Hi all,
Well here is my position on this matter. I have the book under my roof as
it was given to me with the best of intentions. I have briefly scanned some
pages but don't plan on reading it.
The LSA has - rightly - decided not to profit from its sale and I am
returning the book to the
Richard,
A discussion on the spiritual verities of the Gospel ensued. Thei
response to my friend's explanations of various matters, e.g. the
equality of men and women and the resurrection of the spirit were
understood and accepted by them. However, when it was presented
\to them that Jesus is
However, when it was presented to them that Jesus is and was a Servant of God; the
denied His Servitude.
Not knowing these 'gentle hearted Christian ladies', what is the basis of their belief
that Jesus is not a Servant of God? Is it because they view Jesus as the Incarnation
of God's essence?
The above having been the warning from Abdu'l-Baha Himself, I am rather
surprised that anyone possessing the book would allow it to be placed under
anyone's roof while knowing the meaning of the warning.
Dear Richard,
I'm not at all certain that the quote in question still applies, but if I
had
Dear Susan,
It strikes me from reading the Aqdas
that most of the offenses which carry
the death penalty are those that would oridinarily be associated with
terrorism.
Was terrorism really an issue during early
1870s when Baha'u'llah wrote the Aqdas? Was that concept even available
to Him?
Ahang,
At 07:25 PM 3/26/2004, you wrote:
Sharon and his gang in Israel who murder political leaders and women/children using
gunship helicopters, or suicide bombers of Hamas?
I should probably keep my mouth shut, but I think it is two sides of one coin -
Israel, the terrorist state, and Hamas,
Richard,
At 08:48 PM 3/26/2004, you wrote:
I am wondering how I will view these issues you have raised once I finish Chalmers
Johnson's new book The Sorrows of Empire. If either of you have read it, I would
appreciate a view point.
Sounds impressive. Ask me in a month. I just ordered it.
Susan said:
It seems to me that Islamist extremists have stolen a number of pages
froma Western book to justify their actions and I think in so doing they
pointup the problems inherent in some of these 'pages.' The concept of
'totalwar' is one page, another page is the right to revolt.My
Mark. Good. I am pleased that you think enough of him to read his book. I
will await your view even if I finish it first.
Richard.
- Original Message -
From: Mark A. Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Baha'i Studies [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 6:58 PM
Subject: Re: Death
Susan,
At 08:02 PM 3/26/2004, you wrote:
While the media may be identifying terrorists on others on the basis of whoever they
think is the bad guy I don't think we need to use that criteria.
Your definitions are used by some. However, what I refer to as state terrorism would
be called war
I happen to just be finishing it up myself. I also read Blowback
recently. My take:
- I wish he would have come off the leftist rhetoric a bit because he is
preaching to the choir when he does so and turning off the people who
really need to read and understand what he is saying.
- His prose
On 3/26/04 9:02 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems to me that we can define terrorism in an impartial way
which identifies the act, not chooses sides between the actors. And a
reasonable way of doing that is say that the deliberate targetting of
civilians constitutes terrorism.
The US
12 matches
Mail list logo
