I am always a Baha'i, always a sociologist, and always an individual. I have no
problem simultaneously seeing an issue from various perspectives associated
with each of these statuses.
Mark,
Of course you are. Upon rereading my response, it was churlish and I
apologize.
My point was
You always have choices, Mark. Your's has been to define yourself as
an academic and to toe that line. Yhat's ok, but be honest with
yourself, you have chosen. Ian Semple, in a talk on obedience, discussed
the collaborater who says he had no choice but to betray others, or he
would have been
Mark A. Foster wrote:
I define myself differently in different contexts. Why are you being so judgmental? I don't recall you ever having expressed yourself in this way.
I guess I don't. When I'm treating patients, I'm a Baha'i.
Ian Semple, in a talk on
Rich Ater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rich,
Could you wrap your text? Your posts have become very hard to read since they have LOOONG lines of text, way tooo long.
Thanks, Scott
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto ("e-mail") is sent by the Johnson
Rich,
At 08:11 PM 9/9/2005, you wrote:
I guess I don't. When I'm treating patients, I'm a Baha'i.
I am always a Baha'i, always a sociologist, and always an individual. I have no
problem simultaneously seeing an issue from various perspectives associated
with each of these statuses.
Only in
On 9/5/05, firestorm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it is quite possible that the definition of beleives becomes part of this.
gilberto points out that a say...remeyite..beleives in Abd'ul Baha. and
does a sohrabite... the sohrabite however does not believe that the clear
words of the Master in
mselves.
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 lu
are different from Haifan Bahais under the UHJ I'm
not sure what else to talk about on this point.
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.
Sure.
So, we have
Gilberto Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/5/05, Scott Saylors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: 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
Mark A. Foster wrote:
Tim,
At 06:49 AM 9/4/2005, you wrote:
A person can define himself as anything, there is no way to control that. However,
that doesn't mean the rest of the world must accept that self-definition.
As a sociologist of religion, I have no alternative
Sure, but that cuts both ways. If I'm not a Bahai and have no
particular loyalty to the UHJ why would I think that the Orthodox
Bahais are not Bahais? They both believe in the Bab, Bahaullah,
Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi. They both read the same writings (I
think). They seem to have the same
Rich,
At 05:16 PM 9/5/2005, you wrote:
You always have choices, Mark. Your's has been to define yourself as an
academic and to toe that line. Yhat's ok, but be honest with yourself, you
have chosen.
I define myself differently in different contexts. Why are you being so
judgmental? I don't
Hi Mark,
I understand your distinction between the way a person describes himself
and the membership requirements of a specific organization. I agree they are
not the same. However, please consider the well known quote of
Shoghi Effendi, which I include below. While this statement
Hi Mark,
They are not considered Baha'is by the Universal House of Justice. However, if they define themselves as Baha'is, as a sociologist, I have to recognize them as such.
I see what you are saying, but even within an academic context,
aren't there some limits to accepting at face value
Gilberto Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/5/05, Scott Saylors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:Gilberto: Plus possibly "fundamentalists" v. "non-fundamentalists" I would point out that this cannot be established. Those you would call "fundamentalist" and "non-fundamentalist" are all either in
the individual's self-definition, but I would
probably try to determine if the individual is a poser (poseur). If a person
claimed to be a medical doctor or an attorney without appropriate licenses, I
would have even greater doubts, i.e., because the individual is breaking the
law.
On the other
Mark,
For Baha'is, Covenant Breakers are not sects, they stop being Baha'is.As a sociologist (and also as an individual), I would consider them to be Baha'is based on self-definition, and I also would regard their organizations, where they exist, to be branches of the Baha'i Faith
Tim,
At 06:49 AM 9/4/2005, you wrote:
A person can define himself as anything, there is no way to control that.
However, that doesn't mean the rest of the world must accept that
self-definition.
As a sociologist of religion, I have no alternative but to accept the
self-definitions of people
Mark A. FosterSent: 04 September
2005 13:54To: Baha'i StudiesSubject: Re:
Self-DefinitionTim,At 06:49 AM 9/4/2005, you wrote:A
person can define himself as anything, there is no way to
controlthat. However, that doesn't mean the rest of the world must
acceptthat self-definition.As a
Tim Nolan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark,
For Baha'is, Covenant Breakers are not sects, they stop being Baha'is.As a sociologist (and also as an individual), I would consider them to be Baha'is based on self-definition, and I also would regard their organizations, where they exist
On 9/4/05, Scott Saylors [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A person can define himself as anything, there is no way to
control that. However, that doesn't mean the rest of the world
must accept that self-definition.
