George Lakoff do you think I should start with? His thoughts on mathematics and science especially intrigue me. The book mentioned most prominently on the Wikipedia, though, is Metaphors We Live By. If any one else is interested, the Wikipedia article on this person is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lakoff and I highly recommend you try out the Wikipedia, if you havent already, its a free and open source encyclopedia online. Ron Stephens __ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: Mail - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Metaphorical Certitude
OK, Mark, thanks for the recommendation, I will definitely try to find time to read Metaphors We Live By. By the way, from 1988 until 1994 I lived in Overland Park (Nottingham Forest) within walking distance of Johnson County CC. I wish I had been a Baha'i then, it would have been a pleasure to have made your acquantance. My family and I really loved Johnson County, Ks. It was the best place we ever lived. So, I envy you for living there ;-))) Ron __ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: Mail - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: My Mother
I am sure that you and your mother have the prayers of everyone who reads this list. I am really sorry for your loss. Ron Stephens __ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: Mail - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