Sure, but that cuts both ways. If I'm not a Bahai and have no
particular loyalty
Scott Saylors [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tim Nolan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark,
For Baha'is, Covenant Breakers are not sects, they stop being Baha'is.As a sociologist (and also as an individual), I would consider them to be Baha'is based on self-definition, and I also would
They do not believe in the COVENANT defined by the chain of Successors,
hence, they cannot be considered Baha'is. Belief in Baha'u'llah requires
belief in His Covenant part of which is defined and end up with the
profound
belief to the Successorship of the Twin Institutions of
Tim,
At 10:28 AM 9/4/2005, you wrote:
A person can define himself as anything, there is no way to control that.
However, that doesn't mean the rest of the world must accept that
self-definition.
On what basis could someone refuse to accept another person's self-definition?
Unless I had
Max,
At 11:52 AM 9/4/2005, you wrote:
They do not believe in the COVENANT defined by the chain of Successors,
hence, they cannot be considered Baha'is.
Membership in the Baha'i Faith, a voluntary organization, requires an
acceptance of the Baha'i Covenant. Self-definition requires nothing more
They say with their tongues what is not in their hearts.
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto (e-mail)
is sent by the Johnson County Community College (JCCC) and is intended to be
confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity named above.
or his Bahá'í status complies with the requirements of the
Covenant!
Max.
|
|Membership in the Baha'i Faith, a voluntary organization,
|requires an acceptance of the Baha'i Covenant. Self-definition
|requires nothing more than self-definition.
|
The information contained in this e-mail and any
of self-defined definition. Just imagine the uproar in
sociologists' circles on USA if self-definition theory be implemented!
Max.
|
|That would be the official view of the Baha'i International
|Community. What I am saying is that this perspective has
|nothing to do with the self-definitions
ssociation of Sociologists, but just based on yourtheory of "self-defined definition". Just imagine the uproar insociologists' circles on USA if "self-definition theory" be implemented!Max.
Dear Max,
Self-Identification of faith is one thing. Self-identification of an aca
In some ways I agree with you, but in some ways I definitely see the
other side. In the case of Islam for instance, 12-Shiis believe in a
certain sequence of imams, but people who don't accept that particular
sequence can still be Shii Muslims. And even those who don't believe
in Imamate at all
Title: Message
Excellent! So we conclude that in order to see who is a real
Muslim we have to have a reference point, i.e., a criteria which is infallible
or divinely guided. We have to turn to God Himself then to see who is a
Muslim.For that purpose "self-definition" is in
Title: Message
A
Bah' is a "Quickener of Mankind" according to the Holy Word. He is far greater
in station and responsibility than a sociologist ! And yet theory of
"self-definition" applies to Bah' but not to sociologist?
Max.
The information contained in
of Sociologists, but just based on your theory of
self-defined definition. Just imagine the uproar in sociologists' circles
on USA if self-definition theory be implemented!
There are such persons. I would accept her or his self-definition - even though
I would personally disagree with it. Obviously
e Holy Word. He is far greater in station and responsibility than a sociologist ! And yet theory of "self-definition" applies to Bah' but not to sociologist?
Max.
Dear Max,
Exactly!
Self-identity as to faith is one thing and self-identity as to practice of profession is entirely another
Title: Message
Is the
"self-definition theory"same as "Chaos Theory"?
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto ("e-mail") is sent by the Johnson County Community College ("JCCC") and is intended to be confidentia
and pick a side.
(pick one group and accept their definitions as authoritative).
Another approach would be to give people the benefit of the doubt and
accept the notion of self-definition.
In the case of Muslim, I would like to say that everyone who claims to
be Muslim is Muslim, and there are certain
Offensive! Yes offensive. It was offensive to Jews the Words of a young
man
of 30 that's why they killed Him (Jesus). And Imam Husayn's Words were
offensive to most people who killed Him. Most Manifestations of God are
offensive to ignorant masses.
Max.
|I think those sorts of definitions would
Mark,
On what basis could someone refuse to accept another person's self-definition?
I don't usually refuse to accept someone's self definition, because
in most cases, their self-definition has no consequences that
I care about. A person is the best judge of what he or she believes,
and I
Oh sorry, for a while I was under the impression that you didn't want
to be offensive.
I guess in the abstract I actually agree with you, and very strongly
believe that sometimes when the prophets come with the truth, it
sometimes implies some very difficult things for the society. In the
past
Max,
At 03:06 PM 9/4/2005, you wrote:
Is the self-definition theory same as Chaos Theory?
There are some parallels between social constructionism and chaos theory.
However, there is no direct historical connection.
Via moderna, Mark A. Foster . http://markfoster.net
... since [a] word is said
see how that would relate to an individual's personal religious
identification.
But as far as someone's self-definition goes, I would not argue with a
person; that would be rude and fruitless.
I think so, too.
Via moderna, Mark A. Foster . http://markfoster.net
... since [a] word is said
41 matches
Mail list logo
